Phony wildlife photography

There is very interesting article concerning the use of game farms, animal models, captive animals and cloning in Audubonmagazine.org. It is a very interesting read.

http://www.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite1003.html

Now that was a very interesting read about an extremely sad state of affairs. Thanks for the link Robert.

It is definitely a sad state of affairs, but one that photobuyers need to take some credit(flak) for as well.

One thing the article didn't address is the pathetic pay rate of notecards, magazines, calendars, etc. which force photographers to manage their expenses as carefully as possible so they can show a profit when April 15 rolls around. Try traveling the world and camping out for months in the wilderness to get that once in a lifetime wildlife shot on the $300.00 - $900.00 fee you were given for your last calendar or magazine image, or the $25.00 inside image fee. I hate to even mention the obvious costs of feeding your family, heating your house, and keeping your vehicle running. Obviously, image buyers are not going to pay $3000.00-9000.00 per image use, but sticking to 1980 rates in 2010 surely won't convince many photographers to risk their home and family when it comes time to figure out the budget for next year.

If they want awesome, really wild, wildlife images, then like any other market in the world, they need to be willing to pay for them. I'll bet there are plenty of wildlife photographers out there who would love to camp out for months at a time to get one awesome shot of a wild mountain lion if they could be assured that when they returned they would still have ownership of their house and vehicle, and an intact family.

An excellent article I hope most people read.

Don - To address your concern about willingness to pay, I think it was hinted at in the article. If photo buyers aren't willing to pay, then we simply won't have shots of wild mountain lions. There's nothing that says we have to have them, or anyone has to be paid to take them.

In fact, I'm thinking if they were that rare, someone may actually be willing to pay what it takes to get such a rare photo (like an NG or BBC possibly). In that case it could pay off for the photographer, but only for one or two.

I, for one, would gladly camp out for months at a time to get one awesome shot of a wild mountain lion!!

What if a game farm cougar is cloned into another frame? Is that like crossing the beams in Ghost Busters? Come on, photographs are not real. They can't be. To me, this is just like the digital manipulation discussion. If you photograph a pet and it looks like a great nature photograph, then it is.

Pete D. for what it is worth

Very disturbing indeed! Thanks for the link.

This is reprehensible IMO and must be stopped, but how? The only way that I can see is to make these game farms illegal. And the actions of Troy Gentry and the black bear as well as Marlin Perkins and Marty Stouffer (and others) are simply criminal. And to think that I used to Like Marlin Perkins.

I don't think that from this point on that I'll ever believe what I see in movies and calenders again.

Is nothing real anymore??

Greg
Nevada

If you photograph a pet and it looks like a great nature photograph, then it is.

Pete, if it's disclosed as a "fake" so people can make up their own minds, I agree. And in that case, I think you'd find a lot of people who would care and think it's great if it was a wild mountain lion. And those same people would think much, much less of the photo if they knew it was a pet. But to some extent it depends on the way the photo is presented, as a way of setting people's expectations. By default, most people expect photos to be very close to reality unless told otherwise (i.e. mountain lions are wild animals, so that would be the assumption, unless informed that they aren't looking at a wild animal). It very much depends on whether people think they are looking at a "work of art" or a "photograph" (not that one image can't be both).

Here's a rather lengthy post I made on The Online Photographer, making this same point. It's in response to this post entitled "Reality and Photography" :

Much of the recent discussion on here about the nature of photography and its reality has been very interesting and informative. I feel like most people (not just photographers/artists) would agree that photos certainly can be a good representation of reality. The piece here, however, I think really illustrates the difference for me between an art photograph and a documentary photograph. (Note that as defined here, these aren't exclusive terms, and one photo can be both.)

As an example of what I mean, say as a nature photographer, I take a picture of mountains, meadows, a sunset, etc. I hope that someone feels the power, or pleasure, or quietness of being there. I think of it as art. It contributes something to your thoughts or feelings, and doesn't just document.

At the same time, I show this picture to friends/family/the public, who are amazed that such a place exists, and like looking at it and dreaming of being there. Then they find out that the mountains are actually 1000 miles from the meadow, and the sky is from another continent. To them it's art, but they feel it needs to be more documentary than it may be to the photographer. So now it's a forgery, or it's fake, and they couldn't care less about it.

Now take the same photo, and hang it in a gallery, among obvious digital creations, paintings, sculptures, etc. The average person (perhaps the same one looking at photos at a fair, or a friend or relative) viewing this may ask if it's real or not; But upon knowing either way, they may judge it on it's own merits, as either a fabrication, or a camera's representation of reality (documentary). They know that it's supposed to be art. They judge it based on that only, and not necessarily whether or not it's documentary.

Based on my (albeit limited) experience with people's reactions, I think their expectations play a large part in their perceptions. Photos certainly can be a rendition of reality - as most people understand them to be straight out of a camera or on standard film. They aren't reality, but they are close in most people's minds. So anything done to them moves it more toward the "art" distinction and away from the "documentary" distinction. And a lot of people seem to like/want beautiful and amazing documentary photos.

Saying that all photos are a lie and can't be "real" is a cop out, and a semantic argument against a generally held idea. When people justify Photoshop by saying something like "a photo is 2-D and reality is 3-D, so all photos are fake", I think they are totally missing the point. It's still, in most people's minds, a close approximation of reality. Cloning mountains out and adding clouds isn't a close approximation.

I think that most people are much more comfortable with photos that are obviously documentary, or obviously not documentary, whether they are "art" or not. The in-between if where people feel lied to, or cheated.

That's been my experience, and the way I personally feel about photos.

This is very timely considering my camera club is considering the theme "wildlife" as a competition theme for next year. Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately far too much of what we see is staged with out any type of disclaimer. If some one takes a non wild photo this should be disclosed if that individual wants to be truly ethical. For me nature photography is an opportunity to coexist with nature. Would I take a picture of a bird in a rehabilitation center or other for the good of the animal environment yes. But out of respect for my audience and others photographers I would disclose how the shot was gotten. As far as enhancement goes aside for adding some canvas and tweaking colors it becomes photo art. Not necessarily bad but should be disclosed.

about the "disclosing" of facts:
this comes up over and over again, but nobody really explains how this should be done other than in a photo competition or in a photojournalistic magazine feature.
in calendars NOBODY will ever have to "disclose" anything. these publishers want pretty pictures of - say - a mountain lion f.e., and they don't care nothing about what the viewers expect. you can disclose whatever you want, it will not show up in a calendar caption or wherever its used. you might tell your stock agancy (guess how much they will care...) but as soon as the image is used, there will be nothing like a disclosure of how the image was taken. like I said, there are exceptions, which are magazine features (like Ng or GEO or similars) or photo competitions but they make out maybe 1% of published nature images.
as far as I understand it, photographing animals in game farm is for making money (the best - - or say most successful - wildlife photographers have done it) and its VERY UP TO THE IMAGE USERS/BUYERS to check, if they have any problems with it. IMO they are doing a poor and sloppy job on many occasions, and then trying to put the blame elsewhere.
as far as I am concerned, the "disclosing" - issue should be put on the photo-editors duty not so much on the photographers.
but, matter of fact, I'm a landscape shooter, dunno much about that business anyways...

georg

Thanks for sharing this article... it's so unsettling to read about this type of stuff, and especially what Marty Stouffer was doing. I remember watching his shows when I was a kid and thinking about how amazing all of that stuff is - of course in retrospect it makes sense that it was fake. There were interactions and shots that were on par with stuff in "Planet Earth" which is the pinnacle and those people spent days and sometimes weeks in blinds hoping to capture their subjects.

After reading the article, I started to take a more critical look to publications and I'm reading 'Conservation Magazine' at work (Jan-March 2010). On the 2nd page there is an article about coyotes invading urban areas and a photo of a coyote looking in the distance, with the Golden Gate bridge in the background. The photo is obviously fake (or at the very least a composite) as a flash was used on the coyote, yet the lights on the bridge area blurred from the camera moving during a long exposure. Not to mention the Coyote stayed put with the perfect pose (not looking at the camera) as it got flash-banged. Plus, what are the odds the photographer happened to find a Coyote posing right next to the bridge? It's so frustrating to see this obvious fakery being passed off as real. . .

- Luke

What a great article.

Long before I ever picked up a camera, I was a big time fan of wildlife photography and just about every nature show on TV. I assumed a whole lot of things...that I now know aren't true. If I would have found out the reality of those pretty pictures and cool TV shows, I would have been hugely dissappointed.

A huge part of my photography business is outdoor art festivals...and I regularaly see other wildlife photographers on the "circuit". While I show photos of redtail hawks, owls, coyotes, harbor seals and other WILD animals, I sometimes see booths full of black panthers in the jungle, cute wolf puppies surrounded by wildflowers and snowy leopards with incredible mountanous backrounds. Posing as a potential buyer, I'll ask about how an image was taken, I NEVER get a straight answer...it's laughable... What a joke! These photographers can't even admit it when you ask them to their face. Liars, plain and simple.

I used to get so angry and at times was tempted to embarrass them in front of their potential customers, but thankfully never did. I'm starting to see that people are tiring of game farm photography, even if they don't know exactly why. The market is so saturated with those types of images, they've become boring.

Since I was a consumer of wildlife photograhy, long before I was a producer, I feel confident in saying what a consumer wants....they want the "real" thing.

I don’t have much faith in human ethics. I’ve read of wildflower photographers destroying flowers after they photograph them so others won’t get the same shot. If markets ever paid a lot more for a photographer to camp out and get great “wild” shots; what would be the chance some other photographer’s “shoot” would destroy the animal to make their image more rare and valuable?

The photo is obviously fake (or at the very least a composite) as a flash was used on the coyote, yet the lights on the bridge area blurred from the camera moving during a long exposure. Not to mention the Coyote stayed put with the perfect pose (not looking at the camera) as it got flash-banged.

I don't know the referenced photo so I can't vouch for or against it... but I just thought I'd point out that all the things in your description actually work together and make sense if it were a single exposure taken hastily because of the incredible opportunity: use the flash to freeze the coyote, drag the shutter speed to expose for the rest of the scene.. hand held because it was a rush, so the bridge would be a little blurred. No animal moves during a flash bang, because well, it's too fast. If it were a set up photo, one would expect it to be done with a tripod, off camera flash etc. It's actually those imperfections that often are the clue to an honest photograph.. To tell if it was a composite you'd have to look at the shadows cast by the flash and light drop off, though I bet a good PS'er could fake that part pretty darn well.

Floris,

Thank you for your opinion. I'm an amatuer at photography, and even more so at understanding the physics of such. That being said, I still find it difficult to believe it's real. The photo I'm referring to had a sharp subject in the foreground (the coyote) while the lights on the bridge in the BG had motion blur (obvious back and fourth motion) so I don't understand how it's possible to get a tack-sharp subject with this kind of motion blur in the BG. However, I don't know much about flash so I could be wrong. Could someone upload a photo showing a sharp FG and motion blurred BG due to a long exposure?

I'm going to backtrack on my affirmative statement - so thank you Floris for pointing out it is possible. I shouldn't be so quick to judge (as there is no bigger insult than to falsley slander a photographer and theirw work), and I will let others with more experience and knowledge give their opinions. At the very least it's a learning experience for me (and others?) Guess I'm still ticked off about the Marty Stouffer thing

Here is a link to the article and the photo:

night time coyote

- Luke

Hey Luke,

Thanks for posting the link. Given the 'unprofessional' finish of the photo, I would be very surprised if it were a posed 'fake' - who would go through the trouble of setting all that up and then fail on the technical aspects?!

Anyways, flash only illuminates nearby subjects, ie. the coyote - you can see the light fall off on the beach. You can't see the shadow very well because the flash was probably very close to the camera (on camera flash). The foreground would have ordinarily been completely black/dark, so the only light illuminating it was from the flash - a really quick pulse of light, resulting in a sharp foreground. But, for the following half second or more the shutter remained open, collecting light from the distant bridge (which is blurred, because the image was handheld). Meanwhile, the foreground received no additional light.

Dragging the shutter (google 'dragging the shutter and flash' for more.. it's a really popular technique in wedding photography... because people move

Floris,

Thanks for the detailed analysis, it's appreciated. You learn something new every day... Maybe I'll start making crappy composites and passing them off as real because why would I go to the trouble of faking poor quality photos

"I don’t have much faith in human ethics. I’ve read of wildflower photographers destroying flowers after they photograph them so others won’t get the same shot."

The first time I heard of this I was dumbfounded. Do these people shoot their kids after they take a cute snap shot? I don't understand it. I photograph nature because I love it and I do my absolute best to not do any harm. The includes captive nature subjects too, by the way.

Pete D.

Don Grall said:

It is definitely a sad state of affairs, but one that photobuyers need to take some credit(flak) for as well.

One thing the article didn't address is the pathetic pay rate of notecards, magazines, calendars, etc. which force photographers to manage their expenses as carefully as possible so they can show a profit when April 15 rolls around. Try traveling the world and camping out for months in the wilderness to get that once in a lifetime wildlife shot on the $300.00 - $900.00 fee you were given for your last calendar or magazine image, or the $25.00 inside image fee. I hate to even mention the obvious costs of feeding your family, heating your house, and keeping your vehicle running. Obviously, image buyers are not going to pay $3000.00-9000.00 per image use, but sticking to 1980 rates in 2010 surely won't convince many photographers to risk their home and family when it comes time to figure out the budget for next year.

If they want awesome, really wild, wildlife images, then like any other market in the world, they need to be willing to pay for them. I'll bet there are plenty of wildlife photographers out there who would love to camp out for months at a time to get one awesome shot of a wild mountain lion if they could be assured that when they returned they would still have ownership of their house and vehicle, and an intact family.

That's very insightful, and accurately reflects our experience and conversations with potential clients.

I can add another insight: Especially when it comes to wildlife, there are mountains of existing images available, so why would anyone contract you, or pay you sufficiently to recover costs, for new ones. It's great to have a mountain lion to round out your own portfolio, but once there it joins the tens of thousands of other mountain lion photos on the market and competes on the same pay scale.

Our response to the cost of travel to capture photos is to shoot lots of genera while traveling and spread the cost, while also increasing the opportunity for sales. We don't expect to cover costs with any one photo or any ten, much less to do so entirely with wildlife photos and especially a single species.

Photographing wildlife on a game farm is no different in my eyes than those who post process a scenic "so it looks like what they experienced". Why the need of post processing then just process what they saw. A large portion of the scenics that I've reviewed over the past years especially since the age of digital are all but impossible to capture. With HDR and all the numerous tools available today its impossible to tell if what your looking at is really natural. I keep hearing in defensive of post processing that the great photographers of the past did the same thing in their dark rooms. Yes they did some manipulation but not nearly to the extent of whats being done today. Over the years I've heard the battle cry that animals photographed in a controlled environment should be stated so on the image. If thats so why shouldn't scenics that have been altered also be stated on the end product? Is there a double standard out there?

Don - there's no black and white with image processing. But there is a VERY clear black and white distinction when it comes to a wild animal vs. a game farm / captive animal. So the comparison doesn't really work - EVERY image is processed to some extent, be it done as an in camera jpeg, or in the raw converter, PS, the developing fluid, etc. Where to 'draw the line' is a topic of never ending discussion. I think most people on this website would agree that a scenic that has had significant elements (beyond just a twig/dust/trash removal) removed or added should be clearly stated as such.

Furthermore, with image processing, in general, people are trying to overcome limitations in the technology, whereas photographing on a game farm is overcoming your willingness to experience the real thing (which may require excessive amounts of time, patience, and probably some suffering). That's very different IMO.

And.. post processing physically harms no one, while a large problem with the game farm industry is the treatment of some of the animals, and illegal trafficking.

Hey Georg,

This is one book publisher that cares about fake images in my calendars and publications! As for disclosure, I am a firm believer that WE must disclose any abnormal process within the metadata. We must police ourselves. It's real simple, they ask for a cougar shot, you have one that is taken at a game farm, you package it up and you disclose that it is a game farm cougar. Let the magazine/publisher make the decision to use it our not. He/she will know where it came from and how it was captured. That way no one is trying to hide anything. What is so hard about disclosing anything when it comes to digital images files. Does not everyone fill out metadata info?

Here are more articles you all may be interested in:

http://www.seattlepi.com/archives/1996/9604220070.asp

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Violence,+lies+and+videotape:+wildlife+filmmaking+takes+a+few...-a019998020

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/15/business/the-call-of-the-wildlife-show.html?pagewanted=all

Jerry:
images taken in captivity are not necessarily "fake" images. Even if you write all kinds of info into the IPTC fields, it doesn't ,mean it will be read or cared about.
I don't know any of your publications, but many wildlife calendars show primarily portraits of animals and buyers want them to look beautiful. as Kathy Moran was stating, wild critters are often not so beautiful and therefore unsuitable for these kind of publications.
jpegs saved for webs are - btw - not saving the meta-data, if I'm right. (?) lots of (initial) submissions are done this way. honestly, even I as a landscape photographers could tell many game farm animals apart from those taken in the wild. but it doesn't always matter. a calendar showcasing "African Cats" f.e. or "Wolves" (plenty of these themes around) do not care whether the pic was taken in the wild or in zoo or in your backyard, as long as its a good image.
irritations often arise, when a pic is already published and then its too late for a photographer to "disclose" anything.
I'm all against game-farms that treat wildlife bad, I assume not all of them do, but game farms for photography are not necessarly a bad thing.
its good that you care about your products, but I'm afraid you are not the standard kind of guy for a worldwide industry. it also sure helps you, that you are a photographer yourself, photo editors are often coming from all kind of jobs and background and are sometimes just not competent enough.
georg

If the article in Audubon got you thinking about this subject compare it to the article on widlife photographers in the March issue of Popular Photography,

"photographs are not real."

hey Pete

This argument doesn't hold. Words aren't "real" either. They're merely representations, abstractions that can imply meaning/s. Yet people ought be true to their word, no?

Cheers

Carl