Ethics question: elements artificially placed in scene

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

boviscopophobic

Member
Member's gallery
I was photographing puffins last summer. Sometimes they would pull up a few blades of grass and walk around holding it in their beaks for a while -- this did not appear to be for nesting purposes, as they would eventually drop the grass when they got bored with it or forgot about it.

My ethical quandary arose when another photographer set out a few flower blossoms on the ground. I am not sure where they came from -- they may have been picked only a few miles away, but they definitely did not come from the area right by the puffin colony. The puffins immediately investigated the unfamiliar objects, picking them up and running around with them much like they would do with grass. The resulting photos, judged solely as images, were some of my favorites of the trip. But I worry whether they are suitable to be called wildlife photos. On the one hand, these were wild birds, they were not coerced in any way, and they were demonstrating natural behavior. On the other hand, the natural behavior was taking place with unnaturally placed flower blossoms.

What are your thoughts on this situation? Would you have any reservations about these photos?
 
Member's gallery
I don't know about your particular situation, but when I was in Elliston there were yellow flowers in the grass. They are OOF in this image. And I have seen photos of the puffins carrying yellow flowers. I do not know if those images were the results of photographers "tempting" the puffins.

BUT - that does not answer your question regarding the ethics of tossing the flowers on the ground for photographic purposes.
 
Member's gallery
boviscopophobic said:
What are your thoughts on this situation? Would you have any reservations about these photos?
Click to expand...

No reservations whatsoever. The birds weren't hurt. You like the pictures. I certainly would not be concerned about apparent non-endemic flowers in the photos and the ethics of them being wildlife images.
 
Member's gallery
boviscopophobic said:
What are your thoughts on this situation? Would you have any reservations about these photos?
Click to expand...

NO. is that any different than move a leaf or stem out of the way to get a better flower picture. Or place bird seed on out or using a humming bird feeder (which I believe benefits the birds)
 
Member's gallery
As long as the flowers were not an invasive species that could cause problems down the road I don't see a problem. You were not baiting as such by offering food to attract them. Heck, how many people take photos of birds sitting on branches around bird feeders? Some ethics are not situational and some are. What may be unethical in one circumstance may not be unethical in another (see bird feeders above). Tying a pet store mouse to a length of thread so that an owl will swoop down and grab it for the purposes of an action photo is over my line but I know people do it.

The ethics question usually results in arguments and I believe much of the arguments arise out of the situation and a person's personal limit. Some think standing on the ground taking photos of a raptor nest is taboo but others think climbing the tree to band, weigh, take blood samples and examine the babies is just fine. Purposely flushing a group of waterfowl to get a flight shot may be questionable for some.

There really is no black or white answer to the question. As for your puffin photo, I don't see a problem unless those were invasive plants then it would be wrong.

Jeff
 
And yet the human action changed the behavior of the animal, enticing it to go somewhere and do something it wasn't doing already. Is it in the world to perform for us?
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
And yet the human action changed the behavior of the animal, enticing it to go somewhere and do something it wasn't doing already. Is it in the world to perform for us?
Click to expand...
Having been with puffins for several days, I can say that the birds quite frequently would walk around randomly with bits of grass, etc. in their beak. Then they would drop it and fly off. So in this case, IMHO, I don't believe the bird was enticed to do anything unnatural.

Case in point....I did NOT coerce this bird to dance! VERY short video will make you smile!
 
Member's gallery
I know the OP asked the question in all seriousness, but I think a little perspective is in order here. It's not like you're plopping down a major city on the colony.

Given all the daily interactions that every living thing on this planet has with it's surroundings, the setting of a few flowers before a puffin are not going to change the long-term behavior of the puffin or the colony. Now if you did it every day for a few generations of the puffins in that location, then yes, that sort of thing might have some impact...and who knows, it could be positive in some way.

Animals of all sorts are far more resilient to changes in their surroundings than most people realize...or that many people would have you believe, in able to be able to part you from your money. Which is not to say that "anything goes"...discretion being the keyword. I live in a heavily wooded, rural area and the wildlife in this area are totally adapted to our presence...far too much so in some cases.

Let's try not to overthink this.
 
Member's gallery
boviscopophobic said:
I was photographing puffins last summer. Sometimes they would pull up a few blades of grass and walk around holding it in their beaks for a while -- this did not appear to be for nesting purposes, as they would eventually drop the grass when they got bored with it or forgot about it.

My ethical quandary arose when another photographer set out a few flower blossoms on the ground. I am not sure where they came from -- they may have been picked only a few miles away, but they definitely did not come from the area right by the puffin colony. The puffins immediately investigated the unfamiliar objects, picking them up and running around with them much like they would do with grass. The resulting photos, judged solely as images, were some of my favorites of the trip. But I worry whether they are suitable to be called wildlife photos. On the one hand, these were wild birds, they were not coerced in any way, and they were demonstrating natural behavior. On the other hand, the natural behavior was taking place with unnaturally placed flower blossoms.

What are your thoughts on this situation? Would you have any reservations about these photos?
Click to expand...
Oh for God’s sake, what the hell is the harm in sprinkling a few flowers around? Photographers do this sort of thing all the time to make scenes more interesting, and well that they should! Are people really becoming so hypersensitive about etiquette that we can’t even make minor alterations to a scene to enhance its visual appeal? It’s not as if the guy stepped on chicks to get a rise out of the parents. Everyone chill out, please.
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
Oh for God’s sake, what the hell is the harm in sprinkling a few flowers around? Photographers do this sort of thing all the time to make scenes more interesting, and well that they should! Are people really becoming so hypersensitive about etiquette that we can’t even make minor alterations to a scene to enhance its visual appeal? It’s not as if the guy stepped on chicks to get a rise out of the parents. Everyone chill out, please.
Click to expand...
Yes! This!
 
I don't know. The OP implied the flowers were used to attract the animal. Either way, bullying others for disagreeing is not OK.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
The only potential issue is if the photo is enterd into a competition. A wildlife photo comp may ban it but an email to the organisers may clear that up. If it any other type of competition it will be judged on its artistic merits but as no harm has come to the bird it is hardly unethical!
 
Member's gallery
I agree that it is OK-ish in the particular case to answer the original question. Especially so if it is a natural trait of the animal to collect things.

I would not go as far as to claim that it should be a norm or that it should be accepted by anyone present on the spot. I would definitively avoid it myself if I was not alone in order to avoid tension it can create (see above).

As to the second part of the discussion: In my years spent in online gaming community forums, I have learnt to use extra dry language. Online opinion exchanges tend to follow emotional part of the discussion much more easily than the rational one.
 
Member's gallery
No big deal at all…but I see this thread is slipping into territory that ethics threads frequently slip into. Some people will think this is unethical…others will not…and nobody is going to convince the other side they’re wrong…and inevitably the discussion will go down in tone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top