Mods: Feel free to delete - I know it isn't within the remit of the forum.
Hi All
I've received a copy of this month's BBC Wildlife Magazine today and on the letters page there are a number of correspondence under the heading 'Staged Shots'.
Of all the views stated, one refers to a Pete Cairns golden eagle image featured a couple of months a go. Pete obviously declared the shot as captive and the accompanying caption referred to it as such. However, a letter writer has inferred that the image somehow inferior because the photographer hadn't "spent hours freezing in a Finnish hide to achieve this photo".
We wildlife photographers are a strange bunch aren't we? In a day and age when the thing [wildlife] we treasure most is under so much pressure from Man's activity, we have someone seriously suggesting that it would be better to use an image of a wild eagle taken in Finland, despite the fact it would have probably taken several plane journeys to secure such an image! Am I the only one to see the paradox in this argument?
As an 'interest group' we have yet to appreciate the true value our collective photographic effort and the benefit it could have for wildlife. Instead we waste time criticising each other because we can't keep our egos under control. The letter writer goes on to pronounce that 'genuine wildlife photographers' (presumably he is one) are getting tired of staged images. Well, I say he doesn't speak for me; but then again I take some captive shots as a semi pro so I'm not a 'genuine' wildlife photographer, am I?
Cheers,
Chris
PS. I feel a letter coming on . . .
PPS. By the way, the magazine has some stunning kingfisher images this month.
Posted by Cliff Young on March 18, 2010 at 2:11 AM
Chris, I'm with you all the way on this. I'm sure we'd all like to photograph our subjects in the wild but few have the opportunity to see, let alone photograph, other than the more common species. Why then should our efforts be classed as "inferior" when we openly publish staged shots of captive birds?
The original point at issue was that it was the Wildlife photographer of the year competiton, not the Captive Wildlife photographer of the year competition.
The BBC article is misdirected. Why do we take photographs is the fundemental issue , is it for pleasure or for income.
If for income you do not spend 3 weeks sitting in a freeezing hide when you can achieve the same shot using captive/habituated subjects. For a Pro, time=money, you shoot your brief quickly and efficiently and move on to the next assignment The end result can be the same. The magazines traditionally had no "ethical" issue on how a shot was taken, they just wanted the best shot available to illustrate a subject to sell the magazine.
If it is for pleasure, the satisfaction/"pain" of getting a really difficult shot is often greater than the shot itself. Now if you are also a "greenpeace" campainer you may baulk twice at using your car to get to your photography site, far better to cycle with £10K worth of gear hanging off your back. Surely tourism photography sits somewhere in between here, if sitting in a pre-prepared hide to shoot a subject you have always wanted to do is you rthing, then that's your perogative. For others the enjoyment factor is finding their own subjects whether they be mundane or not.
I never understood the pleasure of birdwatchers who "twitch" - driving hundreds of miles to watch a bird found by someone else - yet thousands do it as an alternative form of trainspotting - Personally I am a "patcher" ie I get pleasure from knowing my patch inside out and whats in it- the parallels are remarkably similar!
Chris, Pictures of captive animals is not wildlife photography, it's photography. If you wanted to get "green" pictures of Finish Eagles I'm pretty sure that there is a Finish photographer with good pictures. If you are doing editorial photography you should tell the truth. Photojournalists lose their careers for photoshoping too much and faking pictures. I think a magazine like BBC wildlife should only use wild pictures unless they are doing something on on captive animals. Not for any Ethical reasons but for a journalist truth that I think they don't have.
Saying that I don't think there is any thing wrong with photographic captive animals if that's what you want to do, just don't try to pass it off as wildlife photography.
Posted by Rene de Heer on March 18, 2010 at 3:42 AM
Personally I have nothing against captive wildlife/bird photography. Would I find it satisfying to do it myself?
No, not at all. I have never taken any images of captive animals. I did spent from 5 in the morning till 5 in the afternoon in an eagle hide in Finland.
The eagls showed for 15 minutes and they mated. For me, even though it was just 15 minutes, it was an ultimate experience and something I will never forget.
I am pretty sure that I would not feel the same adrenaline rush if the birds would have been captive.
If you earn your salary by being a fulltime wildlife/nature photographer (thank god I'm not) I can imagine going to wildlife parks to get my images.
Rene de Heer
I think Rene has hit the nail on the head re salary etc.
Also, I think it has a lot to do with what the final outcome of our images is meant to be. In my line of work I meet a lot of varied people. Some are connected with nature through their lifestyles or hobbies but a good proportion aren't. Give a picture of a golden eagle to the first lot and they'll appreciate it. They'll understand the beauty of the animal be it wild or captive.
Give the second bunch the same image and they might well be bowled over at the image because it's something new to them, it's something awe-inspiring, something unexpected. Whether it is captive or not doesn't matter as long as they know this is nature and this exists somewhere in the world.
Right now politicians and decision makers need influencing to prioritise nature and work for its protection. They understand that there is a percentage of people tuned into nature but they need to be hearing the message from people with inner city post codes. It's happening already, albeit very slowly and it's due, partly, to inspirational images being shown around their immediate environment.
Nobody cares whether the subject is captive or wild as long as the context holds the greater meaning.
Of course, the photographer must declare the animal wild or otherwise but the editors then choose how to proceed with that image - that is there choice.
Chris
Posted by eric weight on March 18, 2010 at 8:00 AM
To be honest, I just think that the BBC are looking to share the 'tame wolf' cock-up around the whole of the wildlife photography fraternity. It was why I wouldn't get involved in the recent plea for before and after shots. They will have chosen these letters to reflect their own angle and by diluting the issue with articles about cloning and baiting, they will slip out from under the full weight of criticism re. the competition.
On the same page was a letter condemning baiting. That would probably rule out 75% of all wildlife photographs at a stroke. No blueys by the peanuts, no eagles on dead foxes (even from Finnish hides) etc.
To be fair when I first started taking wildlife photographs I naievely believed they were taken by people who were so dedicated and well equipped that they would spend for ever getting close to their subjects before pressing the shutter. I am not saying that some don't operate that way but the majority don't and can't.
I have a post up here at the moment of a french partridge from which I cloned a short piece of grass. I hated doing it and declared that I had. There have been a couple of comments since suggesting the removal of another which I totally agree improves the shot; but am I the only one who can't really decide what is acceptable and what isn't? Am I competeing if that's the right word with people who clone stuff out and don't mention it? I am not saying they are wrong, but I really don't know where the line should be drawn anymore. Other than if it is captive you should say so, of course.
It's a complete mare's nest imo.
Posted by David Taylor on March 18, 2010 at 8:40 AM
The famous photographer Robert Cappa springs to mind and the controversy over his 'The Falling soldier'
Staged or serendipity in the case of the former, Happy accident in the case of the latter. they are still iconic images.
I'm a fan of Magritte the painter 'In his "Ceci n'est pas" works, Magritte points out that no matter how closely, through realism-art, we come to depicting an item accurately, we never do catch the item itself.'
I think a wildlife photographer more than any other photographer should have as little impact on the environment as possible in pursuit of his/her aims. Images and how they were acquired should be assessed for their 'carbon footprint' just like anything else.IMO.
Negative Human impact on the natural environment is increasing exponentially. We have to
redress this for posterity's sake, if not our own.
Posted by Ben Simmonds on March 18, 2010 at 1:09 PM
This whole issue has really got way out of hand, i agree with most of the above and believe that it doesnt matter if the subject is captive or not, you could argue that all subjects have a certain amount of influence from humans be it simply that thier habitat has shrunk or they are kept and fed by us, since digital came along so many people are so paranoid about pictures being changed or altered, so what? this is the way we made it, as with any art form it doesnt matter - cant people just appriciate it for what it is, people dont go around questioning whether the mona lisa was painted with a sable brush or a twig do they? there are always going to be people who cut corners, cheat and do things they shouldnt to get a picture, i think as an image we should accept it on face value and judge on its credentials as an image not worry about how it got there? its a debate that could go on and on..
Earlier today I was on the side of a mountain glassing a pair of golden eagles feeding on a deer calf. It is a place where the eerie is very easy to get close enough to if you know which way to go
My friend on this trip suggested that I should get in touch with a local ringer and maybe try to get some good nest shots of them. I stated quite firmly that I had no interest in doing anything of the sort, even although I have the relevant licence, and that if I wanted golden eagle shots I would be better asking a good friend of mine to take the jesses of either of his pair and photograph them on a hill side where no other eagles were.
When I explained to him that disturbing the nest could result in failure he asked me why these licences were given out at all, to which I had no answer.
No photographs ever taken of eagles that I have seen have ever come close to showing how I feel when I see them out on the hill.
Good on Pete Cairns for using captive birds.
Not too sure if there's any justification in disturbing truly rare wild stock just for a few quid or some ego tripping
Posted by Ben Simmonds on March 18, 2010 at 2:24 PM
very good point, these images of 'truly wild' animals can often do more harm than intended and so captive shots should be encouraged, it still takes skill and preparation to get a great shot even when they are 'captive'
Posted by Peter Cairns on March 18, 2010 at 2:47 PM
I've just come across this post with some interesting perspectives.
I've photographed captive eagles and I've photographed wild eagles. Each was done at different times for different reasons. The experiences themselves were of course, very different too. Rightly or wrongly, for good or for bad, this is what I've done.
BBC Wildlife selected this image (I did submit wild eagles too) because it fitted their requirement. I declared it as captive and to be fair, they passed that declaration onto the reader.
OK so that's the history. I have to say that I agree with Chris - how, why, where, by whom is all irrelevant within the wider scheme of things. The image of the eagle was designed to inform and inspire the viewer - if it did that, I'm happy and so too is the magazine.
I'm not suggesting we throw integrity to the wind - not at all - but really, as Chris suggests, if we channelled this much energy into using our imagery in the way I think we should, this 'community' would gain itself much more credence and be much more effective at safeguarding that which we hold dear.
Incidentally, if the BBCW letter writer is who I think it is, it brings a whole new dimension to hypocrisy!!!!
Pete
Posted by Peter Cairns on March 18, 2010 at 2:50 PM
Sorry guys I forgot - just to put the cat further amongst the pigeons!!
You remember the wolf portfolio in last month's mag? From Russia? Captive! All the images were submitted as part of Wild Wonders of Europe and they've all been pulled from the image bank.
I find it hard to belive that some people still have a problem with people taking captive shots and as people say if you are trying to earn a living out of somthing that you belive in it is more or less imposable to be able to afford to sit in hides for hours to get images that may not even come along. The whole point to me is protecting the subject you are capturing i personaly think its about time these people got of their high horse, we live in a world were wildlife is still persicuted even in this country and wether its captive or not our images can make a big difference. I just think some people have a big chip on their sholder or perhaps they are not happy with the images that they have taken but because sombody has it in them to go out and get the image in their minds eye be it captive this is not acceptable to other so called photographers.
Oh by the way how many species have their profile raised by captive animal shots that would be imposable to get in the wild.
and lets get another thing strait i do not take images so that photographers can pass judgment on i take them so that the general public whom have hardly any idea of native wildlife and habitat issues can get a good idea of what our native subjects look like in their enviroment.
You simply cannot have, by its dictionary definition, wildlife in captivity.
The issue is that modern society has fuddled the word wildlife to mean anything that is does not conform to our will/training in the way it behaves, regardless of where it is located. Let’s be clear, no matter how threatening, uncontrollable, unpredictable, an animal is; if you place it in captivity it ceases to be wildlife even if it acts wild. (Don’t you just love the English Language?)
Given the above, and providing you agree, the issue then boils down to what does captive mean. My definition of captive is when something is confined or restrained by an introduced barrier where said barrier effects a change in the animal’s natural instinct or behavior (esp. mobility); is this subjective, yes, but less so than you may imagine when you get a Biologist involved.
Now that said, and to pick up a point in another BBC letter, I do believe that you can have habituated wildlife as, providing the animal is free to leave when it wants, the animal has chosen to moderate its behavior rather than us forcing it to do so and who are we to say that it is not wild just because it chooses to modify its own behaviour.
Is there a place for captive animal photography, most definitely! Providing the welfare of the animal comes first, it can save disturbance of wild animals, provides enjoyment for countless people, allows photographers to get some shots that would be impossible for them otherwise, enlightens people to the plight of that species, brings people closer to appreciating nature, saves countless carbon footprint miles and allows you to hone your photography skills, the list goes on... But, should these images be portrayed as wild; no, that would be dishonest wouldn’t it? But to those that provide these opportunities to others; keep going as I believe the good you do, especially for children, far far out weighs the dishonest photogs and the nay sayers.
Should BBC Wildlife use captive images? Well that’s a decision for an editor. But, if we think not, it is unlikely, being nocturnal, that we would ever see such a lovely, detailed, image of Harvest Mouse in one of those magazines again! My own opinion is that it would be a loss, biased on political correctness and ‘the moment’ instead of common sense, for as long as it is moderately used and honestly labeled (as this one is) we can marvel at the animals dexterity, it in that captive knowledge and (day) light.
People live in a very sheltered world and believe what they see and read on TV, in papers and magazines - they form a picture in their mind of the heroic struggle of the cameraman (stills or motion) spending hundreds of hours in cramped hides, fighting mozzies and leeches, starvation, heat exhaustion and thirst, battling through 90mph winds and surviving avalanches and blizzards. They like to imagine the cameraman as a modern equivalent of the Victorian big-game hunter in colonial times, or some sort of robin hood or woodsman character living off the wild. Or a Crocodile Dundee character wrestling with croc and rays. It's an image that the various industries haven't exactly discouraged...
Disrupt that cozy little image and their dream world falls apart - people don't like having to face reality. Mr Joe Average in Suburbiton gets angry when someone interrupts his/her illusion, and lets face it, the mags are targeted at that segment of the population. BBC Wildlife isn't exactly high-brow reading and its articles aren't exactly mega in-depth. It's a light read - popular entertainment with nice pictures .
Does Joe Public *really* care? Nope.
Does it matter if the image is of captive/controlled/farmed/wild/pet or real or staged? Not if it inspires someone, makes them curious, or makes them get of their backsides and do something.
So, go find images to inspire people, to give someone aspirations, to fire up the curiosity, to tell stories, to make some small nugget of difference... then you'll enrich peoples lives, and through them, you'll enrich their world and it's inhabitants - human and animal.
There was another well-known Portuguese-born photographer involved in a similar situation as the wolf image at the same time, which some of you may not have come across. It might make for interesting reading/comparison and may prompt some reflection on the actual role and status of the photography we do.
Question: should we be held to the "journalistic standards" that are expressed by the individual below?
Follow the links and get a flavour of what went on.
I don’t believe Mr. Martins’ explanations are valid. At the end of the day, he digitally altered photographs, thus deceiving the viewers perception of reality.
The NY Times Magazine is a journalistic publication, meaning its photographers should be held to journalistic standards. Readers trust that the images they see are an accurate portrayal of reality, not photoshopped symmetry.
He should be fired. Period.
— James B.
And then have a read at this one: http://photoblog.julianwainwright.net/?p=1182
Which is really interesting. This is how tight the scrutiny is in some fields of photography.
"Its a fair cop guv" says the photog.
My feelings? The issuse is not that clear cut. The worth of the image is one thing (eg the good it may achieve), but I think from that must be subtracted the 'cost' of obtaining it. And that's an equation that will of necessity vary wildly. But what arguably should not vary is the ethical stance photographers take, and their honesty about their methods.
- I heard it expressed very well once and always remembered it:
If you tell the truth you can forget about it, but if you lie you'll have to remember it forever.
The bottom line has to be that we have a responsibility to be up front about what we do, so LET'S JUST BE HONEST. If an animal is controlled/captive then just label it as such. If the animal is controlled/captive and badly treated, report it to the RSPCA (or other). If the supplier of captive subjects is unethically in the 'management' of the animal, if substantiated, then as a community boycott them to drive them out of business.
If we are honest then magazine, picture library and media editors can make an informed judgement as to the validity of a shot for any given purpose. The agenda shouldn’t be about ‘captive’ or ‘wild’ it should be about positivity for the natural world – we can inform that agenda! If the use of an image depicting a captive subject is likely to be harmful to the 'cause' then the end users need to know the circumstances behind the shot. I've heard lots of b******s talked about WPOY competition since the 'Fairytale wolf' debacle - the blame lies squarely with the photographer and he has paid the price. The side-effect is that the legitimacy of our practise has been called further into question, tarring us all in the process.
As for semantics, Tom is spot on - Cheers, Chris O'Reilly, NATURAL HISTORY photographer.
PS. Next week’s topic will be ‘baiting’ . . . kingfishers . . . :biggrin
The side-effect is that the legitimacy of our practise has been called further into question, tarring us all in the process.
...but who is doing the tarring? The only ones putting an importance on this are ourselves as a community - delusions of self importance perhaps?
The world in general doesn't give a ****. In the big scale of things, we're small-fry and of next-to-no-import. Ask Joe Bloggs on the street what he thinks of captive vs wild etc and he'll just look at you like you're mad, or laugh at you and walk on, it isn't important to him. Ask another photographer working in a different genre to nature and chances are they'll just laugh and say it isn't important. Ask a wildlife/NH photographer and they'll ask how long they've/you've got...
What can happen is that the law of unintended consequences kicks in. Somewhere down the line that stunning image of a captive/controlled subject with heavy PS retouching of an errant twig becomes the poster-boy of a campaign or leading illustration in a press article eg related to climate change and the loss of habitat and species.
Some smart inquiring mind establishes that the image that is being used to prick our consciences is a 'fake' and suddenly the worth of the whole campaign is rightly or wrongly called into question. The result is that the very image that SHOULD be underpinning environmental integrity and acting as a force for positive change, becomes a very negative force.
You need only look at the furore surrounding current issues regarding climate change and the validity of the data being cited as evidence, with eager c-c debunkers only too happy to leap on anything that can be used to beat the 'doom-mongers' about the head.
If we realise that our images can make the leap from being what we'd self-importantly call our 'art' or our 'hobby' and can become, thanks to the internet, pieces of journalism, then the need for honesty and clarity in declaring the provenance of those images should be obvious.
Good to see the issue aired and the range of responses. And heading for 450 hits to the post as I type this, way eclipsing (by more than 50%) the hts on other threads, suggests a wider interest in this than we realize.
In your scenario, it isn't the image or the manipulation, or the declaration of provenance (or lack of it) that is the problem - but how it's been abused by the person/organisation using it to make a political point or monetary gain.
They're the ones that have the problem, not the photographer, not the image.
They're the ones who abused the trust and ethics, not the image, not the photographer.
They're the ones who've deliberately lied, not the image, not the photographer.
They're the ones who've set out to deceive, not the photographer, not the image.
If the people and organisations could be trusted with the imagery, then there wouldn't be a problem. But add in any sort of political agenda, basis for profit, or bias through funding/grants or need to please a sponsor, then it's a lost cause from day 1.... your imagery will be spun and abused. It's not the image or the photographer that's the problem, it's the people using the image.
But that's getting further off-topic on an already off-topic topic
Does it matter if the image is of captive/controlled/farmed/wild/pet or real or staged? Not if it inspires someone, makes them curious, or makes them get of their backsides and do something.
The point I was making Nick is that if you (the photog) is upfront about the captive/controlled/wild status then you (as an individual) wont end up trying to 'defend' youself later. But I fully take on board your point - we are, as suppliers, at the mercy of the end user.
PS - is over 500 hits a record for a post with no picture?
Discussion
26 repliesHi All
I've received a copy of this month's BBC Wildlife Magazine today and on the letters page there are a number of correspondence under the heading 'Staged Shots'.
Of all the views stated, one refers to a Pete Cairns golden eagle image featured a couple of months a go. Pete obviously declared the shot as captive and the accompanying caption referred to it as such. However, a letter writer has inferred that the image somehow inferior because the photographer hadn't "spent hours freezing in a Finnish hide to achieve this photo".
We wildlife photographers are a strange bunch aren't we? In a day and age when the thing [wildlife] we treasure most is under so much pressure from Man's activity, we have someone seriously suggesting that it would be better to use an image of a wild eagle taken in Finland, despite the fact it would have probably taken several plane journeys to secure such an image! Am I the only one to see the paradox in this argument?
As an 'interest group' we have yet to appreciate the true value our collective photographic effort and the benefit it could have for wildlife. Instead we waste time criticising each other because we can't keep our egos under control. The letter writer goes on to pronounce that 'genuine wildlife photographers' (presumably he is one) are getting tired of staged images. Well, I say he doesn't speak for me; but then again I take some captive shots as a semi pro so I'm not a 'genuine' wildlife photographer, am I?
Cheers,
Chris
PS. I feel a letter coming on . . .
PPS. By the way, the magazine has some stunning kingfisher images this month.
The BBC article is misdirected. Why do we take photographs is the fundemental issue , is it for pleasure or for income.
If for income you do not spend 3 weeks sitting in a freeezing hide when you can achieve the same shot using captive/habituated subjects. For a Pro, time=money, you shoot your brief quickly and efficiently and move on to the next assignment The end result can be the same. The magazines traditionally had no "ethical" issue on how a shot was taken, they just wanted the best shot available to illustrate a subject to sell the magazine.
If it is for pleasure, the satisfaction/"pain" of getting a really difficult shot is often greater than the shot itself. Now if you are also a "greenpeace" campainer you may baulk twice at using your car to get to your photography site, far better to cycle with £10K worth of gear hanging off your back. Surely tourism photography sits somewhere in between here, if sitting in a pre-prepared hide to shoot a subject you have always wanted to do is you rthing, then that's your perogative. For others the enjoyment factor is finding their own subjects whether they be mundane or not.
I never understood the pleasure of birdwatchers who "twitch" - driving hundreds of miles to watch a bird found by someone else - yet thousands do it as an alternative form of trainspotting - Personally I am a "patcher" ie I get pleasure from knowing my patch inside out and whats in it- the parallels are remarkably similar!
Horses for Courses
Alan
Saying that I don't think there is any thing wrong with photographic captive animals if that's what you want to do, just don't try to pass it off as wildlife photography.
No, not at all. I have never taken any images of captive animals. I did spent from 5 in the morning till 5 in the afternoon in an eagle hide in Finland.
The eagls showed for 15 minutes and they mated. For me, even though it was just 15 minutes, it was an ultimate experience and something I will never forget.
I am pretty sure that I would not feel the same adrenaline rush if the birds would have been captive.
If you earn your salary by being a fulltime wildlife/nature photographer (thank god I'm not) I can imagine going to wildlife parks to get my images.
Rene de Heer
Also, I think it has a lot to do with what the final outcome of our images is meant to be. In my line of work I meet a lot of varied people. Some are connected with nature through their lifestyles or hobbies but a good proportion aren't. Give a picture of a golden eagle to the first lot and they'll appreciate it. They'll understand the beauty of the animal be it wild or captive.
Give the second bunch the same image and they might well be bowled over at the image because it's something new to them, it's something awe-inspiring, something unexpected. Whether it is captive or not doesn't matter as long as they know this is nature and this exists somewhere in the world.
Right now politicians and decision makers need influencing to prioritise nature and work for its protection. They understand that there is a percentage of people tuned into nature but they need to be hearing the message from people with inner city post codes. It's happening already, albeit very slowly and it's due, partly, to inspirational images being shown around their immediate environment.
Nobody cares whether the subject is captive or wild as long as the context holds the greater meaning.
Of course, the photographer must declare the animal wild or otherwise but the editors then choose how to proceed with that image - that is there choice.
Chris
On the same page was a letter condemning baiting. That would probably rule out 75% of all wildlife photographs at a stroke. No blueys by the peanuts, no eagles on dead foxes (even from Finnish hides) etc.
To be fair when I first started taking wildlife photographs I naievely believed they were taken by people who were so dedicated and well equipped that they would spend for ever getting close to their subjects before pressing the shutter. I am not saying that some don't operate that way but the majority don't and can't.
I have a post up here at the moment of a french partridge from which I cloned a short piece of grass. I hated doing it and declared that I had. There have been a couple of comments since suggesting the removal of another which I totally agree improves the shot; but am I the only one who can't really decide what is acceptable and what isn't? Am I competeing if that's the right word with people who clone stuff out and don't mention it? I am not saying they are wrong, but I really don't know where the line should be drawn anymore. Other than if it is captive you should say so, of course.
It's a complete mare's nest imo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Soldier
and his 'D-Day' images.
http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html
Staged or serendipity in the case of the former, Happy accident in the case of the latter. they are still iconic images.
I'm a fan of Magritte the painter 'In his "Ceci n'est pas" works, Magritte points out that no matter how closely, through realism-art, we come to depicting an item accurately, we never do catch the item itself.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte
I think a wildlife photographer more than any other photographer should have as little impact on the environment as possible in pursuit of his/her aims. Images and how they were acquired should be assessed for their 'carbon footprint' just like anything else.IMO.
Negative Human impact on the natural environment is increasing exponentially. We have to
redress this for posterity's sake, if not our own.
Just be honest about your images and enjoy making and viewing them.
Edwin
Earlier today I was on the side of a mountain glassing a pair of golden eagles feeding on a deer calf. It is a place where the eerie is very easy to get close enough to if you know which way to go
My friend on this trip suggested that I should get in touch with a local ringer and maybe try to get some good nest shots of them. I stated quite firmly that I had no interest in doing anything of the sort, even although I have the relevant licence, and that if I wanted golden eagle shots I would be better asking a good friend of mine to take the jesses of either of his pair and photograph them on a hill side where no other eagles were.
When I explained to him that disturbing the nest could result in failure he asked me why these licences were given out at all, to which I had no answer.
No photographs ever taken of eagles that I have seen have ever come close to showing how I feel when I see them out on the hill.
Good on Pete Cairns for using captive birds.
Not too sure if there's any justification in disturbing truly rare wild stock just for a few quid or some ego tripping
I've photographed captive eagles and I've photographed wild eagles. Each was done at different times for different reasons. The experiences themselves were of course, very different too. Rightly or wrongly, for good or for bad, this is what I've done.
BBC Wildlife selected this image (I did submit wild eagles too) because it fitted their requirement. I declared it as captive and to be fair, they passed that declaration onto the reader.
OK so that's the history. I have to say that I agree with Chris - how, why, where, by whom is all irrelevant within the wider scheme of things. The image of the eagle was designed to inform and inspire the viewer - if it did that, I'm happy and so too is the magazine.
I'm not suggesting we throw integrity to the wind - not at all - but really, as Chris suggests, if we channelled this much energy into using our imagery in the way I think we should, this 'community' would gain itself much more credence and be much more effective at safeguarding that which we hold dear.
Incidentally, if the BBCW letter writer is who I think it is, it brings a whole new dimension to hypocrisy!!!!
Pete
You remember the wolf portfolio in last month's mag? From Russia? Captive! All the images were submitted as part of Wild Wonders of Europe and they've all been pulled from the image bank.
Any more skeletons anyone??
Pete
Oh by the way how many species have their profile raised by captive animal shots that would be imposable to get in the wild.
and lets get another thing strait i do not take images so that photographers can pass judgment on i take them so that the general public whom have hardly any idea of native wildlife and habitat issues can get a good idea of what our native subjects look like in their enviroment.
Captive Wildlife is an oxymoron.
You simply cannot have, by its dictionary definition, wildlife in captivity.
The issue is that modern society has fuddled the word wildlife to mean anything that is does not conform to our will/training in the way it behaves, regardless of where it is located. Let’s be clear, no matter how threatening, uncontrollable, unpredictable, an animal is; if you place it in captivity it ceases to be wildlife even if it acts wild. (Don’t you just love the English Language?)
Given the above, and providing you agree, the issue then boils down to what does captive mean. My definition of captive is when something is confined or restrained by an introduced barrier where said barrier effects a change in the animal’s natural instinct or behavior (esp. mobility); is this subjective, yes, but less so than you may imagine when you get a Biologist involved.
Now that said, and to pick up a point in another BBC letter, I do believe that you can have habituated wildlife as, providing the animal is free to leave when it wants, the animal has chosen to moderate its behavior rather than us forcing it to do so and who are we to say that it is not wild just because it chooses to modify its own behaviour.
Is there a place for captive animal photography, most definitely! Providing the welfare of the animal comes first, it can save disturbance of wild animals, provides enjoyment for countless people, allows photographers to get some shots that would be impossible for them otherwise, enlightens people to the plight of that species, brings people closer to appreciating nature, saves countless carbon footprint miles and allows you to hone your photography skills, the list goes on... But, should these images be portrayed as wild; no, that would be dishonest wouldn’t it? But to those that provide these opportunities to others; keep going as I believe the good you do, especially for children, far far out weighs the dishonest photogs and the nay sayers.
Should BBC Wildlife use captive images? Well that’s a decision for an editor. But, if we think not, it is unlikely, being nocturnal, that we would ever see such a lovely, detailed, image of Harvest Mouse in one of those magazines again! My own opinion is that it would be a loss, biased on political correctness and ‘the moment’ instead of common sense, for as long as it is moderately used and honestly labeled (as this one is) we can marvel at the animals dexterity, it in that captive knowledge and (day) light.
T
Disrupt that cozy little image and their dream world falls apart - people don't like having to face reality. Mr Joe Average in Suburbiton gets angry when someone interrupts his/her illusion, and lets face it, the mags are targeted at that segment of the population. BBC Wildlife isn't exactly high-brow reading and its articles aren't exactly mega in-depth. It's a light read - popular entertainment with nice pictures
Does Joe Public *really* care? Nope.
Does it matter if the image is of captive/controlled/farmed/wild/pet or real or staged? Not if it inspires someone, makes them curious, or makes them get of their backsides and do something.
So, go find images to inspire people, to give someone aspirations, to fire up the curiosity, to tell stories, to make some small nugget of difference... then you'll enrich peoples lives, and through them, you'll enrich their world and it's inhabitants - human and animal.
Edwin
There was another well-known Portuguese-born photographer involved in a similar situation as the wolf image at the same time, which some of you may not have come across. It might make for interesting reading/comparison and may prompt some reflection on the actual role and status of the photography we do.
Question: should we be held to the "journalistic standards" that are expressed by the individual below?
Follow the links and get a flavour of what went on.
http://bloggasm.com/how-a-metafilter-member-caused-the-new-york-times-to-pull-down-altered-photos
And here:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/behind-10/
...where one respondent said:
1. July 31, 2009 11:48 pm Link
I don’t believe Mr. Martins’ explanations are valid. At the end of the day, he digitally altered photographs, thus deceiving the viewers perception of reality.
The NY Times Magazine is a journalistic publication, meaning its photographers should be held to journalistic standards. Readers trust that the images they see are an accurate portrayal of reality, not photoshopped symmetry.
He should be fired. Period.
— James B.
And then have a read at this one: http://photoblog.julianwainwright.net/?p=1182
Which is really interesting. This is how tight the scrutiny is in some fields of photography.
"Its a fair cop guv" says the photog.
My feelings? The issuse is not that clear cut. The worth of the image is one thing (eg the good it may achieve), but I think from that must be subtracted the 'cost' of obtaining it. And that's an equation that will of necessity vary wildly. But what arguably should not vary is the ethical stance photographers take, and their honesty about their methods.
- I heard it expressed very well once and always remembered it:
If you tell the truth you can forget about it, but if you lie you'll have to remember it forever.
Interesting.
The bottom line has to be that we have a responsibility to be up front about what we do, so LET'S JUST BE HONEST. If an animal is controlled/captive then just label it as such. If the animal is controlled/captive and badly treated, report it to the RSPCA (or other). If the supplier of captive subjects is unethically in the 'management' of the animal, if substantiated, then as a community boycott them to drive them out of business.
If we are honest then magazine, picture library and media editors can make an informed judgement as to the validity of a shot for any given purpose. The agenda shouldn’t be about ‘captive’ or ‘wild’ it should be about positivity for the natural world – we can inform that agenda! If the use of an image depicting a captive subject is likely to be harmful to the 'cause' then the end users need to know the circumstances behind the shot. I've heard lots of b******s talked about WPOY competition since the 'Fairytale wolf' debacle - the blame lies squarely with the photographer and he has paid the price. The side-effect is that the legitimacy of our practise has been called further into question, tarring us all in the process.
As for semantics, Tom is spot on - Cheers, Chris O'Reilly, NATURAL HISTORY photographer.
PS. Next week’s topic will be ‘baiting’ . . . kingfishers . . . :biggrin
...but who is doing the tarring? The only ones putting an importance on this are ourselves as a community - delusions of self importance perhaps?
The world in general doesn't give a ****. In the big scale of things, we're small-fry and of next-to-no-import. Ask Joe Bloggs on the street what he thinks of captive vs wild etc and he'll just look at you like you're mad, or laugh at you and walk on, it isn't important to him. Ask another photographer working in a different genre to nature and chances are they'll just laugh and say it isn't important. Ask a wildlife/NH photographer and they'll ask how long they've/you've got...
What can happen is that the law of unintended consequences kicks in. Somewhere down the line that stunning image of a captive/controlled subject with heavy PS retouching of an errant twig becomes the poster-boy of a campaign or leading illustration in a press article eg related to climate change and the loss of habitat and species.
Some smart inquiring mind establishes that the image that is being used to prick our consciences is a 'fake' and suddenly the worth of the whole campaign is rightly or wrongly called into question. The result is that the very image that SHOULD be underpinning environmental integrity and acting as a force for positive change, becomes a very negative force.
You need only look at the furore surrounding current issues regarding climate change and the validity of the data being cited as evidence, with eager c-c debunkers only too happy to leap on anything that can be used to beat the 'doom-mongers' about the head.
If we realise that our images can make the leap from being what we'd self-importantly call our 'art' or our 'hobby' and can become, thanks to the internet, pieces of journalism, then the need for honesty and clarity in declaring the provenance of those images should be obvious.
Good to see the issue aired and the range of responses. And heading for 450 hits to the post as I type this, way eclipsing (by more than 50%) the hts on other threads, suggests a wider interest in this than we realize.
In your scenario, it isn't the image or the manipulation, or the declaration of provenance (or lack of it) that is the problem - but how it's been abused by the person/organisation using it to make a political point or monetary gain.
They're the ones that have the problem, not the photographer, not the image.
They're the ones who abused the trust and ethics, not the image, not the photographer.
They're the ones who've deliberately lied, not the image, not the photographer.
They're the ones who've set out to deceive, not the photographer, not the image.
If the people and organisations could be trusted with the imagery, then there wouldn't be a problem. But add in any sort of political agenda, basis for profit, or bias through funding/grants or need to please a sponsor, then it's a lost cause from day 1.... your imagery will be spun and abused. It's not the image or the photographer that's the problem, it's the people using the image.
But that's getting further off-topic on an already off-topic topic
Well said Nick.
PS - is over 500 hits a record for a post with no picture?