Is this wildlife photography?

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).

Member's gallery
I can't argue with anyone's scale of what is what. I feel like everyone is enjoying the photography hobby and some are doing it professionally. I do know that I can't afford thousands of dollars to go on safaris and visit national parks. I can afford a yearly membership at the Bronx Zoo. I get great pleasure out of the pictures I take there and I learn a lot about techniques. This older photo of mine is indicative of the sadness some feel about zoos. It may also be indicative of a zoo saving a species and it's offspring.
It's the caffeine speaking :D
Best to All,
Vinny
PS: I guess my point is that each point on the scale of 1-10 has it's merits

an4.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
It comes down to saying there are two types of people, lumpers and splitters. Which one are you? I think I'm mostly a lumper.
 
Member's gallery
While the issue has been discussed in the past (and undoubtedly will be in the future!), I think it's one worth revisiting on occasion. In this instance, I like the approach taken in the video to the topic. That said, while I do agree that at some point it ceases to be "wildlife" photography, it doesn't mean that it can't still be recognized as good photography as long as the circumstances (zoo, wildlife farm, etc.) for the image are openly revealed.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I watched the video yesterday. I kind of drew the line at 8 9 and 10. Honestly, I thought there were situations where the first 7 could be fine or could cross the line depending on what the photographer was trying to accomplish. Personally, I wander around in the fields and forests with my wife capturing images of anything that catches my fancy on a given day. Part of the attraction of nature photography for me is the element of surprise. No telling what nature will provide on any given day, Some days it is all about wildflowers, others deer and elk, and others it is amphibians or insects and spiders. This approach works for us, for others it may be carefully planning a specific shot and working months to capture it. All is good depending on the circumstances.
 
Member's gallery
philippe said:
Photography is an act, not an object. If any element of an image is the product of an act of taking a photograph, then it can be considered photography. If it involves a living creature that is not domesticated then it is wildlife photography. If it only concerns the creation of an image without an act of taking a photograph (even if it involves visual elements drawn from other photographs), then it is not photography. In the same way that a picture of the Mona Lisa is not art.

Just my view on it.

Should we seek to close down debate and dialogue on potentially one of the most impactful developments in visual culture since the Renaissance? Not a wise move in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Nicely said. As an aside, I got a good picture of a hummingbird the other day using Nikon Z9's Auto-Capture. It got me thinking, what was my role in the 'act of taking a photograph? Should I disclose this when sharing the image? Just pondering...
 
Member's gallery
Dick Blystone said:
Nicely said. As an aside, I got a good picture of a hummingbird the other day using Nikon Z9's Auto-Capture. It got me thinking, what was my role in the 'act of taking a photograph? Should I disclose this when sharing the image? Just pondering...
Click to expand...
You raise a good question and I think the answer varies. In your example, you set up the shot, worked on the composition and leveraged newer technology to help execute your vision. I see no need to disclose it Unless you wish to inform others how the image was captured. When I do more extensive post processing such as remove a beer can from a landscape, focus stack, extensive layering and masking, I will disclose that. Minor post processing like white balance correction, cropping, noise removal, color correction etc. I do not feel a need to disclose that. The goal here is to make the image look like what I saw with my eyes. I’m not doing anything to artificially alter the scene.

Everyone has their own limits and their own philosophy and that is fine. I tend to enjoy a great image for what it presents (a great image) and care less about “how” it was captured and more about “what” was captured.
 
Member's gallery
Dick Blystone said:
Nicely said. As an aside, I got a good picture of a hummingbird the other day using Nikon Z9's Auto-Capture. It got me thinking, what was my role in the 'act of taking a photograph? Should I disclose this when sharing the image? Just pondering...
Click to expand...
Not unless you really just held up the camera and hoped to get a shot. You still had to choose the composition and the scene, and knowledge of hummingbird behavior helped you get that shot. and auto capture is a complex tool that needs skill to use in its own right.
 
Member's gallery
The term ”the art of photography” is often used. Some emphasise art more than the photography and visa versa. Adding, subtracting, bird on a stick etc etc IMO is more on the “art” end, shooting to add a lifer, help recognise a subject, e.g. bird, and just recording what your saw is photography. Of course this is a continuous spectrum and we all fit along it somewhere. Starting with no image at all and asking a machine to “manufacture” something from a brief description using AI, to me, is a whole point out of the spectrum. That said, the image from AI is still created out of metadata from hundreds of thousands to millions of real images.
 
Member's gallery
Bill G. said:
Here is a thought provoking video: Is this wildlife photography?

Where on the spectrum(1-10)would you draw the line?

Should be some interesting comments in this regard.
Click to expand...
No 1 is the only natural wild life shot, everything else is not.

The rest is just to generate chatter to stimulate rankings or gather subscriptions.

In summary it shows one wildlife photo and all the rest as not being wild life photos.


I mean catch a bird put it in a box, take it into the forest then as you let it go you take 120 fps and look like a hero.

I cant see anything else as being worthy of genuine wild life photography.

You could have your Boston lawyer argue left right and centre what constitutes the definitive word wildlife, but that's getting silly.

Only an opinion
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
To some degree, if it's "wild," it's wildlife photography. I suppose we could call it "non-wildlife wildlife" photography? This could be debated forever without any consensus so really it's all a moot point. Each of us decides what our type of shooting is and I may not agree with any one person about it. I photograph humming birds at my feeder, they are wild, it is wildlife photography, but I'm giving them enticement to be at that spot. Having said this, I have never photographed in a zoo because I don't like to see animals in that situation, it makes me sad for them. I have photographed at wildlife preserves and today, really, just about any place we find wildlife is a preserve of some sort, it's just called a national park instead. And, in the end, who really cares? If entering a contest follow the rules. If shooting for yourself to create art or to document an animal follow your rule. I would definitely agree that AI is not photography at all, period.
 
Member's gallery
Viathelens said:
To some degree, if it's "wild," it's wildlife photography. I suppose we could call it "non-wildlife wildlife" photography? This could be debated forever without any consensus so really it's all a moot point. Each of us decides what our type of shooting is and I may not agree with any one person about it. I photograph humming birds at my feeder, they are wild, it is wildlife photography, but I'm giving them enticement to be at that spot. Having said this, I have never photographed in a zoo because I don't like to see animals in that situation, it makes me sad for them. I have photographed at wildlife preserves and today, really, just about any place we find wildlife is a preserve of some sort, it's just called a national park instead. And, in the end, who really cares? If entering a contest follow the rules. If shooting for yourself to create art or to document an animal follow your rule. I would definitely agree that AI is not photography at all, period.
Click to expand...

I love photographing hummingbirds but they are few and far between in my part of the world. We see them occasionally but we generally see more in the towns and city.

I live and farm in a rural area and the closest state park or wildlife sanctuary is at least 80 miles away. I often go to a oil leases with pastures and stock ponds and you can see a lot of wildlife there just by driving around or sitting by one of the stock ponds late in the evening. I have burrowing owls and prairie dogs within 50 yards of my front door and often see Coyotes, badgers and other mammals while out on the farm.

Reading posts on this forum about "Is this wildlife photography?" or the ethics in wildlife photography just blew my mind. Things that I have never thought about. I guess I have a totally different and unique perspective on wildlife photography than most. I don't often get to see the other side of the story.

I do enjoy going to National Parks, Wildlife Refuges and State Parks. So many things to see and photograph. One of my favorites is Bosque Del Apache in the winter.

Attached are three photos I took this morning and yesterday evening. These were taken as i was driving to fields and checking irrigation or this morning going to the oil lease and pastures. I added these photos to show what kind of things I see on a daily basis. I farm around 1500 acres of cotton and grain sorghum.

#1 A Bob White Quail sitting on an irrigation well in the oil lease. Took this one this morning as I was driving around the oil lease after checking water. I can't believe he didn't fly as he was only about 20 feet away. I was worried that i couldn't get the image due to minimum focus distance of the 500 pf on my Nikon Z9

#2. A burrowing owl coming in for a landing about 50 yards from my house. I took this photo at dusk from the seat of my truck as I was coming back home from checking the irrigation in the evening.

#3. This photo was taken on a gravel road going to my barn and where I keep my equipment.

Z9W_8896.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z9W_8602-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z9W_8223.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Great photos, Chappy. I think I have a similar perspective regarding wildlife photography that you have. I am out in the “country” most of the time. I see tons of wildlife on a daily basis. It has been decades since I spent much time seriously photographing them. Now, I want to peruse that again. I love animals and observe them daily. I have never even thought about ethics regarding wildlife photography.

I truly do not recall wondering if a photograph of any animal was taken ethically. Animals are fascinating, and I enjoy seeing them in person and in photographs.
 
Member's gallery
DougC said:
Personally, I’m fine through #7. After that, no.
Click to expand...
And this is exactly why this forum is so great - tons of different perspectives and viewpoints. Always good to understand how others view the world. We view the world with our unique set of “glasses” and sometimes forget it’s not the only set of “glasses”. Makes you stop to ponder and appreciate similarities and differences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top