Are zoo photos wildlife??

[stitchbug]

I'm not sure if these count as "wild"life, since they're not technically wild! :lol:

But we went to the zoo yesterday, and the animals were very cooperative!

CC welcome!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4376774183_32432d604f.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4005/4377526454_5accd9e05a.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4377541524_46226621e1.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2801/4376787629_a6f59bf834.jpg

[superdiver]

yes they are, and they are good.

[Doctorh]

good shots

[sam walker]

nicely done a lot of web sites don't consider captured animals wildlife shots. i personally refrain and only shoot outside of my zoo I just looked at some photos of dall sheep in Alaska a few entries below this. That photog busted fanny for those shots.
my opinion
Sam

[mattinynp]

I think it's fine to practice at zoos and I have before but the animals are not wild. Great pictures, I like #3 and #4 the best.

[bongo fury]

Depends... is caged the same as wild?

I like #3... resembles my comment. :)

[Schell]

Zoo animals are NOT wildlife because they are not WILD. If the wildlife photographer of the year is at risk of getting his prize and title revoked because he may have used used a captive wolf, then they do not qualify. Sorry, but it's cheating. I don't have a problem with people posting them in the zoo animals thread, but not in the wildlife thread.

For that matter, squirrels or birds at a feeder do not qualify as wildlife either. Sorry, but that takes so much of the thrill, talent and skill out of the capture. You think the Planet Earth videographers spent three years out tracking down a wild snow leopard when they could have just gone to the zoo because they're the same thing?

Sorry, but i have a serious gripe with this. Maybe that makes me a snob, but so be it.

Cheers!

[John the Geek]

Captive wild animals are obviously not in the wild, so they do not qualify as wildlife by category. They are still wild animals, or in some situations even domesticated. But wildlife is reserved for animals in the wild.

For that matter, squirrels or birds at a feeder do not qualify as wildlife either. Sorry, but that takes so much of the thrill, talent and skill out of the capture.

That does not change the definition of wildlife simply because you consider it lazy. Either animals in the wild are wildlife, or they are not. Bears feed off of human trash, but that doesn't re-classify them as domesticated animals.

[Schell]

Captive wild animals are obviously not in the wild, so they do not qualify as wildlife by category. They are still wild animals, or in some situations even domesticated. But wildlife is reserved for animals in the wild.



That does not change the definition of wildlife simply because you consider it lazy. Either animals in the wild are wildlife, or they are not. Bears feed off of human trash, but that doesn't re-classify them as domesticated animals.

The distinction is that in the case of birds at a feeder, they are baited. I would consider any baited animal in the context of photography, cheating also. I also consider this an ethically gray area. There is solid science that has theorized that populations within bird species will alter their normal behaviors (migration) if feeders are present. In other words, birds are splitting (early form of speciation) based on whether or not they have access to feeders. Therefore yes, if you took a photo of a bear feeding at a dumpster I would argue that is not wildlife either.

These are DOMESTICATED animals. Whether they come inside or not. Most outdoor cats are just as dependent on their "owners" as these types of animals. They are nomadic and effectively follow the food.

Most squirrels, raccoons, skunks and coyotes also are the proverbial pig at the trough. Yes they are wild in the sense that they live outdoors, however is humans were not present those animals would also, not be present. Furthermore, most urban wildlife are invasive and force out native wildlife that would normally occur in those ecosystems. THAT is where I draw the line personally.

There is NOTHING wrong with photographing animals, indoors or out, but if they are reliant on humans in any capacity, they are not wild. Lets call a spade a spade. If animals are coming to where you live, they are not wildlife, you have to go to where the animals naturally occur for them to be considered wildlife.

[easternbluedevil]

Calling a spade a spade, Schell, like you said in your first post, with respect, I think you may be a snob. This is not a competition. It is a site where people like to share their photos and ask for some C & C. Most people, if not all, usually declare if the shot was taken at a zoo or not. If this remains the case, then I have no problem with zoo shots being posted here.

By the way stitchbug, love the shots, especally 1 & 2. The Jaguar looks like it has a goatee.

Cheers

[Tom Reichner]

Nesreen,

I'm glad that you got to have a day of fun photographing the animals at your zoo. It can be a true pleasure to have so many cooperative subjects close at hand all day long!

I personally do not consider captive animals to be wildlife, but by no means should that deter you from experiencing the enjoyment of photographing these critters. It can be a lot of fun, you can get some great looking images (as you have), and it can also serve as great practice for photographing animals in the wild, should you choose to do so.

The only problem I have with this type of photography is when the photographer claims that the zoo subjects are wild animals, or when they don't say anything, and people are left to assume that they are wild. If it's a captive subject, then I think the photographer should say so, as you have done.

[stitchbug]

Thanks everyone for the comments!

I didn't realize the jaguars goatee! LOL :lol:


Zoo animals are NOT wildlife because they are not WILD. If the wildlife photographer of the year is at risk of getting his prize and title revoked because he may have used used a captive wolf, then they do not qualify. Sorry, but it's cheating. I don't have a problem with people posting them in the zoo animals thread, but not in the wildlife thread.

For that matter, squirrels or birds at a feeder do not qualify as wildlife either. Sorry, but that takes so much of the thrill, talent and skill out of the capture. You think the Planet Earth videographers spent three years out tracking down a wild snow leopard when they could have just gone to the zoo because they're the same thing?

Sorry, but i have a serious gripe with this. Maybe that makes me a snob, but so be it.

Cheers!

I didn't claim they were wildlife photos or in the same league as the Planet Earth videographers. I was joking :confused:
I also didn't realize there was a zoo thread.

[rfrey]

:wink:
Wildlife (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=29) (21 Viewing)
All of the critters that walk, craw, hop, swim or swing that you won't let live in the house. DURRRRRRRRR

[Jack Cooper]

I wanna be free, I gotta be free. ( BUT) Nothing wrong with taking animal shots....anywhere.

[southpawpoet]

#2 and #3 are great shots.

[Schell]

I certainly did not mean to contend that there isn't any value in photographing animals that are captive, pets, baited, or otherwise lured or restrained. I am merely addressing the question that was posed "are zoo animals wildlife?" I have stated my position and as a professional wildlife biologist, this is something that I have wrestled with in my own profession. Taking photos of non-wildlife animals can be very enjoyable and rewarding. I realize there is no competition or "rules" that are associated with posting shots in this forum and I don't think I implied that.

I do however feel that the most rewarding part of wildlife photography, for me, is going to where the animals naturally inhabit and the thrill of the chase. Sometimes this doesn't result in the best image, but that is the fun part, continually trying to better myself, further my skills in both photography and knowledge of being a naturalist. It is the intersection of those two skills, IMO that result in the best wildlife photographers.

I do not mean to belittle the photos posted by the OP. They are for sure nice shots, and the photographer did disclose that they were zoo shots so more power to him. I fully admitted to being a snob in this regard and that's fine. It's what I do for a living, so I make no apologies for that.

I also appreciate the debate - usually I keep my upturned nose out of it, but when the question was posed I had to weigh in. It's a pet peeve of mine. I apologize if I offended anyone, especially the OP. It wasn't my intention.

I feel that full disclosure is necessary and I applaud those who disclose that. I do not approve of baiting or otherwise luring wildlife for photographic purposes. This is ethically wrong and counterproductive to the animals that we all enjoy. I have seen people do this with raptors by using live mice - don't misunderstand me, while some may say it's cruel to the bait animal, that is not my argument. Acclimatizing wildlife to people is a death sentence especially for megafauna, but to other animals also. Anyway this tangent is outside of the scope of the question and I'll leave it there.

Happy shooting all.

[Tom Reichner]

Acclimatizing wildlife to people is a death sentence especially for megafauna, but to other animals also.

I love that term - "megafauna"

[res]

Kind of sad we all can't be just photographers. Different pursuits within but photographers all the same.

[scpictaker]

I would say they are wild. A mentally ill guy jumped into the polar bear pen at our zoo years back.....guess what? The polar bear was DEFINATELY WILD!

[Schell]

I would say they are wild. A mentally ill guy jumped into the polar bear pen at our zoo years back.....guess what? The polar bear was DEFINATELY WILD!

If someone broke into a house that you were never allowed to leave and you shot him, would that make you wild?

[stitchbug]

I certainly did not mean to contend that there isn't any value in photographing animals that are captive, pets, baited, or otherwise lured or restrained. I am merely addressing the question that was posed "are zoo animals wildlife?" I have stated my position and as a professional wildlife biologist, this is something that I have wrestled with in my own profession. Taking photos of non-wildlife animals can be very enjoyable and rewarding. I realize there is no competition or "rules" that are associated with posting shots in this forum and I don't think I implied that.

I do however feel that the most rewarding part of wildlife photography, for me, is going to where the animals naturally inhabit and the thrill of the chase. Sometimes this doesn't result in the best image, but that is the fun part, continually trying to better myself, further my skills in both photography and knowledge of being a naturalist. It is the intersection of those two skills, IMO that result in the best wildlife photographers.

I do not mean to belittle the photos posted by the OP. They are for sure nice shots, and the photographer did disclose that they were zoo shots so more power to him. I fully admitted to being a snob in this regard and that's fine. It's what I do for a living, so I make no apologies for that.

I also appreciate the debate - usually I keep my upturned nose out of it, but when the question was posed I had to weigh in. It's a pet peeve of mine. I apologize if I offended anyone, especially the OP. It wasn't my intention.

I feel that full disclosure is necessary and I applaud those who disclose that. I do not approve of baiting or otherwise luring wildlife for photographic purposes. This is ethically wrong and counterproductive to the animals that we all enjoy. I have seen people do this with raptors by using live mice - don't misunderstand me, while some may say it's cruel to the bait animal, that is not my argument. Acclimatizing wildlife to people is a death sentence especially for megafauna, but to other animals also. Anyway this tangent is outside of the scope of the question and I'll leave it there.

Happy shooting all.

I'm not offended at all.
My question, however, was not really a question.
I stated that they weren't wild. The "question" was meant as a joke.
That's all.

And I'm a SHE :lol:
I've been referred to as "he" so many times on this board...do I come off as a manly poster ;)

[bigcountry]

that jag is a great photo.

[JFusion]

Great shots and they are certainly wild enough for the forum I'm sure as they certainly aren't tamed/pets.

Zoo animals are NOT wildlife because they are not WILD. If the wildlife photographer of the year is at risk of getting his prize and title revoked because he may have used used a captive wolf, then they do not qualify. Sorry, but it's cheating. I don't have a problem with people posting them in the zoo animals thread, but not in the wildlife thread.


He isn't in trouble for using a captive animal, he's in trouble for possibly staging the photo using a tame and trained animal (wolf).

[MikeFairbanks]

What a lot of you aren't thinking about is the categories in this website.

This is the category called Wildlife. Now, if we had a wildlife and a zoo category, or wild life and exotic animals category, then we could fairly say that the wildlife category should be strictly geared toward animals in the wild.

Right now we have the choice of pets or wildlife, and putting a tiger in the pets category is about a strange as calling a zoo animal wild.

So, as far as I'm concerned, unless the categories are made more specific, I'll post where I personally think it fits best.

[digger58]

An animal is an animal, perhaps it should be considered proper photography etiquette to note wether or not it is a captive animal. Some folks simply do not have the means or environment to shoot in the wild, that does not make them less of a photographer.

[Artillerist]

I liked the jogging egret shot- nice capture getting them synched. If you enjoy taking pictures of zoo animals - do it. As long as you are not claiming them to be in the wild and plainly labeling them as zoo shots- no harm no fowl (intentional mis spelling) Enjoyed looking at them.

[bigcountry]

by the way, be careful if you are selling those zoo photos. they are the zoos property and you have to either get permission or pay to sell the photos.

[stitchbug]

by the way, be careful if you are selling those zoo photos. they are the zoos property and you have to either get permission or pay to sell the photos.

Thanks for the tip!
I have no plans of selling, though!

[stitchbug]

I liked the jogging egret shot- nice capture getting them synched. If you enjoy taking pictures of zoo animals - do it. As long as you are not claiming them to be in the wild and plainly labeling them as zoo shots- no harm no fowl (intentional mis spelling) Enjoyed looking at them.

Thanks! I took about 40 shots to get this! I had a few other that were 'ok'
but this was my favorite!

[John the Geek]

by the way, be careful if you are selling those zoo photos. they are the zoos property and you have to either get permission or pay to sell the photos.

Not in this instance. The zoo has the right to ask you to not take pictures if it's privately owned, and obviously you don't have the right to sell any prints with their logos or images of their exhibits they build for the animals. But selling pictures of the animals themselves is fine. They cannot claim ownership over the likeness of any particular animal so they have no legal grounds to prevent you from doing so.

Some zoos do have commercial policies that will trade a photo release for their promotional use of your images to promote the zoo, which is fine (and often defined before you enter the zoo someplace very visible) and would grant you the ability to shoot the whole place, logos and all, and then commercially sell them. As far as these images are concerned, with the possible exception of the last shot of the tiger in the first post where the arrangements of the rocks might be protected as part of the exhibit, you are free to sell them to whoever you please. They are your photographs.

[JFusion]

That's not entirely correct. Some zoos specifically state they don't allow it done of their animals at all. Some animals they don't give permission to sell photos of because they do own their likeness.

[bigcountry]

i think you may be wrong. i am sure some small roadside zoos don't care. but big commercial zoos do. here is what the san diego zoo says:

Visitor agrees not to commercially use any photography or reproduction in any form taken during any visits to the Parks, and Visitor grants permission to the Parks and their agents to utilize Visitor's image, likeness and/or sound recordings for any purpose whatsoever in perpetuity.


Google is your friend man.





Not in this instance. The zoo has the right to ask you to not take pictures if it's privately owned, and obviously you don't have the right to sell any prints with their logos or images of their exhibits they build for the animals. But selling pictures of the animals themselves is fine. They cannot claim ownership over the likeness of any particular animal so they have no legal grounds to prevent you from doing so.

Some zoos do have commercial policies that will trade a photo release for their promotional use of your images to promote the zoo, which is fine (and often defined before you enter the zoo someplace very visible) and would grant you the ability to shoot the whole place, logos and all, and then commercially sell them. As far as these images are concerned, with the possible exception of the last shot of the tiger in the first post where the arrangements of the rocks might be protected as part of the exhibit, you are free to sell them to whoever you please. They are your photographs.

[John the Geek]

Yes, but that's a condition of entrance, it's private property, and it's posted everywhere.

Big zoos like that have a big interest in you not taking pictures or video of their exhibits and selling them. It removes the incentive to actually go there. Many zoos do not have these sort of policies though, or if they do they are very liberal about you gaining the ability to get a commercial license. My local zoo has no such policy.

San Diego is an artistic attraction from gate to exit. It's hardly the average zoo.

[John the Geek]

That's not entirely correct. Some zoos specifically state they don't allow it done of their animals at all. Some animals they don't give permission to sell photos of because they do own their likeness.

How exactly do you go about owning an animal's likeness?

[mayt444]

The distinction is that in the case of birds at a feeder, they are baited. I would consider any baited animal in the context of photography, cheating also. I also consider this an ethically gray area. There is solid science that has theorized that populations within bird species will alter their normal behaviors (migration) if feeders are present. In other words, birds are splitting (early form of speciation) based on whether or not they have access to feeders. Therefore yes, if you took a photo of a bear feeding at a dumpster I would argue that is not wildlife either.

These are DOMESTICATED animals. Whether they come inside or not. Most outdoor cats are just as dependent on their "owners" as these types of animals. They are nomadic and effectively follow the food.

Most squirrels, raccoons, skunks and coyotes also are the proverbial pig at the trough. Yes they are wild in the sense that they live outdoors, however is humans were not present those animals would also, not be present. Furthermore, most urban wildlife are invasive and force out native wildlife that would normally occur in those ecosystems. THAT is where I draw the line personally.

There is NOTHING wrong with photographing animals, indoors or out, but if they are reliant on humans in any capacity, they are not wild. Lets call a spade a spade. If animals are coming to where you live, they are not wildlife, you have to go to where the animals naturally occur for them to be considered wildlife.

Tell the people in my community that are having their house cats and dogs eaten by cougars that the cougars aren't wild. And tell the department of fish and wildlife that too. And also tell them that because they feed the deer and elk in Eastern Oregon during very harsh winters that they are no longer wildlife. Just because an animal is opertunistic doesn't meen it's no longer wildlife. And by the way, if it's theory, it's not solid science. Those two terms are contradictory.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Moved to the Wildlife Talk section..

If the OP would like, we can split the discussion and return the photos to the Image Sharing section, however it would also require an edit to the name of the thread which invited the discussion.

For POTN's purposes, we are not going to make a new section for "Zoo animals", or for "Farm Animals" or for "Slightly domesticated animals that would otherwise normally be found on an African Safari if it weren't for the fact that someone once fed it a loly".. :)

IE: for our own practical use of the forum, if it aint a pet in your house, it can go in the wildlife forum! ;)
Nothing else much really matters.

The discussion of what is "cheating" is another topic, and these opinions will not effect the current breakdown of the Forums.

ie: if the OP's question were:Are zoo photos to be posted in the wildlife forum??

the answer would be: Yes

We do like to stipulate Zoo shots should be labeled as such, this goes back to the other aspects of the discussion of "what is wildlife photography?"

[JFusion]

How exactly do you go about owning an animal's likeness?

Those animals have names and some are even recognizable. They own the animals and therefore own there likeness.

[John the Geek]

Those animals have names and some are even recognizable. They own the animals and therefore own there likeness.

I don't think so.

The law forbids me from taking Wilford Brimley's picture and selling it to a company who will use it to sell a product without his consent because that is exploiting his likeness for commercial gain. The law (at least in the US) protects him from that exploitation. It does not cover animals. Wilford Brimley's pets are fair game. He does not own their likeness, or their names.

[bigcountry]

the zoo owns the animal, and any rights to any images of that animal.


it's no different than going to a basketball game and photographing the mascot and trying to sell the photos.

[John the Geek]

the zoo owns the animal, and any rights to any images of that animal.

Then you are going to have to find some legal proof of that, cause by any US legal basis I can find, you're just wrong.

it's no different than going to a basketball game and photographing the mascot and trying to sell the photos.

It's completely different! A mascot is a trademarked product, distinctly designed, and not a real animal. You can own a character based off of an animal or a drawing of an animal and prohibit commercial sale of that. But these aren't remotely similar situations. Even if the mascot is a real animal, rules that would prohibit you from photographing that animal have nothing to do with their "owning the likeness of that animal." They can simply prohibit commercial photography as part of your agreement to photograph the private event at all. Which is what the zoo is likely doing. (but even then, I would argue that if they let you shoot anything how do they have any legal grounds to restrict your use of those photographs without a signed contract?)

But, back to our discussion at hand: You can Google yourself for more info, but I'll give you the basics I quickly found here: http://stphotosociety.org/Legal_Issues.pdf

When is a release not necessary?
Pictures of animals or pets
Similarly, animals and pets have no right to their own likeness and no release is required.

[bigcountry]

When you enter the particular zoo's property you agree to their rules. most zoos have rules about commercial photography. Either you have to have permission or a permit from the zoo.

here is what the indy zoo says about it:

http://www.indyzoo.com/content.aspx?CID=820

all of the aza zoos are pretty much the same. they are not going to allow you to come in and take photos of their animals and then sell them...that is how they make money.

it may not be a federal rule, but it is a very common zoo rule that you agree to upon entering the zoo property.

[Hennie L]

Interesting discussion...

The distinction is that in the case of birds at a feeder, they are baited. I would consider any baited animal in the context of photography, cheating also.

So, would you also consider it cheating if one took photos from a hide at a watering hole - after all, you know that the animals go there every day... What about taking photos of a "captive" animal on a 10 000 acre private reserve, if it is fenced off (and where such animals receive veterinarian treatment, and drought-relief feeding when necessary)?

[JWright]

Go ahead and stick your fingers through the mesh on that Jaguar's enclosure and you'll see just how "wild" he really is... Those animals may be in cages, but they are still very wild.

Zoos are getting serious about enforcing their policies regarding photography. There have been two instances in the last week of Smugmug subscribers getting e-mails from Smugmug asking them to turn off print sales in Los Angeles Zoo galleries because the zoo had contacted Smugmug and advised them the subscriber was in violation of the zoo's policies.

[matman1975]

Zoo shots are not wildlife shots and of course can't be submitted in big and famous international wildlife photo contests such as BBC's Wildlife Photographer of the Year or NWF's magazine.
A wildlife photograph always celebrates originality and "the unexpected" which are elements obviously missing from any human made facility.
Personally I don't like Zoos anyway, cause I do not believe that there are certain creatures which deserve to be bred and raised just for people to have the chance to see them in close proximity a few miles away from their home...after all animals are NOT exhibition items.
As a wildlife photographer I have seen many nice zoo shots which actually sell very well in the wildlife photography industry. Personally (if I was the client) I would never ever buy a zoo photo to frame it and hang it in my livingroom...nomatter how beautiful this photo might be.

Teo

[Hennie L]

A wildlife photograph always celebrates originality and "the unexpected" which are elements obviously missing from any human made facility.

Well, I guess it's pretty similar to hunting - A beginner just wants to shoot anything he/she can, after some experience the hunter becomes more selective, only taking the better (often female) animals if hunting for meat, or old trophy animals when hunting for trophies (which I don't think is right, but that's personal...), and ultimately progresses to where he does not shoot much any more, just enjoying the hunt - I often "hunt" with my rifle unloaded, stalk the animal, and shoot it with a "click" when I'm sure of the shot, just as if I was really hunting... Beginner photographers just want some nice photos of animals (and there's NOTHING wrong with shooting them in a zoo, in this context), experienced 'togs like the challenge of "hunting" the animal in the wilds, but this takes time, money and dedication - praiseworthy, but not possible for everyone.

Hennie

[Schell]

And by the way, if it's theory, it's not solid science. Those two terms are contradictory.

Theory is exactly what science is. Anyone that tells you that science is fact or absolute is not a scientist. Theory or relativity, theory of gravity, theory of thermodynamics, theory of evolution. Science is an ever evolving understanding of concepts.

[Miltontao]

As a retired zookeeper and a lover of photography, the animals in zoos are not tame and can be very dangerous. Most zoo animals todays are born in captivity and are the same species found in the wild. I always label my photos as captive wildlife and the zoo shot at. Zoo photography can be challenging with are fences, glass and pain in the a---- people.

[Canonised]

Regardless of whether a tiger is in captivity like a Zoo (good one or bad) or running free in the open jungles - is still a tiger. I think the essence of the question is whether the "wildness" is there if an animal is kept in a zoo. As a zoo photographer, I find that an unnecessary distinction. The subject is either beautiful or ugly or sad or whatever as you capture it. As a photographer, you shoot to enjoy the process of capturing a beautiful subject.

If I may use a metaphor - photographing a model in a kitchen for food or restaurant ad would make food purists upset that the model cannot boil an egg to save her life. But it still happens. Or using another metaphor, the use of waif like models to strut on catwalks is so far removed from the reality of how real people are shaped but its still used by the industry. How about the tricks that food stylists use to make the dishes look good for the camera? In many instances the chemicals used would make the food inedible after the shoot. Or how about insect macro photography where the shooter catches the insect and freezed it so that it can be shot in a controlled studio environment? In these instances, there are moral quagmires. Some suffer from more than others in terms of the controversy.

For me, ultimately good images of healthy and strong animals doing what they are doing in the wild while they are in Zoos is a reward in itself because the animals are being taken care of and as a photographer, I learn how the animals behave and I improve each time I photograph the same animal. At the end of the day, the lowest denominator for me is the photography. Its about capturing beautiful images.

Its easy for those who have not tried it to allege that its shooting fish in a barrel - until you try it yourself.

In any case, I believe that there are people who appreciate good Zoo photography - see this link -
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=489452

It has already over 85K views.

ALSO, I would also submit that animal lovers should also photograph bad Zoos - just to publicise how animals are mistreated.

PS - I forgot to add. In good Zoos, you will inevitably find a good percentage of the animals displayed are seriously endangered species. We are talking about less than a couple of thousands left in the wild. In many cases some of the animals are near extinction. One truly sad story is the Borneo Orang Utan which is fast loosing its habitat in the island of Borneo due to logging and fires. Within this decade, all its forest would have been lost. It would be impossible to photograph them in the wild. Same for the Sumatran Tiger. How about the Gorillas of Ruwanda? They had been poached to near extinction. Near impossible to get to today due to the protection by the government (Good thing!). Several Zoos like Bronx are so very fortunate to have a whole family.

I would like forummers to resist the temptation to make the distinction and make judgment on the wildness of the animal as a prerequisite to it being a photograph of THE animal. A tiger in the Zoo is still the same tiger in the wild. Only the habitat is different.

[chiefsquid]

Fascinating topic

Squid

[mike4336]

I'm not sure if these count as "wild"life, since they're not technically wild! :lol:

But we went to the zoo yesterday, and the animals were very cooperative!

CC welcome!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4376774183_32432d604f.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4005/4377526454_5accd9e05a.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4377541524_46226621e1.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2801/4376787629_a6f59bf834.jpg

Very nice. Caught the subjects in great poses.

[MCAsan]

webster:

Definition of WILDLIFE : living things and especially mammals, birds, and fishes that are neither human nor domesticated


No such thing as domesticated lions, tigers, or bears. Habituated to humans maybe, domesticated, never. Location of the animal has zero to do with the definition.

[dabro]

Seeing as how there arent many lions around my back yard then the only way for me to get (serious) wild animals is a visit to Chester Zoo.

I think people would think that these Zoo animals are wildlife if they were in the same enclosure! LOL

[jhayesvw]

I keep seeing threads about Safaris in Africa.
These animals are obviously more tame than the ones that live farther back in the remote areas.
so, would these cheetah, elephants, and other african safari animals be considered "not wild" because they are hardly different than a zoo in that they are used to people, they get fed by people (even though they shouldnt) and they are easy to photograph.

personally i consider them wild as they do not live in a cage, but the arguement could EASILY be made they are not wild.
this would take away much of the kudos to those people that go on "safari" and photograph.

Sitting in a truck with cheetah, elephants and other animals walking 100 feet from you sure makes the shots easy (except that its expensive to get there!!).

what do you all think?

[MCAsan]

Being wildliife is a matter of genetics, not where the animal is currently living, or if it tolerates humans.

No such thing as domestic lions, leopards, bears, cheetahs, ...etc. Some may be in captivitly and some may be used to humans. But they do not stop being wildlife.

Some magazines and organizatons may only want photographs of wildlife taken in their "natural" environment....not in captivity. That is OK. But wildlife is wildlife regardless of where it at, or who is petting it.

[neil_r]

Zoo shots are Zoo shots and yours are good zoo shots (Including the chain link fence in the last shot)

I think in the context of this question the term "wild" should relate to the conditions the animals are living in rather than a description of the animals themselves.

Baiting is interesting, there are usually some great pictures posted every year on here of some really impressive Owls, the photographers set out with some very expensive camera gear gear and a box of pet-shop mice. I regard the results of that in the same way as Zoo shots. That is not to say that the pictures are any less remarkable or of less value, just different.

[jhayesvw]

Neil,
I think your Ansel Adams quote sums it up nicely.
No rules, just good photographs.

Im personally all about the picture and dont care much where its taken.

[matman1975]

Regardless of whether a tiger is in captivity like a Zoo (good one or bad) or running free in the open jungles - is still a tiger. I think the essence of the question is whether the "wildness" is there if an animal is kept in a zoo. As a zoo photographer, I find that an unnecessary distinction. The subject is either beautiful or ugly or sad or whatever as you capture it. As a photographer, you shoot to enjoy the process of capturing a beautiful subject.

If I may use a metaphor - photographing a model in a kitchen for food or restaurant ad would make food purists upset that the model cannot boil an egg to save her life. But it still happens. Or using another metaphor, the use of waif like models to strut on catwalks is so far removed from the reality of how real people are shaped but its still used by the industry. How about the tricks that food stylists use to make the dishes look good for the camera? In many instances the chemicals used would make the food inedible after the shoot. Or how about insect macro photography where the shooter catches the insect and freezed it so that it can be shot in a controlled studio environment? In these instances, there are moral quagmires. Some suffer from more than others in terms of the controversy.

For me, ultimately good images of healthy and strong animals doing what they are doing in the wild while they are in Zoos is a reward in itself because the animals are being taken care of and as a photographer, I learn how the animals behave and I improve each time I photograph the same animal. At the end of the day, the lowest denominator for me is the photography. Its about capturing beautiful images.

Its easy for those who have not tried it to allege that its shooting fish in a barrel - until you try it yourself.

In any case, I believe that there are people who appreciate good Zoo photography - see this link -
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=489452

It has already over 85K views.

ALSO, I would also submit that animal lovers should also photograph bad Zoos - just to publicise how animals are mistreated.

PS - I forgot to add. In good Zoos, you will inevitably find a good percentage of the animals displayed are seriously endangered species. We are talking about less than a couple of thousands left in the wild. In many cases some of the animals are near extinction. One truly sad story is the Borneo Orang Utan which is fast loosing its habitat in the island of Borneo due to logging and fires. Within this decade, all its forest would have been lost. It would be impossible to photograph them in the wild. Same for the Sumatran Tiger. How about the Gorillas of Ruwanda? They had been poached to near extinction. Near impossible to get to today due to the protection by the government (Good thing!). Several Zoos like Bronx are so very fortunate to have a whole family.

I would like forummers to resist the temptation to make the distinction and make judgment on the wildness of the animal as a prerequisite to it being a photograph of THE animal. A tiger in the Zoo is still the same tiger in the wild. Only the habitat is different.

A tiger in a zoo has 4 legs, 2 eyes ect ect...just the same as a wild one which lives in Indian jungles....BUT very different temper, personality, mood, behaviour...which makes a HUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference.
In a zoo you will see a lazy, well fed cat...being bored.....in the jungle you find and photograph a true tiger!
All major nature photo contests (Wildlife photographer of the year, Nature's best, National Wildlife Federation) have specifically excluded zoo shots from their competitions...and I couldn't agree more.

Regards from Greece
Teo

[matman1975]

I keep seeing threads about Safaris in Africa.
These animals are obviously more tame than the ones that live farther back in the remote areas.
so, would these cheetah, elephants, and other african safari animals be considered "not wild" because they are hardly different than a zoo in that they are used to people, they get fed by people (even though they shouldnt) and they are easy to photograph.

personally i consider them wild as they do not live in a cage, but the arguement could EASILY be made they are not wild.
this would take away much of the kudos to those people that go on "safari" and photograph.

Sitting in a truck with cheetah, elephants and other animals walking 100 feet from you sure makes the shots easy (except that its expensive to get there!!).

what do you all think?

Animals in African national parks are used of people presence (leopards not that much) and have learned to ignore vehicles, but are NOT fed by people (where did you hear that??????) and do not depend on people to survive....they are wild creatures.
In fact by the time the sun goes down till the next sunrise they do not encounter a single vehicle, a single human being.
Seeing them in their natural habitat, acting wild....is a memory never to be forgotten...and can't be compared by any mean with a zoo visit!

Regards from Greece
Teo

[mike4336]

I think Canonised summed it up.

You have great pics from the Zoo. So what if the animals are in captivity. The goal is exposure, composition and subject. You have captured the essence of wild life. Even if it cannot escape its surroundings.

[jhayesvw]

Animals in African national parks are used of people presence (leopards not that much) and have learned to ignore vehicles, but are NOT fed by people (where did you hear that??????) and do not depend on people to survive....they are wild creatures.
In fact by the time the sun goes down till the next sunrise they do not encounter a single vehicle, a single human being.
Seeing them in their natural habitat, acting wild....is a memory never to be forgotten...and can't be compared by any mean with a zoo visit!

Regards from Greece
Teo

I have friends that have gone and told me that they were allowed to leave food out and that a few of the guides left food out occasionally to attract the wildlife to their route. Obviously this guide was breaking rules, but it happens.
So this being true, I think my statement stands that they are not nearly as WILD as some may think. So for some people to get on a high horse and declare these pictures exotic, real, wild, or whatever is a bit much. I do agree they are more wild than a zoo but by how much? We will never know for sure.

[matman1975]

I have friends that have gone and told me that they were allowed to leave food out and that a few of the guides left food out occasionally to attract the wildlife to their route. Obviously this guide was breaking rules, but it happens.
So this being true, I think my statement stands that they are not nearly as WILD as some may think. So for some people to get on a high horse and declare these pictures exotic, real, wild, or whatever is a bit much. I do agree they are more wild than a zoo but by how much? We will never know for sure.

Even if there are indeed some rangers who break the rules and leave food to attract predators, this human involvement is...a "drop of water in the ocean" and could not (by any mean) change the fact that the animals over there do not depend on humans for food (even those which have occasionally been fed by humans)
Each African national park hosts millions of animals and has the size of a small European country or a US state...which means that the animal population which lives in these African national parks is by 100%.... as wild as it gets!
I hope that you will have the chance in the future to do an African safari and see by yourself what I'm talking about...it will capture your heart and mind;)

[jhayesvw]

I would love to go to Africa and see the animals.
I do agree the animals are wild, much more so than the zoo, however, to ME
wild animals such as these typically do not stick around when humans are near.

for instance, I am a hunter. When i go out to hunt the animals I am after do not stick around when a human is out there. Whether he/she (the human) has a gun or not.

coyote, bobcat, deer, jackrabbit, etc are all things that I (or my friends) have hunted. They do not lay under the shade of a tree when a truck is driving by at 100ft or so.

I hope people see where I am coming from. There are many different degrees of WILD and these popular safari animals are not at the top level of wild by any means.
They are indeed wild but not like animals that do not see humans.

[matman1975]

The vast majority of the animals in the African national parks have "learned" to get used of human presence....exactly because they have nothing to fear. You can find the same situation in the Galapagos islands....lizards, turtles and birds standing in peace a few meters away from human visitors....exactly because they have no natural predators....they do not fear us.
This behaviour doesn't make them any less "wild" than all these creatures that run away from your gun and bullets....they run and hide NOT because they are more wild than the African animals or the Galapagos turtles.... but because they have connected human presence.....with death!
As long as an animal roams freely in the wilderness and doesn't depend it's daily food on humanity...it is as wild as it gets....it doesn't matter if it is used of human presence or not.

[MCAsan]

being wild is a matter of genetics. There are no domesticated lions. leopards...etc. Is is a very different question if certain animals have become used to being around humans....but that does not make them domestic.

[neil_r]

Surely for the purpose of this debate the term wild refers to the context in which the photography is taking place not the definition of the animal per se?

[matman1975]

The context in which photography takes place may be different from animal to animal...but this doesn't change the fact that all these creatures are wild ones...not captured, zoo residents.
I have seen for instance a leopard in Serengeti resting in a tree for a whole day...totally ignoring all vehicles gathered around the tree....while the same afternoon ( a few miles away) another leopard gave us only a glimpse and disappeared in a split of a second as long as vehicles approached....both of them were 100% wild;)

[neil_r]

Wild wild I trod on our cats tail yesterday and she was furious!

[MCAsan]

Surely for the purpose of this debate the term wild refers to the context in which the photography is taking place not the definition of the animal per se?

Agreed.

Location does change wildlife into domesticated animals...or domesticated animals into wildlife. Each individual and organization has to decide if they care where the photo of wildlife was taken. Some will, and some will not.

[jhayesvw]

but isnt the biggest difference between a zoo and the wild simply the difficulty of the shot and the interaction of the animal in its habitat?

if that is true, then a Safari where the animals are "used to humans" makes the shot pretty easy and therefore its only a step or two away from a zoo.

The animals are genetically the same as mentioned multiple times, so the difference can only be the difficulty of getting the shot and the ability to see the animal in its own habitat

[rufus82]

100% agreed with MCAsan on that "Each individual and organization has to decide if they care where the photo of wildlife was taken. Some will, and some will not."


but isnt the biggest difference between a zoo and the wild simply the difficulty of the shot and the interaction of the animal in its habitat?

if that is true, then a Safari where the animals are "used to humans" makes the shot pretty easy and therefore its only a step or two away from a zoo.

The animals are genetically the same as mentioned multiple times, so the difference can only be the difficulty of getting the shot and the ability to see the animal in its own habitat

First of all animals are used to cars as animals don't see them as a threat. Try to get out from car in game park and you will see the difference in reaction (runaway or attack). I went once for Primitive Trail in Hluhluwe-Imfolozi (5 days and 4 nights on foot, backpacks, with two rangers and sleeping under the stars). Reaction of animals is a bit different, rhinos running away or attack-we were lucky that they ran away (just after they heard us), lions keeping distance and walking away if we got to close etc. During that five days it was quite hard to make any good photo (actually I have only hyenas and landscapes) as animals see humans differently then cars (same as animals in Europe or America).
But even if you are driving a car it is not so easy to get decent shot. Have you been on safari before? You can go for safari for 4-7 days and see nothing ( yes you will see some general game but no guarantee of elephants, rhinos, big cats) .
Couple of reasons : it is quite hard to find some of the animals (especially cats) mainly because of vast area, you need to know their behavior, what time of day it is the best to find them, what type of terrain they like, if they need stay close to water etc. You are also limited to a car/road and believe me it is not so easy to get good photo on safari.
I think safari photography is more then two steps away from zoo photography (of course zoo photography have own challenges and limitation).

[jhayesvw]

First of all animals are used to cars as animals don't see them as a threat. Try to get out from car in game park and you will see the difference in reaction (runaway or attack). I went once for Primitive Trail in Hluhluwe-Imfolozi (5 days and 4 nights on foot, backpacks, with two rangers and sleeping under the stars). Reaction of animals is a bit different, rhinos running away or attack-we were lucky that they ran away (just after they heard us), lions keeping distance and walking away if we got to close etc. During that five days it was quite hard to make any good photo (actually I have only hyenas and landscapes) as animals see humans differently then cars (same as animals in Europe or America).


But even if you are driving a car it is not so easy to get decent shot. Have you been on safari before? You can go for safari for 4-7 days and see nothing ( yes you will see some general game but no guarantee of elephants, rhinos, big cats) .
Couple of reasons : it is quite hard to find some of the animals (especially cats) mainly because of vast area, you need to know their behavior, what time of day it is the best to find them, what type of terrain they like, if they need stay close to water etc. You are also limited to a car/road and believe me it is not so easy to get good photo on safari.
I think safari photography is more then two steps away from zoo photography (of course zoo photography have own challenges and limitation).

The first half of your post agrees with what im saying. youre just saying it differently.

The second half of your post I can easily answer. My LAZY and OUT OF SHAPE but very RICH friends came back from a 4 day safari with literally thousands of pictures of big cats, elephants, zebra, giraffe, etc. They didnt leave the vehicle like you say but they said it was like shooting fish in a barrel.
Obviously each safari is different but SOME can be just a few steps from zoo photography in the ease of access to the animals. You just need money and a good guide.

if you can not agree with that, I'm ok with that. I know what 2 different sets of friends (married couples) have shared with me.

[rufus82]

The first half of your post agrees with what im saying. youre just saying it differently.

The second half of your post I can easily answer. My LAZY and OUT OF SHAPE but very RICH friends came back from a 4 day safari with literally thousands of pictures of big cats, elephants, zebra, giraffe, etc. They didnt leave the vehicle like you say but they said it was like shooting fish in a barrel.
Obviously each safari is different but SOME can be just a few steps from zoo photography in the ease of access to the animals. You just need money and a good guide.

if you can not agree with that, I'm ok with that. I know what 2 different sets of friends (married couples) have shared with me.

Yes sure I agree with you :). If someone have money for such safari with private guide etc. sure it could be easy to make a shot and sure it could be easy as shooting at zoo (it depends how big is the reserve) but not all can afford that and some game parks looks like zoo's, but I'm talking about big reserves. I prefer the thrill of "hunting" with camera and tracking animals by myself (only sometimes I'm buying night drive as you can't drive by yourself after sunset).It is only my private opinion. For me safari is much more hard then zoo photography maybe because I can't afford expensive safari. But still I enjoy zoo photos and I don't care if it was at zoo.

[megapixelsoffun]

"These are DOMESTICATED animals. Whether they come inside or not. Most outdoor cats are just as dependent on their "owners" as these types of animals. They are nomadic and effectively follow the food."

Tell you what, next time you see a "Domestic" hungry coyote or bear go give them a hug for me.

Taking pictures of any animal in any condition can be fun and you might get some amazing shots, it does not take away from the quality if you didn't walk through 3 hours of jungle with malaria just to get a shot.

Attitudes that take away from a person's enjoyment of what they do is simply rude, not everyone has the same opportunity as others to travel to Africa and get a great shot of a Lion, but what if that same person got an awesome shot of a Lion at the zoo, who cares, still a great photo.



These bastards will suck the peanuts right out of your hand.

http://megapixelsoffun.smugmug.com/Animals/Animalphotos/Animals/Just-hand-over-the-nuts/815419511_GbKXH-M.jpg

[huntersdad]

I find this an interesting debate. I've never done phtography at a zoo but would like to as I will likely never make it to Africa or India to see the big cats.

Not sure where I side although I would think they are less wild than their free-roaming counterparts. However, they are still wild. Stick your hand in the cage and see what happens. Seems like they are similar to animals, say the grizzlies in the Tetons that are so famous, in that they are used to people. Makes no difference though - invade their space, kiss your ass goodbye. The only difference is how they are feed and where they can roam.

That said, I enjoy seeing pics from the zoo of animals that I can't see everyday. There are several pics on here I have seen from a zoo that would be hanging on my wall if I took them.

Decision is personal. If you can afford to go and see them in the true wild, they're probably not wild. If you can't, they still have a sense of wildness about them.

[jhayesvw]

Yup. I agree with you completely. I enjoy the Chase and many other do too.



Yes sure I agree with you :). If someone have money for such safari with private guide etc. sure it could be easy to make a shot and sure it could be easy as shooting at zoo (it depends how big is the reserve) but not all can afford that and some game parks looks like zoo's, but I'm talking about big reserves. I prefer the thrill of "hunting" with camera and tracking animals by myself (only sometimes I'm buying night drive as you can't drive by yourself after sunset).It is only my private opinion. For me safari is much more hard then zoo photography maybe because I can't afford expensive safari. But still I enjoy zoo photos and I don't care if it was at zoo.

[Aaron1987]

Awesome shots!! i see them as wildlife shots. sometimes for alot of reasons you just pack up and travel to take photo's of the animal in the wild so you have to make do with what you got and going to the zoo helps..

[jhayesvw]

im pretty sure nobody here is debating how dangerous the animals are.

there are some people who think that photos of animals that are EASY to take are somehow not at nice as photos of the SAME animal that is HARDER to find.

personally I think (as can easily be seen from my posts) that a good photo is a good photo and it doesnt really matter where the animal is as there are varying degrees of "wild" and "difficulty".

[gembobs]

The pedant in me believes that if an animal / bird has any constraints on where it can go by man made fences or walls then IMO it is captive. So, while I have my pedant hat on, Kruger back in the 60's (possibly more recently too, I can't seem to find much info on it) was fully fenced in, therefore everything within the fences was captive - ie not free to roam to Zimbabwe or Botswana or other parts of SA. But, in reality the area is so vast, that the game can roam far and wide and as they still hunt for themselves that the non pedant in me (:lol:) would agree that the game is wild.

Botswana does have cattle fences, however, these are linear and not joined up, so the game can still get beyond them. The game is therefore free to travel between areas and countries, so to me, that is wild. Botswana does have some private reserves which are fully fenced in too (Mokolodi and Khama Rhino Sanctury), but again, these are very large reserves and the wildlife roams freely, so are technically wild. I go to Botswana every year, I have hundreds (possibly thousands) of photos of game and birds, but only have 2 shots which I would class as half decent (this (http://gembobs.smugmug.com/Travel/Bots-2010/Red-Billed-Hornbill/991224656_Gny5H-M.jpg) and this (http://gembobs.smugmug.com/Travel/Bots-2010/Kudu/991222732_yPehP-M.jpg)), and they are still far from perfect.

IME it is more difficult to get a good photo in the wild than of a captive animal. To get a good shot you need; the right light, the right background, you need to be in the right spot and the animal needs to pose 'just right'. For example: if I see something in the wild, there is no guarantee it will hang around until the light is right, then there is no guarantee that it will sit / pose at an angle which works for my location and the angle of the light (I may not be able to move further round), and there is no guarantee that you will get an uncluttered background. In the zoo at least you know that you are guaranteed to see the animal when the light is right, and there is a decent chance that you can position yourself such that the light and the pose of the animal works for the shot. If things don't go to plan in the zoo, you can go back and try again another day. Unfortunately the zoo tends not to have good backgrounds, but clever use of depth of field and composition can get round this.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter where the photo is taken, providing you don't try to mislead anyone. So if you baited a wild animal, or it is captive then say so, it will not detract from a good shot, and people will feel less 'cheated' when they find out it isn't wild.

[MCAsan]

All animals have constraints on where they can go due to limitations of geography or a man-made barrier. The domestical animals used to have the small portions realestates and the wildlife the larger. These days I am not so sure that has not reversed.

[BreitlingFan]

Zoo animals are NOT wildlife because they are not WILD.

If one were to unexpectedly find him or herself in an enclosure with one, however, one might quickly reach a very different conclusion...

:)

[BreitlingFan]

So, as far as I'm concerned, unless the categories are made more specific, I'll post where I personally think it fits best.

'Zactly.

I post the occasional photo here simply because this section is, by far, the right fit. I live in San Diego. I travel extensively in Canada. If I post a photo of a gorilla, there's probably a better than average chance that I took the photo in a zoo. If someone asks where I took it, I'll gladly say where. I don't think that needs to be in an OP, though, only because the odds of me running through some jungle somewhere to get the shot are pretty slim to begin with...

[noodle_snacks]

Animals shot in a zoo are not wildlife. They behave differently to wild animals.

Shooting animals at the zoo doesn't take any skill or knowledge whatsoever.

[neil_r]

Animals shot in a zoo are not wildlife. They behave differently to wild animals.

Shooting animals at the zoo doesn't take any skill or knowledge whatsoever.

That is harsh and to my mind wrong, It takes skills to take any decent photograph, agreed the skills my be different but skills non the less.

You may not have to rack spoor across the African veldt or savannah but you do have to compensate for chain link fences and kids eating ice creams.

I think the arguments here have become very convoluted, it is not about the animals its about the circumstances in which the picture was taken


This is a tiger shot in the wild
This is a tiger shot in a zoo


They are both tigers and they would both eat you given half the chance.

The distinctions continue.


This is a tiger shot in the wild after tracking it on foot for 14 days living off the land.
This is a tiger shot in the wild from the front seat of my Lexus.


this thread could go on forever and will get nowhere.

[MCAsan]

Why does anyone gives a rat's *** where the shot was taken? From a photography perspective, either the shot was poor, OK, or great.

[BreitlingFan]

Animals shot in a zoo are not wildlife. They behave differently to wild animals.

As I mentioned earlier, fall into a pen with one, and you may well amend that opinion...

Shooting animals at the zoo doesn't take any skill or knowledge whatsoever.

Well, that would suggest that shooting anything doesn't take any skill or knowledge whatsoever.

And, well, that's just silly...

[MCAsan]

Animals shot in a zoo are not wildlife. They behave differently to wild animals.

If you will look up the definition of "wildlife", you will see that wildlife consists of all undomesticated animals. The definition has zero to do with how the animals behave. There are no domesticated lions, tigers, bears...etc. Ego, lions ,tigers, bears and other undomesticated animals are wildlife, regardless of where they are located at any given moment.

[Sidnye]

A while back somebody posted a great pic of a mountain lion. I mean it was like the lion posed for a portrait.

I live in mountain lion country and in 25 years I've only seen one and it was a fleeting glimpse as it was high tailing it out.

Someone asked the OP how he was able to capture such a great set of images----you know I thought he somehow was in the right place, right time perfect light etc

-----turns out they were zoo pics---still great pics---still a maginificent cat---albiet a caged one--

[MCAsan]

and it was wlidlife....no domesticated mountain lions. ;)

[MCAsan]

while he may have habituated a given individual lion, he did not create a new domesticated species/subspecies that are routinely breed by individuals worldwide for agriculture or as companion animal. By genius and species....it still be a wild animal. ;)

[BreitlingFan]

If I go to the zoo and take pictures of lions, the likelihood of me posting them here is profoundly high. If someone doesn't agree that they're "wildlife", well, they'll just have to work through that...

[x_tan]

There're pets' photos ;)

[jhayesvw]

Animals shot in a zoo are not wildlife. They behave differently to wild animals.

Shooting animals at the zoo doesn't take any skill or knowledge whatsoever.

this post is rather silly.

if you read my previous posts you'll see that my RICH, FAT, LAZY, low skill friends went to Africa and came back with many many beautiful pictures of safari animals.

These animals behaved very similarly to those in zoos. They laid there and watched people come up (in a vehicle this time) and photograph them.

All good photos take skill so the second part of this statement is even more odd than the first.