Is It Wildlife Photography?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2023
- When does wildlife photography STOP becoming wildlife?
Let me know your thoughts in the comment.
On the continuum provided at what number was it no longer "wildlife?"
For information on my Patreon site, check out:
www.patreon.com/wildlifeinspired
3 is the last example that is wildlife photography.
I was born in the late 1950's. I started wildlife photography in the 70's. All of my photos were taken in their natural environment where I am required to hike to and "wait" for a chance to take a shot. By the way, I used slides or film back then and taking a 100 shots (using manual camera settings) would be considered a great day. Each shot has to count and I would be lucky to have five good photos. Today, I still shoot wildlife and I shoot with a mirrorless camera, taking unlimited number of photos of upward of 30 framed/ second. With today's high tech cameras, even my 15 year old daughter takes great photos.
I would stop at your point 2 for the TRUE photo of a wild environment for the reason I stated above. But up to point 5 is acceptable. Zoos are great for practice and was where my daughter gained her shooting and composition skills.
It's important to differentiate between professional wildlife photographers and serious hobbyists who sell their images, but don't rely on it as their main source of income. The conversation becomes more complex when the focus is on selling images for their aesthetic appeal rather than the wildness of the environment. Sustainability and income are crucial factors to consider in this discussion.
Five is the line for me. Starting my photography journey about 60 years ago, things were way different then and it seems today with digital cameras, many people are looking for an easy way to boost their egos and call themselves professional wildlife photographers but they have little to no outdoors skills.
Great thought provoking video. For me, the line is around 7, give or take. Then instead of “wildlife photography “ it becomes “animal photography or portraiture “. Both have their place in my bag. It’s just fun to take the picture
I'm WAY on the left - I get uncomfortable with people altering the environment or animal in any way (including moving natural branches to create attractive perching opportunities) so I stop at no 2! But I'm from Australia where we seem to be far less comfortable with feeding wild animals or birds that Europeans or North Americans and playing bird calls is a very definite no. On the other had we do get some very habituated animals (not fed, just frequent exposure to humans) in some of our cities that behave very very differently to the same species in more remote areas and I will happily photograph them and call them wild. In a similar vein I also get a bit antsy about editing photos any more that just adjusting exposure - however I've come to realise that if I don't delete a few branches and boost a few colours and apply some noise reduction then my photos will never get noticed on any of the social media sites. Good discussion.
Hey Scott, great conversation here.
I'm definitely a hard no on #10, but I feel that all the others do have some wiggle room. In the context of a photo contest, I think it's up to the contest organizer to be clear up front what is or isn't allowed. For example, maybe 4 and 5 are not allowed, but 6 is. The path really isn't that linear. If I were holding a strict wildlife photography contest, it would like exclude any staging or captive animals.
I might be an outlier in that I think that 8 and 9 can still be wild animal photography, if not actually wildlife. I find these places to be valuable in their ability to provide people with access to animals that they might never see otherwise. I also see them as a challenge photographically as it's not always easy to get photos of the animals that look like a natural environment. I figure that if the animal (lions and tigers and bear, oh my) would still kill me, then it's still a wild animal. Contest wise, this really should be in a separate category, unless the organizer says that everything is fair game.
My preference is always going to be #2, however I also know that for me it's not always realistic. I wish I had the time to pursue that.
I photographed wild birds for years. Whatever bird I could find wherever I could find it. My objective was bird ID as proof that I had seen it. Last year I was photographing an osprey when I fell and injured myself internally. I was not able to go out looking for birds but I still had the desire to photograph them. So, I built a "Hollywood Set" on the back deck. I moved in dead limbs, flowers and whatever natural plant life I needed to decorate the set and I started feeding birds there. I set up a vertical post and drilled 1/2-inch holes and added crunchy peanut butter. Hummingbirds were attracted to the flowers and I got bunches of beautiful shots of them. Lots of woodpeckers and almost all other birds native to our area were attracted to the "Hollywood Set" and I got hundreds of beautiful pictures of them. Along the line I changed my photographic goal from photo ID to Bird Art. These were all "wild" birds free to come and go as they wished but I was putting out attractants to encourage them to come and then go where I wanted them to, if they decided to show up. Often they did not show up, or if they did they did not cooperate in posing for a picture. But often enough they gave me beautiful poses in a beautiful setting and these were the ones I labeled as bird art (less than 1% keeper rate). I have a Japanese maple growing where it makes a perfect background and changes color as the seasons change or as the lighting changes. The images were created and framed to make them attractive to people who would want to pay money to take them home or to the office or wherever and hang them on the wall to enjoy. I did not use any artificial materials. I got a great deal of satisfaction from creating these beautiful images and from the increase in my gallery sales. I had no secrets from anyone. I even posted pictures of my "Hollywood Set" and offered help to anyone who wanted to make one. And, I feed birds at several feeders all year round. Always have. I think I would categorize this as wildlife photography. I have also photographed animals just for my own use only at wildlife centers and rehab centers. These are NOT wildlife photography and are never printed or offered for sale. If it is enclosed inside a captive fenced area it is not wildlife, I don't care what "hunters" or photographers (and I have always hunted wild game) want to call it. This year I am semi ambulatory, I can walk but often with much pain, and I try to take my camera out for "wild birds" in the park a few times a week. I have not rebuilt my "Hollywood Set" this season. BTW, I'm 81 years old now and photography keeps me going. You might want to tune in to Morten Hilmer's UA-cam site. He is getting ready to try an AI wildlife experiment with his Z9. His results and comments should be interesting sometime in the next few days. In my estimation, the widespread use of AI in the camera or in some types of processing will destroy photography,
Always love your comments Clifton!
I definitely stop at three. Calling or baiting birds is changing their behaviour and environment. You are introducing something that would not normally be there and potentially putting the animal at risk. Calling, in particular, distracts birds from necessary functions by diverting their attention to an imaginary intruder. If you were caught calling or baiting a bird at a zoo, I would hope you'd be evicted.
I am a beginner photographer but for me it’s still 2. I convince myself everyday that it is okay not to get perfect shots. I feel frustrated as well sometimes but I think it takes away the real joy of having actual perfect shot in wild if we do anything beyond 2. The other reasons you mentioned already.
I think a fair amount of folks, me included, feel that locating wildlife to photograph, with minimal or no assistance, is at least half the reward and therefore how we define “wildlife photography.”
Which brings up another interesting conversation… is it wildlife photography when tons of folks start flocking to an individual’s “find” because they shared it and word spread?”
Another good video, Scott!
It can be hard to define that. I used to go to an event where on one of the coldest weekends of the year, farmers would put chickens out in a large snowy field for eagles to get. It was a great opportunity to get beautiful photos of eagles, and all the pros with their 600mm or 800mm lenses would be out there with tripods, waiting for the eagles to come in for the catch. They weren't domesticated, but they did learn to expect this every year, and even without the chicken, they still tend to be in that area. So would going there be considered "wild?" It's a farm field that eagles have been conditioned over years of being fed to go to. It's really hard to know what to say. Same with safaris, or whale watching boats. The animals are wild, they have free will, but it's sort of staged in that the tour guides know where to go, and often times the animals expect it.
Don't get me started on sharing locations. That's one of my biggest buttons
@@WildlifeInspired LOL, I think I recall your video about that. I am in the same boat, I don’t share anything anymore. I have two good friends that have proven to be locked tight throughout the years… anything stays between the three of us, no one else.
lol theres a great line. "you dont need 20 friends, you just need 3 mother F'ers and you can take over a country."
Great video, Scott, as always. I jumped off the train at #6. Regarding trade secret in photography. I go with what John Shaw ones said, "There are no secrets". ;)
Hi I think the dividing line is wild vs captive animal. For a photo contest , I think the onus is on the photographer to always disclose how the photo was taken - e.g in a hide , camera trap , drone , captive or wild subject etc and then it's up to the judges to determine the relative skills and merits of the image and if it breaks the rules of the competition as stated.
I remember an award winning photo of a Wolf being later disqualified after it emerged it was a tame animal and not truly wild.
I know of some photographers who use bird calls just to get the "bird" to land on a non-natural permanent structure. Cracks me up when people comment on how amazing it was to capture that moment. It does have merit if it truly was a lucky moment, but some people take it to the extremes.
Good comment! I'm interested in knowing why you put the word "bird" in quotes.
Photographic competitions need to have strict guielines for entries. Looking at your examples, any Wildlife competition should stipulate... No staged or studio envirionments, either inside or outside.
No staged shots with false perches and backgrounds.
No captive/tame subjects.
Full disclosure of camera settings and location.
These rules may sound draconian, but unfortunately there are a small number of "photographers" who will try anything to see their pictures on the front cover.
Great video subject again, always a pleasure to see and listen to your views and opinions. 👍
Thanks Doug. I have absolutely seen contest winners that use staged, baited, set up perches, etc. I guess each contest has its own guidelines, but it doesn't always feel genuine when it's staged or baited.
The first thing to know is the purpose of taking the photograph. Is the purpose to get out to beautiful places in nature that you might never otherwise go to, spend time learning about the subject you photograph, and hopefully create a beautiful image of one of those subjects. OR Do whatever it takes to create an image that wins a photo contest, gets likes on social media, or impress family and friends. If it is the former, then probably your guideline #2 should be appropriate, if the latter then anything goes up to your guideline #10. I took a local bird photography workshop that used staged perches, an industrial bag of seed for the trail, feeders, and unrelenting callback to make sure the photographers got the shot. The results were unemotional 'bird on a stick' photographs. Photographing a genuine moment is still a priority for me.
I’m ok with 1 through 6 with some reservations here and there. 7 is a gray area and 8,9,10 a no. 1 and 2 are the purest, but as you get older, like me it’s nice to have some other possibilities available.
Probably 6 as a stopping point maybe 7 but not if trying to pass it off as something that occurred naturally. It seems many people had to resort to methods similar to 7 during the lockdown. Some of these call it backyard photography if you can't call it wildlife photography. For the others that are probably the middle gray areas, I'm okay with calling it whatever you chose. As someone pushing 80, shooting here at home is about all I can manage these days. I live next to a National Park in what is basically a wildlife corridor between BLM land and National Park. The wildlife is passing through or deciding to set up camp and remain on a fairly regular basis. I can sit in my office and use my camera through a window or if I choose to walk outside and sit quietly that works too. Are the larger animals and some of the birds habituated: I'd say yes. However, we are all here sharing this unfenced space and we are all free to move about as we chose. There are days when I feel like the tables are turned and they are watching me as I go about my daily round. Due to growth, building, and noisy Airbnbs in the area plus drought, the wildlife is really being pushed. it is quiet on our property with mostly native vegetation, lots of places to hang out and we don't harass them in any way so many have chosen to stay and raise their young. I've never given a great deal of thought about whether my photos are truly wildlife photography so this topic has given me something to think about. Some of the AI stuff seems pretty creepy and it is becoming wearing to have to question everything I see - is real or....? Makes me think of the Maybelline commercials.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm glad you're doing better 😊
Thank you too!
I'm pretty much at a 2 and pose the following question: What does the 'wild' in wildlife photography mean to you? The answer obviously differs from person to person. Calling in animals using sounds isn't really that different to me than using bait - one method uses food and the other sound. In either case, you can rinse and repeat to get a shot you want. Staged settings aren't natural or wild and nor are captive animals. I write this as my personal belief and not as a definitive right vs wrong. I see this much as a sliding scale and it becomes a matter of where on that scale one is comfortable.
I went to a bear safari one time. There was a guy who would feed bears, and they trusted him, and it was the best spot to get baby bears! Of course for safety, all the people who weren't that one guy, had to go up a platform with a gate at the bottom so the bears wouldn't climb up and hurt anyone. I never really thought of whether or not it was wildlife photography to have a staged photo op for wild animals. I mean, if it was a wildlife park, I'm not sure if I'd count that, which I suppose would be kinda like 8, because the cages are huge and very natural, but the animal is there. There's a few places near me that have injured animals, disabled animals that can't be released, but are free to roam around the property, such as birds with broken wings, animals missing an eye, etc.
I think there could be two categories. The "natural" wildlife photos such as going on a hike seeing a bird, or like last weekend I was walking around a campground and a porcupine walked across the field (the field isn't natural, but I certainly didn't put a porcupine there), or other encounters that weren't really planned. And then "staged" wildlife photos, like that bear place, safaris, when people feed birds, or go to areas where people have better access to wild animals.
Scott, this is a really interesting discussion that should be explored in more detail. As someone who has run major wildlife photography competitions for years, this is a contentious subject with many photographers and entrants. Personally, I think it is part of the competition’s job to promote ethical and responsible wildlife photography and to employ a knowledgeable and experienced judging panel to consider all the issues you raise as part of their assessment for each image. Introducing too many rules in the areas you highlight makes it almost impossible to police effectively as there are some that will ignore guidelines and flout the rules without disclosure. Experienced judges will, in the vast majority of cases, separate the genuine wildlife shots and be able to take elements of controlled environments and subjects into consideration when assessing entries. Competitions have a responsibility to promote ethical wildlife photography and their choices of awarded images should help to shape the nature of future submissions and (hopefully)the approach the majority of entrants will take.
Assume this is Rob? It's a wide set of views !
@@WildlifeInspired yes, it’s Rob. A complicated topic with many and varied views indeed!
For a contest I think I'd be ok with anything from 1-4
I love photographing wildlife - mostly birds - but plenty of other subjects as well. Through #7 I am definitely OK with labeling as wildlife. On #8 I still think of it as wild - but if I decide to display that photo I will disclose that the animal was seen on a "ranch". I am also perfectly happy to try and photograph animals in a zoo -- but this is "zoo photography" and not wildlife. I would not consider #10 as photography at all -- if there is not a camera involved - it is not photography.
I agree with many commenters in this thread -- look at most State or National Parks -- the animals here are not constrained by any fences -- and are in my mind definitely wild. Yet they are "accustomed" to cars, people, etc. in their environment and are therefore much more likely to remain in place when a photographer shows up.
I see some comments in this thread also that start the old story of "If you edit your photos . . . ." -- this is just stupid. People have been editing photos since the very first darkroom was created - and this includes combining multiple images to get the sky conditions desired etc. (Ansel Adams, Gustav Le Gray, etc.) I try to edit my photos to look as natural as possible - but I will also not hesitate to remove an annoying branch from the edge of an image if I think it distracts from the overall image.
I’m probably in the game up to the Level 5-6. I do take pictures of hummingbirds in North, Central and South America. Our yard in Oregon has primarily perennial, native plants (Aquilegia) but we do also have some flowering plants that are not native to attract hummingbirds. I know that lots of Salvia, Penstemon, Verbena, Kniphofia, Zauschneria, Lilac, Rubus species are not native, so I have manipulated the environment and in Central and South America, feeding stations are the rule (Probably would never have seen nearly so many birds on my Life List if it weren’t for this norm. As they say, “It’s your list.”). Rarely, you’ll pick up a hermit species moving along a trap line or lek.
This is a very interesting discussion. My city has designated natural parks where a lot of my wildlife photography takes place (there are paved paths near ponds and such), and occasionally I feel slightly “fake” for taking wildlife photos in these city parks even though I don’t bait or setup perches. Then I remember the lengths that other people go to get their photos… and I don’t feel bad anymore 😂
This is a difficult subject, I am not sure if ethics can be separated from this. For example nr 4 is a grey area in my opinion. Callback is a hard no, but the generic forest sounds could be a better option.
1-3 is a yes for me, nr 4 a grey area and the rest is a no for me. I too did shots like nr 7 l, but I would not do that anymore.
This was a THINKER, Scott. Interesting and loved reading the comments. I fall in a group where a lot of my shots are within an Urban setting of Chicago. There is no environment within I work in which birds interact with a natural environment. All of the parks are managed in some way, and the parks influence the movement and migration of the birds. There are water features within the parks as well.
I recently posted a photo of a Black Crowned Night Heron on a cement pier wall. The heron instinctively interacted with the urban environment, attempting to hunt frogs just off the pier. The setting and surroundings were manmade, but not staged. The frogs were what attracted the heron, but there were also people walking up and down the pier, so in some way, the bird was habituated to human presence. Even though the surroundings are manmade, they were not staged for a particular effect, and I would consider Urban wildlife typically falling at a 6 on your scale, considering it a Wild Environment.
#2 for me
Wildlife = animal/bird in its natural habitat displaying natural behavior. No sounds, callback, feeders, water feature, staged, captive etc.
Here's an example of captive animal in "wild" setting: up here in Ontario we have the Canadian Raptor Conservancy where they have captive birds, bred in captivity. It's a great opportunity to practice getting flight photos, BUT I would never consider this wildlife photography. They even have a Bald Eagle, Fred, who will dip his wingtips in the pond.
Hi Scott, I greatly appreciate your channel for being transparent on your approaches to wildlife photography and bringing up sometimes heated debates.
1-4 are wildlife photography. 5,7 Staging the environment, as long as it is stated, and the photographer is not trying to deceive the audience is alrgiht. 6 Depends on the subject behaviour, if the subject solely depends on food provided, then it is not wildlife. If the subject uses feeder as supplement, regularly finds its own food in the wild, and probably can survive when supplemenary feeding dwindles I still consider the subject wild.
Quite the discussion. In the context of running a wildlife competition, it's difficult to put a limit on what of these constitutes wildlife photography, especially if you eliminate disclosure from the discussion. Because for any of these, if the person entering a picture isn't required to disclose where it was taken, then any of the categories 1 thru 9 could literally look the same. At that point it comes down to the person's morals of what he considers actual wildlife photography and if he can live with himself entering a particular photo. Personally, if I were entering, I would be willing to submit images in the categories of 1 thru 4, and possibly 6. I say 6 because even in the wild, some animals could be considered slightly habituated. Like in a national park, there could be plenty of animals and birds that are somewhat used to humans but I feel if you photograph them in their natural environment doing what they do naturally, it's still wildlife photography worthy of entering into a competition.
With all that said, there is a place for all of the categories of wildlife photography. For example, running a workshop using captive animals that you release into the wild specifically for the photography might be a good way to help educate the clients on how to get better looks at an animal, or an easier way to practice their methods. Privately, using a zoo (category 9) would also be a good way for a newer photographer to practice because the subjects are guaranteed. But I really don't think those captive animal photographs should be posted without the disclosure. I even question the images I've posted of wild ponies that I photographed at Grayson Highlands State Park. Those ponies are quite habituated, and I think there's a fence around the very large park so even though they're called "Wild Ponies", they're not wild.
This is an interesting topic. For me I think it depends on how the photo is used. A photographer for Nat Geo is supposed to represent wildlife naturally and with minimal processing. As an amateur photographer, I cannot get to all of the worldwide locations, nor do I have the time to spend months or years doing so. So a baited or otherwise staged situation presents an alternative way to get shots otherwise unavailable to me. It still takes skill to get a good bird in flight shot and as long as I identify it as such I’m ok calling it wildlife. Same for sky replacement and generative AI. Just say what you’ve done and no problem. Of course the actual wild animal action shot against a great background is the preferred way to go.
Habituation (ie #6) is tricky because habituation can take so many forms. In Scott’s example - the handfed foxes - I would struggle to call that wildlife photography. But what about shooting birds near a bird feeder on a local nature trail? Those are also habituated. As others have noted, what about shooting in national parks or similar places? Those animals are habituated. I have two examples to expand on this:
I shoot regularly in a nearby marsh where there are few people around and the birds are not really used to people, so they have more fear and generally, but not always, keep their distance. Sometimes I have had waterfowl come very close without me doing anything except sit there and quietly take their photos - they are just curious I guess, or maybe habituated from encountering people in other locations. Less than 2km away as the birds fly, but a 45 minute drive for me because of a river and bridge locations, is another wetland. This one has lots of visitors so the birds are more used to people. In one specific spot people do feed them so birds that eat that seed are more used to people, but otherwise no - and certainly not birds like herons that don't eat seed. But just because there are more people there, the birds in that wetland are more habituated (even if they were across the river in "my" wetland a few hours/minutes earlier) which makes it easier to get close to them for photography. So is shooting at "my" wetland a "purer" form of wildlife photography than across the river? I'm not sure. I like that they are less habituated in "my" wetland and I like the challenge, but if I lived closer to the other wetland I would go there instead. Tough call.
Another example - last year I spent 3 days on a lake photographing common loons from my canoe. The first night, I could not get within 20-30m of them. Over the three days I quietly, calmly used the same techniques to very slowly approach them. They allowed me to get closer - they could easily have kept that 20-30m distance. By the last morning I was able to photograph them feeding their chicks at very close range and even drift right past them as they were napping on the water. Another canoe 30-40m away startled them and they immediately looked up to the other canoe, then glanced at me less than 5m away and went back to napping. They were used to me and trusted me. Habituated to the presence of my canoe. Does that mean the photos I took the first night were “purer” wildlife photos than the ones I took the last morning, when they allowed me to get so close?
Good examples
My style is #2, how about DSLR camera trapping? Could that fall into the #1 category, my cameras are there for a week or 2 (large private farm), no footprints, but people have told me camera trapping isnt wildlife photography.
Up to #4 for me. The thrill of the chase is a big part of the reason to be there.
Thoughtful commentary, as always. What about wildlife management areas where birds are wild but habitat is managed (water levels, etc.)? Is that just staging at a grander scale?
I stopped at #5 for entering into a wildlife photography contest. Hate #6 but strangely I really appreciate #7 from a photography and artistic perspective.
Very interesting discussion honestly. Before watching I ballparked guessed I'd fall around 5-6, but after thinking about #7 a lot I'd consider that wildlife photography as well. For me, that setup looks as if it still requires a lot of time and work to be invested for photography. It feels like photographing a bird at a feeder on steroids. They're still putting a large amount of effort into their work to get close to truly wild animals, unlike some of the other categories mentioned later (Cough cough AI cough cough). For better or worse some photographers who focus on smaller animals (Such as reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates) use similarly pre-built setups (With fake backgrounds and multiple flash units for example), but physically move the animal into a better position, which can be stressful/dangerous, and those who do are typically still considered wildlife photographers. Perhaps that could be a topic for it's own conversation however.
Well, back in the 1970s many pros took images with a similar set-up as #7, the Hummingbirds are still wild and doing what they do. Yes, I was selling images back in the mid '70s. You manipulate images in post but the bird is still the same wild bird doing what it does. I think we need to remember that we're talking about Photography and it's how well we can capture a 'wild' animal. The environment doesn't need to be wild, just the subject. Yes, #6 looks out of place but the bird is still wild. It's important to differentiate between professional wildlife photographers and serious hobbyists who sell their images, but don't rely on it as their main source of income. The conversation becomes more complex when the focus is on selling images for their aesthetic appeal rather than the wildness of the environment. Sustainability and income are crucial factors to consider in this discussion.
Very thought provoking. Let me pose another thought. Years ago I took a trip to the Galapagos and was able to see and photograph many animals quite closely. These animals were certainly wild in a wild environment and not habituated. They just had no reason to fear humans (yet). Where would something like that fall on the scale? Similar to a safari ??
To my that's wildlife. It's doing what it does. Penguins very similar.
I just gotta ask. Where would something like a raccoon sleeping on the porch of its own free will, or a porcupine walking across a groomed field be? I didn't put them there, I didn't feed them, I hadn't even seen them before or after taking those photos, I didn't stage the environment (unless you count building a staircase?), but it's not a wild setting. I tend to take those photos the most. Animals at campgrounds, on power poles, in yards, etc. and it's hard to classify those.
I think this scale has another element which you didn't mention, in my opinion, the reason you are takign the shot in the first place.
For instance, I like to take shots which would be the lower half of your scale. And this is because I like to show people you don't need to backpack 3hrs into the woods to find awesome things. I take a lot of shots in public parks, and stuff like that. So the animals at these places are habituated, due to proximity to humans. But I want to show them doing what they would be doing if I wasn't there. So I am not going to setup a shot by moving sticks, adding some water or food, or playing sounds. I want the bird/animal to be natutal.
When people are in it for the "art" of the shot, and/or making their livelyhood from selling shots, then I believe those are the people who would find things on the upper end of the scale to be more acceptable. The motivation to get THE BEST shot you can, because presumably it would be more $$$, moves people into elaborate setups with things to draw the species in, and put them in a specific spot. To me this isn't wildlife photography. I would classify that as animal portraits. Much the same way you wouldn't call a portrait shooter a "street photographer". A street phoptographer may take a shot of a person, but its not setup in a studio with lights, back drops, and stands all over the place to make the perfect environment for shooting.
For me, I don't like 4 or 5 and probably would not shoot there. But 6 seems acceptable to me. For me, the environment needs to stay wild. And when you can couple that with a subject that's more or less ok with you being there, thats the gold mine.
Again, thats just me. If I am looking at this scale objectivly, there has to be an aspect of "wild" in order to call it wildlife. If a subject is so habituated that it literally cannot survive without human interaction, that's no longer wild. So those hummingbirds in 7, if people didn't put out those feeders, some of them may parish. Hummingbirds depend on constant food supplies to feed themselves. Even people who forget to fill feeders, can kill the birds which come to get the sugar water, because they can pass from starvation pretty quick. They have lost the "wild". Also if you are setting up an area down to the last leaf, that is also not wildlife, because the environment (which is also wild and life) is no longer "wild life".
1 to 6 as I shot in my local park and people feed birds all the time. But as long as it can fly away or run away free it ok in my book
I can not see why that should not be entered in a competition
2 is the ideal, but realistically 4-5 is the borderline. Maybe I am naive or a "purist" but watching a few photographer's UA-cam content make me wonder is it wildlife photography anymore? When a guy is sitting in his SUV using his giant 600mm lens to capture bears fishing or just roaming around while they do not care about human presence. It is especially true for big and visited national parks.
I live in Eastern-Europe and man we do not have stuff like that here. For each and every shot you really have to work hard. Camouflage yourself, learn and improve stalking skills, really know your subject and when to make your move.
I know at the end of the day for the viewer what matters is the image itself but I find it to be much more joyful to earn an impressive shot by going out and working for that picture.
Issue with 7 if you say it's not allowed you also have to exclude all animals in national parks. They are even more habituated than a bird drawn in to a flower.
For me in iowa almost all animals run away when they spot you. Deer during hunting season especially you can't get within 400 yards. In national parks you can get 30 feet from a lot of animals before they even take notice
Another thought experiment from the depths lol, I personally stop at 3 but willing to go to 4 rather than miss an opportunity. Mostly between 4 and 5, but... I have no issue with any photo taken of any animal (obvious ethic breaking eg. aside), but I fall back on your point with zoo/captive idea. If it's just for you then nothing matters, but if you show someone, I feel obliged to mention if it's a feeder or captive or set up. Any non captive animal is wild, but for me, the "life" part is not just them being alive, it's them going about their lives, "wildlife" = "life in the wild" and once you change that purposely then it's no longer wildlife, it's a photo of a wild animal, if you get my point.
But even then you could argue your number 1, merely being there with your scent and noise, movement etc can change the "life" part.
But I'm personally happy with my own rules for me, lets say 3, 4 in a pinch and not quite 5.
But I do feel honesty is important and without it, we all suffer. But thats another 5 hour conversation too lol
Great topic again Scott!
#1 and #2 are it for me. I believe in only photograph what is actually there.
I tend to stop at 3 personally. I don’t have a problem with people going up in the scale as long as they don’t try to pass off their photos as 1-3. I’m the same way when it comes to editing. I don’t have a problem with more aggressive/creative editing as long as it is not passed off as someone having super human photography skills. So I guess you can tell how I feel about AI. I’m not against it but be truthful about your skills and photos.
I just take bird photos on my walks in nature. So finding a cool branch/a nice spot in the water and sitting and waiting for a bird is ok for me. But I'll never do more than that, like creating perches, backgrounds, attracting birds with food/calls etc. That's where my line is. I think everyone can have their own line/ethics as long as they're not hiding how they got the photo.
Also I have to say, after knowing the things people do to get the final image, like setting up perches, backgrounds, adding/removing stuff from the image in editing, changing the colors drastically etc .. I don't find most bird photos as "amazing" as before. I'm not earning money from this and I'm happy with the photos I get, and the methods I use to capture them.
For me the border line is 4/5. Taking wildlife photos just as a hobby, half of the fun for me is just to be there out in the wild. See the wild animals in their natural habitat. About 80%-90% of photos I take falls in category 2. The remaining 10%-20% would be in 3 and 4. I did a few shots that would be categorized as 5, but I don't call them wildlife photos. So for me the borderline is somewhere around 4.
A shot of a wild tiger in a national park is #3? Then I would stop there.
I would call 7 wildlife photography but if I was running wildlife photography contest I would say 2 is as far I would allow but how would you know?
A very thought inspiring video. In the UK we would probably classify this as Nature or Natural History photography. I am with you up to #7. From #8 to #9 it gets murky, but as long as the animal is in natural surroundings similar to it's native environment, and it is not obviously captive, then it is acceptable. The main thing is to illustrate a wild animal in a 'natural' looking environment. AI, #10, is most definitely not acceptable as nature photography. I would find it hard to describe it as photography, full stop, (period of American readers).
Really interesting topic, you brought up a lot of nuance that I had to step back and think about. One thing I will mention for you to consider is #10 - I don’t think AI is on the same scale. 1-9 are all about capturing a living animal with a camera. AI- generated images of wildlife are completely different, more on an editing scale. Maybe you need a different scale for editing/pos-production with AI as #10, completely computer generated. I believe you already did that video but now AI has to be added. Anyway, very thought-provoking, thanks!
In wildlife competitions anything that alters the truth is not allowed so technically you’d be disqualified after number 2. Extremely hard to police though, especially when the rules sometimes allow zoos. Also game parks like in Africa are these animals really free ? For non competition photography numbers 2-9 rate the same all have some kind of lure or attraction and I’m fine with that for personal use. The major problem is that nasty word called ‘ethics’ which many people don’t understand the word. I’d love to see you do a video on ethics.
At least he gave the Black Snowy Owl a good scientific name "Bubo scandiacus stupidassus"
Very cool concept. RE:#8 I'm thinking a little backwards here. I ask myself the question what scenario could be created to make me consider a captive animal to be wildlife photography. If I stretch my imagination it would have to be a game preserve in africa of some sort. 100% wild animals roaming in an excessively large area. The purpose of captivity and the humans involved would be preservation from hunters for example. The animals themselves have no idea they are captive. In this scenario I could call #8 wildlife.
Perhaps the AI category is misplaced, and belongs on the end of a 'wildlife photograph post processing' axis instead of here. Great video, I always come away with more questions... the other day I used Nikon's new Auto-Capture to get a shot of a hummingbird coming to my feeder. Wildlife? bird is wild... but I did not click the shutter. If I had, I would have done it once, but 20 frames would be taken per second. And I did not focus, or determine correct exposure (auto-focus, auto-iso). So I think if I win a contest with this photo, I will need to give any prize money to my camera, since it did all the work. Maybe buy it a new lens... 🤣
6 would be my personal limit...so my example are black bears where the sows and cubs feed on blueberries in a field. These are wild animals and the location is a provincial park, but as a photographer I know i can set up in the location and bears will almost always show up. But i personally don't feel comfortable with bating...thats if you don't consider a bird feeder as bating. It is a personal decision here but as long as people are open and honest with their photos and don't do something illegal then i feel it is within my definition of wildlife photography.
I agree that it is wildlife photography through #6. From #7 on I just cannot call it wildlife photography even if wildlife is being photographed.
I just started my wildlife photo journey. Dad gave me his D500 since he went mirrorless and I picked up a 80-400 and 200-500 Nikon. To me, anything from 5-10 is "animal portraiture" not Wildlife photography. I think the point should be get out there in nature, camping, hiking etc and capture what's actually happening. Finding great spots and waiting, using a blind and such seems perfectly fine. You start making perfect resting spots in front of your tripod out of materials, in the backyard or out and about and I think it's a little dishonest. 600mm f4 prime bokeh behind a lot of these shots and people go wow, must have been really lucky trekking through the rainforest to come upon that shot. Meanwhile you're drinking a natty light on your lawn chair in the back yard, cause only the subject needs to be in focus right? Just my opinion from a brand new novice getting into this.
If the animal is wild, it's wildlife photography. By wild I mean the animal has free range to go where it chooses without any human imposed constraints, that it has not been domesticated for human use. Habituated is different. The animal is still free to come and go as it wishes, it just chooses to frequent a space with abundant food or water that makes it easier for us to capture quality images.
We all manipulate every photo to produce the best image we can ( in our opinion). When one chooses to lay prone at the lakes edge and positions the camera to include that "sweet spot" background, aren't we manipulating the environment? How is setting up a perch in just the right spot any different?
That brings me to image 7. Yes that is wildlife photography. The birds are unconstrained, free to come and go as they please. The fact that the photographer set up a perch doesn't change that. Does using a backdrop or flash guns change that? No. The photographer is using all his or her skill to produce their artistic vision. And who among us hasn't tried to produce artistic photos?
So for me all the images up to and including # 7 are wildlife photography. Any photo that includes an animal constrained from freedom of movement is not. Game park, zoo, raptor rehab center, etc., no images from those type of locations is wildlife photography. And as for AI, that isn't even photography. That is digital manipulation to produce a false image. Call it art, but don't call it photography.
All depends on what you want to show about the animals/ birds.For me anything that helps awareness ,/conservation of our nature is valid,especially as biodiversity is threatened. For my personal wildlife photos,the most i do is maybe remove a branch or some object that distracts,if i need the shot and have no other options.
#7 is a HUGE NO - especially in a competition - and you loose me after number 6 as far as this discussion goes.
Hard no to 8, 9, 10. All the others are fine. IMO I also don't consider any image taken without the photographer present to take the image not wildlife photography.
I doubt you will get an overall consensus on this subject.
Where I live in National Parks it is illegal to use bird sounds without a license. It has been indicated it causes birds to become very agitated in some circumstances, and possibly cost them to use valuable energy in winter time that if prolonged over a number of days could cause their demise.
With regard to perches, it is a very fine line, I suppose even a man made pond or lake could be called a perch as an extreme example.
These days with all the different ways to attract animals and software manipulation I just view "photos" as artwork. The time has long gone where there is the expectation that what you see in any photo is an accurate view of what was there, with no manipulation before or after taking the photo.
Not good or bad just the way it is.
Wow, tough...5, 6 and 7 are borderline... BUT... I think if you explain the process in your description and that it is not a captive animal its ok in most situations.
8 is ok if again you state it's a zoo animal but it's not truly wildlife.
BUT.... A truly wild environment with a wild native animal were nothing is touched or manipulated, I feel would bring me the most satisfaction and pleasure to get a shot of.
2 is certainly the most rewarding and clearly true wildlife, which I do a lot. However photography is a drug and if your someone who puts seed out (like me) in order to get good photo's I guess I would have to settle at 7. I still get a lot of wildlife coming into the garden (about an acre) through the season for the fruit, insects and grubs so I would class them as a 2-3. Subscribed.
thanks so much
Many times wild animals come to a human environment but they are still wild animals. I often do not prefer the shots, a bird on a barbwire fence opposed to on the branch of a tree, but that does not change the bird. I most certainly consider #5 a wildlife shot.
What about trail cameras?
I'm OK calling 1-7 wildlife photography. 8-10 is something different. I can't put my finger on exactly why. It has to do with caged, and captive animals not being "wildlife" in my mind and AI doesn't seem like photography wildlife or not. I'll probably regret posting this.
I draw the line at #6
Interesting discussion. I think we need a definition of wildlife and the purpose of photography as it pertains to wildlife. If the purpose of wildlife photography is to show how animals "normally" act, perhaps they act more "normal" when they're used to humans being there and aren't "re" acting in fear, for example. Was Jane Goodall's study of "wild" chimpanzees no longer a study of wild chimps because she interacted with them? Certainly you can learn more if you interact, yes? You can show them in a more truthful fashion if you know more about them by interacting with them. If you take the human "footprint" out of the equation as with trail cams or drones, are you getting a more valid "truth" of how wild animals act? I suppose you might, once the animal gets used to the trail cam or drone...although it might take quite awhile to get used to a drone. What about post manipulation of the photo? Is that showing the "truth" about the animal or is it changing the truth. It could be both, in my mind. Photography, in itself, only shows one perspective in a photo. That perspective can be valid or invalid. It can be done to enhance the truth or lie about the situation. Even captive animals can teach us more about the wild animal, if allowed to do so. Is the wild animal inside the domesticated dog, like in the book, The Call of the Wild? Certainly living with a domesticated dog teaches us something about a wolf. In my experience, people who don't live with domesticated animals (or don't live in the wild, which few people do these days), know very little about animals at all. My dear ol' dad used to say, "everything in moderation, including moderation". For me, all the numbers are valid, in moderation and for the right reasons (except for #1 which is probably impossible and #10 which probably isn't photography).
Good thoughts.
Steve, I wish numbers 5 and 6 had been reversed on your list, but in the current form, number 6 is my stopping point.
Lost me at #7 - the combination of a highly staged environment and a habituated subject is too much for me personally. When BOTH components (environment and behavior) are heavily influenced by people, particularly if the people staging the environment for photography are also the ones causing the habituation of the subject via feeder/bait, it's not wild anymore for me. Whereas a subject that happens to be habituated in a totally wild/uncontrolled environment where the photographer isn't responsible for habituation nor intentionally affecting behavior feels more wild to me.
I would stop at 4. I will take pictures of wildlife in many of these scenarios but I wouldn't class it as wildlife. After watching some safari videos I am starting to wonder how authenticly "wildlife" they are as predators seem to walk right past the vehicles. Not exactly normal behavior for a lion. In the end take whatever photos you want but don't try to pass them off as something they are not.
Late to the party here. I go up to and including #7. They are wild, free, not pets. #'s 8 and 9 I would call animal photography. #10 is digital art.
If the subject is a wild animal (wild correctly defined as noncaptive) and photography was used to capture the image, then it is most certainly wildlife photography. When defining terms, we must not consider what something seems like or how we feel about it. We must only consider the literal dictionary definition of the word(s).
Agree I think many conflate there emotions with the situation. I think habituated is up in the air. But if it's free to roam and doesn't rely on people it feels wild to me.
@@WildlifeInspired Yes, totally agree. The opposite of wild is not tame ... the opposite of wild is captive. As soon as one includes habituation or tameness into their definition, things get messy, as there are varying degrees of habituation. A definition needs absolute, binary parameters, not subjective ones that depend on "to what extent" something is.
1-6 I would consider wildlife photography and acceptable for competition. 7 is a grey area… I would say no for competition and while it’s technically still “wild”; that’s something I would think requires disclosure. Everything else, other than AI, may as well be zoo photography which I don’t think most consider to be wildlife photography. At least I don’t. AI isn’t photography at all.
Captive animals is no longer wildlife photography, just animal photography. Many species out in the true wild you won't get a photo or it could take a very long time to get an image. More many you can't get within 500 feet or they will take off.
Well for me 1-5 ,
I can go with up to #3 (with slight misgivings) but #2 is what I feel is true wildlife photography. #1 I don't think is humanly possible. I recently saw a photo that took top honors, but it was by using a camera trap, the photographer wasn't even present...not for a proof of of life document. I find that disgusting...but, that's me.
For contest sake I'm good up until 4, but just as photographs as "Wildlife" I'm good up to 9 as it's wildlife just not out in the wild. If you post on any social media anything over 4 should be declared as such.
Interesting topic. I'd argue that most photos of wildlife in national parks fall into your #6 category though not as extreme as the hand-fed fox in your example. I'd never call shots of a grizzly in Yellowstone a non-wildlife shot, but the grizzlies and other wildlife in most parks is definitely habituated to humans. That's a big part of the draw to visiting the parks. The wildlife may not be fed, but they are most certainly not the same as animals that don't encounter scores of humans and vehicles on a daily basis. I'd move #6 down the scale to #5. I also think that #5 and #7 are basically the same thing. You're staging a photo of a habituated animal. For me, if an animal is captive, that should be disclosed on the photograph. Otherwise, it's a wild animal and qualifies as a wildlife photo. AI is another beast all together and I appreciate it as an artform, it makes me sad to see how gullible many people are and scares me to think of AI's effect on the future.
My hot take.....#6 should be #3, but there are levels to it. You say habituated subject/wild environment, but your example of a fox being hand fed makes it lean much further down the line to me than it would if your example was an African safari, where those animals are habituated to people, but you definitely aren't feeding them.
For me, I only take wild wild shots, so on your list, I'd stop at 2. I've never staged anything, or influenced anything. But I'd also say that the habituated animals like I mentioned above fall more so in the wild/wild category than anything else.
Personally, I’ll call it wildlife photography down to #5. Would feel like I’m misleading my audience from #6 on…
My 2 cents 😊
My opinion : Number 7 is a BIG FAT NO , it is not wildlife photography! It is a staged setup with multiple flashes so definitely a no. Those popular photographers use these settings to give their clients easy pics and also make so much money from that. Ive seen comments that mention the flash does no damage to the birds, but how exactly do they know that, especially if the bird has been exposed to that for so long. Too many negatives and doubts for those setups!
I think this is determined by the animal, not the environment per se. Think about peregrine falcons in the city, bugs in a terrarium. As for competitions, it just depends on the rules. Remember, those rules are set by a person, not nature. As for the last one, we need to go back to the definition photography, if we are referring to the use of equipment to capture light, then I would say it's not photography wild or anything else.That's my opinion.
Im trying to see what YOU would do. If it were YOUR contest.
@@WildlifeInspired I have seen many wildlife competitions with certain rules like certain animals only, no Man made structures, wildlife in urban jungles, areas, wildlife photo bombing etc.
Im good up to #6
1 and 2 alone is wildlife...anything staged or manipulated is not...as a Bird photographer, 2 alone is practical and gives me utmost satisfaction...3 and beyond is just manipulation.
2
Maybe 3
Up to #7 is OK with me #8 and above hard no
Yes
I’m fine through 7, after that, a definite no.
1 - 4 are acceptable as wildlife photography in my opinion.
Back to film
I would rather see someone use AI than bait a wild animal, but full disclosure, neither is wildlife photography.
I don’t have a problem with zoo photos as long as there is disclosure- same with the staged scenario with the humming birds. AI is definitely a no!
I good up to no 6. 7 is clear no for me.
1 to 5 i would consider wildlife - 6 to 9 is animal photography, 10 is not photography at all