Animals in Captivity

[icassell]

I shoot frequently at zoos. I also shoot in the wild, but never have had the opportunity to go on African safari. Some day I'd love to be able to do that. I think the only rational reason why one should be required to state that an animal is photographed in captivity or in the wild is to say "Hey, I'm rich enough to go on safari somewhere" or "I'm affluent enough to afford an 800mm f/4".

I don't "pass off" my images as wild ... I "pass off" my images as what they are ... vulture, lion, prairie dog, bald eagle, whatever ...

I don't believe I am being deceptive in the least.

This Golden Eagle was taken in the wild in Denali NP -- note the tag on the wing. Is this "Natural"?:

This Golden Eagle was taken at the Phoenix Zoo -- no wing tag (and, if I worked on it a bit, I could probably get the flight net cloned out too).

Obviously, there will be an element of personal satisfaction if you can get great images in the wild. Frequently high-quality zoo imaging can be tough due to the cage/screen/etc. I get personal satisfaction when I can get an image that doesn't look like an animal in a cage. Just my opinions.

 

[Moodyville-ain]

There is nothing wrong with shooting in a zoo or captivity, as these can be amazing. With some shots being near impossible, unless you have lens the size of a bazooka, or a death wish. But yes you definitely should disclose that you did. I've seen posts with "hey look at my zoo shots" and they were great shots, and stood out on their own. I wasn't bothered at all that they were zoo shots. Theres nothing wrong either with making things appear natural either, who wants to shoot a lion "behind bars"? You dont want it looking faked, part of the charm of an animal in captivity is your skills in making it look natural, and there is nothing wrong with that either. So long as it is disclosed, I'm not bothered by that either. I would be bothered however, by someone passing off zoo shots as "wild", without disclosure, not only is it unethical, its a slap in the face to the rest of us. Which brings me to another point;

How would we even know?

Contest Guidelines
"Important: All images must be taken in the wild of natural settings and behaviors. 
No captive animals will be considered and no entrapment of any kind is permissible."

With all the blurred backgrounds and tricks to make everything appear natural. How could any of us even know? I mean if someone is going to the trouble of being deceptive, passing off captive shots as wild. They aren't going to admit it, or leave any evidence behind. There's no prizes for the contest so I guess there's no point, but still. The contest is on the honor system..... but if someone is faking shots, they're clearly not honorable enough, to honor, the honor system. Which brings me back to my point.....

How could we know?

 

[icassell]

As has been mentioned, it can be very difficult getting a zoo image to look "natural". I was really happy with this mountain lion's pose, but felt that it was ruined by the shadow of the cage. On the other hand, if I had been able to get rid of the shadow, I would still have entitled it "Mountain Lion" and not "Mountain Lion at Phoenix Zoo" or "Wild Mountain Lion"

 

[JamesMason]

sometimes you gotta shoot in a zoo, some stuff you never gonna get in the wild. You should always disclose this tho, put captive in the pic info if you do.