Unnatural Inclusions in Photos… Okay or 👎?

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).

Oosty said:
For those who are interested in entering competitions sanctioned by the PSA and other international societies. The PSA standards have been adopted as the "Gold Standard" and they are very specific as to what's accepatble.

If you have the time they're available at https://www.germanphotocup.de/files/jahre/Dateien/Nature Photopgraphy Guide 2022-15Sept21.pdf (from a German salon)
Click to expand...

At least they are specific and clear. Don't clean up a twig or a bit of trash, among many other restrictions. This cut and pasted section I found interesting. No roads, no mowing, no power poles, etc.:

SOME HUMAN-MADE THINGS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN NATURE IMAGES.
Nature images are not allowed to contain people or things created by people unless the objects are a
necessary part of the nature story (as described in the previous section). Examples of things that
have been created by people of modified by people and are not allowed in nature images include but
are not limited to:
o Roads, paths or trails that are not a necessary part of the nature story.
o Vehicle tracks.
o Fences that are not being used directly by an animal or bird as part of the nature story.
o Signs.
o Power poles and wires.
o Vehicles.
o Buildings or parts of buildings that are not being used directly by an animal or bird as part
of the nature story.
o Walls or parts of walls.
o Cultivated farmland or mowing and ploughing patterns in fields.
o Cut tree stumps, cut-off limbs, branches or stems that are not a necessary part of the nature
story.
o Jesses and thongs on legs of raptors and other birds (these are not scientific banding).
 
Member's gallery
At all South African salons the rules are basically as above - although a pet hate of mine is where images shot from a low level hide next to a purpose built waterhole are accepted at salons and win prizes. Baiting wildlife is not allowed and I see no difference when water - a necessity - is used as bait. Some of the images shown in this link should , IMO, be disqualified. https://zimanga.com/gallery/
 
StarTracker50 said:
An animal in a zoo ID still a wild animal, even according to the strict rules of the PSA. Cheers.
Click to expand...

Some of their definitions seem to contradict and also depend on the category, this is a cut and paste from the wildlife section:

To qualify as wildlife, zoological specimens must be “living free and unrestrained in a natural or
adopted habitat of their own choosing”. The subject must not be under any form of restraint or
restriction by humans. Animals in large nature reserves (such as Kruger National Park in South
Africa) are suitable wildlife subjects. However, animals in zoos, on game farms or in any situation
where their movement or food supply is controlled by humans are not suitable wildlife subjects.
 
StarTracker50 said:
Ya, but it also says this: "Images taken with subjects under controlled conditions, such as zoos, are allowed."

I know, its confusing.
Click to expand...

I think possibly one was the 'nature' category and the other 'wildlife.' The wierd one was that you couldn't have any power poles or wires but you couldn't clone them out either. Could be the best shot ever of the rarest bird, but disqualified due to power line in far distance.
 
Member's gallery
An animal shot in a zoo is a nature shot (one category), but not a wildlife shot (a different category), I think that is an easy distinction. Really well-written rules but also very constricting as far as photographing nature and wildlife. I had no idea people did all the things mentioned in the rules! I'm happy to see they are adamant about not baiting of any kind, I can't imagine that people can be so cruel as to let a "young antelope" out to get killed while they watch and photograph, there is something wrong with people who do this. As I read the rules I thought how the rules will stifle some artistic visions (you can't even darken a background), so they are not as interested in art as they are in simply showing photographs of animals in their environment, which is a choice they get to make. Overall, fairly well-written and something all wildlife photographers should consider reading even if they don't plan to enter a PSA competition.
 
Member's gallery
Frankly…I've got no interest in entering contests…and wildlife in a zoo or something like the Alligator Farm is still wildlife IMO. I do try and keep fences and such out of the image if they're around but for me the object is a decent photo for the blog…and if it happens to be at the zoo…oh well.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
Frankly…I've got no interest in entering contests…and wildlife in a zoo or something like the Alligator Farm is still wildlife IMO. I do try and keep fences and such out of the image if they're around but for me the object is a decent photo for the blog…and if it happens to be at the zoo…oh well.
Click to expand...
Agree on both counts. Nothing wrong with shooting wildlife at a zoo or preserve as long as you don't lie about it.
 
Member's gallery
StarTracker50 said:
Agree on both counts. Nothing wrong with shooting wildlife at a zoo or preserve as long as you don't lie about it.
Click to expand...
True…and I would not necessarily point out it was a zoo shot either. My shots go to the blog and if I posted a tiger portrait but didn’t talk about my trip to India…most people would guess correctly it was at the zoo (not that we have a decent zoo here in SW FL…but I digress) but I would not feel obligated or that I lied about it.
 
It's just so dependent on the context that every situation is different whether a caption or disclosure is warranted. If there is a chance to mislead its better to caption. If it's implied by the context it is wild but is actually captive, for example. So many possible answers it's case by case.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
Frankly…I've got no interest in entering contests…and wildlife in a zoo or something like the Alligator Farm is still wildlife IMO. I do try and keep fences and such out of the image if they're around but for me the object is a decent photo for the blog…and if it happens to be at the zoo…oh well.
Click to expand...

I do enter competitions and don't shoot at zoos. I understand why a wildlife image should be taken in the wild. Shooting at a zoo is very different in some ways from shooting in the wild. When I see an image I'd like to know if it was shot in the wild or at a zoo. When posting anywhere I always say where the shot was taken as people usually want to know that.
 
Member's gallery
StarTracker50 said:
Anjin, I mean actually lie about it. Shoot at a zoo and say you were on safari. That in my mind is wrong.
Click to expand...
Yeah…I wouldn’t lie if specifically asked…but my blog posts usually talk about where I was that day although I don’t label or caption anything as zoo or preserve or whatever. Integrity is what happens when nobody is looking…and besides, I worked too long for a company named Reality Based IT Services to lie about anything.
 
Member's gallery
I like the first image the best. It captures exactly what was happening. So it's not 50 miles into the back country in the wilds of Alaska, it is still a wild animal who happened to be raiding apple trees in your yard. I have seen bears climbing up wild cherry trees to eat the cherry fruit while in the smoky mountains. To a bear, apple, cherry, pear, blackberry, it's all food high in sugar and helps to build fat for the winter. Apples from your tree are a lot more healthy than whatever the bears may be digging out of someone's trash can.

As for the PSA rules, I'm glad I rarely enter contests. I understand why contests have rules but some of them seem rather excessive to me but if one is inclined to enter a contest, then the rules for that contest are all that matter.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top