Charles Harper
Régisseur
Because the thread and its lexicological discussion has obfuscated the definition of 'wildlife' and the 'wild' in 'wildlife', CJ, and there is no recognized authority present.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
The Art of Wildlife Photography ?? Huh!! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Tony_InDevon
- Start date
Tannin
Common; sedentary.
There is a pair of Masked Lapwings nesting in a supermarket carpark over on the other side of twon. It's a shame I'm tied up this weekend, as otherwise I'd slip over there and take some pictures and put them in the gallery here, just to show how silly the Audubon Society's rule is. There ain't nothing willder than a pair of lapwings: they do exactly as they please and the rest of the world can like it or lump it. And if they feel like nesting in a supermarket car park, then they damn well will nest in a supermarket car park.
I like that spirit.
I like that spirit.
Charles Harper
Régisseur
Of course they are, but you missed the point, Tannin. 'Silly' is in the mind of the beholder.
The only distinction that matters in this context (the term wildlife as used by the magazine) is whether the subject is captive or not. A captive subject may be seen as giving the photographer an unfair advantage. Nevertheless, a captive subject still requires a photographer to deal with issues of exposure and composition etc...
As far as I can tell there is nothing in the word 'wildlife' which necessarily implies the subject need be wild as opposed to captive.
To confound the terms wild and wildlife is obviously an error.
To become obnoxious about this topic as CJ has done is absurd.
Spud
As far as I can tell there is nothing in the word 'wildlife' which necessarily implies the subject need be wild as opposed to captive.
To confound the terms wild and wildlife is obviously an error.
To become obnoxious about this topic as CJ has done is absurd.
Spud
CJW
Hit-and-run WUM
logos said:
1) WILDlife
2) Says who?
3) Please accept my aplogies if you feel my postings have been obnoxious, it was not my intent. However, I have not resorted to making personal remarks or insults (studiously avoided them infact) and I object to the inference that I am obnoxious.
CJW
Hit-and-run WUM
I'm suggesting that they are no longer wild animals, but captive wild animals (whether it's for their own good or not is irrelevant).
I think the use of the word wildlife as a blanket covering all non-domesticated creatures is confusing (even lazy) and should be avoided.
Just an opinion.
I think the use of the word wildlife as a blanket covering all non-domesticated creatures is confusing (even lazy) and should be avoided.
Just an opinion.
walwyn
Well-known member
Charles I think you have the point here, there are contexts where the 'wild' status of the subject is important, in the rarified conditions of photo competitions and such. There are other contexts where the 'wild' status isn't important. The magazine in question is telling people how to go about photographing animals other than their cat, dog, or goat. They chose to put the phrase "Wildlife Special" on the cover rathan "Undomesticated Organisms 50% of which in the Wild Special".
CJW, Tony, and others are applying their arbitary rules for 'ticking' and maintaining that 'wildlife' has to obey those rules, or it isn't wildlife. Which is just as silly as applying the Audubon Society's rules to Tannin's lapwings.
The majority of readers of AP are going to have neither 500mm lens or spotting scopes, nor submit anything to National Geographic. Yet like to take a photograph of an exotic creature they may not even have the finances to visit East Africa game reserves, or travel through the Amazon rainforest. The AP magazine caters for those people.
CJW, Tony, and others are applying their arbitary rules for 'ticking' and maintaining that 'wildlife' has to obey those rules, or it isn't wildlife. Which is just as silly as applying the Audubon Society's rules to Tannin's lapwings.
The majority of readers of AP are going to have neither 500mm lens or spotting scopes, nor submit anything to National Geographic. Yet like to take a photograph of an exotic creature they may not even have the finances to visit East Africa game reserves, or travel through the Amazon rainforest. The AP magazine caters for those people.
CJW
Hit-and-run WUM
walwyn said:
I'm expressing my opinion on the matter (which is what this forum is all about). I am not laying down any rules for others to obey - it's certainly not my place to do that. My own guidelines for 'ticking' are certainly not yours to comment on (were you infact, in a position whereby you actually knew what they were).
Iam not a 'birder' or a 'twicher' therefore do not 'tick' anything.
I am an amateur photographer in the broadest sense, never having made a dime on any one of my photo's.
I do not own and probably will never be able to afford a 500mm lens. Nor do I have the money for trips to Africa or such like.
So AP caters for me!
But that doesn't mean to say I don't wish to know how to take photo's of wild animals.
This country has an abundance of wildlife from squirrels, deer, foxes etc.. It would have been nice to have something on them
I am an amateur photographer in the broadest sense, never having made a dime on any one of my photo's.
I do not own and probably will never be able to afford a 500mm lens. Nor do I have the money for trips to Africa or such like.
So AP caters for me!
But that doesn't mean to say I don't wish to know how to take photo's of wild animals.
This country has an abundance of wildlife from squirrels, deer, foxes etc.. It would have been nice to have something on them
MikeMules
Well-known member
The OED (Shorter OED, 3rd edition, 1992 reprint) definition of wild is:
" I. 1. Of an animal: living in a state of nature; not tame, not domesticated.
2. Of a plant (or flower): growing in a state of nature; not cultivated
So CJW should feel justified by the first part of the definition, but others who are basing their understanding of the word on the latter part of the definition, should feel likewise vindicated.
For myself, I consider wildlife to refer to undomesticated species, or (more rarely) to species that have gone feral ie. pig or horse.
I would consider a headline that promised "wildlife" to be accurate if it included undomesticated species (regardless of their captive status), but a headline promising species "in the wild" to be inaccurate if it contained photos of species from zoos or fauna parks.
Just my two bits.
" I. 1. Of an animal: living in a state of nature; not tame, not domesticated.
2. Of a plant (or flower): growing in a state of nature; not cultivated
So CJW should feel justified by the first part of the definition, but others who are basing their understanding of the word on the latter part of the definition, should feel likewise vindicated.
For myself, I consider wildlife to refer to undomesticated species, or (more rarely) to species that have gone feral ie. pig or horse.
I would consider a headline that promised "wildlife" to be accurate if it included undomesticated species (regardless of their captive status), but a headline promising species "in the wild" to be inaccurate if it contained photos of species from zoos or fauna parks.
Just my two bits.
Tony_InDevon
Bird Lover & People Photographer
Looks like this thread has been busy whilst I was throwing out the z'ds.
The point here walwyn is that if a magazine uses one set of criteria for purchasing photographs then they should remain constant even to the point of sale.
To not do so is in the least patronising to their readers as it implies that the picture editor and photographer know what wildlife is, but that their readers are too simple or naive to understand the difference.
I don't "tick" because I never keep lists.
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (Oxford University Press ) states:
wild•life /waldlaf/ noun animals, birds, insects, etc. that are wild and live in a natural environment: Development of the area would endanger wildlife. a wildlife habitat / sanctuary
Interesting that on searching for "wildlife" it comes up with a space between "wild" & "life", but as are the joys of our native tongue.
walwyn said:
The point here walwyn is that if a magazine uses one set of criteria for purchasing photographs then they should remain constant even to the point of sale.
To not do so is in the least patronising to their readers as it implies that the picture editor and photographer know what wildlife is, but that their readers are too simple or naive to understand the difference.
walwyn said:
I don't "tick" because I never keep lists.
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (Oxford University Press ) states:
wild•life /waldlaf/ noun animals, birds, insects, etc. that are wild and live in a natural environment: Development of the area would endanger wildlife. a wildlife habitat / sanctuary
Interesting that on searching for "wildlife" it comes up with a space between "wild" & "life", but as are the joys of our native tongue.
Last edited:
Option1
Village Idiot
Hmmm, and I think that's exactly what I said a number of times through this thread except that I studiously avoid using the term "wild" animals and use "wildlife" instead and reserve the use of "wild" for those that are NOT captive in any way at all.CJW said:
And yes, I was pushing the envelope with the terminology "captive wildlife" and "wild wildlife", but purely to illustrate a point about usage and definition. Would I use "captive wildlife"? Yes. Would I use "wild wildlife"? No. As for the denigration contained in your response to my post using those terms, again I'll not respond, but nice try. :clap:
Possibly it is lazy, and as an opinion, it's as valid as mine that lazy or not, it is an accepted usage by the general public now days.
MikeMules, accurately sums up my views on the terminology and its usage. Well put Mike.
Neil
digi-birder
Well-known member
Well, it must be 'photograph wildlife month' as Total Digital Photography' also have a feature in the October issue, due out 11th Sept, called 'Animal Magic' - "top tips and techniques for shooting animals at home or in the wild." Let's see what they call wild!!
steve nunn
Active member
Better article (although fairly basic) on wildlife photography in Septembers Digital Camera magazine. All about photography in the field with tips on Fieldcraft etc. I read it in the shop (as its £4.99!) but worth a 'browse'
