Gals and guys, as the forum has slowed down a little bit let's start discussion either photographing animals in zoo is cheating or not. Should this kind of pictures be clearly described "this photo has been taken in captivity". What You think?
Animals in zoo - wildlife or cheating?
(38 posts) (18 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Don't the bars give a clue that it is a zoo? ;^)
Zoos are still good places to take pics as they give access to diverse animal species to more people.
IME though, animals in zoos look different (bored?) to wild animals.
Posted 3 years ago # -
spray, let's see if You will manage to guess which picture has been taken in the zoo:
Posted 3 years ago # -
It's only cheating if you get caught right Adam ;^) I'll guess 1st and 3rd.
I don't think it's cheating unless you work for National Geographic or you say a domestic wolf is wild and photograph it jumping over a gate and your photo wins the Wildlife Photographer of the Year! :^)Posted 3 years ago # -
I would agree. Unless you are trying to claim the photos are from animals in the wild when they are in the zoo it is cheating. For the rest of us that might never make the African Safari or the Serengeti trip a zoo or care habitat is a wonderful location to get shots.
Posted 3 years ago # -
They are beautiful animals and great shots. If you tell me all were shot in a zoo, I would not have appreciated them any less. The wildlife park {more correctly, a zoo} I visit regularly is set in a 280-acre forest reserves. However, if you tell me all were shot in the wild, that does make me think about what you might have gone through to get these shots.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'd guess all three. The rhinos and the tiger look bored, and the gulls are prolly opportunistically thieving fish at feeding time.
Just a guess though...
Nice pics though Adam.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Is going to the zoo any worse then bringing your trained wolf to a wildlife preserve to get the wildlife photo of the year? I just can't afford to go on a safari so I'm stuck with a zoo. But I can't get this close to a snow leopard in the wild either.
Posted 3 years ago # -
noxin - You can get even closer to snow leopard - the question is will You come back :D, but seriously nice picture, where was it taken?
as for the pics above of course all of them were taken at the zoo. IMHO, if You say that the animal is a captive animal than You are not cheating. it's a nice training ground, in both situations You use the same kind of equipment, so once You will save $$$$ You'll be prepared :D - just wondering why the safaris are so pricey (running $200-$300/per day).
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thanks adamz. I took that one and these at the Providence Zoo. The one above was through a glass window looking down at the cage, er habitat simulator. It's actually quite a nice zoo.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Honestly, I don't mind photos of animals taken in zoos. If you claim that they were taken in a safari, like you guys said, that's cheating.
But I went to the Bronx Zoo this summer, and I thought those animals were in a pretty sad state. It's not like they're treated badly- I just don't like the fact that they're confined. I'm pretty sure the animals are not aware of it, but I still don't think the habitat is "natural". Animals don't belong in zoos. That's just my opinion though.
Besides, if you really want to save animals, that money should better be spent protecting habitats, not on zoos.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I don't care where photos are taken, as long as they are not misrepresented.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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?
Posted 3 years ago # -
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
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah, I hope the animals weren't killed for the photos only. That'd be pretty terrible.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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?
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
