The Art of Wildlife Photography ?? Huh!! (1 Viewer)

Tony_InDevon

Bird Lover & People Photographer

• Aug 16, 2003

• #1

Has anyone seen the Amateur Photography magazine issue dated 18 August '03 - Their Wildlife Special?

Eagerly flicking through I found loads of stunning photographs and eagerly settled down with a cup of coffee to increase my skills.

Then the downer …. At least half the shots are taken in zoos or birds of prey centres.

I accept that there are times when we “set-up” at shot and hope that a wild creature will fall into our trap for the shot we are hoping for (bit like rod fishing really). But to me any slides I take of captive creatures are filed under general and certainly not wildlife.

Well my feathers are definitely ruffled … but what do you think?

 

Charles Harper

Régisseur

• Aug 16, 2003

• #2

Not surprised. Tony-- it's just our clique that has these 'rules'.

 

K

kris

Well-known member

• Aug 16, 2003

• #3

Have to admit I bought it but haven't got round to looking at it yet.
Gonna be a bit of a dissapointment now then.
More captive life than wild life

 

Tony_InDevon

Bird Lover & People Photographer

• Aug 16, 2003

• #4

A lots of the photo's really are stunning, but my favourites are the rabbits which are wild, refused to play the game and I am still trying to get good shots of.

 

steve_nova

Well-known member

• Aug 16, 2003

• #5

Obviously couldn't afford Nigel Blake's prices Tony (only joking).

It does seem a "con" in that you expect any phrase or sentence with the word "wildlife" in it to be of truly wild animals.

As Charles succinctly put it, this forum sets a precedent of only truly wild birds for it's gallery if at all possible.

 

Tony_InDevon

Bird Lover & People Photographer

• Aug 16, 2003

• #6

I think the "only truly wild birds for its gallery if at all possible" policy is another of the things that makes BF so special.

Photographing captive creatures to me is a bit like photographing models. Can you imagine posted on the birds cage at the zoo: Rates - sleeping 5 peanuts, looking slightly interested 10 peanuts, pruning 15 peanuts, don’t do flying.

Errrrm the mind boggles.

 

Option1

Village Idiot

• Aug 16, 2003

• #7

Tony, trying to get good shots of wildlife (and yes I use the word) in a zoo is most definitely NOT like trying to photograph models. Get an animal to face the right direction, get an image without the wire/cage/powerpole/cement structure interfering, get an image without someone tapping you on the shoulder/ get an image with the animal awake ... none are easy.

The other aspect is that often you face the same or, on occasion, more difficult lighting/exposure conditions in a zoo than in the wild. In the wild you can choose your ground so that the lighting suits you, in a zoo the cage often faces one way and one way only and you may even be faced with varying artificial lighting as well.

I'm afraid too much of this "it's not wildlife in the pictures cause it can't run free" sounds like unbecoming snobbishness. Given we've already had threads about people keeping zoo lists, tv lists, garden lists why should we think birding refers ONLY to the wild.

One other point to remember is that "wildlife" can (and in the case of the magazine) refers to any non-domesticated animals.

Besides animals (captive or otherwise) whine less than models.

Neil

 

steve_nova

Well-known member

• Aug 16, 2003

• #8

Hi Neil, I can see what you are saying, it's just that if I open the pages of say BBC Wildlife Magazine, you can pretty much expect to see shots of truly wild animals running, flying or swimming freely.
I have no problem with images taken in a zoo or other captive setting, it's just the wording that can be a bit misleading as in this case.

 

Tony_InDevon

Bird Lover & People Photographer

• Aug 16, 2003

• #9

Hi Neil, I agree that getting a good shot of a captive animal is still a challenge and that to get a good shot still takes a great deal of practice & skill.

But to me it's not snobbishness, just down to earth honesty. If I want a wildlife shot I'll put myself through many discomforts to try and get it. I am a member of the local zoo, which is in my opinion (one of the reasons we have family membership) is one of the best in the UK.

But when we go there I dress for the weather not camouflage, wonder off to eat and drink well in comfort knowing the animal will still be there when I return and I take captive animal shots,

I suppose that when I see “This issue is dedicated to the art of wildlife photography” on the cover, then I expect to see wild animals in all senses of the word and to learn how to improve my technique when it’s a photo mag.

 

Option1

Village Idiot

• Aug 16, 2003

• #10

Steve and Tony you both make good points. I guess in essence I was simply trying to say that the term "wildlife" now days has a general usage that equates with "any non-domesticated animal". It's the context that counts.

Neil

 

Tony_InDevon

Bird Lover & People Photographer

• Aug 16, 2003

• #11

Hi Neil, you are also making a good point, so many names or tags these days do seem to have lost their meaning and taken on much more general meanings. The context does count for a lot B

 

Tony_InDevon

Bird Lover & People Photographer

• Aug 16, 2003

• #12

Oppps forgot to add that the shots by Heather Angel are not only stunning but wild in every sense of the word. Not sure if I would want to stand on ice in Canada to get a frame filling shot of a polar bear - no matter how long a lens.

 

steve_nova

Well-known member

• Aug 16, 2003

• #13

I also think that there may be enough of a difference between American English and Our English to offer different pre-conceived ideas of the meaning or inference of certain phrases...if you see what I mean.

Ask anyone on this side of the pond about what they expect to see in a "wildlife" programe and they will invariably expect to see a free animal, feral or truly wild. That's maybe what 220 years of separation can do.

 

Tony_InDevon

Bird Lover & People Photographer

• Aug 16, 2003

• #14

If Kris has no objections, it will be interesting to see what she thinks once she has had a chance to look at it. In theory we will have similar ideas as to the meaning of the term wildlife in the UK and how the edition matches them.

 

K

kris

Well-known member

• Aug 17, 2003

• #15

well I'm off to bed now, so I will take the mag and a cuppa and lat you know tomorrow.
:gn:

 

Option1

Village Idiot

• Aug 17, 2003

• #16

steve_nova said:

I also think that there may be enough of a difference between American English and Our English to offer different pre-conceived ideas of the meaning or inference of certain phrases...if you see what I mean.

Ask anyone on this side of the pond about what they expect to see in a "wildlife" programe and they will invariably expect to see a free animal, feral or truly wild. That's maybe what 220 years of separation can do.

Click to expand...

3 Problem is I've only been in the US 5 years. The other 40 were in Australia.

Neil

 

K

kris

Well-known member

• Aug 17, 2003

• #17

I'm back. Took it to bed, read it and then couldn't sleep so I thought I might as well get up and give my opinion while it's still fresh in my mind.
To say I'm disappointed would be an understatement, I think I would have done better to spend my money on crisps and chocolate. At least I may have had some enjoyment from them.
To be honest the articles left me cold, although I have to agree there are some really good photo's but there are some very mediocre ones too.
'Wild in our country' was more an article on how to get around the wildlife park and see as much as you can in a given amount of time. His (Mike Maloney) statement about photographing birds in flight being dificult because they move at great speed... Well what can I say, we know that, what we really wanted was someone with a formula or technique to try out in the field.

'Let us prey' not too much there that interested me.

'Call of the wild' Sounded promising, but no, another article on zoo's and reserves. The only thing that did puzzle me is near the end it mentions that he will sit for hours in a hide or moutain rescue hut waiting to take a photo. So why are all the photo's of captive animals.

'Visions of Nature' Wild yes, stunning photo's yes, technique, thin on the ground. Ashort biog. a plug for the new book, and what equipment she has.

'Fragile Beauties' Ah yes, now it looks like we're getting somewhere. Butterfly photo's. Not a chance. All taken in the studio. For goodness sake man, don't go out with a net to catch 'em and take 'em home. Shoot them in situ.

'Living the dream' I'm just going to pass on that one as being of no significance whatsoever.

'Animal Snappers' Marwell zoo photographic group. Some nice shots !

'Garden Safari' Most of us have a back garden or are in walking distance of a park for some truly 'wild' shots so this should be better. Famous last words.
The rabbit shots were not bad and at least they were wild.

 

K

kris

Well-known member

• Aug 17, 2003

• #18

Well you did ask !

I can see how much I wrote now so I can tell it really annoyed me.

Where's the bit about how to approach deer/ or not.
I now know that looking them in the eye is not good practice !!!
That was a lesson I won't forget.

Or even a bit on creeping up on butterflies and making sure your shadow doesn't fall on them.

AND Damien Demolder with the 90mm Macro and 2x teleplus, not to mention the SB22s flash. That must be one of the worse close ups I have ever seen of a fly.
I took this with a 105mm, macro, natural light

 

Attachments

• 
  012.jpg

  43.1 KB · Views: 414

Tony_InDevon

Bird Lover & People Photographer

• Aug 17, 2003

• #19

Hi Kris, many many thanks for your feedback which I whole heartedly agree with. I’m sorry you’re as disappointed as I am in the edition, but on a positive note at least I now know that it isn’t just me.

As a side note one of the best books on photography and wild birds I have found is “Photographing Wild Birds” by Chris Gomersall. Published by David & Charles, ISBN 0 7153 11131. I’m always picking this one up and find it fascinating

Your shot of the fly is beautiful and has that honest feel of a natural wild shot. Many thanks once more for your comments and more thanks for posting your own photo.

PS … Hope you eventually managed to get a good nights sleep.

 

Tannin

Common; sedentary.

• Aug 21, 2003

• #20

In general, I'm in the "if it ain't really wild, it don't really count" camp. But only in general: exceptions abound.

One conspicuous exception (of interest to me here in Australia) is the carnivorous mammals. There are over 50 carnivores in Australia, and of that number, one - yes ONE species is diurnal. The other 55 never come out of their tree hollows or their burrows during the day. You could spend a lifetime wandering around the bush at night and never even see most species, let alone get a photograph, flash or no flash. The only way you know that they are there is by looking for scats or by setting traps.

Most of the omnivores are the same, and once you get past the biggest herbivores (roos and the bigger wallabies) you won't see them either.

In short, the only way I am ever going to see a picture of most Australian mammals is if it is taken in captivity .... and I do like to see their pictures.