Shooting at the zoo Vs. nature shoots

[jhkphoto]

just wanted to here what POTN has to say about "nature" shooters at the zoo.
why i say its LAME!!
-- the animal is not in its natural environment (and you normally can tell)
-- its practically given to you by exhibits made so you can see the animal at all times!
-- your end product is strangely similar to the person standing next to you...

don't get me wrong i think there are some shoots to be had at a zoo but that shoot is found in the juxtaposition of human and animal.
there are many more reasons why i don't like it---- what do you think?

[FlyingPhotog]

I think you should go find a different pot to stir...

Nature Trekking / Safari ins't available to everyone nor is everyone physically capable (or photographically capable) of schlogging accross the tundra to find a Polar Bear or bouncing accross the Serengeti to find a Zebra.

If you don't like zoo shots fine .. don't shoot in a zoo but for some (hell, most) folks, it's the closest they'll ever get to most species that aren't native to their subdivision.

Personally, I've seen some damn fine photography done in zoos and preserves.

[jhkphoto]

you don't have to go to wild tundra or the serengeti to find wildlife without painted rock behind it!!
wildlife is all around us and we need to take advantage of the hundreds of national parks state parks national forests etc that we have. no one said wildlife photography was easy!

[Desertraptor]

Not every country has a Yellowstone or the kinds of animals you can usually find at a good zoo and by good zoo I mean one that tries to capture the feel and the landscape of the area the animals would usually belong. Most good zoos try to provide a more natural habitat/enclosure.
I'd love to do an African safari but I wont be doing it anytime soon.

[jhkphoto]

Not every country has a Yellowstone or the kinds of animals you can usually find at a good zoo and by good zoo I mean one that tries to capture the feel and the landscape of the area the animals would usually belong. Most good zoos try to provide a more natural habitat/enclosure.
I'd love to do an African safari but I wont be doing it anytime soon.

but that is just it! not every country has polar bears so every photographer should not have a shoot of one!

but EVERY country has wildlife, if its big or small all animals are interesting and most are very photogenic if you can catch the shoot.

[John_B]

jhkphoto,
I personally don't like or want to do zoo photos.
Seeing the poor depressed animal captured and forced to live in the automated artificial environment. Wow! look I got a photo of it!

I wouldn't want to be any of those animals living in jail, just so a business can make some $$$ and customers can get a photo or two? ??? Wow... look they put a female in my cage so I can re produce to make them money while they take photos of me... what a life.....

I would rather just concentrate on the natural wildlife while we still have some. No I don't have elephants in my area but there are some breeds that don't exist in other areas. There is always the option to move or visit another area and try to get photos in there natural habitat. ;)

[Jpatten]

Now if you are taking shots of animals and implying you slogged through the wilderness to get it there might be a point, but one of my very best shots is of a bald eagle taken at Animal Kingdom in FL. While not natural habitat per se, it still is an incredibly great shot I don't think it takes anything away from it knowing that I was at a bird exhibit as opposed to hiking through the swamp.
You could make the argument we shouldn't have zoos at all, if you can't get to see the animal in its natural habitat then you are out of luck.

[jhkphoto]

jhkphoto,
I personally don't like or want to do zoo photos.
Seeing the poor depressed animal captured and forced to live in the automated artificial environment. Wow! look I got a photo of it!

I wouldn't want to be any of those animals living in jail, just so a business can make some $$$ and customers can get a photo or two? ??? Wow... look they put a female in my cage so I can re produce to make them money while they take photos of me... what a life.....

I would rather just concentrate on the natural wildlife while we still have some. No I don't have elephants in my area but there are some breeds that don't exist in other areas. There is always the option to move or visit another area and try to get photos in there natural habitat. ;)
could not have put it better myself :)

[jhkphoto]

You could make the argument we shouldn't have zoos at all, if you can't get to see the animal in its natural habitat then you are out of luck.

yeah i think that is my argument in a nutshell.

[Desertraptor]

That I will agree with. Animals belong in the wild, not in zoos but there are animals that have been bred in captivity and I think those are what you find mostly at "good" zoos these days.

[JeffreyG]

jhkphoto,
I personally don't like or want to do zoo photos.
Seeing the poor depressed animal captured and forced to live in the automated artificial environment. Wow! look I got a photo of it!

I wouldn't want to be any of those animals living in jail, just so a business can make some $$$ and customers can get a photo or two? ??? Wow... look they put a female in my cage so I can re produce to make them money while they take photos of me... what a life.....

I would rather just concentrate on the natural wildlife while we still have some. No I don't have elephants in my area but there are some breeds that don't exist in other areas. There is always the option to move or visit another area and try to get photos in there natural habitat. ;)

I don't really enjoy zoos and I'm not interested in photographing them, but it's worth pointing out that most of your viewpoint is anthropomorphic.

There is no reason to suspect that well fed zoo animals that are protected from predation are somehow 'depressed'. There is no reason to expect that they would be a lot happier in the wild where they fight for survival daily.

[jhkphoto]

jeffrey with all due respect most zoos treat there animals very poorly.

and most of all we have no right to make that call for the life of the animals.

[rdavisdesign]

jhkphoto,
I personally don't like or want to do zoo photos.
Seeing the poor depressed animal captured and forced to live in the automated artificial environment. Wow! look I got a photo of it!

I wouldn't want to be any of those animals living in jail, just so a business can make some $$$ and customers can get a photo or two? ??? Wow... look they put a female in my cage so I can re produce to make them money while they take photos of me... what a life.....

I would rather just concentrate on the natural wildlife while we still have some. No I don't have elephants in my area but there are some breeds that don't exist in other areas. There is always the option to move or visit another area and try to get photos in there natural habitat. ;)


I couldn't agree more! I would much rather see wildlife in it's natural habitat. However the zoo may be a good place to practice.

[John_B]

but it's worth pointing out that most of your viewpoint is anthropomorphic.
JeffreyG,
Isn't a zoo an anthropomorphic concept to begin with? ???

So if your fed right (not the food of your choice or want, but it will keep you alive) you are protected from your neighbor (but they spend every day looking at your every moment), and they choose which one you have to mate with and live with (hopefully you will like it) then you would be a lot happier? ???

Or would you rather risk it and try to make it yourself? ???

[brecklundin]

Lame might be a pretty strong word to use here. At best it comes across as petulant and at worst arrogant.

Many factors exist which make zoo's not only necessary but also humane. We have a zoo near by that is just opening a non-breeding California Giant Condor habitat. Is it ideal, hell no, is it a way to bring the species back from extinction, HELL YES. Will I visit it every chance I can, OH HELL YES...why? Because 35ish years ago I happened to be hiking in the Los Padres National Forest, which once was part of the range covered by these amazing creatures...I saw what could only be one of the handful of remaning wild CA Condors in flight. It had to be a good 50mi away, but you could see it in flight. No other bird would have been visible from that distance. Even so it was just barely visible as nothing more than a sililoute.

Since those days we have seen a huge change in what a zoo is...they are now true species conservators. They provide exposure to things we would never otherwise be able to see in our lifetime. Zoo's, and marine parks, inspire children and adults alike to study the wonder that is our world.

It is a sad fact that we have driven wildlife out of the habitats they came from...at least for now, we can try to maintain them in ways that could allow reintegration in the world.

I am lucky in that we have the San Diego and LA Zoos to the far south, here where I live the Santa Barbara Zoo is only 50 minutes away. And it has those wonderful condors. And I have been able to spend time at the Woodland Zoo in Seattle as well. We have several aquariums as well as marine parks(?? not sure what to call them really...) All of which are learning tools. Of course you need to understand there is more to a zoo than walking around looked to see primates fling poop at each other, or worse you!!

I have also be fortunate to have been to Yellowstone as a teen where I came within 5ft form a moose the size of an Oldmobuick tuna boat station wagon...but we were pretty much nose to nose...interestingly enough I felt no fear at all, but rather the wonder of the moment. I've hiked 1000s of miles in the high Sierra's meeting all manner of wild creatures from deer to hungry bears too busy fishing or not wanting to wade into the river/stream to try and eat me.

We had a real 100% grey timber wolf rescued from a shelter as a pet. She was as gentle and loving a companion for my mother as one could imagine...you simply needed to remember she was not a dog and not to expect the same behaviors.

So, as you might gather, animals are part of my life to date...I hate to see animals in a zoo, but I also know w/o the zoo, the critters living there would either not exist or starve to death due to lack of places to live. But, thanks to real zoo's the old tiger in a 10x10 cage no longer exist. It might not seem humae to see larger animals in zoos, but remember most were captive born and simply do not know any other life. They also are given far more challenges every day. For example bears can be given large, ok HUGE balls of ice with treats inside. The bears need to figure ways to get to the treats inside. They also interact with their keepers, this is important to more pack oriented animals.

There simply is a LOT of science behind modern zoos. But, still it is not enough in most cases. So, some of them look so sad because we assume they posess our knowlege of what they should have...it is very doubtful these animals are even remotely aware of what that freedom really is...

If you ever get a chance and want to see some animals closer to being in the real wild visit the San Diego Wild Animal Park as well as the San Diego Zoo...you'll see as advanced zoo designs as exists. And maybe you might begin to see there is a lot more than a way make money, here is a hint...zoos LOSE money as a rule.

I could add 100s of in person encounters with animals in the wild that I will remember until I croak...and have see animals in zoos I will never forget as well. I wish I lived closer where I could volunteer at our SB Zoo...who knows, I might decide to volunteer a few days a month in the near future.

***please forgive any speeling errors, spell check is having, ahem issues...plus I have not been able to sleep tonight. And know I do not think your post was wrong, it is an honest observation...and my opening comment is also honest based on your comments. I just hope you can see there is more to the zoos than a cursory look might imply. :D

[jhkphoto]

well said

[JeffreyG]

JeffreyG,
Isn't a zoo an anthropomorphic concept to begin with? ???



Anthropomorphic - attributing human emotion and traits to animals or inanimate objects. So no, zoos are not anthropomorphic. Quite the opposite.

Otherwise the animals would get lawyers.

So if your fed right (not the food of your choice or want, but it will keep you alive) you are protected from your neighbor (but they spend every day looking at your every moment), and they choose which one you have to mate with and live with (hopefully you will like it) then you would be a lot happier? ???


I would not, because I am capable of higher reason. That is sort of my point. You are assuming that because humans regard imprisonment as a punishment then a camel must also view it this way.


Or would you rather risk it and try to make it yourself? ???

Right. I'm not an animal.

Now, I recognize that a lot of older zoos used to keep animals in very small concrete / barred enclosures that probably were not good for the health of the animal. But I think this zoo format has died out in most places.

Most zoos keep the animals in large spaces that are intended to represent a natural area. I don't see any evidence that the animals are depressed from this confinement.

[jhkphoto]

play nice jeffrey-- defining words for people is a bit insulting...

the fact is that a tiger can tell a big difference between a fresh killed meal and some feed.. just because its only had feed and frozen treats does not make this fact ok.

i would also like to bring up the other point about zoos that on one has said.... people are jerks some times. i have seen people bang on the glass of sound sensitive species (say that 5 times fast) and toss crap into animal "exhibits" etc etc.

[beano]

I can't be bothered to read all the reply's, but here's my 2c...

I personally prefer going out and shooting animals in the wild, but that's just me. I prefer wild places, and to it's more about getting away from people and enjoying the world the way it's supposed to be (just my personal feeling, i haven't got a hotline to god or anything... :p)

I can see the appeal of shooting in zoo's though, you can get THE shot, the one you'll probably never get in the wild.. And it's also good practice, for the "real" thing. Nothing worse than missing a shot because you aren't familiar enough with your kit.

So far i haven't shot in a zoo, but i've definitely thought about it, and no doubt will at some point. ;)

[The Moose]

I don't shoot wildlife as it is but the few times it's been suggested for me to go to the zoo one day with my camera (along with my family), I've not been interested. There's nothing special about it, IMO. Sure, you might get a nice shot of an animal doing something exciting but it's the zoo...

[jhkphoto]

I don't shoot wildlife as it is but the few times it's been suggested for me to go to the zoo one day with my camera (along with my family), I've not been interested. There's nothing special about it, IMO. Sure, you might get a nice shot of an animal doing something exciting but it's the zoo...
ahh a fellow disliker of painted rocks and tires in "nature" shoots!

[FlyingPhotog]

Withdrawn

[T.D.]

This is an interesting discussion. Please remember to keep the discussion about the issue and not each other. And we can certainly debate this issue without getting into political issues.

Thanks.

[FlyingPhotog]

In the spirit of "discussion..."

When I go shoot at my local zoos, I make it a point to look for different or unique POVs so that my images don't look like every Soccer Mom with a P&S.

I also prefer to capture images of animals in motion and active instead of just lounging.

Give photographers some credit for wanting to make quality images despite what can sometimes be limiting surroundings.

[ief]

jhkphoto, although i understand your point, here's some food for thought. i'll (poorly) translate a chapter from a very interesting book i read about this subject (the zoo)

People tend to think that animals in the wild are 'happy' because they are 'free'. The image of a big, beautiful predator comes to mind; something like a lion or a leopard. In their minds this predator, after having fed, is resting on a branch and watching the sunset - filled with contentment and pride, overlooking his family of playfull whelps. The life of a wild animal is thus simple, noble and meaningfull. Then the proud animal gets caught by bad people and thrown into a narrow cage. This animal, being deprived of his freedom, eventually becomes but a knackered shade of itself.

This, however, is not the case.

In the wild, animals lead a life dominated by concepts such as coercion, social hierarchy and compulsiveness in an environment that is rich with fear but devoided of food, an environment that constantly forces these animals to endure parasites and fend off rivaling competitors. What does 'freedom' mean in this context? In practice wild animals are neither free in personal relationships, space, or time. Even more; wild animals are conservative by nature, even more then us, humans. The slightest change in their surroundings will confuse them and bring them out of balance. Wild animals want everything to be the same, day in, day out, month after month - and tend to find any suprises most unpleasant. This can easily be understood by watching the relationship between a wild animal and his surroundings; this relationship is always dominated by fixed patterns and goals. An animal is never somewhere "by accident", take for example the traditional walking paths made by elephants - to get to their traditional drinking spot. Wild animals move like pieces on a chest board - because they are forced to do so, in order to survive. There is no human concept of "freedom" here.
They are just as free as the daily commuter is a truly free man, driving to work every day, working, driving back, watching tv and going to sleep.


Further more, animals are bound to territories. These are the key to their minds. Only in a well known, trusted territory can animals in the wild fullfill two basic conditions for survival: avoiding enemies and finding enough food and water. In the wild however, these need to be vast, because, simply said, things tend to be spread out in the jungle. Here 's a cave, there 's the river, a few miles further down the hill lies the hunting ground, there's an excellent watchpost and even futher are those bushes with them delicous berries. In the zoo however everything is, just like in our own houses, compressed together into a tight, well organised area that makes sure animals get all their basic needs without having to travel mile after mile, being in constant stress regarding snakes, poisonous plants, predators, leeches, etc. If an animal can find all these basic needs within this small area, and discovers it does not have to hunt because food magically appears every day, then it will claim this area as his own, it will explore, mark and settle. It will not act like a prisoner or an uncertain tenant but as a proud landowner, defending his property with all the means nature gave it.

Yann martel - the life of pi

OT; regarding the fact that people can be jerks around animals, that is so true, and that does suck bigtime. Although i don't have a moral issue against a well organised zoo (like the writer above me) - you won't see me snapping shots in a zoo because something about running around amidst a thousand other dudes with a dslr on a saturday just makes me feel so silly, lol. And you have to put up with all those people peeping at your gear, bleh - i'm too people-shy for that. I'd rather get lost somewhere in a desolate nature park, just me, my camera and some beverages. But sure, the appeal of getting those great shots without doing really a lot of effort is understandable! It's just ... i would not get that great feeling of accomplishment and adventure i guess.

[jhkphoto]

had to step out for a bit....
flyingphotog i did not mean to insult or upset you... you may be interested in reading the meat of this discussion... better explains the points that make my stance what it is.

[FlyingPhotog]

had to step out for a bit....
flyingphotog i did not mean to insult or upset you... you may be interested in reading the meat of this discussion... better explains the points that make my stance what it is.

I get it ... You don't like zoos... Fine. I can totally respect that.

But what does your position have to do with photography?

[Just Be]

Just think if we had to debate the pros and cons of any subject we were about to photograph. We may never get a shot off.

I love shooting at the Zoo. Where else can I get that kind of access without a lot of money and time to travel to Africa?
Many of those animals were rescued after being injured and as far as I know help populate much of the worlds Zoos.

[neil_r]

jeffrey with all due respect most zoos treat there animals very poorly.

and most of all we have no right to make that call for the life of the animals.

Stats and source evidence please.

[asysin2leads]

But what does your position have to do with photography?

Not a damn thing. If you don't like zoos, then don't go. Stop whining about it. We spend about 1-2 days a week at one of the 4 zoos and the 1 wildlife refuge we have within 2 hours drive. We are also members at those zoos. Why? It's educational. We have 5 kids and they would rather spend a day at the zoo learning something than sitting on the couch watching cartoons.

[jhkphoto]

why is everyone so pissed off?

what does zoos have to do with zoo photography???? well its the subject

[RikWriter]

I wouldn't tell anyone that photos they took at a zoo were lame, but for me personally, I don't find any satisfaction from taking shots at a zoo. I recently spent 12 days at Yellowstone and drove some 1800 miles all inside the park, following one lead after another to try to track down the animals I wanted to photograph.
That's what made these shots satisfying.

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/112736486.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/112769884.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/112835160.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/112835267.jpg


Now, had I taken them at a zoo or an exhibit or a rehab center, the lighting and framing would undoubtedly have been better and I wouldn't have had to put in near as much effort...
But I wouldn't have gotten near the satisfaction out of it.

[cgatto]

jhkphoto,
I personally don't like or want to do zoo photos.
Seeing the poor depressed animal captured and forced to live in the automated artificial environment. Wow! look I got a photo of it!

I wouldn't want to be any of those animals living in jail, just so a business can make some $$$ and customers can get a photo or two? ??? Wow... look they put a female in my cage so I can re produce to make them money while they take photos of me... what a life.....

I would rather just concentrate on the natural wildlife while we still have some. No I don't have elephants in my area but there are some breeds that don't exist in other areas. There is always the option to move or visit another area and try to get photos in there natural habitat. ;)

While animals being abused is altogether horrific, and destroying their natural habitat terrible, I don't agree that animals in a proper zoo are sad, depressed, or longing for "freedom". That's their home.

Here's a little quote I read in a book, and I completely agree with it.

"Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an unforgiving social hierarchy in an environment where the supply of fear is high and the supply of food low, and where territory must constantly be defended and parasites forever endured. What is the meaning of freedom in such a context?"

An animal in captivity is not unhappy and "trapped". Most times when animals escape, they find their way back to the zoo. Why? Because they have food and shelter. It's their home. And those animals don't WANT to be "freed". What would you do if someone came into your home, kicked in the door, and shooed you and your family out into the street saying, "You're free, you're free!" Those animals are more than content, and they don't need us pretentious humans speaking up for them saying they have an awful life.

[neil_r]

I wouldn't tell anyone that photos they took at a zoo were lame, but for me personally, I don't find any satisfaction from taking shots at a zoo. I recently spent 12 days at Yellowstone and drove some 1800 miles all inside the park,

Did you get out of your car :-)

[cgatto]

Well, now that I've read most of this thread and noticed that someone else already posted that quote from Life of Pi, I feel stupid.

Here's a lesson kiddies, read first, type later :)

[cgatto]

jeffrey with all due respect most zoos treat there animals very poorly.

and most of all we have no right to make that call for the life of the animals.

Yes, I'd like some proof or statistics on this as well.

[RikWriter]

Did you get out of your car :-)

Hah. My butt still feels like I didn't, but I spent a hell of a lot of time standing in the cold, with my remote trigger in my pocket with my hands, waiting for the animal to do something interesting...

[joedlh]

A photographer will try to capture the essence of his or her subject. If I wanted to study tigers, I can't afford the trip to India. So I will go to the zoo. However, I would consider any of my shots a failure if it had a human manufactured element in it. I'd also be eager to get the animal doing something. Along these lines, the shot of a wolf in the wild that somebody posted would be deleted from my camera because there was pavement in the background. I can also spot a bird-on-a-stick photo a mile away. Also a flower that had water sprayed on it. On the other hand, I have some shots of birds on my feeder in my house because it's a setting shot.

That's speaking photographically. As to the concept of zoos, perhaps they started out as akin to circus side shows. It's not like that today. I know a few zoo-keeper/aquarists. They are all environmentalists. A major role of zoos today is to conserve species that might otherwise go extinct in our lifetime because human overpopulation is encroaching more and more on wilderness areas. It's sad that is has come to this. However, at least a few people are trying to do the right thing under the circumstances.

[Mike55]

I think zoo photos have their place and usefulness (seeing an animal up close, education, in some cases preservation, etc), and so do of course wild animal photos. However, I do not think they belong on the same forum section.

[Aweitzel]

If this has been mentioned before forgive me.
Is going to an airshow to shoot an F 18 lame? or a vintage mustang?
Or should i go to a war zone to shoot them in the native habitat?
Calling it True "wildlife photography" maybe misleading and not a true statement ill give you that. And i do prefer to see true wild animal pictures, to me they do seem more lively and true to there own ways, not the zoos ways.

[YankeeMom]

jeffrey with all due respect most zoos treat there animals very poorly.

and most of all we have no right to make that call for the life of the animals.

Unless we're hungry.

[JeffreyG]

play nice jeffrey-- defining words for people is a bit insulting...


I wasn't trying to be insulting, but the post I was responding to seemed to be using anthropomorphic and anthrocentric interchangeably. Not clarifying the definition would have led to gibberish.

the fact is that a tiger can tell a big difference between a fresh killed meal and some feed.. just because its only had feed and frozen treats does not make this fact ok.

How do you know this? My dog will eat anything and does not seem to have strong preferences.

[Just Be]

Not a damn thing. If you don't like zoos, then don't go. Stop whining about it. We spend about 1-2 days a week at one of the 4 zoos and the 1 wildlife refuge we have within 2 hours drive. We are also members at those zoos. Why? It's educational. We have 5 kids and they would rather spend a day at the zoo learning something than sitting on the couch watching cartoons.


+1 for another Zoo member!

Around $35 for a year of unlimited use for my daughter and I, and free parking. :D

[Mike55]

I wouldn't tell anyone that photos they took at a zoo were lame, but for me personally, I don't find any satisfaction from taking shots at a zoo. I recently spent 12 days at Yellowstone and drove some 1800 miles all inside the park, following one lead after another to try to track down the animals I wanted to photograph.


Wow! Did you ever go for a short hike, or sit back in the campground without a camera and just enjoy the park? Seems kind of stressful and hectic.

One of my favorite things to do in Yellowstone other than photography is to flyfish. It allows you to really get back in the park and enjoy a nice peaceful experience without worrying about a camera. The rivers are gorgeous, and the fish are huge. Also, nothing like just relaxing around camp for a couple days, letting the park soak in. If all I did was drive all the time It would feel like the city to me, which is why I feel the need to escape to Yellowstone to begin with.

[Tom Reichner]

I see no problem with people shooting animals in zoos if that's what they want to do. Just please don't refer to it as wildlife photography. Same thing goes for high fence ranches. It doesn't matter if the ranch is 100 acres, 1,000 acres, or 10,000 acres - if it's surrounded by a fence that the animals can't cross, they're captive, and not wild. Wild means not in captivity.

[Luvntravln]

just wanted to here what POTN has to say about "nature" shooters at the zoo.
why i say its LAME!!
-- the animal is not in its natural environment (and you normally can tell)
-- its practically given to you by exhibits made so you can see the animal at all times!
-- your end product is strangely similar to the person standing next to you...

don't get me wrong i think there are some shoots to be had at a zoo but that shoot is found in the juxtaposition of human and animal.
there are many more reasons why i don't like it---- what do you think?

I think you are a snob with nothing better to do than ask this type of question.

Why would you even form a negative opinion about someone who goes to a zoo and takes photos of animals.

If that person gets pleasure from the images that is what it is all about.

If he lies and says it was shot in the wild that is a wholly different issue.

Why would you even conjure up the thought that it is "lame" to take photos at the zoo?

I thought I had too much time on my hands - you win!

[neil_r]

I see no problem with people shooting animals in zoos if that's what they want to do. Just please don't refer to it as wildlife photography. Same thing goes for high fence ranches. It doesn't matter if the ranch is 100 acres, 1,000 acres, or 10,000 acres - if it's surrounded by a fence that the animals can't cross, they're captive, and not wild. Wild means not in captivity.

Would that include places like Hluhluwe Umfolozi & Kruger in South Africa, both pretty big, but both within a fence?

[snowyowl13]

Nothing wrong with zoo photography if that's what a person wants to do, as long as the pictures aren't being passed off as being taken in the wild. Many shots that make the magazines are staged and I find that objectionable because of the deception.
I think that we should stop being so judgmental.

[neil_r]

And while we are at it, what is your view on using a box full of pet-shop mice to entice that owl over for a shot?

[condyk]

There are good Zoo's and bad zoo's and there are relaxed, content animals in some zoo's and truly terrified animals being eaten alive as I type in the wild. It's just not a simple issue. I am less anti-zoo than I used to be because many have or are changing and many animals and birds need a sanctuary because we've killed most of their pals in the wild.

Zoo photography and 'wild' animal photography isn't really the same so why compare? It's like saying studio based glamour photography and a snapshot of your missus in her bra are the same because people (and boobs) are involved.

At the end of the day you can take some great shots in a zoo but to find the Lion you just follow a sign while you lick an ice-cream ... to find them in the wild takes a bit more gumption. And as Rick says that's as much a part of the satisfaction as the shot and another part of what really sets the two apart.

[Just Be]

I guess we need a "Zoo" section?
Or should I put them in the "Pets" section? :rolleyes:

[Tom Reichner]

I would love a separate section for captive animals. There's nothing so disappointing as logging in to this forum, clicking on the wildlife section, seeing a new thread with a title like "african elephant", then opening it up only to see it is a series of zoo shots of a captive elephant. "Polar Bear" gets me all the time too. I think, "cool, someone on the forum went to the arctic to shoot polar bears", then I see its thru glass at a zoo bear. So disappointing.

Again, I am not against people shooting animals at zoos, and I'm genuinely happy for them that they could spend an enjoyable day out with the camera. But I'm always disappointed when I see the images that I thought for a moment may have been taken in the wild.

It seems that so few of us actually bother to get up a 3:30 am, morning after morning, and photograph the wildlife that lives in our locality.

Heck, even a well done image of wild squirrel or rabbit beats the heck out of a technically perfect photo of a zoo leopard, lion, or whatever. We all have some wildlife around the area where we live. Just 'cause you can't find a lion or moose or fox or a bluebird within an hour of your house doesn't mean there's no wildlife there. Shoot what is there. It is immensely more satisfying than those zoo pics.

[Mike55]

And while we are at it, what is your view on using a box full of pet-shop mice to entice that owl over for a shot?

Completely unethical.

[Neilyb]

I am not Anti-zoo, quite the opposite, I think everyone should see wild animals and have the chance to experience them. They do good conservation and breeding work, they are a necessity of the modern world we made.

I hate people posting shots of captive animals in "wildlife" forums. I would rather go shoot a sparrow in a garden (from which it can fly) than an eagle in a zoo. I have seen some amazing places and animals (tigers in India, boobys in Galapagos, lions in Africa) so I am lucky, but zoo shots belong in the "zoo" forum.

[Just Be]

I hate people posting shots of captive animals in "wildlife" forums.

So what section would you like to see (former) wildlife residing animals posted?

I'll bet that when this POTN forum was created they had every intention of having Zoo shots put in the wildlife section.

[brecklundin]

:eyes

wow...I thought this horse was dead already...

[jhkphoto]

:eyes

wow...I thought this horse was dead already...

Yes this is a very dead horse! to think i just wanted to do a bit of early morning ranting about a set of photographs a friend took at a local zoo(well almost a zoo... more like an underfunded gift shop in the mountains of NC who had some black bears).....

i admit that lame was a bit harsh:oops:
i do stand by what i said though

[hollis_f]

Completely unethical.

What about using live mealworms to attract the local Robins?

[RikWriter]

Wow! Did you ever go for a short hike, or sit back in the campground without a camera and just enjoy the park? Seems kind of stressful and hectic.


I've done that before...been three times before this, twice with my family and once with a friend and enjoyed it very much, but I WANTED to get the good shots and this was the only way to do it.

[DennisW1]

just wanted to here what POTN has to say about "nature" shooters at the zoo.
why i say its LAME!!
-- the animal is not in its natural environment (and you normally can tell)
-- its practically given to you by exhibits made so you can see the animal at all times!
-- your end product is strangely similar to the person standing next to you...

don't get me wrong i think there are some shoots to be had at a zoo but that shoot is found in the juxtaposition of human and animal.
there are many more reasons why i don't like it---- what do you think?

.....so, where would you go to shoot a Siberian Tiger, or say, an Elephant, to your local park?

If you're wealthy enough to be able to afford safaris then more power to you. For those of us who aren't so well off financially, a trip to the local zoo is actually affordable.

The only lame people are those who can't find anything better to be critical of then people who go to the zoo to photograph anumals that they don't have access to any other way.

Sorry to all if I'm still beating a dead horse, ignorant comments like that just irriate me

[snyderman]

Can't remember the last time I saw a lion pass through my back yard in NE OHIO!!!

dave

[In2Photos]

Since when does the location a photograph was taken become the deciding factor of whether a photograph is good or not?

I am sure you all have seen a moving photo of a starving child in Africa. Is the photo good because it is from Africa? What if it was taken in Europe? North America? The photo was good because it told a story. It just so happens that the story is more told in Africa.

The same can be said for images taken at a zoo. If it is a good photograph it will tell a story, regardless of the lat and long of it!

[Just Be]

See the POTN "Wildlife" section subtitle.

It states,

Wildlife
"All of the critters that walk, crawl, hop, swim or swing that you won't let live in the house."

[Mike55]

Since when does the location a photograph was taken become the deciding factor of whether a photograph is good or not?

So you think the effort and skill involved in getting a Yellowstone grizzly shot is the same as snapping a photo of a zoo grizzly?

IMHO zoo's are great. They educate, save animals from death(most problem wild animals are put in zoos) and many zoos are part of the conservation movement. But a zoo shot is leagues behind an actual wild animal shot. That doesn't mean the zoo animal is somehow "lesser" or a bad animal. It's not, It's the equal of any other of it's species, wild or captive. But what it does mean is that the shot taken in non-fenced in areas is superior in terms of skill and effort.

[Tess320]

Being primarily a zoo photographer, I see this "argument" all the time. Usually stated a little better but on well.

The idea that the animals just stand there waiting for the perfect shot can be blasted by googling "zoo photos" and looking at the enormous amount of crap that is generated by zoo goe'ers each year. Contrary to silly and maybe popular belief, they are often hidden, you often have to wait hours, some enclosures are just crap in general, or you have to contend with dirty glass, reflective wire bars, and little kid's heads in the way.

As I've said time and time again though, I frankly don't care if you wait 48 hours for one photo of a bird. It makes you PATIENT, not a great "photographer". The only thing that makes you a great "photographer" is the end result - the photograph. If you need to highlight it's 'wild', then why can't it just stand for itself?

There are plenty of 'wild' animal photos that consist of spoilt westerners being driven around by locals in 4WDs so that the animal is right there in front of them. Does that require anymore effort or just a bigger bank balance?

Oh well, I'm pretty happy with MY zoo images and I'm pretty sure they look nothing at all like the photos from the people next to me:

www.animusphotography.com

[Mike55]

As I've said time and time again though, I frankly don't care if you wait 48 hours for one photo of a bird. It makes you PATIENT, not a great "photographer". The only thing that makes you a great "photographer" is the end result - the photograph. If you need to highlight it's 'wild', then why can't it just stand for itself?

It's a very important distinction to make. For starters, the conditions you will encounter filming wildlife are far more varied. So is the lighting and distance.

[Tess320]

[/i]

It's a very important distinction to make. For starters, the conditions you will encounter filming wildlife are far more varied. So is the lighting and distance.

Distance yes....lighting is just light no matter where you are. The ability to control that light has little to do with whether the animal is wild or not - it's still back to the skill of the photographer.

People make the distinction because they get more 'oooh' out of people when they say it's wild, that's the real reason. I've seen PLENTY of totally crap wild shots get lots of kudos even though they are out of focus or just plain boring.

[condyk]

There are plenty of 'wild' animal photos that consist of spoilt westerners being driven around by locals in 4WDs so that the animal is right there in front of them. Does that require anymore effort or just a bigger bank balance?



That's very true ...

For those folks the experience is one of being moved around en mass by park guides who are in radio contact with many other guides. Once an 'interesting' animal is spotted somewhere then the tourist trucks all head there. I've seen this a number of times. We found Lion in Chobe and were mercifully alone with them for a short time. All of a sudden the first tour truck arrived and the guy was on the radio. Within 10 minutes there were 4-5 trucks.

The guides also know where lots of different animal types hang out and just drive there same time every day and then pretend to be surprised at their find to excite the tourists in the back. This is very much the case on some of the small private reserves.

The people may be 'on safari' but for me that isn't what a safari experience could be about. Too safe and easy. Part of the joy is actually using your own gumption to find animals ... or even luck. Of course, that means you may not see everything that the tourist might, but if just seeing and taking a shot is all someone is interested in then a Zoo would work fine.


I've seen PLENTY of totally crap wild shots get lots of kudos even though they are out of focus or just plain boring.

I think what can make some of these shots interesting is the back story. Not much of that in a Zoo. But I like a number of zoo's and as i have said zoo and wild shooting isn't really the same - not better or worse, just different.

[Mike55]

Distance yes....lighting is just light no matter where you are. The ability to control that light has little to do with whether the animal is wild or not - it's still back to the skill of the photographer.

People make the distinction because they get more 'oooh' out of people when they say it's wild, that's the real reason. I've seen PLENTY of totally crap wild shots get lots of kudos even though they are out of focus or just plain boring.


I would take an out of focus shot of a wild pine marten or lynx than the most perfectly focused and well lit zoo shot. I'm sure many other wildlife shooters would do the same. But that doesn't mean I think zoo shots are lame (like the OP). Most of the zoo shots I see here are really well done. I just prefer shots of animals in the wild.

As far as lighting, many zoo displays are indoors. The ones that are outdoors have predictable backdrops. you always know where an animal will be and can plan for it at all times. Try taking wildlife shots in a narrow mountain valley on a partly sunny day. Enjoy the skill it takes as the animal darts from forest backdrop to meadow, going from unuseable shutter speeds to bright daylight. Now toss in the sun just clipping the mountain along with smoke filled skies from wilderness fires.....darn, now it's raining and lightning. Better get in the trees and sit this one out, maybe prep some camp food while you do. In the forest, you spot chipmunks, squirrels, a porcupine and a goshawk. All of them uncapturable due to shutter speed and low light even though it's the middle of the day....

You wake up the next morning to a foot of snow. You have to clean your lens elements because they frosted over..... You make your way to the meadow and find a moose, but it's still way too early and the light is too dim. You wait him out, but he decides to head into the thick forest at the edgeof the meadow, out of range...... A few hours later, you see a huge bald eagle sitting on a tree along the river, but he is too far away. As you creep towards him, the eagle instantly takes off up the river valley. You got no shots that day, none. But you will try again tomorrow.

Just another beautiful day shooting wild animals.

[hollis_f]

Since when does the location a photograph was taken become the deciding factor of whether a photograph is good or not?

So you think the effort and skill involved in getting a Yellowstone grizzly shot is the same as snapping a photo of a zoo grizzly?

Ah! So a good photo is only possible if it's difficult to take?

[Mike55]

Ah! So a good photo is only possible if it's difficult to take?


In the context of wildlife photography, images of difficult to find animals will always be at the top of the heap regardless of compositon, lighting and sometimes even focus. People understand what it takes to even even capture something like a mountain lion or a lynx in the wild.

[nphsbuckeye]

Is it lame? Well, $17 for the Columbus Zoo about 20 minutes from my apartment or how many ten of thousands of dollars to see the same animals in their natural environment?

[Mike55]

nphs -

Ohio has a national forest:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wayne/

You don't have to spend much money at all to photograph wildlife if you already have some gear. Also, Ohio isn't that far from the George Washington National Forest in Virgina:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/

and the Mononghelia National Forest in West Virgina:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/mnf/

Columbus is also only 360 miles from Great Smoky Mountains National Park:

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/index.htm


lots of great outdoor stuff fairly nearby.

[rumplepigskin]

I go to the zoos in my area just to take photos for practice...I have no illusions i am in the wild or the animal is in its natural enviroment... is this all you could find to gripe about?

[snowyowl13]

I really think that this whole debate is a bit silly. Good, even great pictures can be taken at zoos or in the wilderness. I prefer to take my pictures in a wild setting but that is simply a choice that I make for personal satisfaction.
I don't normally get the opportunity to go to zoos but if I did get to one I'd certainly take pictures. When I'm in Banff or the NWT, I go out searching for wildlife to photograph. They are two different disciplines but both require skill and effort and deserve respect. Perhaps a Captive Animal thread should be created so that pictures would reach the right "audience"?

[beano]

Perhaps a Captive Animal thread should be created so that pictures would reach the right "audience"?

Where would it stop? Would we have to have a baited wildlife thread too? :rolleyes:

I agree whole heartedly with your 1st line though.. It is VERY silly! :lol:

[RandyMN]

I think just about everything that can be stated has already been said in this thread.

Personally, I don't think photography needs to be defined by whether a person takes a $10,000 trip to get it done or just treks to the local zoo.

I think zoo shots can be difficult as well, and any good photographer can go out in their back yard and get great shots while a poor photographer given the same situation will still fail.

I have taken zoo shots and find fences and bars distracting, while on the other side I have gone into natural environment zoos and find these much more photogenic if you can get the right light and the animals are in the open.

To state that zoo animals are abused is arrogant in most cases since animals in the wild suffer disease, starvation and predators while zoo animals sit back and get fed. Yes, I've seen the bored Polar Bears pacing and understand it is not their native environment, but this debate is not really about zoos, it's about photography and going to the zoo with your camera.

Now given a wildlife television show from National Geographic, you expect these animals to be in the wild as it's educational programming. Given a camera with no sponsoring magazine forking out tens of thousands of dollars to get the real wildlife shots, zoo photography is a nice alternative and if a photographer chooses this it does not make them lame for doing so!

I personally hate bird shots that include the bird feeder. I prefer to see the bird on a branch and cut the feeder out. This seems somewhat similar to wishing wildlife to be actually in the wild, but it doesn't make another persons shot bad because they don't agrre with me. But in no way will I trek out into the woods looking for birds in their natural environment because my back yard has become their home and offers better photo opportunities.

[In2Photos]

So you think the effort and skill involved in getting a Yellowstone grizzly shot is the same as snapping a photo of a zoo grizzly?

No! But the photograph could be. Just because someone trekked into a National Park doesn't make the photograph better. As I said before, the photo has to have merit on its own. If it doesn't then who cares where it was taken? While I might have more personal satisfaction or garner more interest from others since it was taken in a National Park, it doesn't automatically make it a better photograph!

A slight tangent, but what I think is a decent metaphor. A while back there was a photographer here that was asked to take some pictures about child abuse. He had his son act as if he were just hit, had tears and everything. Processed the image to give it some mood. The photo was great! Why? Because it evoked emotion. It didn't have to be a child that was actually abused to get the point across.

[nphsbuckeye]

nphs -

Ohio has a national forest:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wayne/

You don't have to spend much money at all to photograph wildlife if you already have some gear. Also, Ohio isn't that far from the George Washington National Forest in Virgina:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/

and the Mononghelia National Forest in West Virgina:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/mnf/

Columbus is also only 360 miles from Great Smoky Mountains National Park:

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/index.htm


lots of great outdoor stuff fairly nearby.
You addressed some of the animals at the zoo. What about elephants, lions, and tigers? They don't live in the US.

[hollis_f]

You addressed some of the animals at the zoo. What about elephants, lions, and tigers? They don't live in the US.

Well, you'll just have to go to Africa or India. But make sure you don't go out with a guide who knows the local area - because that's hardly better than going to the zoo. No, the only way to get a good photo is if you crawl through the bush on your hands and knees for three weeks before encountering a lion.

Still, you'll be able to entertain yourself by laughing at me and the others in my, guide-led, vehicle - pretending that we're taking 'proper' photos of the same lion. Oh what silly-billies we'll look.

[Tom Reichner]

Well, you'll just have to go to Africa or India. But make sure you don't go out with a guide who knows the local area - because that's hardly better than going to the zoo. No, the only way to get a good photo is if you crawl through the bush on your hands and knees for three weeks before encountering a lion.

Still, you'll be able to entertain yourself by laughing at me and the others in my, guide-led, vehicle - pretending that we're taking 'proper' photos of the same lion. Oh what silly-billies we'll look.

Hollis, it's obvious you're saying this sarcastically. But there is incredible satisfaction in finding the wildlife yourself, and in using stealth and patience to get the image.

Crawling on your hands and knees is actually a good tactic for approaching wildlife - but it's not nearly as good as crawling on your belly. Being down on your belly gets you under the vegetation. Also, if you're willing to lay for hours on your belly, you can use a much smaller blind than if you insist on being able to kneel or sit. Birds and mammals will come in much closer to a smaller blind than one that is larger.

I want wildlife shots that other people don't get. Who wants a photo that dozens of other people have? Use a guide service and your images will look an awful lot like the photos of others that have used the guide service. Everyone is photographing the same animals from the same position and the same angles, with the same light. I don't understand having a photo that is just like someone else's photo - what's the point?

The only way I know of to get images that are different from the images you see in other people's portfolios is to get out in the woods, brush, or swamp, find out where the intended subjects are, observe them and learn their behavior, figure out what direction best takes advantage of the light, develop a plan of approach, build a blind, and return day after day to the blind and wait for the best photo ops the subject will present.

Often it is easier than that. But the very best images usually come from the times when I have to invest days and days afield. And yes, many folks do have that kind of time available to them - in the spring and summer months in the northern hemisphere, most of this can be acomplished from 3am to 7:30am - so most 9 to 5ers can still get to their day job in time.

-Tom

[In2Photos]

Hollis, it's obvious you're saying this sarcastically. But there is incredible satisfaction in finding the wildlife yourself, and in using stealth and patience to get the image.

I have no doubt that personal satisfaction is greater. I think we can all agree with that. But this thread is about photos, not our personal satisfaction.

I want wildlife shots that other people don't get. Who wants a photo that dozens of other people have? Use a guide service and your images will look an awful lot like the photos of others that have used the guide service. Everyone is photographing the same animals from the same position and the same angles, with the same light. I don't understand having a photo that is just like someone else's photo - what's the point?

The only way I know of to get images that are different from the images you see in other people's portfolios is to get out in the woods, brush, or swamp, find out where the intended subjects are, observe them and learn their behavior, figure out what direction best takes advantage of the light, develop a plan of approach, build a blind, and return day after day to the blind and wait for the best photo ops the subject will present.


I seriously doubt that you are the first one to figure this out. So in all honesty there are likely many other shots just like yours (see Nat Geo for one). But that doesn't matter does it? Hell no! Because YOU took the effort to get them. Again, personal satisfaction is all fine and dandy. If we weren't satisfied we wouldn't be shooting! But again, that is not why this thread was started. It was started saying that zoo photos were lame, not about personal satisfaction from crawling on your belly in the bush.


Often it is easier than that. But the very best images usually come from the times when I have to invest days and days afield. And yes, many folks do have that kind of time available to them - in the spring and summer months in the northern hemisphere, most of this can be acomplished from 3am to 7:30am - so most 9 to 5ers can still get to their day job in time.

-Tom
That is a pretty broad brush you paint with. I find it hard to believe that most folks have time to be out at 3 am and still make it to their 9-5 job. Especially if they have kids. But if that is your choice I am sure you can make time for it.

[condyk]

Still, you'll be able to entertain yourself by laughing at me and the others in my, guide-led, vehicle - pretending that we're taking 'proper' photos of the same lion. Oh what silly-billies we'll look.

:lol::lol: Such sarcasm ... Africa is a big place and can cater to all tastes. Have fun!

[Mike55]

You addressed some of the animals at the zoo. What about elephants, lions, and tigers? They don't live in the US.


The U.S. has a wide array of native wildlife which you can take images of though. Seems many people jump right past all those great things right towards the big African cats. Seems kind of limiting.

But you make a good point. Ifyou want to see wildlife from Africa and you are from the U.S., you need to go to a zoo or buy an expensive safari.

[Tess320]

I would take an out of focus shot of a wild pine marten or lynx than the most perfectly focused and well lit zoo shot. I'm sure many other wildlife shooters would do the same. But that doesn't mean I think zoo shots are lame (like the OP). Most of the zoo shots I see here are really well done. I just prefer shots of animals in the wild.

As far as lighting, many zoo displays are indoors. The ones that are outdoors have predictable backdrops. you always know where an animal will be and can plan for it at all times. Try taking wildlife shots in a narrow mountain valley on a partly sunny day. Enjoy the skill it takes as the animal darts from forest backdrop to meadow, going from unuseable shutter speeds to bright daylight. Now toss in the sun just clipping the mountain along with smoke filled skies from wilderness fires.....darn, now it's raining and lightning. Better get in the trees and sit this one out, maybe prep some camp food while you do. In the forest, you spot chipmunks, squirrels, a porcupine and a goshawk. All of them uncapturable due to shutter speed and low light even though it's the middle of the day....

You wake up the next morning to a foot of snow. You have to clean your lens elements because they frosted over..... You make your way to the meadow and find a moose, but it's still way too early and the light is too dim. You wait him out, but he decides to head into the thick forest at the edgeof the meadow, out of range...... A few hours later, you see a huge bald eagle sitting on a tree along the river, but he is too far away. As you creep towards him, the eagle instantly takes off up the river valley. You got no shots that day, none. But you will try again tomorrow.

Just another beautiful day shooting wild animals.


Sorry I have to reply individually, I am crap at quotes!

"I would take an out of focus shot of a wild pine marten or lynx than the most perfectly focused and well lit zoo shot. I'm sure many other wildlife shooters would do the same."

This is honestly the attitude towards animal photography that I simply can't personally understand. To me some wildlife photography is not about photography, but becomes a substitute for hunting. It's about getting the species, about capturing it, more than it is about capturing a photograph that means more than a record. This is how it comes *across* to me, not saying this is how you would all feel.

I honestly don't see how a photographer can take an out of focus 'crap' shot over something that is better. Now if the zoo photo is static and boring but in focus, that's a different issue. But to me, it's about photography and saying something MORE about the animal than it is about simply recording the species. Maybe it all comes down to intentions, I don't know.

And to be fair, I see just as many zoo photos/photographers who couldn't give a hoot about the animal and just want a perfectly sharp head shot of a Tiger and that's about it.

I don't work that way. I know all the major species at my local zoo, I know their names, I speak to the keepers, I know their habits and personalities and that's what I want to capture - THEM. Not "A Tiger" or "an Orangutan", so it doesn't matter to me WHERE this individual is.

As for lighting at the zoo, I couldn't disagree more. It is just as difficult trying to shoot a big cat that is prowling in an enclosure that always gets the sun and has the glare of the window and the grotty hands of some kids all over it. My usual ISO at my zoo? 1600. I try and handhold the 100-400 at 1/60 so I can get a shot of a newborn Capuchin that's hidden in the darkness of the enclosure. I don't GET to experience any of the animals in the early sunrise glow or the late sunset warmth because the zoo is closed!

Almost all of our zoo enclosures are outdoors, btw. Zoos will vary from country to country. I visited three across my own country recently and there were many lighting challenges.

[JuliusUpNorth]

Oh boy, this is getting hot and heavy. Personally, I have not taken photos at a zoo for years. I have nothing against well-run zoos, though, particularly those that breed endangered species.

All wildlife photos are great. However, I do not like it if someone passes a zoo photo as a shot taken in the wild. I like to see a bit of the natural habitat in the photo to get a feel for the area the animal lives in, if at all possible. But that's just my idea of wildlife photography. I certainly do not dismiss the ones taken at zoos--I just prefer the ones taken in the wild.

Julius

[Jannie]

How is it so different to take a zoo shot than from the roof of a safari car that drives you into shooting distance of an elephant or pride of lions. Okay they are in their natural habitat but it's not like you wandered onto the plains before daybreak with a canteen and backpack in search of the white Rhino.

I think if you really like taking photos of animals and you live right in the middle of a city then why not go take photos of the animals there, if you can get a really good shot of an animal at the zoo then more power to you, I've only ever seen one really great one and that one was a stunner and I didn't care where the photo was taken. A bored zoo animal seldom seems very stimulating to look at in a photo.

[airfrogusmc]

just wanted to here what POTN has to say about "nature" shooters at the zoo.
why i say its LAME!!
-- the animal is not in its natural environment (and you normally can tell)
-- its practically given to you by exhibits made so you can see the animal at all times!
-- your end product is strangely similar to the person standing next to you...

don't get me wrong i think there are some shoots to be had at a zoo but that shoot is found in the juxtaposition of human and animal.
there are many more reasons why i don't like it---- what do you think?

Winogrand turned his camera around and shot the people looking at the animals.

Just like sunsets sometimes the most intersting shots are the other way.

[nphsbuckeye]

Well, you'll just have to go to Africa or India. But make sure you don't go out with a guide who knows the local area - because that's hardly better than going to the zoo. No, the only way to get a good photo is if you crawl through the bush on your hands and knees for three weeks before encountering a lion.

Still, you'll be able to entertain yourself by laughing at me and the others in my, guide-led, vehicle - pretending that we're taking 'proper' photos of the same lion. Oh what silly-billies we'll look.
That wasn't my point. My original point was that zoos are viable options for people wanting to see exotic critters that most can't see because of the immense price to see a lion or elephant. I said the previous post because I was told I can see animals - not the real big ones that don't live in the US - around central Ohio.
The U.S. has a wide array of native wildlife which you can take images of though. Seems many people jump right past all those great things right towards the big African cats. Seems kind of limiting.

But you make a good point. Ifyou want to see wildlife from Africa and you are from the U.S., you need to go to a zoo or buy an expensive safari.
I agree the US has a lot of good wildlife and I don't have to go awfully far, but to see the same animals as Columbus Zoo would probably cost tens of thousands.

[rumplepigskin]

wow... this is getting so overblown... the original question was something along the lines of is shooting at the zoo considered wildlife shots or something to that effect... now we have people lying about crawling thru the brush to get "the shot"... and that zoos abuse animals... wow... first of all as someone who has been to africa you will not be crawling around in the brush to get that shot. Your tiny hiney won't be around long... and 99.9% of US zoos do not abuse the animals in a way made out here... we can say they are abused by being there but that's another story... People just go take your photos and live and let live...

[Mike55]

How is it so different to take a zoo shot than from the roof of a safari car that drives you into shooting distance of an elephant or pride of lions. Okay they are in their natural habitat but it's not like you wandered onto the plains before daybreak with a canteen and backpack in search of the white Rhino.

It's very different and unpredictable.

[Tess320]

How is it so different to take a zoo shot than from the roof of a safari car that drives you into shooting distance of an elephant or pride of lions. Okay they are in their natural habitat but it's not like you wandered onto the plains before daybreak with a canteen and backpack in search of the white Rhino.

I think if you really like taking photos of animals and you live right in the middle of a city then why not go take photos of the animals there, if you can get a really good shot of an animal at the zoo then more power to you, I've only ever seen one really great one and that one was a stunner and I didn't care where the photo was taken. A bored zoo animal seldom seems very stimulating to look at in a photo.


There are definitely too many shots of big cats yawning passed off as growls, and of Tigers with bored expressions, flat back ears looking about as interesting as my toe nails. But think of it another way too - in the wild, chances are, you're not going to see that animal again. You get one chance, and that's your shot.

At a zoo, you can go back and get a series of THAT animal. You can learn THAT animal and get a different side of THAT particular, individual, animal.

For eg, here's one I took of Kiani, a female Orangutan at my local Zoo.

http://images-2.redbubble.net/img/art/backgroundcolor:000000/size:large/view:main/2372287-2-thoughts.jpg

The same female:

http://images-1.redbubble.net/img/art/backgroundcolor:000000/size:large/view:main/2764409-3-kiani.jpg

The same again

http://images-1.redbubble.net/img/art/backgroundcolor:000000/size:large/view:main/2409080-2-dreams.jpg

Are they the same? I don't think so. I'm interested in HER, not just 'an orangutan'.

People who take crap zoo shots, are probably also going to take crap wild shots. You either love your subject and you're good at it, or you aren't.

[chauncey]

Brainless argument #....

someone taking pictures of me in exchange for safety, free room and board/someone coming into my house and taking pictures
being old and safe/getting eaten and looking over my shoulder

[snowyowl13]

It is very similar to what happens in the Bird forum. Some people post shots of captive birds. That's fine with me but they don't interest me so I pass over them. The fact that I don't look at them doesn't mean that I look down on them or object to them, they just aren't my thing. Some of them are probably far better shots than I could get. So long as there isn't any attempt to pass the shots off as wild captures, I say live and let live. I understand that a lot of pros stage wildlife shots and that I find that instinctively objectionable but then again I use bait so is there really a difference? Maybe I'm being too judgmental.

[beano]

I understand that a lot of pros stage wildlife shots and that I find that instinctively objectionable but then again I use bait so is there really a difference?

IMHO no. By using bait, you are in fact staging the shot. Do i see anything wrong with it? Photographically no. Ethically yes (btw i'm not judging you, i follow my own rules and expect everyone else to follow theirs). Will my photo's ever be as good as yours? no. :lol:

Saying that, i've thought about shooting at Red Kite feeding stations, which is exactly the same thing, and have to admit it isn't the ethics that has stopped me so far, it's the wing tags. :o:lol:

[cdifoto]

I prefer a technically excellent photo with no back story to a crappy one with a great back story, especially if it's something we've all seen a million times before.

Let's face it. Even if you do trek to the Sahara on your own, you're not capturing anything that hasn't already been printed in one of the National Geographics. You should do that for your own personal satisfaction, not to feel superior.

[beano]

You should do that for your own personal satisfaction, not to feel superior.

I couldn't agree more! ;)

[In2Photos]

I prefer a technically excellent photo with no back story to a crappy one with a great back story, especially if it's something we've all seen a million times before.

Let's face it. Even if you do trek to the Sahara on your own, you're not capturing anything that hasn't already been printed in one of the National Geographics. You should do that for your own personal satisfaction, not to feel superior.
Oh no, I am starting to sound like Don! :o
I have no doubt that personal satisfaction is greater. I think we can all agree with that. But this thread is about photos, not our personal satisfaction.



I seriously doubt that you are the first one to figure this out. So in all honesty there are likely many other shots just like yours (see Nat Geo for one). But that doesn't matter does it? Hell no! Because YOU took the effort to get them. Again, personal satisfaction is all fine and dandy. If we weren't satisfied we wouldn't be shooting! But again, that is not why this thread was started. It was started saying that zoo photos were lame, not about personal satisfaction from crawling on your belly in the bush.


That is a pretty broad brush you paint with. I find it hard to believe that most folks have time to be out at 3 am and still make it to their 9-5 job. Especially if they have kids. But if that is your choice I am sure you can make time for it.

[Jannie]

Zoo animals are simply another subject, like sailboats, except that now you have me interested - wondering if I went to the zoo, could I actually get a good shot, I've always assumed that whatever I would take would look like, well, an animal at the zoo.

[nightcat]

If you live in New York or Chicago and want to photograph a lion or tiger, the subway doesn't stop in Africa!

[neil_r]

If you live in New York or Chicago and want to photograph a lion or tiger, the subway doesn't stop in Africa!

And even if it did, you would crap out on a tiger ;-)

[beano]

And even if it did, you would crap out on a tiger ;-)

So pedantic. :lol:

[JeffreyG]

Oh no, I am starting to sound like Don! :o

That's nothing. Do you shoot porn too?

[imahawki]

Some of the most preeminent zoologists and animal behavioralists work for the top zoos. That's NOT to say there aren't bad zoos, but condemning them across the board isn't fair.

[In2Photos]

That's nothing. Do you shoot porn too?
No! So maybe I'm not like Don! :lol:

[ctranter]

As long as people don't pass them off as wild then I don't have a problem with it. It's not for me though.

[EveryMilesAMemory]

Think of the species captive breeding have saved.

If we were to reintroduce some of these animals back into the wild, the same idiots who brought the population down to a few limited numbers would probably be back out there hunting them

So I have no problem getting pictures of a few endangered species when I know I'd never be able to get them because of some arrogant species who knows how to hunt with rifles.

This argument has be fought over so many times, I cant believe it was brought up again.

Like others have said, 99% of us would never get a chance to get a shot of some exotic animals if it wasnt for Zoo's, and if we were to only photograph wildlife in our neighborhoods, this forum might as well be called Dog, Cat or Bird fancy

[matman1975]

I belong to the few who travel very frequently to Africa for their wildlife photo-projects.
I always believed (long ago before I became a wildlife photographer) that animals don't belong to a zoo or any kind of other human made enclosure....that's why it never crossed my mind to visit such a place like a zoo to take animal shots.
With a few exceptions "zoo shots" don't sell at all in photo library agencies. The clients always seek original-wild shots of free animals and often they are willing to pay a lot of money to purchase such a photo.
I believe that anyone who claims that loves animals should never ever visit a zoo....the ticket you buy at a zoo pays the fees for those who capture and enslave majestic creatures which belong only to their natural environment

[imahawki]

the ticket you buy at a zoo pays the fees for those who capture and enslave majestic creatures which belong only to their natural environment You do realize that most quality zoos don't operate that way, don't you? Are you just saying that to be inflammatory or do you actually believe it? Most zoo animals are rehab animals or captive bred and can't survive in the wild. Zoos are also one of the biggest sources of conservation efforts and money.

[matman1975]

You do realize that most quality zoos don't operate that way, don't you? Are you just saying that to be inflammatory or do you actually believe it? Most zoo animals are rehab animals or captive bred and can't survive in the wild. Zoos are also one of the biggest sources of conservation efforts and money.

I really wonder my friend...what does "captive bred" mean.
It obviously means that the "original" parents where enslaved from the wild so that a steady line of zoo animals can be established... at least for me this is unacceptable.
I don't care if a zoo has quality standards or if it provides good food and veterinary support to the "inmates" or if it raises funds for conservation purposes...it still remains a kind of a prison. A lion or a tiger which has never tasted freedom is not a true lion-tiger.
We humans think that it is very natural to keep in captivity and breed in captivity animals for our personal amusement...I personally find this sad and pathetic.
I attach below a shot of three cheetahs having fun somewhere in Masai Mara (Kenya)...I bet that those zoo "captive bred" inmates would gladly trade their whole boring lives for a moment like this

Teo

[Pete]

Guys.

Can you keep this on topic please and not use this forum to discuss the ethics of zoos.

The subject here is about photography at zoos v photography of wild animals.

Further off-topic discussion will most likely be removed.

[imahawki]

I will bow out, I've been down this path recently and don't want to go there again... however, Pete, I think the reason its going down this path is that the two are intertwined (the ethics of zoos, and the merits of photographing at them).

Cheers...

[Pete]

just wanted to here what POTN has to say about "nature" shooters at the zoo.
why i say its LAME!!
-- the animal is not in its natural environment (and you normally can tell)
-- its practically given to you by exhibits made so you can see the animal at all times!
-- your end product is strangely similar to the person standing next to you...

don't get me wrong i think there are some shoots to be had at a zoo but that shoot is found in the juxtaposition of human and animal.
there are many more reasons why i don't like it---- what do you think?

Allow me to quote the original post here, which in no way called out for a discussion of the ethicality of zoos.

The issue that the OP here was calling out is that the practice of shooting animals at a zoo is tantamount to shooting fish in a barrel.

[Tom Reichner]

The whole reason that many folks have a problem with zoo photography is because of zoo ethics - so they are so intertwined that you can't really discuss one without discussing the other.
To see if we're "on topic" here, let's go back to the original post. The original post asked if we think zoo photography is lame.
What we think of zoo photography - that is the topic. How are we supposed to say what we think of zoo photography without saying why we think it? So any discussion stating weather we think zoo photography is lame or not, and why we think that, is not only on topic - it is the topic.

[neil_r]

I am not a great fan of Zoos. But having said that not all Zoos are the same, the work carried out and the conditions in some of the worlds leading Zoos like London or Berlin and I am sure many others in the developed countries of the world is excellent and there are real and tangible benefits for the earths ecology. Some other Zoos do not have the same ethos. But lets be clear not all Zoos are the same.

As to lame or not, I guess most has already been said, being chauffeured around the Kruger National Park and taking your pictures from the back of a 4x4 is no more taxing or exclusive than snapping in your local Zoo so there is no photographers kudos there.

A good picture is a good picture, possibly the most famous picture in the US was staged after the event, yet it is still a great picture.

[imahawki]

A good picture is a good picture, possibly the most famous picture in the US was staged after the event, yet it is still a great picture. Could you elaborate?

[Flo]

Could you elaborate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima
Maybe this one?

[imahawki]

Ah, good call, I bet that's it.

[Flo]

As for zoo photos.so many of the shots I see are head shots.so the point that they are captive becomes kind of moot to me.Full bodied photos with enclosures seen are not the best scenerio, but after all, we have all grown up with some sort of zoo-like place to go. They are more or less now being used as rehabs and breeding facilities.which I think is a win win for alot of close to extinction species etc.

They are photographs. Period. Regardless of where they were taken...still a wild animal, just not in its "natural" state.

[CyberDyneSystems]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima
Maybe this one?

That's it, but likewise with the kiss in times square...


On Topic,..

Often It's called practice.
It's called learning to use your camera while shooting a subject that you like.
Anyone that does NOT take the opportunity to learn their equipment and techniques prior to diving off the tall board is the one that should be questioned.

Shooting in a controlled environment "for real"? (as opposed to practice)
Is this bad?
I'll tell all the people shooting in studios, they might be interested to hear that .

[Scottes]

I'm with CDS on this.

Anything, even a zoo, is practice, and any practice is better than no practice.


I do a lot of birding. And almost every year I go shoot sea gulls. Why? There's plenty of them, they're always flying around, and I get lots of practice.

Yeah, they're bottom-feeding scum-sucker birds that can't hold a candle to an osprey. But it's practice. And it's made me a better shooter.

[Tom Reichner]

The original title of this thread was:

Am i the only one that thinks shooting at the zoo for nature shoots is lame!!!

Why was the title to this thread changed?

It seems underhanded to go and change the title, unless it was the original poster who requested it. If the thread title had a bit of an opinionated edge to it, so what? There are several purposes to this forum - isn't one of them to provide a place to vent our sometimes strong feelings and opinions?

Censorship is generally a very negative practice and should be avoided.

[imahawki]

On the other hand, why have an inflammatory title that is NOT necessary to have the debate? It just brings out the worst in people who otherwise might behave perfectly well.

[Tom Reichner]

On the other hand, why have an inflammatory title that is NOT necessary to have the debate? It just brings out the worst in people who otherwise might behave perfectly well.

The original title gives a much more accurate indication of the nature of the thread. It tells me what the discussion is going to be like. The lame replacement title doesn't really capture the true essence of the thread.

[beano]

The original title gives a much more accurate indication of the nature of the thread. It tells me what the discussion is going to be like. The lame replacement title doesn't really capture the true essence of the thread.

No, but it does capture the direction the mods want the discussion to head in. ;)

[Tom Reichner]

No, but it does capture the direction the mods want the discussion to head in. ;)

I'm quite frankly that this is being policed so tightly. I never realized that such tight censorship was the way this forum was run. It's almost as though someone is concerned that zoo owners or zoo administrators are going to freak out, just because a couple photographers voiced their opinion.

[beano]

I'm quite frankly that this is being policed so tightly. I never realized that such tight censorship was the way this forum was run. It's almost as though someone is concerned that zoo owners or zoo administrators are going to freak out, just because a couple photographers voiced their opinion.

It depends how you look at it really. The title itself could be seen as a personal attack (whether that was the OP's intention, or not) on anyone that chooses to photograph animals in the zoo, which is not acceptable imho. And the fact is, this is one of those age old debates that wil never be resolved, and isn't worth getting into pointless arguments about!?!

As for censorship, i hate to break it to you, but there's no such thing as freedom of speech anymore, and hasn't been for some time. It's been eroded away with all your other civil liberties, while you were looking the other way... :p:lol:

[Tom Reichner]

As for censorship, i hate to break it to you, but there's no such thing as freedom of speech anymore, and hasn't been for some time. It's been eroded away with all your other civil liberties, while you were looking the other way... :p:lol:

I never looked away - I bitterly complained and bi____ all the while, but no one paid any attention to me! Now it's too late.

[cdifoto]

This is a privately owned forum anyway. Free speech is only as free as the owner allows. Heck the owner could rightfully ban anyone named Tom if he really wanted to, just as a homeowner could kick someone off his property just for having a moustache. Absurd or not, "fair" or not, it's the property owner's right.

[beano]

I never looked away - I bitterly complained and bi____ all the while, but no one paid any attention to me! Now it's too late.

Yet you're still trying... Viva la revolution!

[beano]

This is a privately owned forum anyway. Free speech is only as free as the owner allows. Heck the owner could rightfully ban anyone named Tom if he really wanted to, just as a homeowner could kick someone off his property just for having a moustache. Absurd or not, "fair" or not, it's the property owner's right.

Yup. ;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Because one thing you are absolutely NOT allowed to do here on POTN is insult other forum members.
The title was insulting to any member that happened to feel that shooting in a zoo was not "lame".

A simple change in thread title allowed the thread to continue so long as the members within would continue to be mature and did not include topics that are forbidden by the forums rules.

Censorship?
If you want to consider enforcing this forums rules as on par with a government controlling the media, if you feel asking for a modicum of human decency in how we treat our fellow members on a privately owned and managed forum as similar to stamping out contrary opinions with tax generated funding,.. then yes, call us censors.

Another rule we have at POTN that you may regard as censorship,
(and again I refer to the same rules you agreed to abide by when you registered at this forum, found here;
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=353304


IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE RULES THEN DO NOT DISCUSS IT IN THE FORUM. CONTACT AN ADMINISTRATOR OR MODERATOR AND PRESENT YOUR REASONING TO THEM.

If you do not agree to be bound by these conditions of use, or should you consider any future amendments made to these conditions of use to be unacceptable, you should not post to Canon Digital Photography Forums.
READING IS ALWAYS OK!

You may note these are the only rules in bold and all caps.

lastly, again on "censorship"
In those same rules it is expressly stated, (and all of you agreed to abide by this ) that politics is not to be discussed on the forum.

Agreeing to that and then being upset that we do not allow it can hardly be associated as censorship.

If it is true that the subject matter of this thread can not be discussed without bringing in topics that are not allowed on POTN, than the only possible conclusion we can agree on is that the subject of this thread is not to be discussed as outlined in the forum rules.

The original title of this thread was:

Am i the only one that thinks shooting at the zoo for nature shoots is lame!!!

Why was the title to this thread changed?

It seems underhanded to go and change the title, unless it was the original poster who requested it. If the thread title had a bit of an opinionated edge to it, so what? There are several purposes to this forum - isn't one of them to provide a place to vent our sometimes strong feelings and opinions?

Censorship is generally a very negative practice and should be avoided.