Posted by Peter Cairns on January 11, 2010 at 1:32 PM
No, nothing to do with baiting or captive or anything else that will annoy the mods...just a simple question.
I've baited these local squirrels for over ten years, built a permanent hide and invested time and effort in the optimisation of the site. I'm therefore content that this is 'my site' and I'm under no ethical obligation to acknowledge the assistance of others.
If however, the work I'd done here had been done by others, and I was a guest - paying or otherwise - I'd expect to acknowledge their input into the resultant image.
So my question to the forum beyond 'Do you like the squirrel?' is: When posting an image that has been assisted through the knowledge and expertise of another photographer, should mention be made of that assistance? I for one think so. The finding, nurturing and maintaining a good wildlife 'site' in the UK is a considerable skill in its own right and should be acknowledged.
In a word yes!!!
The years of feeding these little guys has made red squirrel shots easier to come by,I'm sure your guests over the years will agree not just photographing them but actually appretiating them up close and personal,but do we let other photographers do it at no cost or do we offer workshops and charge for the privilage in which case it cannot be mentioned here as far as I'm aware!The problem is that you have to work hard to produce images that are different to anyone else visiting the hide but thats a different kettle of fish!
The feeding costs,the cost of the hides,the time cannot be recovered unless a charge is made
So anyway back to the question Yes is the answer and workshop or not the photographer should be mentioned!!
Love the shot by the way ,nice perch and background!
Thanks
Have agree with Julian and Craig (and anyone else who posts while I waffle on endlessly!). Whether you call it basic good manners, a simple case of right or wrong or not wanting to claim credit for someone else's endeavours I'll always come back to it being a resounding yes. Of course should Ole Martin take up photography at any point then he has a lot of mentions/thank you's coming his way though I guess that the only sticking point that you'll come up against is that, I assume, you charge people for the privilege of working your site.
From my point of view however, if a mate or another photographer kindly shares site information with me then I'll always, where possible, make reference to their contribution. A question in return! What if a photographer shows up, pays his squirrel fees but shoots for one/two of the same agencies that you shoot for. It's a quandary wrapped up in a moral dilemma!!
Love the squirrel shot by the way, how much do you charge and when can I come!!
Posted by Andy Astbury on January 11, 2010 at 2:16 PM
Absolutely Pete - without the hard work done by others a lot of us would be coming up woefully short from time to time.
He looks like someone's punched him on the nose
Posted by Matt Cole on January 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM
I agree also, it's just good manners.
That's a great image by the way, the setting is superb (all that hard work no doubt).
Matt
Posted by Liam Pauling on January 11, 2010 at 3:38 PM
I agree with what has being said, as it is what happens behind the scenes to get the image that takes the time and commitment.
Lovely image
liam.
Posted by Ian Mason on January 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Yes - without a doubt! But I fell foul of the forum "rules" by doing so, when my acknowledgment was removed as it was seen as advertising. Since then, I have made indirect references to credit the person who made the shot possible. I have to say that I strongly support people making their sites available to to others (and profiting if they wish to). I do however accept the mods' concerns about the site become clogged with frank advertising and would like to see common sense prevail.
ps - hope you're no longer snowed in (although the image makes me wonder!)
Posted by John Robinson on January 11, 2010 at 4:04 PM
I,ve thought "yes "to this for a long time Peter along with many others who I have shared thoughts with.
As I always acknowedged Roy Blewits Buzzard baiting set up for example which I used..
Not too sure about general garden birds for example with feeders, but it certainly needs acknowledging on the rarer or blue riband.stuff. (You know what I mean)
One of my concerns is that when several people do use the same "provided" facilities then it begins to show in the pics. I feel we all need something to call our own, and it may sound mean but I have always turned down politely anyones requests to use my pool setups.
With my meagre equipment and not being able to travel so much its all I,ve got really. Hope that makes sense.Rambling a bit now.
Cheers
JohnR
Posted by Ian Haskell on January 11, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Very nice shot of a red squirrel in the snow.
Thanks, Ian
Posted by David Kjaer on January 11, 2010 at 4:20 PM
Hi Pete
Very much agree with you on this point - many of the very successful photographers in the world have helped to built their reputations on having the time & money to pay for the hard work of others. This is why I feel that 'Wildlife Photographer of the Year' should be called 'Wildlife Photograph of the Year' as all too often winning images are taken at locations where the photographer has paid for the hard part!
I agree with the comments made. It is only good manners after all.
Love the squirrel shot. The background of snow covered fir trees sets it off beautifully.
Posted by Mark Sisson on January 11, 2010 at 5:21 PM
As someone in the same boat as you on many aspects of this debate I can of course only agree.
Rather than turn it into a mod hunt though it does of course just boil down to behaving the right way (whatever that is in terms of definition) and people either do or don't do this in my experience of life.
Mark
PS Glad you got the shot rather than just watch others chimping on their cameras this time
It's a good one too!
Posted by eric weight on January 12, 2010 at 4:28 AM
Does this not usually happen anyway? The downside is that forum can start to look clique (is that the word) and there is an argument that it can be advertising. But I couldn't agree more that it is polite and that the site owners work should take some credit. Glad I'm not a mod that's all I can say.
Love the shot BTW. Eric
Posted by David Sewell on January 12, 2010 at 4:51 AM
If a friend sets something up for me, or assists with technique, then I think he or she deserves a public thank you. Such an acknowledgement is merely good manners. If, however, I have paid someone to do a job, or for use opf their site, then they have already had their reward and I would only feel it necessary to thank them publically if I thought they had gone beyond the call of duty. You see lots of shots from Gigrin on this site, but how many times have you seen a thank you to the family who run the place?
David
Posted by Mark Davies on January 12, 2010 at 5:28 AM
In the main I agree .However , there are circumstances where either the owner , keeper , finder or whatever requests specifically no publicity or notification to the outside world of a site's existence . This I have come across quite often ,with a hare site , a corvid site,a kingfisher site and more recently with red squirrel.
In the 'right' circumstances acknowledgement is not only polite but essential , be that for financial reasons or just recognition .
In the main credit is given , where within the acceptance of this site's recognised parameters ,by me .However I would also respect some peoples request to keep stum when asked.
The picture.
A tap on auto colour in photoshop just seems to make the image a tadge more neutral .
Lovely comp and I like the wide view , its something different.
Posted by Peter Cairns on January 12, 2010 at 6:28 AM
Thanks for your comments guys.
My post was not only meant to raise the issue of credit to the 'site provider' where appropriate, but to allow the viewer the context of how the image was secured. We're asked to declare 'captive' (quite rightly), I think it better informs the audience if we also declare the background to an 'assisted image' (so the viewer is not left with the impression that the skill of the photographer extends to the development of the site itself).
In the case of Gigrin, if I didn't know the site, I'd be able to judge the image better if I knew at least, that this was a regular baiting site.
Ultimately my point is one of integrity, respect and disclosure.
Mark, I've mailed you privately. My comments weren't aimed at you.
I agree with what Mark says, in the right circumstances there is no problem with such an acknowledgement. However, in the case of more sensitive species thought should also be given the the animal as well as the owner of the land, and the possible repercussions of increased visitor/photographer activity.
On the other hand, everyone needs a bit of help in these uncertain times and, whilst nobody wants a forum full of ads, a carefully worded acknowledgement can say a lot and will not harm the purpose of this place. I think most members can weigh up the pro's and con's and make the right decision.
Great shot by the way Peter, the snow covered trees really add to this one.
Posted by Andy Gregory on January 12, 2010 at 6:55 AM
Hi Peter, cracking image. It is good to see that we are all more or less of the same opinion.
I also agree with David Kjaer's comment regarding the 'Wildlife Photographer Of The Year' competition. One photograph doesn't make a photographer does it?
Andy Gregory
Posted by Ian Macdermott on January 12, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Nice shot Peter
looks a little blue to me
Posted by Phil Shaw on January 12, 2010 at 12:39 PM
I don't see a lot of ethics or good manners exhibited by the fellow photographers that I meet. Most seem to be out to obtain frame-filling shots at any cost and do not care either for the welfare of the subject since they will be somewhere else tomorrow (photographic twitching) or recognise any precedence should someone else have worked up the opportunity.
Pete - such images can be declared - as 'controlled' or 'baited', for that is what they are.
We appreciate your thoughts folks - but infomercials will not be tolerated here, as many of you have found when you've tried . Credit where it's due - we don't mind folks acknowledging non-commercial help from people... but we draw the line where a commercial enterprise of any sort is involved and that is clear in the guidelines on UKNP and NPN. If a poster makes it sound like an endorsement or advert, then it becomes such - and will be removed. It's difficult for us to moderate, and in the case of something done where the poster is known to operate commercially, we can't cut any slack - we don't know if money changed hands for the picture to be taken... so we have to work on the basis it did.
There is a reason for the existence of those rules, they're not just arbitrary, and there is history behind them. If left unchecked, the name dropping/endorsements/adverts get out of hand. The 'cliques' that people complain about get even more grumpy with each other and the whole thing degenerates into a major squabble and leaves a very bad taste in everyone's mouths - including those who don't participate.
NPN has been through this before, and it's not somewhere it wants to head back to again - a lot of you are new contributors to the forum and didn't experience the level of squabbling, toys-out-of-pram, dummy-spat-out backstabbing and backbiting that arose when such 'acknowledgements' went unchecked earlier in NPN's life - it wasn't pretty.
No one wants to spend time in the pub with the bore who holds court and waffles on unendingly about the brilliant workshop/course/hide/site/photographer he's got his latest trophy shots from, equally well no one wants to spend half their time looking through posts trying to wade through unceasing adverts/endorsements about xyz's latest workshop and how great it was, and how many dingbats were there, the size of the heated toilet seat in the hide, and how easy it was to get 10Bn images of the dingbat raking through it's nuts. So don't be bores... be good company, and enjoy the images and friendly critique.
Yes, it's fun being a moderator and trying to keep everything on the straight and narrow
Discussion
22 repliesI've baited these local squirrels for over ten years, built a permanent hide and invested time and effort in the optimisation of the site. I'm therefore content that this is 'my site' and I'm under no ethical obligation to acknowledge the assistance of others.
If however, the work I'd done here had been done by others, and I was a guest - paying or otherwise - I'd expect to acknowledge their input into the resultant image.
So my question to the forum beyond 'Do you like the squirrel?' is: When posting an image that has been assisted through the knowledge and expertise of another photographer, should mention be made of that assistance? I for one think so. The finding, nurturing and maintaining a good wildlife 'site' in the UK is a considerable skill in its own right and should be acknowledged.
Don't you think?
Canon 5dII, 17-40mm lens, remote.
Peter Cairns
www.northshots.com
The years of feeding these little guys has made red squirrel shots easier to come by,I'm sure your guests over the years will agree not just photographing them but actually appretiating them up close and personal,but do we let other photographers do it at no cost or do we offer workshops and charge for the privilage in which case it cannot be mentioned here as far as I'm aware!The problem is that you have to work hard to produce images that are different to anyone else visiting the hide but thats a different kettle of fish!
The feeding costs,the cost of the hides,the time cannot be recovered unless a charge is made
So anyway back to the question Yes is the answer and workshop or not the photographer should be mentioned!!
Love the shot by the way ,nice perch and background!
Thanks
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
Have agree with Julian and Craig (and anyone else who posts while I waffle on endlessly!). Whether you call it basic good manners, a simple case of right or wrong or not wanting to claim credit for someone else's endeavours I'll always come back to it being a resounding yes. Of course should Ole Martin take up photography at any point then he has a lot of mentions/thank you's coming his way though I guess that the only sticking point that you'll come up against is that, I assume, you charge people for the privilege of working your site.
From my point of view however, if a mate or another photographer kindly shares site information with me then I'll always, where possible, make reference to their contribution. A question in return! What if a photographer shows up, pays his squirrel fees but shoots for one/two of the same agencies that you shoot for. It's a quandary wrapped up in a moral dilemma!!
Speak soon
Andy
He looks like someone's punched him on the nose
That's a great image by the way, the setting is superb (all that hard work no doubt).
Matt
Lovely image
liam.
ps - hope you're no longer snowed in (although the image makes me wonder!)
As I always acknowedged Roy Blewits Buzzard baiting set up for example which I used..
Not too sure about general garden birds for example with feeders, but it certainly needs acknowledging on the rarer or blue riband.stuff. (You know what I mean)
One of my concerns is that when several people do use the same "provided" facilities then it begins to show in the pics. I feel we all need something to call our own, and it may sound mean but I have always turned down politely anyones requests to use my pool setups.
With my meagre equipment and not being able to travel so much its all I,ve got really. Hope that makes sense.Rambling a bit now.
Cheers
JohnR
Thanks, Ian
Very much agree with you on this point - many of the very successful photographers in the world have helped to built their reputations on having the time & money to pay for the hard work of others. This is why I feel that 'Wildlife Photographer of the Year' should be called 'Wildlife Photograph of the Year' as all too often winning images are taken at locations where the photographer has paid for the hard part!
BTW very nice image!
David
Love the squirrel shot. The background of snow covered fir trees sets it off beautifully.
Rather than turn it into a mod hunt though it does of course just boil down to behaving the right way (whatever that is in terms of definition) and people either do or don't do this in my experience of life.
Mark
PS Glad you got the shot rather than just watch others chimping on their cameras this time
Love the shot BTW.
David
In the 'right' circumstances acknowledgement is not only polite but essential , be that for financial reasons or just recognition .
In the main credit is given , where within the acceptance of this site's recognised parameters ,by me .However I would also respect some peoples request to keep stum when asked.
The picture.
A tap on auto colour in photoshop just seems to make the image a tadge more neutral .
Lovely comp and I like the wide view , its something different.
My post was not only meant to raise the issue of credit to the 'site provider' where appropriate, but to allow the viewer the context of how the image was secured. We're asked to declare 'captive' (quite rightly), I think it better informs the audience if we also declare the background to an 'assisted image' (so the viewer is not left with the impression that the skill of the photographer extends to the development of the site itself).
In the case of Gigrin, if I didn't know the site, I'd be able to judge the image better if I knew at least, that this was a regular baiting site.
Ultimately my point is one of integrity, respect and disclosure.
Mark, I've mailed you privately. My comments weren't aimed at you.
Pete
On the other hand, everyone needs a bit of help in these uncertain times and, whilst nobody wants a forum full of ads, a carefully worded acknowledgement can say a lot and will not harm the purpose of this place. I think most members can weigh up the pro's and con's and make the right decision.
Great shot by the way Peter, the snow covered trees really add to this one.
I also agree with David Kjaer's comment regarding the 'Wildlife Photographer Of The Year' competition. One photograph doesn't make a photographer does it?
Andy Gregory
looks a little blue to me
We appreciate your thoughts folks - but infomercials will not be tolerated here, as many of you have found when you've tried
There is a reason for the existence of those rules, they're not just arbitrary, and there is history behind them. If left unchecked, the name dropping/endorsements/adverts get out of hand. The 'cliques' that people complain about get even more grumpy with each other and the whole thing degenerates into a major squabble and leaves a very bad taste in everyone's mouths - including those who don't participate.
NPN has been through this before, and it's not somewhere it wants to head back to again - a lot of you are new contributors to the forum and didn't experience the level of squabbling, toys-out-of-pram, dummy-spat-out backstabbing and backbiting that arose when such 'acknowledgements' went unchecked earlier in NPN's life - it wasn't pretty.
No one wants to spend time in the pub with the bore who holds court and waffles on unendingly about the brilliant workshop/course/hide/site/photographer he's got his latest trophy shots from, equally well no one wants to spend half their time looking through posts trying to wade through unceasing adverts/endorsements about xyz's latest workshop and how great it was, and how many dingbats were there, the size of the heated toilet seat in the hide, and how easy it was to get 10Bn images of the dingbat raking through it's nuts. So don't be bores... be good company, and enjoy the images and friendly critique.
Yes, it's fun being a moderator and trying to keep everything on the straight and narrow
T