Forum for just wild animals? [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

scrumpy

23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 16:04

POTN 'Wildlife' section is pretty good since the revamp. The domestic stuff have gone to their own sections leaving us here with the wild and not so wild. So no more dodging the cats and dogs - not that I mind them - I like them ;)

Not many can afford to travel to Africa to capture the real thing, and personally I don't really mind seeing zoo animals here as long as they are healthy and in good nick.

Mike55

6th of November 2008 (Thu), 19:56

I was wondering if the mods would consider a forum for zoo/captive? Don't get me wrong, I like all animal pictures but the wildlife forum is full of non-wildlife.

ctranter

7th of November 2008 (Fri), 13:15

Personally I like my wildlife to be wild.

Bubble

8th of November 2008 (Sat), 22:46

I was wondering if the mods would consider a forum for zoo/captive? Don't get me wrong, I like all animal pictures but the wildlife forum is full of non-wildlife.

you're not happy with what we have now? it is not ENOUGH for you?:rolleyes:

just look at the traffic at this section

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=121

when was the last time we participate? weeks ago.

Mike55

9th of November 2008 (Sun), 22:41

I think you misunderstood my post ;)

I was talking about the "post a photo" sections.

Bubble

10th of November 2008 (Mon), 00:03

I think you misunderstood my post ;)

I was talking about the "post a photo" sections.

you still need to open a new sub forum and we just don't have ENOUGH people to post "wild life" picture.

Mike55

10th of November 2008 (Mon), 12:02

you still need to open a new sub forum and we just don't have ENOUGH people to post "wild life" picture.

Sure we do. There are posts everyday.

AdamJL

11th of December 2008 (Thu), 05:41

Agreed, it'd be nice to have a "zoo/captive animals" only section.
This includes birds taken at raptor centres etc.

Wildlife to me, means wildlife

If it's going to stay as is - at least rename this forum into something more accurate ;)

Tom Reichner

9th of January 2009 (Fri), 03:00

Hello, Mike! I agree with you wholeheartedly - I would love to see a true wildlife section. The actual process of photographing animals in the wild is completely different than photographing captive animals. Over 80% of the process is just finding a subject and trying to get close to it without alarming it. I've been spending a few hours every day in a blind I constructed for photographing ringneck pheasants, chukars, and hungarian partridge. All these birds were laid and hatched in the wild, by parents which were also raised in the wild. They are extremely skittish - when they see me approaching the blind I am over 600 yards away - and they flee immediately! They have absolutely ZERO tolerance for human proximity. So, when I go to the forum to talk with others about true wildlife photography and I see mostly zoo shots, I feel like there's nobody to talk to about what I love. And isn't the whole point of this site to discuss our photographic passions with others who share our challenges? Hence, the true need for a non-captive wildlife section.

Mike55

14th of January 2009 (Wed), 09:54

Tom and Adam make good points. That's not to say that zoo shots "suck" or that the animal is somehow inferior because it's in a zoo, or that you can't take beautiful zoo shots. Zoo's, game farms and fenced in animal parks are often the last homes for wild animals that were trouble makers or lost and are great palces to learn about animals. The only criteria for a distinct wild animal forum is that wild shots take a bit more skill and effort.

AdamJL

14th of January 2009 (Wed), 11:13

EveryMilesAMemory

14th of January 2009 (Wed), 20:42

This topic made me laugh because in my Smugmug galleries, I have one gallery titled Wildlife We've Photographed (http://everymilesamemory.smugmug.com/gallery/6334966_aUBqf#437916673_JkpRK) and someone left a comment that goes something like this under a photo of a Macaw Parrot

"Macaw parrots are not wildlife, nor are any captive animals in the US. Helps to notate "captive" or "domesticated" to distinguish these from actual wild species."

I thought this was pretty funny because its sort of like saying that flowers grown in a green house are not plants? Or animals inside a National Park are not wildlife either? I'm confused?

I do get what you're after when it comes to cluttering up the wildlife section with Cats and Dogs, but zoo photography as long as it is done professionally is still shooting wildlife in my book.

Mike55

14th of January 2009 (Wed), 21:23

I thought this was pretty funny because its sort of like saying that flowers grown in a green house are not plants? Or animals inside a National Park are not wildlife either? I'm confused?

National Parks contain some of the "wildest" wildlfie there is (grizzly bears, wolverines. wolves, cougar - see Yellowstone and Glacier). There is simply no comparison between a national park and a zoo. Two completely different things. National Parks are not fenced in. Yellowstone is a 2 million acre wilderness park, sitting right in the middle of the 16 million acre Yellowstone wildlands ecosystem.

I do get what you're after when it comes to cluttering up the wildlife section with Cats and Dogs, but zoo photography as long as it is done professionally is still shooting wildlife in my book.

Hmmm.. There's a very big difference between sitting in the forest(or hiking meadows, etc) and waiting for a wild, non-fenced animal to appear and walking up to a cage or exhibit. Also, you have to factor in the expenses and cost it takes to get to where actual grizzly bears or wolves live. Then you have to factor in the usually harsh and remote conditions those animals are found in. So the wildlife photographer faces travel expenses, weather abuse, painstaking amounts of hours in the field before getting that rare grizzly shot or wolf shot, then making sure that it came out ok because of all the weather elements and the unpredictable light of a forest or mountain ecosystem.

Irt just takes more time, effort and skill to get non-fenced animal shots.

EveryMilesAMemory

14th of January 2009 (Wed), 21:44

It just takes more time, effort and skill to get non-fenced animal shots.

I agree 100%, but posting a picture on this or any other forum of a bear shot in a zoo or in Yellowstone, Glacier or anywhere else you're going to photograph it doesnt make any difference to those looking at the photo.

Are you going to sell a picture that was shot in a zoo or in Yellowstone better because of the location of the bear? I dont think so. At that point, it's more of a story for the photographer to brag about what he/she had to go through to get the shot.

Mike55

14th of January 2009 (Wed), 22:44

I agree 100%, but posting a picture on this or any other forum of a bear shot in a zoo or in Yellowstone, Glacier or anywhere else you're going to photograph it doesnt make any difference to those looking at the photo.

I find that troubling. While I don't think a wild bear is a "superior animal" than a zoo bear(many of which were wild), the act of taking the time and effort to get a wild grizzly capture should immediately command more respect even if the final result isn't as good.

Are you going to sell a picture that was shot in a zoo or in Yellowstone better because of the location of the bear? I dont think so.

Depends on the client. And a nature photogs reputation would be impacted if they mislead (see Wild America).

Don H

15th of January 2009 (Thu), 02:39

Not to mention the thousands of people with the same shot of the same animal in the same enclosure.

EveryMilesAMemory

15th of January 2009 (Thu), 20:43

Not to mention the thousands of people with the same shot of the same animal in the same enclosure.

Sort of reminds me of being in Yellowstone when I bear was eating on the side of the road. The edge of the road looked like the sidelines of the superbowl. With the amount of cameras and white lenses all shooting the same bear, I wonder how many had the same picture of the same animal.

One guy sitting beside me with a 600mm commented while he was packing up his equipment, "Oh, that bear hangs out in this field and you could come by here day after day and see this same scene."

Almost like shooting in a zoo I thought.

Tom Reichner

15th of January 2009 (Thu), 21:15

Posting a picture on this or any other forum of a bear shot in a zoo or in Yellowstone, Glacier or anywhere else you're going to photograph it doesnt make any difference to those looking at the photo.

Are you going to sell a picture that was shot in a zoo or in Yellowstone better because of the location of the bear?

Yes, EveryMile, you are going to sell a photo better to publishers if it is of a wild bear. Publishers of natural history periodicals such as National Wildlife and National Geographic are not going to use a photo of a zoo bear (unless it's for an article about a zoo). Nature Photographer (quarterly) absolutely refuses to use ANY photo of a captive animal - ever! Also, most hunting publications prefer to use photos of wild animals.
Wild, by the way, is generally defined as "not captive", or "not fenced in". It doesn't necessarily mean that the bear acts wild, or is intolerant of human proximity. Wild simply means not captive. And Yellowstone bears are not captive. They are free to come and go as they choose. The bear you mentioned was in that field every day because he chose to be there, not because he was confined by a fence.
Wildlife greats like Donald Jones, Bill Marchel, and the LeRues staunchly refuse to use any images of captive animals in their trade. The story behind the photo is of great importance to most publishers and most people. The "quality" of the image is, to be sure, important, but not nearly so much as the subject's authenticity as a noncaptive subject.

EveryMilesAMemory

16th of January 2009 (Fri), 00:07

Thanks for you input Tom, I see exactly what everyone is getting at here and was basically just playing devils advocate to hear some thoughts on the topic because it's one that is brought up often and could be argued about till the cows come home

I'll quit poking the hive so to say, and just for the record, I agree with everyone that Wild Animals are those that are wild, NOT in fences.

Sorry if I ruffled anyones feathers

Mike55

16th of January 2009 (Fri), 08:13

You didn't ruffle my feathers, Pat. Nothing wrong with a good conversation. :)

EveryMilesAMemory

16th of January 2009 (Fri), 20:09

You didn't ruffle my feathers, Pat. Nothing wrong with a good conversation. :)

Glad you understand Mike. I too enjoy the threads that create good conversations and get people to look at both sides of the coin.

This was one of those topics that I can see pros and cons for both sides of the story

gbraatz

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 13:27

I know Im new but I also think having a forum with a zoo section & a wildlife section would be great. I have my own Vbulliten forum for airbbrushing. Its not that hard to add a catagoy & sub cats too. I think it would give this forum yet another reason to post here compared to other forums. Please dont missunderstad this post, this forum is great!!!!!!!!! I just feal they should be seperated. Im a zookeeper & it would be nice to see a zoo section. My 2cents for what ever its worth. :cool:

Tess320

20th of January 2009 (Tue), 23:39

A bit? Try an obscene amount more!
God I'm really trying to learn good fieldcraft at the moment, and it's not easy at all.

No. Wild shots take more EFFORT, they do not take more photographic skill from zoo shots at all. There are DIFFERENT challenges for each.

Mike55

21st of January 2009 (Wed), 23:23

No. Wild shots take more EFFORT, they do not take more photographic skill from zoo shots at all. There are DIFFERENT challenges for each.

Of course it takes more skill to obtain a good wildlife shot thana zoo shot. The animal is not boxed in. As you try to cover an animal, the light is unpredictable (especially in a forest or valley setting).

Tom Reichner

22nd of January 2009 (Thu), 03:04

You're right, Mike -
It does take more SKILL, not just more effort. This is because in a zoo or other captive setting, you can often choose what angle you want to photograph the subject from. Or you can choose what time of day, or choose a cloudy day or a sunny day, etc. You can wait until the subject moves into the better light, or moves away from that distracting background, etc. In short, you can choose what light to shoot the subject in.
In the wild, you have to work with the light you have. You have to make the most of a single instant, because the next second your subject may be gone. This means you most often can't approach from the best angle. You can't pick and choose your background. You can't come back later when the sun is lower in the sky, or come back on an overcast day and shoot the same subject again. You have to have the SKILL to make the lighting that you have work. You have to have the SKILL to instantly recognize what settings will tone down that harsh, distracting background. You have to have the skill to instantly recognize the best composition with which to shoot, because you don't have the time to shoot dozens, or hundreds, of frames and then choose the best ones.
So yes, shooting in the wild does certainly require more EFFORT, but it certainly requires more skill, too.

Tess320

22nd of January 2009 (Thu), 17:27

Last time I checked, Zoos did not create enclosures perfect for photographers. Dealing with LIGHT is just as important as a zoo - yes you can choose what day to go, but you also choose what day to go out and shoot any wildlife - that again is effort, not skill. Some enclosures are permenently hard to shoot at because of the light they get or the way they are setup. Animals do not sit there perfectly in front of you waiting for your 300mm lens to shoot it and end up with a great shot.

You have to avoid the same cliche shot, there's often no 'action' to make a shot interesting like you would in the wild.

How exactly can you pick and choose what 'background' you have at a zoo? You have to avoid "zoo" stuff like toys and buckets, you have to avoid bars, walls. There's no nice grass or trees to blur sometimes....and your use of aperture is limited by the need to get rid of the bars.

You have to work with the light you have ANYWHERE - you cannot choose what light you have at the time. You could walk around all day and get nothing, or you could miss a great expression because the light is crap. Though the desire to go back and shoot is again, effort - not skill.

I can assure you I have to understand light and exposure just as much as any other wildlife photographer, the zoo does not provide a lovely light and backdrop for me.

Mike55

22nd of January 2009 (Thu), 19:05

Last time I checked, Zoos did not create enclosures perfect for photographers. Dealing with LIGHT is just as important as a zoo - yes you can choose what day to go, but you also choose what day to go out and shoot any wildlife - that again is effort, not skill.

Choosing what day you get to go out and do wildlife has little bearing on anything because you never know when that wildlife, or *if* wildlife will even be there. At the zoo, or in fenced game farms, you know where that wildlife will be on any given day and you can wait out the good light.

There's no comparison between zoo shooting and wildlife shooting. It's two completely different levels of skill and effort.

kywolftn

22nd of January 2009 (Thu), 21:03

i like wild

johnstoy

22nd of January 2009 (Thu), 21:25

It was many years ago that I got a picture of a young wild black bear... Yes real wild, not in a zoo... We have 800 lb black bears in our local woods. Sighting one is a very rare occurance... It's been many years since I've seen one...

I also get occasional deer pictures from the same forests...

It's a little bit disheartening to see close ups of eagles, and owls, bears and various deer shots from enclosed exhibits... Especially in contests and publications... I'd have to drive nearly 80-100 miles to get a possible sighting of an Eagle in the wild... Let alone get head shots of one... I've yet to do it, cause I know my 400mm 5.6L won't have that type of reach, and my chances will be very slim... (Someday I hope to get a 500mm IS).

Consideration should be give to the difficulty factor for close ups, and the rarity of the sightings...

So yes, I'm all for having separate categories for zoo shots and wild shots.

There are plenty of wild shots posted in our nature section... Likewise there are plenty of zoo shots too... If we could distinguish the two, it will be a fascinating and very interesting, difference.

Tess320

23rd of January 2009 (Fri), 03:42

Choosing what day you get to go out and do wildlife has little bearing on anything because you never know when that wildlife, or *if* wildlife will even be there. At the zoo, or in fenced game farms, you know where that wildlife will be on any given day and you can wait out the good light.

There's no comparison between zoo shooting and wildlife shooting. It's two completely different levels of skill and effort.

And so how does 'waiting' for wildlife, equate to skill?

Again, it is effort. Waiting for good light is also not about skill, it's about time, effort, and how easy it is to get a shot. If both photographers recognise what light IS good, then they are both equally skilled in recognising it, just because one cannot control it, doesn't make their skill levels different. Waiting for days on end for one shot doesn't make you a great photographer, it just means you have patience and passion.

ctranter

23rd of January 2009 (Fri), 10:32

Anyone can get a good understanding of the technicalities of photography. Waiting for days on end for the one shot, patience and passion, is precisely what sets apart the good wildlife photographer.

As for the zoo vs wild debate. They're different things. Both will require skills and effort. I don't think you can compare the two.

In shooting wildlife - it's just that - I want to capture the essence of the wild creature, whether it be a portrait or action shot, it wants to say 'this is nature'. Whereas if I'm shooting at the zoo, I want to tell a different story. I want to show precisely that these are captive animals - a forlorn bear or a gorilla with it's almost human eyes reflected in the glass of the enclosure. Or maybe I want to show the success of a breeding program by shooting newborn animals. One of the best zoo photos I've seen was a forced long exposure of a lion enclosure from above, with the blurred trace of the lion pacing in tight circles following a worn track.

Each has different goals, and so they should. Each are difficult in their own way. Provided that a shot of a captive animal is just that, and is recognized as intended to be so, I don't see a problem. It's when people try to shoot captive creatures as if they were wildlife when conflicts arise. And in my opinion shooting a wildlife shot of a captive animal will never take as much skill or effort as taking a wildlife shot of a wild animal.

Also, one should bear in mind that a large proportion of photos of, admittedly smaller wildlife, one sees in publications will be shot in a studio. Wild animals in a controlled environment. Wildlife photos or not? Good or bad. I don't know: necessary in some situations, i'm sure. But a staged photo or a photo of a captive animal will never quite elicit the same level as awe or inspiration in me.

Grafixwld

31st of January 2009 (Sat), 07:52

I prefer taking pics of wild animals in their natural enviroment. But I have to say there's nothing wrong with zoos. The closest zoo to me is in Denver about 4 hours away not worth the drive in the winter and it's not that great of a zoo. I do think I need to go there next summer and not so much for the sights. Animals in cages bother me to no end although for some species it's about the only way to preserve their existence. I want to go for the practice God knows I need it.

National parks are ok, Rocky Mountain National isn't far for me but the only way to enjoy it is to get off the roads and away from the crowds and that's what I prefer. Luckly for me I live in a place where wild animals can be fairly easy to access with a bit of woodsmanship and effort. If i lived in some metro area you can bet I would indeed spend a fair amount of time in zoos as it would be a matter of time and convenience. A lot of folks can't dedicate a whole lot of weekends prowling around the mountains looking for elk or whatever.

A forum for just wild animals ? Personally I can take it or leave it if I'm not interested in the thread I simply don't read it. I will admit though I do look at most animal threads, there's alot of talent and information available here and zoos or not I like the pics.
Just my 2 cents.

Phil