In trying to find the reason why I don't post often in fauna and avian categories, I realized that if there were a subcategory for captive, baited and majestic captive animals, more of us would be able to post and therefore learn from those more experienced in photographing birds/animals in the wild. I, for one, do not have the means to travel widely and I'm limited to zoos, nature parks, avian shows. Of course there are a few exceptions that wander into my backyard and those could be posted in the regular category. Another advantage would be to support those who are rehabilitating these animals and training photographers how to take great zoo shots, which is not always as easy and people think.
Wondering what the general response might be.
Disclosure: Image taken at Bronx Zoo.
Posted by Keith Bauer on October 3, 2011 at 8:48 AM
Hi Patricia: An excerpt from the posting guidelines in Avian: "Avian Gallery - All images with birds as the main subject. Images of captive birds, or birds baited with seed, other non-live bait or recordings must be disclosed as such". You can post images of captive birds, you simply need to disclose that fact when posting your images. I'm not sure I see a need for a sub-category.
Keith: I have always disclosed where the image was taken and under what circumstances but still have this underlying feeling that it is summarily dismissed as unchallenging or unworthy since it was not a free roaming bird or animal... therefore the need for a sub-cateogy so it will receive comments. I realize this is a nature site and the ultimate challenge to the capture the image in a "natural" setting. Although generally that is not possible for me I still feel the need to learn which does not happen without comments.
"...still have this underlying feeling that it is summarily dismissed as unchallenging or unworthy since it was not a free roaming bird or animal... therefore the need for a sub-cateogy so it will receive comments."
This is indeed unfortunate, Patricia. In my opinion, a photograph of a bird or animal in a captive setting that looks 'natural' is just as viable as one of a free-roaming bird or critter. I am not an avian or wildlife photographer, but if I wanted to pursue the art of wildlife photography, making images of captives would indeed be a great way to learn.
Part of the learning experience is to post images for critique and receive comments. If there is a bias against such images being posted in the existing avian and wildlife galleries then it seems to me that folks need to be more accepting and help those like yourself.
In terms of adding a special gallery for images of captives, I believe there would not be much traffic, and the regulars in the avian and wildlife galleries would be less likely to view and comment on images. My point is that if a new gallery were established, the bias, if it exists, would only be exacerbated.
Honestly, I do not have a solution, but I do have two suggestions. First, and foremost, folks should consider commenting on images, captive or not. Second, those members who do post images of captives should consider asking potential commenters to overlook the fact that the image is of a captive, and evaluate the image on its own merits.
Second, those members who do post images of captives should consider asking potential commenters to overlook the fact that the image is of a captive, and evaluate the image on its own merits.
is problematic, because in both wildlife and avian part of the merits of an image, at least at NPN, from everything I've seen and read since I've been here, is the actual finding of the bird or animal (birding and whatever that's called for wildlife) and the successful photographing of it after finding it. I really think that one issue is worthy of a lot of discussion.
"...because in both wildlife and avian part of the merits of an image, at least at NPN, from everything I've seen and read since I've been here, is the actual finding of the bird or animal..."
In my very humble opinion, this should not be the case. We are supposed to be writing critiques of the photograph based upon the merits of the image alone, not the effort it took make the photograph. When I look at a photograph, I may be interested in the location, but I really don't pay any attention to what the photographer did to get the image: The image is what matters.
If someone writes a description of their efforts, I may read it for the entertainment and location value, but it has no bearing on my objective/subjective opinion of the associated photograph.
--P
Posted by David Bostedo on October 3, 2011 at 1:59 PM
"...because in both wildlife and avian part of the merits of an image, at least at NPN, from everything I've seen and read since I've been here, is the actual finding of the bird or animal..."
In my very humble opinion, this should not be the case.
Preston - This is opening to door to a MUCH larger debate, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I'm not trying to make it an absolute, as it's not the case for everyone. But for many people, part of the merit of the image is whether or not it's actually natural.
Note I'm not arguing that how hard you worked matters (although occasionally that can add to the impact of an image as well). Someone who steps out their back door and happens to snap a great shot of a bear didn't work as hard as someone who spends some time at a zoo making a natural looking photo. However, one of those is a capture of an animal making its own choices, and the other is of a captive. And there is merit to it being of an animal in the wild.
I'm not saying that captive pictures are worthless or anything of the sort. Captive animal photos can still be well done and capture something interesting or something about the nature of the animal. I'm just saying there is some amount of merit in an animal photo NOT being of a captive animal. How much merit is left to the viewers, but I don't have a problem with them having that choice. I don't think we should have to look at captive shots the same as wild shots.
Posted by John Tobias on October 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM
This can be a very explosive subject, because it does involve the question of zoos or no zoos. I hope that part will be left out of this NPN discussion. To be up front, I retired from the zoo world 2.5 years ago after 32+years working in zoos. I have been a zoo keeper, zoo curator, acting director and for the last 17 years a zoo director. So, I am biased towards zoo. My interest in animal photography grew from my interest I developed in taking animal photos in zoos. I also teach zoo animal photography. I believe NPN does offer a place as it is now for those who take photographs of animals under managed conditions to display their images. My first EP was of a Amur leopard in a zoo. I believe this image which was not technically perfect, was selected based on the content of the photo, not if it was a wild animal or not. I actually doubt if there are many in any photos of a wild Amur leopard. There are many challenges to making good photos of animals in zoos or wildlife parks, even those who have multi acre exhibits. They are for the most part different challenges faced by photographers when after free roaming creatues. There are many excellant images produced by those who photograph captive animals as well as free roaming. I had worked with elk in 3 different zoos, but was thrilled to be able to photograph wild elk in RMNP last year. Something I could not do in Illinois. So, I guess my point is judge the photos based on their image content and quality as long as it is disclosed if the subject is in a controlled environment, or attracted into range with food, calls or other means. Enjoy your photography no matter where you are. By the way, I have had more close encounters with zoo animals than ever with wild ones.
"But for many people, part of the merit of the image is whether or not it's actually natural."
I agree with this, David. What I am saying is that when somone writes a critique, the critique should be based upon the photograph. To my mind, whether the animal is captive or not should not be considered in this context.
In my own case, for example, I could shoot a landscape from the bed of my pickup and repeat the same image after a 10 mile hike, but one of the images is not better than the other because one of them required more effort. I will admit that the photograph made after the 10 mile hike would probably be more satisfying at a personal level than the one shot from the bed of my truck, but from a strictly photographic point of view, the images are identical. I think the same would be true for an avian or wildlife photographer.
--P
Posted by Richard Ditch on October 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM
Many people and points to respond to, so I'll just try to make a list:
1. I see many captive birds posted in the Avian Gallery which is fine as long as they are labeled as such. Same applies to baited birds. I don't see a need for a separate gallery for captive subjects and I suspect as already mentioned images in a new gallery would get even fewer comments.
2. I have a strong preference for natural images and think nature subjects are best photographed in natural places.
3. For me, a big part of photography is finding the subjects where they chose to be, not where someone has arranged them to be.
4. Every viewer is free to comment on any image and is also free to not comment. I don't expect anyone to comment on my image posts if they have other preferences in what or where they shoot.
5. An experienced photographer who knows the subject can often tell immediately if the shot was taken in the wild or not regardless of how the image is labeled.
6. If I choose to comment on a baited or captive subject then I feel I have every right to comment about that aspect of the image as well. For instance I might point out that the tree/bush/whatever in the image isn't found in the normal range of the subject. But I'm more likely to just skip the image entirely because I find it less interesting or because I have little experience with similar situations and therefore little to offer in comment.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 3, 2011 at 4:10 PM
Thanks for the additional clarification Preston. I wasn't thinking purely in terms of the critique like that. (I was thinking more along the lines of judging images against each other, or people's personal preferences.) You're right, of course, that everything about nature photography can still be properly critiqued in an image of a captive animal.
I appeciate each viewpoint, but agree with Preston that the resulting image should be critiqued on its merits. In the judging world a clean, crisp bird in flight would trump a bird on a stick because of the difficulty in capturing the subject. I envy those who have the time, desire and means to travel extensively in search of their prey and would enjoy that myself. Just want a few comments on the image so that I can understand how others view it.
Thanks for all your comments.
Posted by Richard Ditch on October 3, 2011 at 4:39 PM
You're right, of course, that everything about nature photography can still be properly critiqued in an image of a captive animal.
Not so. What about the field craft of getting close to the subject, not having the subject run away because you've spooked it, figuring out where you need to be to get good shots of ducks and harriers in flight, getting natural behavior images, relating the subject to the environment it has evolved to function in, etc.
I agree with most of the topics as discussed, I myself believe a photo is a photo as long as you disclose how it was obtained as long as it was not illegal or imoral and should be critiqued on its own merits...which leaves me confused?
After I posted a photo "Carp Frenzy" a few months ago and stating how I obtained the photo, I received a comment that they were baited (fed) to get the frenzy behavior. The fish were born and raised in these lakes for years and their main food source are from visitors. I posted that they were fed.
I am not trying to keep stir up this topic, I love this forum and have learned alot from it. The post is listed as it was posted, below;
Have to "play the cop" a little here - although I'm pretty certain you had no knowledge of this, this image does step over the image posting guidelines for the Wildlife Gallery (viewable here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/postguide-2.html), specifically the guideline which states " Photos of baited wildlife are prohibited" (I interpret that these guys being fed as baiting).
Because I received this post, I am confused..so is setting up a bird feeder also baiting? A photographer taking photos of deer entering a farmers field of corn field in the fall when corn is present not like baiting? We can photograph animals in a zoo which are restricted! We can go on about this...
I have nothing against what I wrote, I have and will continue to photograph in these areas as I have already done.
But, I am held back now from posting some images because I feel they may violate the gallery requirements because of this last insert from the guidelines of this forum
Do not entice a wild animal with food (baiting) in order to get the photo. Allow the animal to be wild, and to move about on its own accord. Note - photos of live-baited birds are prohibited in the NPN Avian Gallery. Photos of baited wildlife are prohibited in the NPN Wildlife Gallery.
Am I missing something, if so help me out? Again I love this forum, just even more confused now after reading the topic?
Posted by Mia McPherson on October 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM
Patricia,
Having a sub-gallery for captive or baited animals would likely do the opposite of what you are hoping for by taking it out of the main critique gallery for avian or wildlife the images would probably get even less views and fewer comments. I admit I would be far less likely to go to a sub-gallery to view those images.
I think that captive birds and animals would get far more exposure in the main galleries of Wildlife and Avian than they would in a seperate gallery. Perhaps stating in your original post that the bird or animal was captive but that you would like comments and advice on the technical aspects of the shot might generate more comments & critiques.
I have a strong preference towards photographing birds and animals in the wild, in their natural habitats doing what they want to do when they want to do it. I also tremendously enjoy being out in the wild, soaking it all up, learning more about my subjects and their behaviors and habitat. It does take huge amounts of time, patience, effort and determination but that also gives me a huge sense of satisfaction when I get the images I am after. I don't get that feeling in a zoo.
You don't have to travel far from home to get fine images of birds and animals though it might seem that way with all the exotic (and expensive) workshops that are offered.
Local city and county parks are great places to obtain photos of birds and animals; even with shorter focal lengths, because the birds and animals are used to interacting with humans. Many cities now have "greenways" with walking/jogging trails, those are another locations that are great for bird & wildlife photography. Here in SLC there is an area with all kinds of office buildings and small industries near the airport that have tree lined streets and people find all kinds of wonderful birds in that busy area to photograph. Additionally when you photograph close to home you can find the time to go there and practice everyday of you want to and practice is incredibly important to improve your photographic skills with birds and wildlife.
Posted by Peter Conway on October 4, 2011 at 9:33 AM
I have to agree with Mia. A sub category would likely lead to fewer comments. I know I would be much less inclined to visit such a gallery. I have no objection to photos of captive animals, I just don't find them as interesting and as Richard said it relates to field craft. For me wildlife photography is not only about the photo itself, it is also about being able to get into position to obtain the photograph.
In some ways it is a substitute for hunting, and although it is done, I could never understand the the desire to hunt on game reserves. Similar deal....
Posted by John Tobias on October 4, 2011 at 4:26 PM
This has certainly been a interesting subject. I think a good example of judging by the quality of the image is found in the short film of the eagle owl landing, which has been posted here and several other places. I think all who view it are facinated by the eagle owls flight and the image of its talons spreading out to seize the perch. But, it appears to me this is a captive bird and has been trained. If you look you can see what I believe are anklets on each leg, these are what the jessies are attached to. To me it makes no difference it is an amazing short film/video and from the comments it has been judged on the merit of the image, not the question of captive or wild animal.
Discussion
16 repliesWondering what the general response might be.
Disclosure: Image taken at Bronx Zoo.
This is indeed unfortunate, Patricia. In my opinion, a photograph of a bird or animal in a captive setting that looks 'natural' is just as viable as one of a free-roaming bird or critter. I am not an avian or wildlife photographer, but if I wanted to pursue the art of wildlife photography, making images of captives would indeed be a great way to learn.
Part of the learning experience is to post images for critique and receive comments. If there is a bias against such images being posted in the existing avian and wildlife galleries then it seems to me that folks need to be more accepting and help those like yourself.
In terms of adding a special gallery for images of captives, I believe there would not be much traffic, and the regulars in the avian and wildlife galleries would be less likely to view and comment on images. My point is that if a new gallery were established, the bias, if it exists, would only be exacerbated.
Honestly, I do not have a solution, but I do have two suggestions. First, and foremost, folks should consider commenting on images, captive or not. Second, those members who do post images of captives should consider asking potential commenters to overlook the fact that the image is of a captive, and evaluate the image on its own merits.
--P
But this:
is problematic, because in both wildlife and avian part of the merits of an image, at least at NPN, from everything I've seen and read since I've been here, is the actual finding of the bird or animal (birding and whatever that's called for wildlife) and the successful photographing of it after finding it. I really think that one issue is worthy of a lot of discussion.
In my very humble opinion, this should not be the case. We are supposed to be writing critiques of the photograph based upon the merits of the image alone, not the effort it took make the photograph. When I look at a photograph, I may be interested in the location, but I really don't pay any attention to what the photographer did to get the image: The image is what matters.
If someone writes a description of their efforts, I may read it for the entertainment and location value, but it has no bearing on my objective/subjective opinion of the associated photograph.
--P
Preston - This is opening to door to a MUCH larger debate, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I'm not trying to make it an absolute, as it's not the case for everyone. But for many people, part of the merit of the image is whether or not it's actually natural.
Note I'm not arguing that how hard you worked matters (although occasionally that can add to the impact of an image as well). Someone who steps out their back door and happens to snap a great shot of a bear didn't work as hard as someone who spends some time at a zoo making a natural looking photo. However, one of those is a capture of an animal making its own choices, and the other is of a captive. And there is merit to it being of an animal in the wild.
I'm not saying that captive pictures are worthless or anything of the sort. Captive animal photos can still be well done and capture something interesting or something about the nature of the animal. I'm just saying there is some amount of merit in an animal photo NOT being of a captive animal. How much merit is left to the viewers, but I don't have a problem with them having that choice. I don't think we should have to look at captive shots the same as wild shots.
I agree with this, David. What I am saying is that when somone writes a critique, the critique should be based upon the photograph. To my mind, whether the animal is captive or not should not be considered in this context.
In my own case, for example, I could shoot a landscape from the bed of my pickup and repeat the same image after a 10 mile hike, but one of the images is not better than the other because one of them required more effort. I will admit that the photograph made after the 10 mile hike would probably be more satisfying at a personal level than the one shot from the bed of my truck, but from a strictly photographic point of view, the images are identical. I think the same would be true for an avian or wildlife photographer.
--P
1. I see many captive birds posted in the Avian Gallery which is fine as long as they are labeled as such. Same applies to baited birds. I don't see a need for a separate gallery for captive subjects and I suspect as already mentioned images in a new gallery would get even fewer comments.
2. I have a strong preference for natural images and think nature subjects are best photographed in natural places.
3. For me, a big part of photography is finding the subjects where they chose to be, not where someone has arranged them to be.
4. Every viewer is free to comment on any image and is also free to not comment. I don't expect anyone to comment on my image posts if they have other preferences in what or where they shoot.
5. An experienced photographer who knows the subject can often tell immediately if the shot was taken in the wild or not regardless of how the image is labeled.
6. If I choose to comment on a baited or captive subject then I feel I have every right to comment about that aspect of the image as well. For instance I might point out that the tree/bush/whatever in the image isn't found in the normal range of the subject. But I'm more likely to just skip the image entirely because I find it less interesting or because I have little experience with similar situations and therefore little to offer in comment.
Thanks for all your comments.
Not so. What about the field craft of getting close to the subject, not having the subject run away because you've spooked it, figuring out where you need to be to get good shots of ducks and harriers in flight, getting natural behavior images, relating the subject to the environment it has evolved to function in, etc.
After I posted a photo "Carp Frenzy" a few months ago and stating how I obtained the photo, I received a comment that they were baited (fed) to get the frenzy behavior. The fish were born and raised in these lakes for years and their main food source are from visitors. I posted that they were fed.
I am not trying to keep stir up this topic, I love this forum and have learned alot from it. The post is listed as it was posted, below;
Have to "play the cop" a little here - although I'm pretty certain you had no knowledge of this, this image does step over the image posting guidelines for the Wildlife Gallery (viewable here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/postguide-2.html), specifically the guideline which states " Photos of baited wildlife are prohibited" (I interpret that these guys being fed as baiting).
Because I received this post, I am confused..so is setting up a bird feeder also baiting? A photographer taking photos of deer entering a farmers field of corn field in the fall when corn is present not like baiting? We can photograph animals in a zoo which are restricted! We can go on about this...
I have nothing against what I wrote, I have and will continue to photograph in these areas as I have already done.
But, I am held back now from posting some images because I feel they may violate the gallery requirements because of this last insert from the guidelines of this forum
Do not entice a wild animal with food (baiting) in order to get the photo. Allow the animal to be wild, and to move about on its own accord. Note - photos of live-baited birds are prohibited in the NPN Avian Gallery. Photos of baited wildlife are prohibited in the NPN Wildlife Gallery.
Am I missing something, if so help me out? Again I love this forum, just even more confused now after reading the topic?
Having a sub-gallery for captive or baited animals would likely do the opposite of what you are hoping for by taking it out of the main critique gallery for avian or wildlife the images would probably get even less views and fewer comments. I admit I would be far less likely to go to a sub-gallery to view those images.
I think that captive birds and animals would get far more exposure in the main galleries of Wildlife and Avian than they would in a seperate gallery. Perhaps stating in your original post that the bird or animal was captive but that you would like comments and advice on the technical aspects of the shot might generate more comments & critiques.
I have a strong preference towards photographing birds and animals in the wild, in their natural habitats doing what they want to do when they want to do it. I also tremendously enjoy being out in the wild, soaking it all up, learning more about my subjects and their behaviors and habitat. It does take huge amounts of time, patience, effort and determination but that also gives me a huge sense of satisfaction when I get the images I am after. I don't get that feeling in a zoo.
You don't have to travel far from home to get fine images of birds and animals though it might seem that way with all the exotic (and expensive) workshops that are offered.
Local city and county parks are great places to obtain photos of birds and animals; even with shorter focal lengths, because the birds and animals are used to interacting with humans. Many cities now have "greenways" with walking/jogging trails, those are another locations that are great for bird & wildlife photography. Here in SLC there is an area with all kinds of office buildings and small industries near the airport that have tree lined streets and people find all kinds of wonderful birds in that busy area to photograph. Additionally when you photograph close to home you can find the time to go there and practice everyday of you want to and practice is incredibly important to improve your photographic skills with birds and wildlife.
In some ways it is a substitute for hunting, and although it is done, I could never understand the the desire to hunt on game reserves. Similar deal....