where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
While I tend to be a jack of all trades trying my hand at portraits, sports, and wildlife, the article below kind of bothers me.
http://www.utne.com/Arts/Phony-Wildlife-Photography.aspx
Although I understand zoos and taking pictures at zoos, being able to "rent" wildlife simply for professional photo
shoots and pawning it off as "in the wild" seems pretty unethical.
It is sad to see animals kept like that for profit, but sadly ethics are a hard subject to work with. What some of us consider unethical, other consider okay, that is just the world we live in today.
There are several issues at play here. I read Chancetlu's post to be raising the issue of whether it is ethical to stage photos (which happen to be of wildlife) and pass them off as having been taken in the wild. (A lot like the issue with the wolf jumping the fence that won the photo contest a while back.)
Another issue is whether it is ethical to keep wildlife as "models" for use in photo shoots.
At an animal rehab center, game preserve, zoo, etc., I think it is perfectly okay to make a "donation" to the center in order to take pictures and even be allowed special treatment (access to exhibits, pens, etc.) to get these shots. There are three caveats to this though:
1) It should be a non-profit organization that has the animal's best interest at heart such as a conservation center
2) They should never be passed off as "wild" shots
3) They shouldn't be "posed" by an animal handler
I have been posting a number of pics from a trip to Kenya in the "pic of the day" and in many cases spent 12 hours a day in a van for 10 days trying to get that perfect shot. Being able to pay someone to pose the same animals really cheapens the art for people that put in the time and effort to catch them in the wild.
My problem with this, on the photo issue side of things, is that the representation is of "wild" animals, when they're not.
It's sorta like if I posed a bunch of models to look like al-quada folks, take a photo of them, and pawn it off as authentic.
i say do it. . .we use humans as models, why not animals? obviously in humane, controlled, conditions. . .passing it off as wild though is douchey, I would probably do the nude animal shoots with a ruffled boa (like on an elephant trunk), so people knew it was a modeling photoshoot, not straight nude. . .
IMHO, every photographer should say either it's natural or not. I'm shooting animals for a long time, and always state either a picture shows a captive animal or a "true" wild one, and apart from competitions ppl usually don't care. They like the picture or they don't like it at all. Animal is animal no matter either it's Your dog in Your backyard, Elephant in Chitwan or Tiger at zoo. All of this places gives You great possibilities to capture behavior. So as long as You state where Your picture was taken and all the circumstances I don't have anything against "renting" animals for "natural" sessions.
Now that I have slept on it and read the article again, I think my biggest issue is discussed on page two regarding the treatment of animals at some of these facilities. I am by no means a hardcore animal treatment person as I hunt and fish and really have no problems with hunting, even on game ranches, as long as it is not simply for trophy and the meat is consumed.
I guess it is that fact that the animals are euthanized for being too aggressive for photo shoots and have to drug, kicked, and prodded to pose.
I don't know though, it make me think back to a time ten years ago when my father took us on a family trip to southern Mexico. he paid for all of us to "swim with the dolphins". After seeing the facility, i was against the idea, but due to their being no refunds and my much younger brothers' excitement, I went along with it. To this day, i will never forget the look of dejection and the attitudes of the normally playful creatures.
As I have gotten older (I am only 29), I have grown not to really care for things like the circus, Sea World, and to a lesser extent zoos. I think this is primarily because, due to my overseas job, I have had to opportunity to do nature hikes in Thailand, spend 10 days in Kenya on safari, and dive with manta rays in the Maldives. Because of these trips, captive wild animals just do not hold the same intriques with me that they used to. I tend to give zoos a pass due to the educational aspects and the fact that I loved them growing up. Sea World would have gotten a free pass too, however I jest went to Sea World Texas last year and all the educational aspects are gone. It used to be at each show they explained to you all the details of the animals habitat, growth cycle, unique facts, etc. Now it is all just jumping and pop music.
Watching the Planet Earth Diaries really opened my eyes to animal photography as well. The cases of a photographer/videographer sitting in a blind for weeks or months to get 5 minutes of usable Bird of Paradise footage just blew my mind. I never knew the efforts that these videographers went through to create all the nature shows I grew up loving. Being able to rent animals to produce the "same" results and pass them off bothers me more and more as I think about it.
Okay, rant over.
chancetlu said:
As I have gotten older (I am only 29), I have grown not to really care for things like the circus, Sea World, and to a lesser extent zoos.
I'm not a huge fan of the circus either. I took my girlfriend's kids to the circus last year, and I was actually excited to go myself. But, after I saw how they made the animals perform--never again.
At one of the photo studios here in L.A., there's a large black and white print of a tiger diving into a swimming pool. The photographer is underwater, with his camera in an underwater housing, and the point-of-view is the tiger diving right toward you. It's an impressive shot for a number of reasons:
1. The difficulty and expense of producing the shoot.
2. The personal risk involved in getting the shot.
3. The beauty of the animal.
4. The "stunt" the animal performs.
5. The "underwater-ness" of it.
Before I read the article, and others' posts here, I previously believed that the use of "rental" animals was a wholly legitimate part of the commercial photography and motion picture business. Certainly, misrepresenting work for a contest entry is a no-no, but shooting a commercial or ad which requires animals, I thought, was fine. Now, I see it a bit differently, perhaps not too differently from how I now see the circus. Directing wild animals for commercial purposes (or even artistic purposes, as above) could be argued as a form of exploitation.
chancetlu said:
. . . my father took us on a family trip to southern Mexico. he paid for all of us to "swim with the dolphins". After seeing the facility, i was against the idea, but due to their being no refunds and my much younger brothers' excitement, I went along with it. To this day, i will never forget the look of dejection and the attitudes of the normally playful creatures.
I've been lucky enough to swim with the dolphins in the wild on the southern shores of the Big Island of Hawaii (and with the sharks, too, in Bora Bora). I've seen the "pay-to-play" dolphin pens at the hotels, and like the circus, I'm not a big fan of those either.
Yeah, I've never been a fan of using non domesticated animals for photograph/video/commercial uses. Dogs, cats, etc, thats fine, but not animals that should be wild (or at a zoo, reserve, etc.)
That being said I've also been a "vegetarian" for the past 4 years (well technically for the past 2 years I've been a pescatarian). But before I get jumped on or my views given less credit, let me explain a little. I have no problem with eating meat (hence eating fish for the past 2 years), but because I am a middle class american it's very easy for me to get whatever meat substitute and protein that I need in other ways. On top of that I was never a big pork or beef lover anyway. However If I travel to another country and I'm offered it, I will eat it.
sorry for going so off topic, haha.
Ringling brothers and other circus companies treat the animals pretty disgustingly, it's very sad. Staged wild animal shots can be pretty amazing, but I think part of the problem is that people have this entitled attitude, like they should be able to take the shot just because they can immagine taking the shot. They are wild animals, if you want to take the shots, go to a reserve, the zoo, or spend the effort, time to go shoot them in the wild. Dangerous? possibly, but that's the price you pay for the shots. The idea that you have the money so you should be able to do whatever you want is ridiculous.
foofiebeast said:
Ringling brothers and other circus companies treat the animals pretty disgustingly, it's very sad. Staged wild animal shots can be pretty amazing, but I think part of the problem is that people have this entitled attitude, like they should be able to take the shot just because they can immagine taking the shot. They are wild animals, if you want to take the shots, go to a reserve, the zoo, or spend the effort, time to go shoot them in the wild. Dangerous? possibly, but that's the price you pay for the shots. The idea that you have the money so you should be able to do whatever you want is ridiculous.
Yeah, I kind of agree. Also, I agree about the domesticated animals. But the rental reserves, to me, are a little like "vanity" shooting, if not done for a commercial assignment. Like shooting fish in a barrel. And yes, we went to Ringling Bros.' circus, and after the show I felt the animals' performances were just humiliating.
chancetlu said:
I am by no means a hardcore animal treatment person as I hunt and fish and really have no problems with hunting, even on game ranches, as long as it is not simply for trophy and the meat is consumed.
Whoa! I didn't read this part! I certainly wouldn't describe myself as an animal activist-type either, but I really don't like killing anything, even "pests" and insects. I mean, there are some "practical" concerns--I mean, I do commit genocide on entire ant colonies. It's just that that line in "Contact" really got to me (the one about killing ants).
I do love shooting guns, though. Glocks, H&Ks, Sig Sauers, you name it--I love 'em . . . for target-shooting. Plus, I'm a rabid meat-eater (someone else just does the killing for me), so I am a bit of a hypocrite.
lol, that line always cracks me up, the "woah woah, I don't like killing things, but...". It's such a weird seemingly contradictory sentiment most of us carry around (not all of us by a long shot.) I got over it when I realized that I didn't want to eat something I wasn't comfortable killing. Like I couldn't immagine myself killing a cow, hah.
anyway this thread reminded me of this video, hah
I've never had a problem with people hunting, but I've always found canned hunts to be especially abominable.
While this isn't exactly the same thing, it's close enough that I give it a hearty thumbs down.
great finding foofiebeast
AnonymousCoward said:
I've never had a problem with people hunting...
I read you, AnonymousC. You're talking about The Most Dangerous Game, right?
http://books.google.com/books?id=1fwy56bV3kkC
That's a great read and all about hunting people!
Or maybe you mean the movie adaptation, you know the one I am talking about. Long live Ice-T and Gary Busey.
Unless they enter the image claiming it was shot "in the wild", I don't see a problem with it.
You must log in to post.
