Posted by John Robinson on October 1, 2010 at 9:20 PM
The retention of my post regarding my views on nature Photography is serving no useful purpose.
Posted by Andrew Mason on October 2, 2010 at 3:56 AM
John,
Well that was brave! If the hornets have had a quiet night, then they will soon be up and buzzing around again.
That are so many threads that can, and probably will, be picked up in response to your post. To me though, it all comes down to one fundamental issue, honesty. Clearly this is all subject to the overriding principle that the welfare of the environment and subject should be paramount.
Provided there is no attempt to deceive or mislead anyone about the circumstances behind the making of an image, I personally do not care how an image is made. I do, however, believe that a balanced diet is better than one consisting solely of pay for view sites/trips.
Some people have mistakenly believed, that being a little economical with the story behind the making of an image, can be a short cut to building a reputation and receiving financial and other rewards. Instead, it can be a sure fire way of losing a reputation, as the "Fairy Tale Wolf" sadly proved. Taking the credit for the hard work of others, can also be the quickest way to ensure that those who have effectively made your image for you, will not collaborate with you again.
However, in the grand scale of things, I do think that we all need to keep this in perspective. The world is a fairly unfair place, the issue of whether you can or cannot afford to pay to go to the "best" sites (or for the latest equipment) pales into insignificance with some of the issues some of us have to face.
I may be wrong on this, but I would be prepared to make a wager on the fact that no image of a Sea Eagle from Norway will ever win the WPOTY. But that overlooked little brown jobby in your garden......
I'll give my opinion to all questions in order.
Yes - I frequently spend time sitting next to other photographers out in the field and I always marvel at how different the resulting images can be. Even if they do end up occasionally looking similar it makes no odds, there are so many ways to sell your own images and so many different agencies that conflict of interest rarely if ever occur. If they do, so what, suck it up and crack on. A career in wildlife photography is not built on 1-2 decent images, it's built on thousands and losing one image sale to a mate who edged you on one occasion out in the filed should motivate you to work harder and better and return the compliment next time.
Yes - Though I've never been to Norway to work with the sea eagles, Finland for bears/ospreys etc, Sweden for black grouse or whatever and I've never been on a photo-tour (though if I am out with Danny I'm often asked if I'm on a one-to-one!) I see absolutely no problem with it. It not only makes these spectacular species more accessible to more people, it also has multiple other benefits such as education, income generation etc. I doubt people would want to spend £200 per day photographing worms and slugs.
Yes - the revenue generated by these tours probably represents our best way of conserving this species by attaching a commercial value to their lives. Same with tigers, African species etc. Is this ethically right? No, obviously not, animals shouldn't have to justify their existence by putting money in someones' pocket but people starving in an Indian village care more about their children than some stripey cat. Now if that stripey cat provided them with an income then that might be different. Don't know what SD is?
Yes - absolutely, it is the right thing to do.
Yes - absolutely though given the difficulties in getting people to mark images with a (C) I wouldn't hold your breath.
Picking up on Mark's last point about WPOTY. I agree with you Mark though I disagree with the notion. I know that WPOTY want to see different and unique but if the best/most dramatic and spectacular image that they see in any given year is a Sea Eagle then that should win.
Posted by Duncan Armour on October 2, 2010 at 5:02 AM
Actually I think this forum does pretty well on the whole in accommodating all the different types of nature photography.
When I was starting out with a camera, I did do some one day workshops and there is a lot to be said for the chance to practice in those environments. Otherwise, the first chance you get with a truly "wild" subject is likely to be stuffed up in a tangle of fingers, thumbs and dials.
And as someone who as a very busy day job, I can easily resent the time that pros and pensioners have to practice their photography.
Much of my photography is done on holiday these days and certainly I try to get out to parts of the world which may be considered exotic - not to get a shot of a polar bear (although very nice if I do) but to just to be somewhere really wild. And nothing is laid out on a plate. While I can imagine spending some time in a hide on one of these trips, I'm not obsessed enough to do it day after day after day at a set-up.
The problem really is the kind of picture that you get from this kind of set-up. A KF on a stick might be commercial or maybe will make the photographer happy but is unlikely to stand out from the crowd. I feel just the same about the endless red kite photos - given that autofocus is pretty good these days, the novelty of a sharp picture of a kite in flight has long gone.
The photos of my own that I cherish and the ones of others that I admire, are those that are original, regardless of subject. I think this forum has shown itself pretty capable of treating a picture of a spider with the same level of interest as a bear. If you only do "pay per view" photography you probably are limiting your chances of producing original work. But it does depend on where you are on your personal photographic journey.
Posted by Vincent Jones on October 2, 2010 at 5:51 AM
This sort of attitude towards nature photographers & photography in general is outrageous!
Lets remove the Pay & View aspect for a second & lets assume that anyone organising a workshop, provided this where they organised access to nature photographers free of charge, would you still have a problem with this John, the title can then be changed to 'Not Paying to View'. Sometimes is it good practice to remove any financial aspect to re-look at where the problem really is, hidden in the background of thought could be just a dig at someone earning a living from photographers.
Personally I think the issues are these.
Is this about people making money to support the work they put in to organise workshops?
Or is this about photographers gathering in the same spot to get what the others are getting
A simple answer to the above would make an interesting read.
Discussion
4 repliesWell that was brave! If the hornets have had a quiet night, then they will soon be up and buzzing around again.
That are so many threads that can, and probably will, be picked up in response to your post. To me though, it all comes down to one fundamental issue, honesty. Clearly this is all subject to the overriding principle that the welfare of the environment and subject should be paramount.
Provided there is no attempt to deceive or mislead anyone about the circumstances behind the making of an image, I personally do not care how an image is made. I do, however, believe that a balanced diet is better than one consisting solely of pay for view sites/trips.
Some people have mistakenly believed, that being a little economical with the story behind the making of an image, can be a short cut to building a reputation and receiving financial and other rewards. Instead, it can be a sure fire way of losing a reputation, as the "Fairy Tale Wolf" sadly proved. Taking the credit for the hard work of others, can also be the quickest way to ensure that those who have effectively made your image for you, will not collaborate with you again.
However, in the grand scale of things, I do think that we all need to keep this in perspective. The world is a fairly unfair place, the issue of whether you can or cannot afford to pay to go to the "best" sites (or for the latest equipment) pales into insignificance with some of the issues some of us have to face.
I may be wrong on this, but I would be prepared to make a wager on the fact that no image of a Sea Eagle from Norway will ever win the WPOTY. But that overlooked little brown jobby in your garden......
Andrew
I'll give my opinion to all questions in order.
Yes - I frequently spend time sitting next to other photographers out in the field and I always marvel at how different the resulting images can be. Even if they do end up occasionally looking similar it makes no odds, there are so many ways to sell your own images and so many different agencies that conflict of interest rarely if ever occur. If they do, so what, suck it up and crack on. A career in wildlife photography is not built on 1-2 decent images, it's built on thousands and losing one image sale to a mate who edged you on one occasion out in the filed should motivate you to work harder and better and return the compliment next time.
Yes - Though I've never been to Norway to work with the sea eagles, Finland for bears/ospreys etc, Sweden for black grouse or whatever and I've never been on a photo-tour (though if I am out with Danny I'm often asked if I'm on a one-to-one!) I see absolutely no problem with it. It not only makes these spectacular species more accessible to more people, it also has multiple other benefits such as education, income generation etc. I doubt people would want to spend £200 per day photographing worms and slugs.
Yes - the revenue generated by these tours probably represents our best way of conserving this species by attaching a commercial value to their lives. Same with tigers, African species etc. Is this ethically right? No, obviously not, animals shouldn't have to justify their existence by putting money in someones' pocket but people starving in an Indian village care more about their children than some stripey cat. Now if that stripey cat provided them with an income then that might be different. Don't know what SD is?
Yes - absolutely, it is the right thing to do.
Yes - absolutely though given the difficulties in getting people to mark images with a (C) I wouldn't hold your breath.
Picking up on Mark's last point about WPOTY. I agree with you Mark though I disagree with the notion. I know that WPOTY want to see different and unique but if the best/most dramatic and spectacular image that they see in any given year is a Sea Eagle then that should win.
When I was starting out with a camera, I did do some one day workshops and there is a lot to be said for the chance to practice in those environments. Otherwise, the first chance you get with a truly "wild" subject is likely to be stuffed up in a tangle of fingers, thumbs and dials.
And as someone who as a very busy day job, I can easily resent the time that pros and pensioners have to practice their photography.
Much of my photography is done on holiday these days and certainly I try to get out to parts of the world which may be considered exotic - not to get a shot of a polar bear (although very nice if I do) but to just to be somewhere really wild. And nothing is laid out on a plate. While I can imagine spending some time in a hide on one of these trips, I'm not obsessed enough to do it day after day after day at a set-up.
The problem really is the kind of picture that you get from this kind of set-up. A KF on a stick might be commercial or maybe will make the photographer happy but is unlikely to stand out from the crowd. I feel just the same about the endless red kite photos - given that autofocus is pretty good these days, the novelty of a sharp picture of a kite in flight has long gone.
The photos of my own that I cherish and the ones of others that I admire, are those that are original, regardless of subject. I think this forum has shown itself pretty capable of treating a picture of a spider with the same level of interest as a bear. If you only do "pay per view" photography you probably are limiting your chances of producing original work. But it does depend on where you are on your personal photographic journey.
Lets remove the Pay & View aspect for a second & lets assume that anyone organising a workshop, provided this where they organised access to nature photographers free of charge, would you still have a problem with this John, the title can then be changed to 'Not Paying to View'. Sometimes is it good practice to remove any financial aspect to re-look at where the problem really is, hidden in the background of thought could be just a dig at someone earning a living from photographers.
Personally I think the issues are these.
Is this about people making money to support the work they put in to organise workshops?
Or is this about photographers gathering in the same spot to get what the others are getting
A simple answer to the above would make an interesting read.
Vince