[Pathfinder]

I have just read an article on the Audubon Magazine website about phoney wildlife photography and game farms.It is called Picture perfect by Ted Williams. It makes pretty unpleasant reading and accurately shows what is wrong with a lot of today's "wildlife" photography. What I cannot figure out is how these people figure photographing a captive animal that has been trained to perform is "wildlife" photography. Its not,its fraud! Now I have taken photos at wildlife sanctuary's but I wouldn't call it wildlife photography and I certainly wouldn't pass it off as such.
I personal believe that all serious wildlife photographers should sign up to the International league of Conservation Photographers ethics and code of practice. This is the way it should be done and I do my best to follow their lead. They also understand the need for captive shots but are very specific about the circumstances. The people that also use our photographs, magazines, calendars, publishing advertising etc. should also sign up to start to bring some honesty back to wildlife photography.
The article is on WWW.Audubonmagazine.org
Pathfinder and wildlife photographer

[vichillman]

In many ways I have to agree with you, I myself have taken photos in a sanctuary however when I do this, it is for a reason and I always specify whether an animal is captive or wild and in my experience the majority of people are fine with this as long as they are aware. Also, any captive animal that I may photograph has a story behind it and I always tell that story and they are never trained animals they are just going about what they do. At the same time the majority of my work is out in the wild. I certainly don't agree with people taking photos in the captive/trained setting and trying to pass it off as wild and unfortunately this practice seems to be increasing and does not help with reputations of other photographers.
It is surprisingly hard to get a very good shot in a captive environment, but you can get some beautiful shots and it is a great way to get to know your camera and get used to using it, but it should be declared. Like you said, there is sometimes a need for use photographs taken in a captive situation. The most important thing is to be honest about your work.

[Hawk_Eye]

I like wildlife sanctuary's and parks (if they're well run ones) for getting portraits of animals. Sometimes you can get good shots of the whole animal especially if it's a falconry centre - displays - but most of the time you have to limit the types of shots you take because there's a lot of unnatural stuff in the area which detracts from the subject. However I always state to whom ever I'm showing the images that they were taken at a centre.
I think part of the problem is this need for instant results. Whether it's just me but the world in general or at least our part of it seems to have an attitude of "it must be done yesterday". In terms of photography and wildlife photography in general some seem to have the attitude "why spend hours in the field tracking an animal when I can pop round to Bob's farm and have him set up the perfect shot for me". Personally I don't actively seek out animals to photograph; firstly while I am fairly patient I have to be doing something and sitting in a hide for more than a couple of hours would send me doo-lally [&:][:D] and secondly I'm predominantly a landscape guy and prefer to not an area and just go out. Anyway I'm off on a tangent. I fully agree with both of you that photographers should be honest about their photographs. If the photograph is visually stunning I don't think it cheapens it by saying this was taken using a captive/trained animal.

[drawntonature]

I cant see why all nature photography must be 'authentic'. Surely the welfare of the subject is the most important issue. Disturbing a wild animal could potentially be more harmful than using a well cared for captive one. I would argue that using captive animals might relieve some of the pressure on rare and endangered wildlife.
Im interested in the ethics of nature photography because I am a wildlife illustrator. Many of my pictures are sourced from zoos, orphanages, rescue centres and their like. I recreate, recompose and change anything that improves the work. I dont think twice about placing my subjects in a better setting. Now I cant think that many people would be disturbed by my approach. Im only creating an idealized image of the way the natural world could or should be.
Now apply this approach to photography and its hard to see why photographers should work to a different set of rules. Instinctively we link photography to documentary but those days are over, photoshop has seen to that. Why is it wrong to manipulate images to create 'wildness'? How many people would object if the photographer tidied up his best shot? What if removing a leaf obsructing an otherwise perfect portrait made the shot amazing, is it really wrong to edit it out? Surely its still true to life.
Now reverse the idea and ADD the foliage to your image to make that amazing shot, is that any different? Its a tough one, at what point does manipulation turn photography into fakery? And couldnt we just as easily call fakery, art?

www.kjhayler.co.uk

[Hawk_Eye]

drawntonature

The point being put forward is that if you're going to use a captive animal, that's fine. What isn't fine is then passing that image off as a being of a wild creature. What many are saying is that if you use a captive animal you should say so. As for image manipulation many people accept the odd touch up here and there, again it should be declared, but if someone were to do what you do (I assume you don't claim that your images are of a wild animal if you've used a shot of a zoo animal) and creates an entire image from bits and pieces of others, say a picture of a lynx in a zoo imposed over a background of the scottish wilderness, and then passing this off as an authentic picture of a "wild" lynx in the Scottish countryside this is wrong.

With regard to disturbing truely wild animal. Many wildife photograhpers follow an ethical code which basically states don't get too close, don't interfere with the animals etc etc, common sense stuff really. Most animals aren't bothered by wildlife photographers and camera crews. As long as they aren't feeling threatened they go about their normal business.

[vichillman]

i think the big issue is being honest plain and simple, whether you use captive or wild animals, just be honest about the animal, for example if it has been taken in a captive environment because it has been rescued, say so in my experience people love a story behind an image and it helps to connect with people.

As for the use of photoshop, I have nothing against it per say, but I think there has to be a limit, the skill in photogrpahy for me is being able to capture a good image straight off (be it captive or wild) and maybe having to do a little touching up, but I have seen images that have been made "perfect" in photoshop, nature is not perfect. There is no doubt there is skill required to use photoshop properly but it should be kept separate from not photoshopped images.

Ok, rant over, get out there and enjoy wildlife in zoos, parks, here and abroad!

[J. R. Weems]

ORIGINAL: vichillman

i think the big issue is being honest plain and simple, whether you use captive or wild animals, just be honest about the animal, for example if it has been taken in a captive environment because it has been rescued, say so in my experience people love a story behind an image and it helps to connect with people.

As for the use of photoshop, I have nothing against it per say, but I think there has to be a limit, the skill in photogrpahy for me is being able to capture a good image straight off (be it captive or wild) and maybe having to do a little touching up, but I have seen images that have been made "perfect" in photoshop, nature is not perfect. There is no doubt there is skill required to use photoshop properly but it should be kept separate from not photoshopped images.

Ok, rant over, get out there and enjoy wildlife in zoos, parks, here and abroad!

I must pretty much agree. I think HONESTY, is the point trying to be made here. Fair enough. I do a LOT of wildlife photography, and considering my limited equiptment, don't do too bad. Lets also be honest here, in the fact, not everyone can afford a $10,000.00 lens, nor, is everyone able to get around well enough to hike 50 miles out in the woods. I returned to photography 4 years ago and things sure have changed in 35 years. [;)] - Another thing, some of those 'GAME FARM; critters are just as wild as their cousins outside the fence. Make no mistake about it. I have never tried to pass of my photography for anything but what it is, but know for a fact that others have. Must we have an axe to grind with them? Well I really don't, but I am old, and just really could care less. I have more important things to be concerned about. :) Now here is one I took a couple years ago when I stumbled upon a Bison farm while camping. This ole boy was looking for a fight, and he shows it-- I took this because I loved the light, and I just like such things. If anyone thinks he is anywhere close to tame, better think again. :)
[img]http://www.fototime.com/920EE3544A10451/standard.jpg[/img]

[Pathfinder]

Thank you all for reading my post and the replies. I hope you have all read Ted Williams article. I would like to comment on some of the responses.
Drawntonature
If you can’t see why nature photography should be authentic, then your missing the point entirely. Also by your own words you are also participating in this fraud. Do you not see the irony of your statement that you are a “wildlife” illustrator but your subjects are captive?Your comment that you “recreate and recompose and change anything that improves the work” and you “do not think twice about placing your subjects in a better setting” proves what I have been talking about. You also say you don’t think people will be disturbed by your approach. Well one person is,me, and I will tell you why. I have a book called Dynamic Wildlife Photography, it was very informative and had lots of good advice and some stunning photos. One shot of a wolf on page 28 took my breath away. Now this image is captioned as “captive,Bridger Mountains,Montana". I,rather naively it turns out, believed this was taken in a wildlife sanctuary. I did internet search for an animal sanctuary in that area as I would like to take some of my own shots,with a negative result. Then I read Teds article and realised I’d been had. It was a game farm animal. I now feel cheated and the information in the book is now devalued. You say you are creating and idealised image of how the natural world could or should be. Your not,nature is not perfect and you are creating a false image of the wild. As Ted Williams says in his article,if it looks to good to be true, it probably is.
You don’t say it but I am going to assume you are an artist. You are forgetting a number of fundamental differences between photography and art. Photography is a subtractive art form,we have to decide what we are going to leave out. Art is additive,the sky is boring, add a few clouds, looks unbalanced add a tree. Its what artists do to create a picture to match what they see with their artists eye. I know of a great wildlife artist who’s amazing paintings start from a photograph and the resulting image is very different from the photo. Just look at the portraits of the royal family,did Henry VIII really look like that? Also,a photograph comes out of a camera,not a computer. An image cut and pasted together in photoshop is not a photograph.
Now before anybody thinks I am a total puritan,I manipulate my shots to a certain degree,every photographer down the ages does and has. Even the great Ansell Adams used a bit of darkroom magic. Photography is a two stage process, always has and always will be. I crop, boast saturation correct exposure etc. But its to enhance the basic image not to create something else.
Vichillman and Hawkeye are also right about animal sanctuaries,nothing wrong with good ones and a great place to practice and I have done so on numerous occasions. The ICLP code of practice also recognizes their use. But the images should be clearly declared as captive animals. You appear to be using captive images then passing them off as wildlife. I would suggest a look in the dictionary to see what "wild" means.
I also disagree with your comment about disturbing nature. I learned to stalk to cut down on any disturbance I caused. I also follow the ILCP code of ethics and conduct, most responsible wildlife photographers do. As Hawkeye says animals are tolerant to people as long as they don’t feel threatened, if they do they run away.
To J R Weems,
There is a difference between captive animals and tame, you actually mention this yourself. I have a beef with these people because they are not being honest and by their fakery is devaluing the work of good and genuine wildlife photographers.
Hawkeye also makes a good point about patience,to be a wildlife photographer you need lots and lots of it as well as a large number of other skills. If you haven’t got this basic quality then real wildlife photography is not for you, head to a game farm but don’t try and tell me you are a wildlife photographer.

[J. R. Weems]

Some REAL interesting points raised here. I just returned from a 3400 mile camping trip and here is just one of many photos I was lucky enough to get. The fruit you see, is called 'black cherries' at the local level. They had just come to ripe a few days before I entered the area. Bears were everywhere enjoying them. Mostly feeding in the trees. This photo was taken from about 15 feet at most. The morning light helped me some. Later shots taken midday were not as much to my liking. This is wildlife as about as good as I can get around here. :)

[img]http://www.fototime.com/03E902E71E8AB98/standard.jpg[/img]

[Hawk_Eye]

Great photo J. R. Weems. I always think the faces of bears show a lot of character.