Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 15, 2015, 9:54 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Streets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Euless, Tx.
Posts: 933
Default When is "Wildlife" NOT?

I see very little merit in submitting photos that have been taken at zoos, aviaries, pet stores, etc. Wildlife should be shot in the wild. Just my opinion.
__________________
Sony A57 with 18-55 kit lens, Sony A200 and Sony H70
50mm f3.5 Minolta Maxxum macro
24mm f2.8 Minolta Maxxum
100-300mm Minolta Maxxum APO Zoom
70-300 Sony apo G SSM Zoom
Streets is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 15, 2015, 12:02 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Point taken.

... though I would stipulate that there's a difference between a giraffe at Lion Country Safari and a lamb at a petting zoo.

And a squirrel is wildlife wherever you find it.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2015, 6:33 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,891
Default

G'day mate

Dunno what started your thinking here - but it's a "fair cop"

Over the years I have read too many mag articles 'demonstrating' how such & such a beaut long lens is great for wildlife 'togs ... to find later that many of the illustrated images were taken in a zoo & under controlled lighting conditions

It sometimes does make it a bit of an issue for us Downunder 'togs as most of Aussie wildlife is nocturnal or only comes out at dusk - having been elsewhere thru the day to avoid the heat

The good ol' kangaroo is one example - there may be 500 of them in a 1-mile sq paddock, but thru the day you might be lucky to see just one. But at dusk - ie: almost no photographically bright light, out they come in their dozens & dozens to start to graze across the grasslands

We don't have squirrels down here - just bluddy possums, and they are only seen after dark too [anyone who has possums in the house roof well knows their habits of putting on their hob-nail boots as they run thru the attic during the night]

Hope this helps - and good on you Streets for opening it up
Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2015, 8:40 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

There is 'wild and free', or 'wild in a cage (or zoo)'.
How does one distinguish from a photo, if the surroundings seem natural? A bird at a feeder is still wild. House cats are considered as feral animals in a lot of places, but dogs are not. Hatchery trout get released into wild streams. (and some even survive to breed)
Maybe we should just say "Animal photos"(non-pet).

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2015, 8:51 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

What Brian said!

<small rant>
What follows is probably not going to be a popular opinion.

I am a member of and know many other naturalist and conservation groups that are seriously concerned with and opposed to the huge masses of people with cameras all out trying to get their own personal "trophy" images.

The shear volumes of eco tourists all stomping thorough the landscape with little or no skill at bush-craft are damaging what is left of nature and putting further unneeded pressure on the very wild animals they are trying to capture images of.

Yes there are skilled people both at bush-craft and photography that are doing important work capturing images to document what remains of the natural world.

However for the most part it is both safer for the individual and better for nature if the general populace uses captive subjects. whether in game farms, zoos or otherwise.

http://conservationphotographers.org/

</rant>
__________________
A smartphone is all the "camera" you really need.

Last edited by PeterP; Aug 19, 2015 at 9:08 AM.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2015, 9:39 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Streets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Euless, Tx.
Posts: 933
Default

PeterP, Those folks stomping through the PUBLIC landscape are getting some healthy excercise along with their photographic aspirations.
__________________
Sony A57 with 18-55 kit lens, Sony A200 and Sony H70
50mm f3.5 Minolta Maxxum macro
24mm f2.8 Minolta Maxxum
100-300mm Minolta Maxxum APO Zoom
70-300 Sony apo G SSM Zoom
Streets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2015, 11:53 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

I understand your concerns, Peter, but I am less worried about the ones on foot, than the ones digging up the landscape with the loud, dirty 4-wheelers. Several of the surrounding towns have opened streets to the OHRVs, so the riders can access stores and eating places without having to actually get off and walk. Bloody things are even worse than snowmobiles. (basically the same group of overly privileged, thoughtless narcissists, though)
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2015, 2:13 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Agree about the ohrv's, we have the same issues here on land, snow and on the water.
Gas-o-holics who think riding around tearing up the countryside on polluting motorized toys equals healthy outdoor exercise.

My point about the eco-tourist photographers is not that the individual ones are a big problem in themselves.
It is the shear numbers of them overwhelming and ruining the very environments they are visiting.
__________________
A smartphone is all the "camera" you really need.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2015, 2:26 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

C'mon Guys.

Let's keep the discussion civil and avoid anything of a personal nature.

If someone disagrees with you, fine. But, discuss and debate the issues, without making it personal, as I just removed one comment that was a bit over the line.

Give reasons why you don't like the ideas if you disagree with them, without attacking the person with those ideas.

Keep it civil ;-).

Thanks.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2015, 2:41 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterP View Post
My point about the eco-tourist photographers is not that the individual ones are a big problem in themselves.
It is the shear numbers of them overwhelming and ruining the very environments they are visiting.
I live in an area in which the majority of people depend on tourism for their livelihoods, directly or indirectly. Too many people claim they come here 'to get away from it all', but just bring it all with them.
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 PM.