This, seemingly simple, question is at the heart of what we do as a pastime or work. It was posted on another blog recently (Niall Benvie's) and the answer was lost in a mist of commercialism.
Pondering on it further, I am curious what replies it would get from this forum; for we are mixed with respect to our reasons for pointing a camera yet we are bound by the fact that we point it at Nature.
In essence I am looking for a straight answer from you: your opinion: as to what "Nature Photography" is and where its boundaries lie?
Not wanting to influence any answer I leave it here... just remember all opinions are valid...
(Ps I asked a 'Mod' could I post this and he said yes )
T
Posted by John Robinson on September 19, 2010 at 7:34 AM
Tom
My quick answer would be the photography of "things" subjects or views generally not consrtucted by man .
Bit of a problem with "man made habitats" ( moorland etc) but then man didn't make the constituents of them - just influenced them a bit !
JohnR
PS Excluding humans !
Posted by Neil Burton on September 19, 2010 at 8:14 AM
It is my six hours of peace per week ;)
I don't think you can limit it to non-humanised habitats. A crow in the city centre is still nature, as is a fox or marten. Good question, but I will not begin to answer it.
Posted by Andy Gregory on September 19, 2010 at 8:16 AM
Well Tom, to me 'Nature Photography' is going out with my camera to photograph any and all living things, habitats and landscapes either with a specific thing in mind or, more often, just observing and photographing whatever I come across. I suppose that we humans are all part of 'Nature' on this planet but I personally don't count us in the grand scheme of things. I like to take photographs either as a record of some thing or some action I have seen or to enter in photographic competitions or show other people, either on my web site or in 'Slide Shows'. Nature is all around us so we should never be short of subjects to focus on.
Posted by Derek Bonsall on September 19, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Hi
I’m not a paid up member here, but a couple of months ago I asked why I should join, unfortunately a couple of days after I posted my last comment, I lost my mother and time slipped, but I’ll try and answer it here, as Tom’s question goes right at the nub of what I am thinking.
For me, a nature photographer is an individual who endeavors to record the flora and fauna, in its LWF (Live, wild & free) state, where 90% of the final image is due to the person behind the camera, and the other 10% to the equipment used, and that includes a computer.
Since I first found this site I have noticed an increasing tendency to follow the American style, big in the frame, low viewpoint etc. this shows a lack of individual imagination. Also, there has been a increase of landscapes, cultivated subjects, which includes black background, and stacking of images, this is not what I would call nature photography, and more to do with computer skills in many cases.
No one now is interested in what used to be called “Field Craft”; this was highlighted to me recently in a post by Oscar Dewhurst, “Garden feeding station info”. Not one follow-up was received from this forum, but I’ll bet that once the site is fully up and running, there will be a queue forming. The vast majority of photographers want it effectively laid on a plate for them, with little or no true input from themselves.
Bottom line, I think I can see the demise of the true natural history photographer, and in its place are recorders of the natural world, who increasingly rely on technology to achieve a passable image.
Never forget that people take/create quality images, not computers.
Just my outdated thoughts.
Derek
Posted by eric weight on September 19, 2010 at 2:10 PM
It's whatever you want it to be Tom, because the only person whose opinion matters is your own.
Me I want something that shows imagination and flair and any kind of life on this planet in as artistic and evocative way as possible - it's just that I don't seem to be able to quite do it myself - yet. Its boundaries are somewhere beyond the reach of my imagination sadly.
Posted by Brian Davis on September 19, 2010 at 2:35 PM
I agree with Eric it is what you want it to be. For me its being outdoors pointing my camera at anything that has a natural form or make up, as opposed to man made structures.
Posted by Liam Pauling on September 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM
I hard question but I have to agree with Derek
"Since I first found this site I have noticed an increasing tendency to follow the American style, big in the frame, low viewpoint etc. this shows a lack of individual imagination."
I love to be inspired but at the moment there is no one in this country being different, this is why my telephoto has stayed in a cupboard since june.
Posted by Edwin kats on September 19, 2010 at 3:32 PM
I love to be inspired but at the moment there is no one in this country being different, this is why my telephoto has stayed in a cupboard since june.
No one now is interested in what used to be called “Field Craft
Just two quotes I found very odd. First of all you like nature photography or you don't. Why stick your camera in a cupboard when there's no one inspiring you? Just go out and have fun. Let nature inspire you.
No one is interested in field craft anymore. You think kingfishers, badgers, wild boar and martens come at your door asking politely to be photographed? Of course there's still field craft. Not everyone has it but there are still quite a lot of photographers who can teach you a thing or two. If I see an image I can tell if this guy or girl has it or not. Field craft is a basic ingredient for good, different and unique images.
What is nature photography? Having fun outside your home and taking pictures of wild and free animals, flora or landscapes with respect for all that lives.
Edwin
Posted by Neil Burton on September 19, 2010 at 3:35 PM
"I love to be inspired but at the moment there is no one in this country being different, this is why my telephoto has stayed in a cupboard since june. "
Two words: Nick Brandt. He is not of this forum but his images are the only which have moved me recently, different, perspective, focus, wide, intimate...his images are art, and not the norm.
Posted by Liam Pauling on September 19, 2010 at 3:53 PM
I thought I might cause a stir saying that.
My telephoto has stayed in a cupboard but I haven't put my film cameras down, shooting mainly landscapes. I have seen Nick Brandt's images before but they are to surreal for my liking. Its artists such as Vincent Munier who get my excited.
Posted by Oscar Dewhurst on September 19, 2010 at 5:21 PM
In reply to Derek, I am only fifteen and I live in London - therefore I do not have the opportunity to go out and sit in a hide in the middle of a field, waiting for a corn bunting to appear. I am not yet allowed to visit Richmond Park on my own, and so my only locations are the London Wetlands Centre and my garden. I have seen many articles in magazines about garden bird photography, and I wanted to try it as it is something for me to spend my time doing so my parents do not have to take me to the London Wetland Centre (I am not allowed in alone until I am 16)
I am not trying to have a go at you here, but I am trying to explain why I asked. Also, you replied, saying that you had asked about setting up a hide in a garden so obviously you have done it as well.
Obviously I would love to be able to find my own subjects and spend time learning about them and using fieldcraft, but living in London and being 15, it is not possible.
Oscar
Posted by John Robinson on September 19, 2010 at 6:09 PM
Well said indeed Oscar !!
It's a bit like me not being able to afford to go to exotic places - so you do what is within your means or whatever.Ido focus stacking of late because its a new challenge and after doing birds on twigs for 50 years I need that.:smile
Cheers
JohnR :
Posted by Brian Irving on September 19, 2010 at 6:42 PM
Hi Tom
Yes its been a while, I have had poor health for the past couple of years but still look into the forum.
I just felt compelled to respond to your question. So here is my take:
Nature Photography categorises what I do, what I don't do is photograph sport, war, cars, buildings, boats, pencils, broken glass or even nudes.
The width and depth of subject matter relating to Nature Photography is where the complexity begins, that complexity put simply can be described as Nature Photography.
It still gets me out of bed and spending a small fortune!
Good to see you still around. Hope your health improves.
T
Posted by David Kjaer on September 19, 2010 at 7:17 PM
Tom
Recording the natural world in pixels or on film for either our own pleasure or to share with others.
Although it may often appear that many of us take similar images if you look closely there are usually subtle differences which is what makes forums like this one so interesting and from time to time it has more than it's fair share of inspirational images.
In reality, for me today, any notion of 'nature' photography, and the story it might hope to tell about the wild that surrounds us, HAS to involve an element of human nature too.
Sadly so much of the fate of nature is dependent on the way we humans relate to it. Omit the hand of man from all your work and you omit the catalyst that can either save or destroy the very subjects you might as an individual profess to care about.
Computers? Stacking? Image manipulation? IS? AF? Auto-ISO? Who cares - these are all tools to be used. And you use them honestly and as appropriate to the story you wish to tell (or the point you wish to illuminate) or you dont.
Oscar - good for you to be interested in this subject, and bold enough to post. But I have to say (from experience) it's not all about hides and open spaces with a label 'wild' attached. The drama of nature is everywhere, in the corners of your windows, on the chimney of your house, and in the streets that surround you. There are many photographers active on this site whose excellent images are testament to that fact.
Posted by Chris O'Reilly on September 20, 2010 at 5:54 AM
Hi Tom
An interesting array of views held on this subject - some quite bewildering statements too!
Anyway, for me, I've become more interested in the question "What can nature photography achieve?". What I mean by this is can nature photography benefit the natural world?
Cheers,
Chris
Posted by Brett Lewis on September 20, 2010 at 7:18 AM
To Seek, To Encounter, To Observe, To Understand, To Capture Through The Lens, To Share With Others...
Kind regards,
Brett
Posted by Ken Davis on September 20, 2010 at 7:21 AM
To my mind there are now three major categories of “Nature Photographers”.
1. A true nature photographer:
a. Someone who understands and knows his subject, and if they don’t, they research it prior to picking up the camera.
b. Puts the subject first.
c. They have the ability, due to countless hours in the field, to recognise when the “jazz” of a subject changes, so that they should back off, at least temporarily.
d. Is fully conversant with their equipment.
e. Have a full understanding of light and it use.
f. Is not blinkered in their approach, be it technique or composition.
2. The photographer of nature:
a. Someone who goes out with no fixed plan in their heads, other than to go to a local hotspot and see what turns up.
b. Is fully oblivious to b, c, d & e above.
c. Relies on their equipment to get their shots.
d. Attends workshops and goes on tours relying on other to create the shots for them.
3. The computer operator:
a. They believe deep down that their computer can correct any image that is thrown at it.
The true “Nature Photographers” are disappearing and will soon be like the dinosaurs, whereas the “Photographers of Nature” and the “Computer Operators” are increasing, if not amalgamating.
As in every aspect of my life I want to move forward and that includes photography, but all too frequently I see here little quality information, and in some cases none, with any of the postings, and only comments like “well done”, “great shot”, from which nothing is learnt by anyone.
There is a wealth of knowledge here on this forum, but it is untapped, as I do think that a freer exchange of information, in particular from the true nature photographers can only be a good thing and will be to the benefit of all, as it will get everyone examining their own work.
But at the end of the day, if what you are doing makes you have then why change ??
Ken
Posted by Pete Etheridge on September 20, 2010 at 7:23 AM
An interesting thread!
To me, nature photography is simply the photography of wild plants or animals.
I also believe that it has a different meaning to different people - if it didn't, there would be a lot less creativity around.
Nature Photography is my way of maintaining a connection with everything which man does not make. The camera records and tells the story of what I have seen, but really it is just a tool which forces me to get up early and enjoy what is out there whether it's in the back garden or far further away.
To me there are no boundaries as long as the image and the way it is presented are honest and ethical. Creativity can be a part of nature photography but its not vital. Nature sometimes creates the most beautiful images without too much work from the photographer.
I also see nature photography as being a vitally important educator and I love talking to people about the subject. It's disappointing to me when people ask how 'long is your lens' or whether you use 'Canon or Nikon' rather than talking about the image before them, it really isn't important. Do you ask a plumber which type of wrench he uses?
A few of the responses above are baffling. If you perceive a lack of creativity then there's your chance, go for it and create! Why criticise others for persuing their own vision of Nature Photography
What is a nature photographer, well it's usually a person or persons who generally exploits the environment around them, for their own gratification (this includes pastime or hobby) or for monetary reward (this includes professionals and any form of making money from it) even this web site is in a indirect way making money from the nature and the natural environment around us.
That would be the cynical view, and probably closer to the truth than most people would like to admit to myself included. Of course the less cynical view would be a group of persons recording and storing images of the natural environment and nature around them whether for a hobby/ recreation, or for full-time employment/Education.
Phil.
Posted by Graham Goddard on September 20, 2010 at 8:25 AM
I've followed this thread since it was posted and pondered how best to respond. I've also been pretty surprised by some of the answers.
For me, nature photography is (if I am very lucky) the result of many careful hours of planning, watching, waiting and studying.
It has given me a very much greater understanding of many creatures, their habits and habitats.
Having said that though, that may be the answer to one of Tom's later questions, so rather than recreate a sentence already posted, I agree with David Kjears first sentence in his reply.
Boundries - putting the subject first and foremost, at all times.
For me, nature photography is simply being outdoors, enjoying nature and photographing fauna, flora or landscapes in whatever way you like, without disrupting or damaging anything, at all times. Besides that, It's also a great way to learn and understand more about nature and her subjects.
Posted by Calum Dickson on September 20, 2010 at 9:47 AM
For me it’s about finding something that intrigues or sparks my curiosity, observing and researching it and hopefully trying to capture some aspect of its behaviour that appeals to me in pixels. It’s about those special moments where after hours of waiting you are rewarded with seeing and hopefully photographing what is was you hoped for.
Posted by Andy Astbury on September 20, 2010 at 10:06 AM
By 'eck, there's a few 'pointed' comments on this thread
Phil T. is spot on, from my own perspective I'll freely admit to the exploitation.
What do I exploit?
1. My knowledge of wildlife and the natural world, and what you can and cannot do - the 'jazz'
2. My knowledge and ability of photographic principles and practises.
3. My knowledge and ability in post-processing.
4. My clients desire to learn what I can teach them.
Without 1. the rest is useless; 4. is what provides me a living, but without 1. 2. and 3. 4. would not exist.
I employ certain techniques when photographing a few particular subjects that were taught to me by specialist observers of certain species - I was taught because I asked "how can I do this without a true detriment to the subject?" But I put the hard yards in by asking, instead of blundering around trying to work it all out for myself and risking true detriment to the subjects.
I use the word 'true' to differentiate between that and 'perceived' - it's usually people with little or no real knowledge coupled with an overly inflated feeling of self-importance that do all the 'perceiving'!
From an imagery PoV modern techniques in post-processing like exposure blending and focus stacking allow you to show the world what you see as a photographer. With the latter you can create images with depth of field that is truly impossible to achieve by conventional means and thus reveal detail in a subject that not a lot of people see; and with the former you can show the tonality within a scene that only the human eye could see at the time, as no camera has the dynamic range to record it in one 'hit'.
Ridicule of modern imaging techniques is shear stupidity, though ridicule of their improper use is not.
To succeed in this game you need to understand both your subject, your gear, and yourself; your motivation and your desired end product - without that level of understanding you cannot judge your own success.
"Leave only footprints" as the saying goes - if you can do that and come away with images that make you happy then as far as I am concerned you have done everything you need to do. If you feel you need to 'push the envelope' then consult with people who can help you achieve what you want.
The measure of someone who is good at anything is to remember that there's always someone better than you; there are lot's of people better than me, and that makes me happy because it means I have more 'stuff' to learn.
So in answer to your question Tom nature photography is all about acquiring knowledge and keeping conceit and arrogance at arms length.
Posted by John Robinson on September 20, 2010 at 1:04 PM
I explained earlier what I feel my description of " nature photography" would be.
Why do I do it ?
I have been a naturalist all my life. Since I could walk - through school days- proffessionally during my days in horticulure and conservation- and finally since my retirement.
I started photography as means of recording what I had seen and to aid with identification.
I was then heavily influenced by the old "masters" in bird photography like Yates, Markham, Hosking, Brooke etc , etc and for many years tried to do things the way that they did. It seemed that then the quest to take pictures of a broader range of subjects became more important and the role of photography gpt me to places to see and photograph new species.
I sold quite a lot of stuff but that side never really bothered me.
Then finally with the advent of digital it all became much easier and I must admit that I get as much pleasure out of using techniques and ideas and trying new things photographically as I do from finding the species.
The pictures do of couse come in handy for the lectures I do in the winter months.
I take pictures simply because I enjoy it,
(along with guitar playing ,horticulture, art,steam trains,tropical fish, model making, computers, fishing, eco- surveys etc),
And - as dad would have said-
"Whilst you're doing that you're doing nowt else"
JR
Posted by Oscar Dewhurst on September 20, 2010 at 1:49 PM
I used to be a birdwatcher, visiting the London Wetland Centre about once a week, and that was it. I soon developed a desire to record what I saw and so bought a scope and compact camera. I digiscoped for about a year, before realising that it was limiting my photography as moving subjects were impossible, so I bought a Nikon D60 and Bigma lens, and last August, I upgraded to a Nikon D300s. I now cannot wait until each weekend when I can get out and do what I love doing at the London Wetland Centre. This is the only place I have I do not have the time, or the means, to do otherwise.
I would say that fieldcraft is still involved at a site like this as, say, when I see a Green Woodpecker feeding on the grass, I know that if it sees me I will not get the shot.
For me, it is not about how many species I have a record of, although that it a nice thing to look at, but it is about getting a better image than you already have; that is what keeps me going. For example, yesterday I got a shot of a Chiffchaff that I doubt I will better (in my opinion) for a while - it just works for me. Yet whenever I see a Chiffchaff, I will not think "Oh, I already have a good shot of one of those so I won't bother." Instead, I would think how I coukd get a different shot to what I got last time.
Another thought that I had is that nature reserves reduce the amount of fieldcraft by placing large wooden hides on their sites, meaning that you can get close to the birds. If I had the opportunity, I would love to be able to use fieldcraft, but I can't due to my own circumstances.
I would say that the categories in Ken Davis' post are broad, and that they are often merged. I would not fit into category 1 as I do not have countless hours to spare in the field to watch my subject. However, I am completely confident with my equipment, I put the subject first, and I feel that I understand light relatively well. However, the only place I can visit is the London Wetland Centre, somewhere which may be considered a local hotspot, but it is the only place I have. I certainly do not rely on my equipment to get my shots, and I do not rely on other to create my shots for me.
For me, nature photography must be of wild subjects, whether they be in nature reserves or not, and so for that reason I very (and I mean very) rarely take captive subjects as I see no challenge to them as they are tame and cannot fly away. The only time in the last two years where I have taken subjects is Red-Breasted Geese at the London Wetland Centre as they were in formation, and it made a very nice composition.
For example, I feel strongly that game park photography is bad and I would ban it if I could as they animals are sometimes kept under inhumaine conditions. Recently, as I'm sure you all now, there was an article published in several national newspapers about an "incredibly brave" man who had ventured up into the mountains of Montana putting himself at "extreme danger" in order to capture shots of big cats performing actions such as swiping at the camera. We have also recently had the Wildlife Photographer of the Year Scandal.
Sorry for the long post, but I felt I had to write it.
Oscar
ps I had something else to say, but forgot it so will post it when I remember
Posted by John MacTavish on September 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Nature photography? Taking pictures of the natural world outdoors.
It's boundaries? Increasingly they are getting fewer, but paramount to any nature image should be the care and respect of your subject, be that a worm or a vista
In some cases the boundaries of 'Nature' can become blurred such as with species that are domestic/feral/wild - eg some Horse breeds, or also for cultivars of some flora. For me, Nature photography is the photography of wild things in wild places. Only very occasionally of wild things in controlled places/circumstances eg birds at feeders in a garden - I prefer the 'wild' areas such as open moorland/countryside or islands where 'wildlife' is free to come or go as it pleases.
Posted by Ian Haskell on September 20, 2010 at 4:23 PM
I think Brett puts it wisely although Nature photography for myself is recording nature as it is and in new ways too. I come from the background of enjoying landscape photography (which is nature) and wanting to place wildlife subjects within it. I feel its important to have your own vision and not try and get influenced or caught up by the way other photographers produce their stunning work!
As far as processing images is concerned...it has always happened in one way or another i.e. with filters and other darkroom methods (although a bit harder)...it has just progressed and developed a bit further with the advent of computing...I'm sure all those people that comment that computer processing is bad all drive round in cars as old as their film cameras? Progress is a good thing and enables the creative vision from my perspective (although some do take it too far).
Ian
Posted by John Robinson on September 20, 2010 at 7:30 PM
Its ok to say "in the wild " and I agree generally but try doing a water flea "in the wild " for example. There are many subjects which can only be done in captivity.
JR
Posted by David Sewell on September 21, 2010 at 5:31 AM
I strongly prefer in the wild, but I agree with John. Many smaller subjects cannot be done that way, and doing them in captivity simply throws up a new range of challenges.
What is nature photgraphy? It is whatever I decide it to be at the time. I started in wildlife photography at about Oscar's age. Over the years the amount of photography I have done has varied enormously. Nature, however, is a lifelong abiding interest. To me, therefore, the nature is more important than the photography.
Field craft is different now to what it was when those of interested in bird photography had to start by finding a nest, and then slowly moved a hide up to it, but if field craft is different it certainly isn't easier.
One last thing, if nobody is inspiring you to go out and take 'original' pictures, perhaps it is your job to get the camera off the shelf and take something original to inspire others.
David
David
Posted by Craig Jones on September 21, 2010 at 5:59 AM
Wildlife/Nature Photography is what it says on the tin 'Wildlife' anything outside of that should be labeled in the correct way-eg- Fed,Bait,Tame,Caught+stuck on a perch,Captive. learning about the subjects you have some interest in,watching them and learning about their behaviour(s) and how they live their lives, the camera is only 10%-20% for me with the remaining 80% fieldcraft,approach,tracking,watching etc all enabling you to build a picture of whats happening in that area you are in,revisiting it over and over again to capture what the area may have etc.When time is short and you work with others full credit should go to the site or person who enabled you to catch your nice shot,where the light,pov,perch is all done I call this ready made wildlife photography,just add water, but without this many images would'nt be in the public eye. Photography is second to the passion for wildlife I have and I use photography to document what I see and have seen in the field for many years by placing a frame around something I see with my naked eye then frame through my viewfinder. I have seen on many different forums of late people involved with wildlife, wildlife photographers who are/ have made a name and living from wildlife photography for years saying 'everyones at it', 'no money in picture sales','everyones doing workshops' 'where will nature photography end up' and so on and all I can say is things move on just like they do in normal life and what people may lack in some quarters they can make up in others. There is very little help out there for new guys trying in this saturated market. I am true to my work and myself and this shows in the images I get from the wild and everytime I turn on the camera I am still learning and a 'good tryer is worth two know it all's' my mum use to say to me.
Zoo's,parks,captive has a place in inspiring,engaging the young,and people that may not be able or lucky enough to see what we all see in the field but as far as wildlife photography goes for me it has to be a wild animal in its natural habitat
Posted by Derek Bonsall on September 21, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Oscar
Saw your reply above yesterday, and I showed it to the warden at Kempton, and he fully understands and suggests that if you wish, he will arrange for entry to the reserve, it’s under lock and key and 3 meter high security fencing, for both yourself and your parents, just name the day and time. He will meet you at the gate.
It was suggested, that Thursday morning would be best, particularly for your mother, ignoring school/college. as there is a large open air morning market at Kempton Race Course on that day, which is less than a mile away as the crow flies.
Kempton reserve is within a mile of the London end of the M3, dad will know where that is, the entrance is on a corner where Nallhead Road and Main Street in Hanworth, Middlesex meet, just adjacent to the Linden Bennett School.
Your parents are right to be cautious, anyone, especially someone your age, should be careful when out on their own with expensive equipment.
I know that you weren’t having a go, in fact when no one contacted me via e-mail I just shrugged my shoulders, no big deal. The fewer who visit the site the better, as it gives me more opportunities. I have now had one e-mail.
Speaking to the warden who is overseeing the building of the station, the future looks very interesting, as he will be using different hides in order to alter the viewpoint. The site in on a hill and he is planning to get moving water on it, nearest water/electricity supply is 250 meters away. Then he let slip, that the design of the pool will allow for wide angle remote control, using wireless, computers or cables. Effectively, a series of free workshops.
Just knowing how to put moving water on the pool, would be a god send, particularly when working in remote places as can be found in Spain.
You don’t even have to put a hide up in your garden, you just have to be observant. I remember when a friend of mine, who lives on the top floor of a three story block of flats. He noticed a flock of tits feeding in the tops of some Yew trees just outside his windows, so he put up some feeders, then he put up a perch, and got Goldcrest, Blue, Great and Long Tailed Tits, on the perch not bad for someone with no garden.
Getting back to the original theme of this thread. I would suggest that the question “What is Nature Photography”, would best be directed at the ordinary man in the street. I think the answer would be surprising, in that most people don’t believe that there is such a thing as a true/honest image anymore, and that is a label which is being applied to all branches of photography, be it air brushing a fashion model or removing a intrusive feature in a wildlife shot, all are manipulations, notice I didn’t mention stacking. Take for example the leaping Dolphin on a beautifully smooth blue sky. The dolphin was taken in a Sea World park, background taken out, and then put on a shot of the sea. No wonder most people don’t trust an image anymore, that is unless they took it themselves.
So what is Nature Photography, well it can be whatever you want it to be, no one truly trusts imagery anymore.
Derek
Posted by David Taylor on September 21, 2010 at 4:59 PM
There are millions of species and sub species still inhabiting our beautiful planet making up Life as we currently know it. A small percentage inhabit the UK, a tiny fraction of which are photographed by UKNP members. as on the whole, all we see are the same photogenic species e.g. Kingfishers, butteflies, dragonflies, Fly Agarics, etc, etc usually beautifully photographed, but rapidly becoming cliched and predictable. IMO.
There are thousands of species in the UK almost totally ignored, for whatever reason. Come, on Guys and Gals, get out there and capture something never before seen on UKNP. You may not get many comments but at least you will have escaped the clutches of predictablity
and the safety of the popular subjects.
PS my cup runneth over, the Sigma SD 1 has been announced
Posted by Bob Cox on September 21, 2010 at 5:40 PM
An interesting question Tom, the short answer is, what ever you want it to be, and it all depends on your objectives. What interest me Tom are your objectives in posing the question, I imagine, as a young boy you poked sticks into wasps nest, stood back to see what happened next. Well done.
Bob.
Posted by John Robinson on September 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM
"Field craft" has been mentioned a fair bit I notice.
You don't need it much these days. - follow the crowds , check birdline on the net,or book a guided tour or workshop. I still fail to understand why so many people are willing to pay vast sums of money ( At least in my terms) to photograph "provided " subjects. OK - I bait for birds in my garden - but at least I have done the work myself. We all know about the recognisable sites, (as Mr Packam made horribly obvious) Surely most of the satisfaction of nature photography must come from finding the subject and then the subsequant preparation, etc,etc. A good example to me is why some " nature photographers" need to pay a workshop leader or guide to photograph seals at Donna Nook . Is it that difficult to get in the queue.?
The reason is quite simple - certain subjects get the "awe" factor, -Seals, Eagles, Bears , Otters etc , (even Kingfishers ! ) etc. If some photographers are so keen to get that "awe" response and are prepared to pay for it. - then fine. Put a picture on the forum of a slug at look at the difference in interest.
It seems to me that the deciding factor for many is a desired response to a picture.
I find that a shame.
JohnR
Posted by David Taylor on September 22, 2010 at 3:21 PM
'It seems to me that the deciding factor for many is a desired response to a picture.
I find that a shame.'
I agree entirely, sir.
Posted by Jeff Harrison on September 23, 2010 at 6:43 AM
"What is Nature Photography" - a simple enough question but It's clear from many of the responses above that in the absence of any universally accepted definition of the term 'nature photography' we all have our own opinions. Here's my personal take on the question -
Let me start from a different angle and say what I think it's not - to my mind it's not the same as 'wildlife photography', even when the subjects concerned are birds and other animals/creatures (as opposed to trees, plants, landscapes, etc).
As I've said on the home page on my recently re-vamped website and which was written long before this thread was first posted -
"In my opinion, true 'Wildlife Photography' - as opposed to the more broadly defined term 'Nature Photography' - is all about capturing images of creatures that are wild and free and with the essential elements of good fieldcraft skills, some knowledge of the subject's behaviour/habitat and infinite patience usually playing a major part. I should add that for me the 'golden rule' of Wildlife Photography is that the interests and wellbeing of the subject MUST always come first"
But 'wildlife photography' is undoubtedly part of 'nature photography', the latter and broader term including (in my view) the photography of all and any living organism - be it a bird, animal, insect, tree, flower, lichen, fungi, landscape, etc or indeed any such subject (except man) and whether dead or alive, captive or not or even showing the influence of man so long as the primary subject/element of the photograph is borne out of nature.
For instance, to my mind a landscape photograph of, say, Swaledale falls within the category of 'nature photography' even though it may show the influence of man in the form of its cultivated hay fields, dry stone walls, field barns, etc because the primary element is the valley itself and the surrounding hills - which were borne out of nature. As does a photo of a flower, even if 'contained' within a garden.
Coming back to the 'wildlife' part of 'nature photography', In a sense my views are broadly in line with some of the things said by Ken Davis, Craig Jones, John Robinson and David Sewell. For me the primary interest is nature itself and the subjects I try to photograph, with the photography being of only secondary importance. Personally I have no interest in photographing captive subjects, believing that fieldcraft coupled with a knowledge of one's intended subject is paramount. Guided 'wildlife' holidays/trips have no appeal to me and I've never even been to Gigrin, Donna Nook or any of the Deer parks as I prefer to find wildlife for myself and often in remoter places.
If asked to try to quantify the elements making up my own style of 'wildlife photography' I'd guesstimate that it's about 60% fieldcraft/subject knowledge, 30% technical camera skills and only 10% computer/processing skills.
But, in conclusion, the golden rule certainly has to be to give the subject's wellbeing priority over everything else.
Discussion
41 repliesWhat is Nature Photography?
This, seemingly simple, question is at the heart of what we do as a pastime or work. It was posted on another blog recently (Niall Benvie's) and the answer was lost in a mist of commercialism.
Pondering on it further, I am curious what replies it would get from this forum; for we are mixed with respect to our reasons for pointing a camera yet we are bound by the fact that we point it at Nature.
In essence I am looking for a straight answer from you: your opinion: as to what "Nature Photography" is and where its boundaries lie?
Not wanting to influence any answer I leave it here... just remember all opinions are valid...
(Ps I asked a 'Mod' could I post this and he said yes
T
My quick answer would be the photography of "things" subjects or views generally not consrtucted by man .
Bit of a problem with "man made habitats" ( moorland etc) but then man didn't make the constituents of them - just influenced them a bit !
JohnR
PS Excluding humans !
I don't think you can limit it to non-humanised habitats. A crow in the city centre is still nature, as is a fox or marten. Good question, but I will not begin to answer it.
I’m not a paid up member here, but a couple of months ago I asked why I should join, unfortunately a couple of days after I posted my last comment, I lost my mother and time slipped, but I’ll try and answer it here, as Tom’s question goes right at the nub of what I am thinking.
For me, a nature photographer is an individual who endeavors to record the flora and fauna, in its LWF (Live, wild & free) state, where 90% of the final image is due to the person behind the camera, and the other 10% to the equipment used, and that includes a computer.
Since I first found this site I have noticed an increasing tendency to follow the American style, big in the frame, low viewpoint etc. this shows a lack of individual imagination. Also, there has been a increase of landscapes, cultivated subjects, which includes black background, and stacking of images, this is not what I would call nature photography, and more to do with computer skills in many cases.
No one now is interested in what used to be called “Field Craft”; this was highlighted to me recently in a post by Oscar Dewhurst, “Garden feeding station info”. Not one follow-up was received from this forum, but I’ll bet that once the site is fully up and running, there will be a queue forming. The vast majority of photographers want it effectively laid on a plate for them, with little or no true input from themselves.
Bottom line, I think I can see the demise of the true natural history photographer, and in its place are recorders of the natural world, who increasingly rely on technology to achieve a passable image.
Never forget that people take/create quality images, not computers.
Just my outdated thoughts.
Derek
Me I want something that shows imagination and flair and any kind of life on this planet in as artistic and evocative way as possible - it's just that I don't seem to be able to quite do it myself - yet. Its boundaries are somewhere beyond the reach of my imagination sadly.
"Since I first found this site I have noticed an increasing tendency to follow the American style, big in the frame, low viewpoint etc. this shows a lack of individual imagination."
I love to be inspired but at the moment there is no one in this country being different, this is why my telephoto has stayed in a cupboard since june.
Just two quotes I found very odd. First of all you like nature photography or you don't. Why stick your camera in a cupboard when there's no one inspiring you? Just go out and have fun. Let nature inspire you.
No one is interested in field craft anymore.
What is nature photography? Having fun outside your home and taking pictures of wild and free animals, flora or landscapes with respect for all that lives.
Edwin
Two words: Nick Brandt. He is not of this forum but his images are the only which have moved me recently, different, perspective, focus, wide, intimate...his images are art, and not the norm.
My telephoto has stayed in a cupboard but I haven't put my film cameras down, shooting mainly landscapes. I have seen Nick Brandt's images before but they are to surreal for my liking. Its artists such as Vincent Munier who get my excited.
I am not trying to have a go at you here, but I am trying to explain why I asked. Also, you replied, saying that you had asked about setting up a hide in a garden so obviously you have done it as well.
Obviously I would love to be able to find my own subjects and spend time learning about them and using fieldcraft, but living in London and being 15, it is not possible.
Oscar
It's a bit like me not being able to afford to go to exotic places - so you do what is within your means or whatever.Ido focus stacking of late because its a new challenge and after doing birds on twigs for 50 years I need that.:smile
Cheers
JohnR :
Yes its been a while, I have had poor health for the past couple of years but still look into the forum.
I just felt compelled to respond to your question. So here is my take:
Nature Photography categorises what I do, what I don't do is photograph sport, war, cars, buildings, boats, pencils, broken glass or even nudes.
The width and depth of subject matter relating to Nature Photography is where the complexity begins, that complexity put simply can be described as Nature Photography.
It still gets me out of bed and spending a small fortune!
Regards
Brian
Good to see you still around. Hope your health improves.
T
Recording the natural world in pixels or on film for either our own pleasure or to share with others.
Although it may often appear that many of us take similar images if you look closely there are usually subtle differences which is what makes forums like this one so interesting and from time to time it has more than it's fair share of inspirational images.
Eric - as usual I always love your replies.
David
Sadly so much of the fate of nature is dependent on the way we humans relate to it. Omit the hand of man from all your work and you omit the catalyst that can either save or destroy the very subjects you might as an individual profess to care about.
Computers? Stacking? Image manipulation? IS? AF? Auto-ISO? Who cares - these are all tools to be used. And you use them honestly and as appropriate to the story you wish to tell (or the point you wish to illuminate) or you dont.
Oscar - good for you to be interested in this subject, and bold enough to post. But I have to say (from experience) it's not all about hides and open spaces with a label 'wild' attached. The drama of nature is everywhere, in the corners of your windows, on the chimney of your house, and in the streets that surround you. There are many photographers active on this site whose excellent images are testament to that fact.
An interesting array of views held on this subject - some quite bewildering statements too!
Anyway, for me, I've become more interested in the question "What can nature photography achieve?". What I mean by this is can nature photography benefit the natural world?
Cheers,
Chris
Kind regards,
Brett
1. A true nature photographer:
a. Someone who understands and knows his subject, and if they don’t, they research it prior to picking up the camera.
b. Puts the subject first.
c. They have the ability, due to countless hours in the field, to recognise when the “jazz” of a subject changes, so that they should back off, at least temporarily.
d. Is fully conversant with their equipment.
e. Have a full understanding of light and it use.
f. Is not blinkered in their approach, be it technique or composition.
2. The photographer of nature:
a. Someone who goes out with no fixed plan in their heads, other than to go to a local hotspot and see what turns up.
b. Is fully oblivious to b, c, d & e above.
c. Relies on their equipment to get their shots.
d. Attends workshops and goes on tours relying on other to create the shots for them.
3. The computer operator:
a. They believe deep down that their computer can correct any image that is thrown at it.
The true “Nature Photographers” are disappearing and will soon be like the dinosaurs, whereas the “Photographers of Nature” and the “Computer Operators” are increasing, if not amalgamating.
As in every aspect of my life I want to move forward and that includes photography, but all too frequently I see here little quality information, and in some cases none, with any of the postings, and only comments like “well done”, “great shot”, from which nothing is learnt by anyone.
There is a wealth of knowledge here on this forum, but it is untapped, as I do think that a freer exchange of information, in particular from the true nature photographers can only be a good thing and will be to the benefit of all, as it will get everyone examining their own work.
But at the end of the day, if what you are doing makes you have then why change ??
Ken
To me, nature photography is simply the photography of wild plants or animals.
I also believe that it has a different meaning to different people - if it didn't, there would be a lot less creativity around.
I have them all written down in an order...
e.g. "How does Nature Photography benefit you?" ... "How does Nature Photography benefit society?" then... ... you get the gist
but I will post these later so please please answer this one first....
Lots of people answering, lots of people not answering, opinions sought!
T
Nature Photography is my way of maintaining a connection with everything which man does not make. The camera records and tells the story of what I have seen, but really it is just a tool which forces me to get up early and enjoy what is out there whether it's in the back garden or far further away.
To me there are no boundaries as long as the image and the way it is presented are honest and ethical. Creativity can be a part of nature photography but its not vital. Nature sometimes creates the most beautiful images without too much work from the photographer.
I also see nature photography as being a vitally important educator and I love talking to people about the subject. It's disappointing to me when people ask how 'long is your lens' or whether you use 'Canon or Nikon' rather than talking about the image before them, it really isn't important. Do you ask a plumber which type of wrench he uses?
A few of the responses above are baffling. If you perceive a lack of creativity then there's your chance, go for it and create! Why criticise others for persuing their own vision of Nature Photography
That would be the cynical view, and probably closer to the truth than most people would like to admit to myself included. Of course the less cynical view would be a group of persons recording and storing images of the natural environment and nature around them whether for a hobby/ recreation, or for full-time employment/Education.
Phil.
For me, nature photography is (if I am very lucky) the result of many careful hours of planning, watching, waiting and studying.
It has given me a very much greater understanding of many creatures, their habits and habitats.
Having said that though, that may be the answer to one of Tom's later questions, so rather than recreate a sentence already posted, I agree with David Kjears first sentence in his reply.
Boundries - putting the subject first and foremost, at all times.
Cheers
Phil T. is spot on, from my own perspective I'll freely admit to the exploitation.
What do I exploit?
1. My knowledge of wildlife and the natural world, and what you can and cannot do - the 'jazz'
2. My knowledge and ability of photographic principles and practises.
3. My knowledge and ability in post-processing.
4. My clients desire to learn what I can teach them.
Without 1. the rest is useless; 4. is what provides me a living, but without 1. 2. and 3. 4. would not exist.
I employ certain techniques when photographing a few particular subjects that were taught to me by specialist observers of certain species - I was taught because I asked "how can I do this without a true detriment to the subject?" But I put the hard yards in by asking, instead of blundering around trying to work it all out for myself and risking true detriment to the subjects.
I use the word 'true' to differentiate between that and 'perceived' - it's usually people with little or no real knowledge coupled with an overly inflated feeling of self-importance that do all the 'perceiving'!
From an imagery PoV modern techniques in post-processing like exposure blending and focus stacking allow you to show the world what you see as a photographer. With the latter you can create images with depth of field that is truly impossible to achieve by conventional means and thus reveal detail in a subject that not a lot of people see; and with the former you can show the tonality within a scene that only the human eye could see at the time, as no camera has the dynamic range to record it in one 'hit'.
Ridicule of modern imaging techniques is shear stupidity, though ridicule of their improper use is not.
To succeed in this game you need to understand both your subject, your gear, and yourself; your motivation and your desired end product - without that level of understanding you cannot judge your own success.
"Leave only footprints" as the saying goes - if you can do that and come away with images that make you happy then as far as I am concerned you have done everything you need to do. If you feel you need to 'push the envelope' then consult with people who can help you achieve what you want.
The measure of someone who is good at anything is to remember that there's always someone better than you; there are lot's of people better than me, and that makes me happy because it means I have more 'stuff' to learn.
So in answer to your question Tom nature photography is all about acquiring knowledge and keeping conceit and arrogance at arms length.
Why do I do it ?
I have been a naturalist all my life. Since I could walk - through school days- proffessionally during my days in horticulure and conservation- and finally since my retirement.
I started photography as means of recording what I had seen and to aid with identification.
I was then heavily influenced by the old "masters" in bird photography like Yates, Markham, Hosking, Brooke etc , etc and for many years tried to do things the way that they did. It seemed that then the quest to take pictures of a broader range of subjects became more important and the role of photography gpt me to places to see and photograph new species.
I sold quite a lot of stuff but that side never really bothered me.
Then finally with the advent of digital it all became much easier and I must admit that I get as much pleasure out of using techniques and ideas and trying new things photographically as I do from finding the species.
The pictures do of couse come in handy for the lectures I do in the winter months.
I take pictures simply because I enjoy it,
(along with guitar playing ,horticulture, art,steam trains,tropical fish, model making, computers, fishing, eco- surveys etc),
And - as dad would have said-
"Whilst you're doing that you're doing nowt else"
JR
I would say that fieldcraft is still involved at a site like this as, say, when I see a Green Woodpecker feeding on the grass, I know that if it sees me I will not get the shot.
For me, it is not about how many species I have a record of, although that it a nice thing to look at, but it is about getting a better image than you already have; that is what keeps me going. For example, yesterday I got a shot of a Chiffchaff that I doubt I will better (in my opinion) for a while - it just works for me. Yet whenever I see a Chiffchaff, I will not think "Oh, I already have a good shot of one of those so I won't bother." Instead, I would think how I coukd get a different shot to what I got last time.
Another thought that I had is that nature reserves reduce the amount of fieldcraft by placing large wooden hides on their sites, meaning that you can get close to the birds. If I had the opportunity, I would love to be able to use fieldcraft, but I can't due to my own circumstances.
I would say that the categories in Ken Davis' post are broad, and that they are often merged. I would not fit into category 1 as I do not have countless hours to spare in the field to watch my subject. However, I am completely confident with my equipment, I put the subject first, and I feel that I understand light relatively well. However, the only place I can visit is the London Wetland Centre, somewhere which may be considered a local hotspot, but it is the only place I have. I certainly do not rely on my equipment to get my shots, and I do not rely on other to create my shots for me.
For me, nature photography must be of wild subjects, whether they be in nature reserves or not, and so for that reason I very (and I mean very) rarely take captive subjects as I see no challenge to them as they are tame and cannot fly away. The only time in the last two years where I have taken subjects is Red-Breasted Geese at the London Wetland Centre as they were in formation, and it made a very nice composition.
For example, I feel strongly that game park photography is bad and I would ban it if I could as they animals are sometimes kept under inhumaine conditions. Recently, as I'm sure you all now, there was an article published in several national newspapers about an "incredibly brave" man who had ventured up into the mountains of Montana putting himself at "extreme danger" in order to capture shots of big cats performing actions such as swiping at the camera. We have also recently had the Wildlife Photographer of the Year Scandal.
Sorry for the long post, but I felt I had to write it.
Oscar
ps I had something else to say, but forgot it so will post it when I remember
It's boundaries? Increasingly they are getting fewer, but paramount to any nature image should be the care and respect of your subject, be that a worm or a vista
As far as processing images is concerned...it has always happened in one way or another i.e. with filters and other darkroom methods (although a bit harder)...it has just progressed and developed a bit further with the advent of computing...I'm sure all those people that comment that computer processing is bad all drive round in cars as old as their film cameras? Progress is a good thing and enables the creative vision from my perspective (although some do take it too far).
Ian
JR
What is nature photgraphy? It is whatever I decide it to be at the time. I started in wildlife photography at about Oscar's age. Over the years the amount of photography I have done has varied enormously. Nature, however, is a lifelong abiding interest. To me, therefore, the nature is more important than the photography.
Field craft is different now to what it was when those of interested in bird photography had to start by finding a nest, and then slowly moved a hide up to it, but if field craft is different it certainly isn't easier.
One last thing, if nobody is inspiring you to go out and take 'original' pictures, perhaps it is your job to get the camera off the shelf and take something original to inspire others.
David
David
Zoo's,parks,captive has a place in inspiring,engaging the young,and people that may not be able or lucky enough to see what we all see in the field but as far as wildlife photography goes for me it has to be a wild animal in its natural habitat
Saw your reply above yesterday, and I showed it to the warden at Kempton, and he fully understands and suggests that if you wish, he will arrange for entry to the reserve, it’s under lock and key and 3 meter high security fencing, for both yourself and your parents, just name the day and time. He will meet you at the gate.
It was suggested, that Thursday morning would be best, particularly for your mother, ignoring school/college. as there is a large open air morning market at Kempton Race Course on that day, which is less than a mile away as the crow flies.
Kempton reserve is within a mile of the London end of the M3, dad will know where that is, the entrance is on a corner where Nallhead Road and Main Street in Hanworth, Middlesex meet, just adjacent to the Linden Bennett School.
Your parents are right to be cautious, anyone, especially someone your age, should be careful when out on their own with expensive equipment.
I know that you weren’t having a go, in fact when no one contacted me via e-mail I just shrugged my shoulders, no big deal. The fewer who visit the site the better, as it gives me more opportunities. I have now had one e-mail.
Speaking to the warden who is overseeing the building of the station, the future looks very interesting, as he will be using different hides in order to alter the viewpoint. The site in on a hill and he is planning to get moving water on it, nearest water/electricity supply is 250 meters away. Then he let slip, that the design of the pool will allow for wide angle remote control, using wireless, computers or cables. Effectively, a series of free workshops.
Just knowing how to put moving water on the pool, would be a god send, particularly when working in remote places as can be found in Spain.
You don’t even have to put a hide up in your garden, you just have to be observant. I remember when a friend of mine, who lives on the top floor of a three story block of flats. He noticed a flock of tits feeding in the tops of some Yew trees just outside his windows, so he put up some feeders, then he put up a perch, and got Goldcrest, Blue, Great and Long Tailed Tits, on the perch not bad for someone with no garden.
Getting back to the original theme of this thread. I would suggest that the question “What is Nature Photography”, would best be directed at the ordinary man in the street. I think the answer would be surprising, in that most people don’t believe that there is such a thing as a true/honest image anymore, and that is a label which is being applied to all branches of photography, be it air brushing a fashion model or removing a intrusive feature in a wildlife shot, all are manipulations, notice I didn’t mention stacking. Take for example the leaping Dolphin on a beautifully smooth blue sky. The dolphin was taken in a Sea World park, background taken out, and then put on a shot of the sea. No wonder most people don’t trust an image anymore, that is unless they took it themselves.
So what is Nature Photography, well it can be whatever you want it to be, no one truly trusts imagery anymore.
Derek
There are thousands of species in the UK almost totally ignored, for whatever reason. Come, on Guys and Gals, get out there and capture something never before seen on UKNP. You may not get many comments but at least you will have escaped the clutches of predictablity
and the safety of the popular subjects.
PS my cup runneth over, the Sigma SD 1 has been announced
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10092129sigmasd1.asp
Bob.
You don't need it much these days. - follow the crowds , check birdline on the net,or book a guided tour or workshop. I still fail to understand why so many people are willing to pay vast sums of money ( At least in my terms) to photograph "provided " subjects. OK - I bait for birds in my garden - but at least I have done the work myself. We all know about the recognisable sites, (as Mr Packam made horribly obvious) Surely most of the satisfaction of nature photography must come from finding the subject and then the subsequant preparation, etc,etc. A good example to me is why some " nature photographers" need to pay a workshop leader or guide to photograph seals at Donna Nook . Is it that difficult to get in the queue.?
The reason is quite simple - certain subjects get the "awe" factor, -Seals, Eagles, Bears , Otters etc , (even Kingfishers ! ) etc. If some photographers are so keen to get that "awe" response and are prepared to pay for it. - then fine. Put a picture on the forum of a slug at look at the difference in interest.
It seems to me that the deciding factor for many is a desired response to a picture.
I find that a shame.
JohnR
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=53246&CGISESSID=ac2320e16f3c4cef580276708e1a6724&u=23360 over 10 comments not counting mine. Very encouraging.
'It seems to me that the deciding factor for many is a desired response to a picture.
I find that a shame.'
I agree entirely, sir.
Let me start from a different angle and say what I think it's not - to my mind it's not the same as 'wildlife photography', even when the subjects concerned are birds and other animals/creatures (as opposed to trees, plants, landscapes, etc).
As I've said on the home page on my recently re-vamped website and which was written long before this thread was first posted -
"In my opinion, true 'Wildlife Photography' - as opposed to the more broadly defined term 'Nature Photography' - is all about capturing images of creatures that are wild and free and with the essential elements of good fieldcraft skills, some knowledge of the subject's behaviour/habitat and infinite patience usually playing a major part. I should add that for me the 'golden rule' of Wildlife Photography is that the interests and wellbeing of the subject MUST always come first"
But 'wildlife photography' is undoubtedly part of 'nature photography', the latter and broader term including (in my view) the photography of all and any living organism - be it a bird, animal, insect, tree, flower, lichen, fungi, landscape, etc or indeed any such subject (except man) and whether dead or alive, captive or not or even showing the influence of man so long as the primary subject/element of the photograph is borne out of nature.
For instance, to my mind a landscape photograph of, say, Swaledale falls within the category of 'nature photography' even though it may show the influence of man in the form of its cultivated hay fields, dry stone walls, field barns, etc because the primary element is the valley itself and the surrounding hills - which were borne out of nature. As does a photo of a flower, even if 'contained' within a garden.
Coming back to the 'wildlife' part of 'nature photography', In a sense my views are broadly in line with some of the things said by Ken Davis, Craig Jones, John Robinson and David Sewell. For me the primary interest is nature itself and the subjects I try to photograph, with the photography being of only secondary importance. Personally I have no interest in photographing captive subjects, believing that fieldcraft coupled with a knowledge of one's intended subject is paramount. Guided 'wildlife' holidays/trips have no appeal to me and I've never even been to Gigrin, Donna Nook or any of the Deer parks as I prefer to find wildlife for myself and often in remoter places.
If asked to try to quantify the elements making up my own style of 'wildlife photography' I'd guesstimate that it's about 60% fieldcraft/subject knowledge, 30% technical camera skills and only 10% computer/processing skills.
But, in conclusion, the golden rule certainly has to be to give the subject's wellbeing priority over everything else.
Just my own thought on this matter
Jeff