I posted the picture of the captive lion above, some time ago.

I just received news that a volunteer at the same animal orphanage was killed by a lion.

http://www.chipangali.com/news?id=9

This report shows, that although we may be lulled into a sense of security by the idea of a captive animal, this notion could not be further from the truth.

Lions (and all other captive animals) are equally if not more dangerous than animals in the wild.

To my mind, they are still "wildlife" and photographing them in zoos etc. whilst much easier, is still legitimate.

I Liked that elk shot.. Had another look and I think a wide/pano crop may work as well.. ie remove the top 1/3 (and the bright distracting sky)

jonnyapple said:
hahaha

Treckie, I can see diffraction artifacts from netting in the bokeh of your wolf one, otherwise I wouldn't know. The other two I haven't a clue.

The elk was "shot" in the wild, The leopard was taken through glass at the zoo and the wolf was taken through glass at a sanctuary. It was raining when taken.

This picture was taken a split second before the lioness charged. She was not bored, she was in captivity at a wildlife orphanage in Zimbabwe which is owned by a childhood friend of mine.

I nearly jumped out of my skin, even though she was behind a fence.

http://www.chipangali.com/

IMHO, using stuffed animals is very unethical - most likely someone killed those animals in order to make them stuffed, and killing w/o any reasonable reasons (just for fun of having a stuffed animal in living-room) should be prohibited.

btw: nice captures treckie

Sandpiper said:
You have some great shots, and I am getting pretty curious about where your local bird sanctuary is. Care to share?

It is called the George C Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary, located on Westham Island, which a short drive from Vancouver. They have a website (linked below), it is dated, but it works. It is one of many Federally Protected Waterfowl sites in Canada. Only a small portion of the reserve is open to the public.

http://www.reifelbirdsanctuary.com/index.html

I'm confused by what some of you are asking...

what do you mean "as long as the animals weren't killed for the purpose of the photography" (paraphrasing from a couple of you). Taxidermy is a sizeable business, I really doubt the photographer is going out and finding wild animals that she specifically wants to use in her photos and then gets the killed and stuffed, haha.

that being said I think hunting (for sport) is disgusting.

as to her pictures. I really like the first two. the third looks a bit "ad"ish for me, but it is pretty provocative.

OK, so what if you shot the deer and ate the meat then sent the rest to the taxidermist who stuffed it and you then photographed it in a bizarre setting - or perhaps if it was a road casualty and the stuffed skin was photographed at the place it was killed in the accident - does that change your reactions to that shot?

Well, these photos certainly provoked thought and discussion which seems to be what they were supposed to do.

PB PM said:

I often shoot at a local bird sanctuary, but all the birds there are wild, and thus free to come and go as they please.

You have some great shots, and I am getting pretty curious about where your local bird sanctuary is. Care to share?

Oh I agree, although the last one looks unnatural, and obviously posed.

noxin said:
tcole1983, it's only cheating if the flowers are killed, stuffed and posed specifically for your shot! unless of course it's only done to shock the viewer.

hahaha

Niko, I was reading from the bottom up and almost cried at the raccoon picture before reading it was stuffed.

Treckie, I can see diffraction artifacts from netting in the bokeh of your wolf one, otherwise I wouldn't know. The other two I haven't a clue.

PB PM said:
Both are outlandishly disgusting. :-p

+1, although I kind of like the posed taxidermy photos in a strange way (as art, not as wildlife photography, obviously).

Both are outlandishly disgusting. :-p

So what's more cruel. shooting a stuffed animal or dressing up a tiny dog or cat in a balerina outfit then taking pictures and showing the world how your going to have to spend next month's rent taking your tiny dog or cat the the pet psychologist....

NikoDoby said:You're only saying that now because I told you how she gets her shots. If I hadn't told you then why wouldn't those photos be considered wildlife?

Well, most of the shots are obviously set up... some others seem probable (lady with the birds and the one with bird in hand.. but these aren't wildlife photography.

Also, when I see this kind of art, I'm fast on the "it's not real" call..

Setup photography can be great but it was to be seen differently.

She clearly has a different way of working with photography that makes her different from classic wildlife photogs... so even if it was legit or not, it wouldn't change the way I see her work.

tcole1983, it's only cheating if the flowers are killed, stuffed and posed specifically for your shot! unless of course it's only done to shock the viewer.

I would say what difference does it make unless you are someone that is an animal rights activist and hates the thoughts of zoos. I love taking pictures of animals, but there is no way I will ever see a wild tiger so the zoo will have to do it for me. If I take a good picture of a tiger in the zoo does it deserve less credit then the wild? Maybe a little because I can probably get a closer picture in good conditions, but I wouldn't discredit them all together.

The zoo here in Indianapolis also has a butterfly garden...is that cheating also? Or what about flowers that are there? When would you make a distinction between what was a worthy photo and what wasn't?

Wild

Zoo

Wild

Zoo

Wild

Zoo

Actually I would be disturbed if there was a new Nikon "Super Store." I hate what urbanization does to the landscape, and the animals living in those areas.

PB PM said:
Niko, as per your last post, I find that a little disturbing.

I find that raccoon picture very disturbing, but that's her point. To shock us into thinking about how man is encroaching on more and more land. It's not shocking if a forest gets torn down and a new Nikon "Super Store" gets built.

We wouldn't see or even think about all the animals in the forest who would be killed or lose their home. But when we see a photo of two kids taunting a cornered animal (real or not) we find that shocking and it gets our attention.

jbl said:
Now Amy Stein and her stuffed animal, I like that a lot but I don't see this as wildlife photography.

You're only saying that now because I told you how she gets her shots. If I hadn't told you then why wouldn't those photos be considered wildlife?

Wow this is pretty amazing... Interesting thread.

Here are my opinions on this subject:

zoo: sounds like a training place, I wouldn't be proud of a zoo pic but it doesn't mean it's bad.. I took a few of these myself and I had fun.. unfortunately when I did, my only tele was a 105 f/2.5 manual focus prime.

Now Amy Stein and her stuffed animal, I like that a lot but I don't see this as wildlife photography.

Yeah, I hope the animals weren't killed for the photos only. That'd be pretty terrible.

I'm not sure how I feel about zoos. I like the idea that people can see creatures that they would not otherwise see, but I also feel that the animals should not be locked up in a cage, no matter how big it is.

As a person who enjoyed photographing wildlife more than anything else this is a tough decision. I could get some photos of some exotic birds by going to a place that has them, but so far I have not for various reasons. I often shoot at a local bird sanctuary, but all the birds there are wild, and thus free to come and go as they please.

Niko, as per your last post, I find that a little disturbing. I guess as long as the animals were not killed for the purpose of being used that way it isn't so bad.

So what about photographing stuffed animals? I'm being serious. There are some photographers who use stuffed animals in various poses and photograph them in unique surroundings that a live animal normally wouldn't be in. No I'm not talking about dogs playing poker. I mean like a wolf in a persons lawn or a deer on a highway. I forgot the name of one photog who does this. I'll look up her name and post it later.

EDIT: I finally remember her name, Amy Stein. Her series "Domesticated" uses taxidermy to capture most if not all the animals in her photos. If I hadn't told you how she does it you would have been amazed by her "timing" in capturing these animals.

http://www.amysteinphoto.com/domesticated.html

I think that the animals are beautiful creatures whether shot in some form of captivity or in the wild. The photographer needs to have the integrity to inform how the shot was achieved when a destinction is warranted. Can you tell which is which here?

I agree that it doesn't matter as long as you don't lie about where they were taken. Good trick question, Adam! Noxin, I love the eyes on that first one.

In photographic competitions the "nature" category, must have pictures of wild plants and creatures in the wild. ie no man made stuff or influences in the picture. even if the plant is not local to the region it would be disqualified. but of course in a pictorial category you can have anything.