[drawntonature]

Surely I'm not alone in tiring of those endless slow motion shots indulged in by most wildlife film makers today. There was a time when slow motion was used to capture what the human eye could not see but now it seems it be ubiquitous.
 It's like saying that this stuff is quite boring really so we'll make it a bit arty farty and pad it out.
It's a complete distortion of reality which hoodwinks the viewer with an impression of the natural world which is totally false.
Anything can be made to look beautiful and graceful shot at a fraction of real time.
It's ponderous, slows the narrative and kills the action. I for one wish this fad would pass.
www.drawntonature.co.uk

[heather]

Hi mmoseeker

I'm not quite sure I follow your question - our features are credited with the author's name. You can also meet the editorial team here: http://www.discoverwildlife.com/editorial-team.

Hope that helps!

Thanks,
Heather

[Glyn Jones]

There was a time when slow motion was used to capture what the human eye could not see but now it seems it be ubiquitous. It's like saying that this stuff is quite boring really so we'll make it a bit arty farty and pad it out.

Here, here. Use slow motion to pick out detail (especially with HD) or to emphasise motion

And while we're (well ok, I'm) on the subject ....

Continuity/inserting library footage - sometimes the 'same' animal is a different size/weight/age/state of cleanliness

CGI - lose it, it adds very little, or at least use it judiciously, a bit like slow motion, where it DOES add value, eg explaining the mechanics of movement

Over egging - eg 'IF this happens, then it could be the end of the animal/plant/world as we know it'

The tease - the hint of some new found earth shattering knowledge, but we're not going to tell you yet because it really isn't all that new and it is not earth shatterng after all, actually it is quite mundane.

Just film the subject as best as you can, tell me all you know about it and it's environment.

EDIT: Sorry forgot to add - 'rant over'

[Hawk_Eye]

Just to add my own thoughts:
Use slow motion to pick out detail or to emphasise motion: agreed especially for bird flight or hunting sequences.

Continuity/inserting library footage - useful especially if the camera operator has missed something but try and get like for like footage.

CGI – only useful in films or entertainment shows, not documentaries

Over egging - eg 'IF this happens, then it could be the end of the animal/plant/world as we know it'. This really gets me. Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth i.e. the facts! Stop treating us, the audience, like children.

The tease - the hint of some new found earth shattering knowledge, but we're not going to tell you yet because it really isn't all that new and it is not earth shattering after all, actually it is quite mundane. Agreed again.

One other thing, less presenter more nature: Sir DA had a presence when doing voiceovers, you didn’t need to see him to feel connected to what was going on. Most producers at present seem to feel it necessary to pad out their programmes with footage of presenters watching the wildlife and giving pieces to camera.

That’s my thoughts from grumpy old man aged 22

[cabbage]

Add another grumpy old man to the list! I'm getting fed up with 'gimmicky' camera trips being used ALL the time. Its like kids with a new toy and hopefuly the fad will pass.
There is a place for slow mo and thermal cameras and all the other new kit - even for CGI in a few very limited cases (eg for Sir Davids series on the beginnings of life) but they need to tone down on their use or we're all just going to be jaded by them.
Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should!

I'd also like to agree with the comment on the intrusion of the presenters into the action. Again its a technique that can be effective when used in the right situation - for example I'd say Gordon Buchanons series about black bears benefitted from him being in much of the footage, because his presence and the way the bears reacted to people was part of the story he was trying to tell - but in general its just not needed.

And a big double agree to the bit about filmmakers treating us like children! Just tell me the facts thanks and I'll draw my own conclusions! We don't need this stuff spoon fed to us surely?

Grr

[MikeTe]

Don't forget these shows are not just for those of us already into wildlife, their for everyone. The techniques mentioned in these posts may not be to everyones liking but may help bring in the people who would not normally watch wildlife programs, who knows some of them may then go on to join us in our love of the natural world and go on to help wildlife themselves. I can't see anything wrong with that.

[cabbage]

Don't forget these shows are not just for those of us already into wildlife, their for everyone. The techniques mentioned in these posts may not be to everyones liking but may help bring in the people who would not normally watch wildlife programs, who knows some of them may then go on to join us in our love of the natural world and go on to help wildlife themselves. I can't see anything wrong with that.

Agreed, there's nothing wrong with using it to draw people in but maybe not to the extent where the show is more about the camera than the wildlife?

I used to think Simon King was a bit guilty of this on Springwatch and Big Cat Diary. He often spent more of the show describing how his camera worked than showing the footage. I'm thinking specifically of the thermal camera he had but I'm sure he did it with slow motion ones too.