An appeal for a new poilcy in the wildilfe section

[Overread]

The intent of this is simple - its an appeal for those in this section to post, along with their photos, on if the subject of their shot is wild or tame/zoo. This doesn't have to go into any great depth of location details, but as just a heads up to viewer as to if the shot shows a fully wild animal or a captive or pet animal.

I'm not looking to start a "shooting in zoos is cheating" or "shooting in the wild is harder" etc... slew of debates, just looking to ensure that the views and opinions cast about a shot are, accurate.

 

[Markw]

Agreed!

It would be nice to post camera/lens combo it was shot with as well. When I see things like "560mm, F/4" on the EXIF, I always get extremely confused. It would be nice to know the equipment setup as well.

Im in!
Mark

 

[12sndsgood]

most of my stuff has been from the zoo's so far so ive always been hesitant to post them up.

 

[Marc-Etienne]

I'm with you on that one! I think it's better for noob like me also to know the gear like markw is saying. That way a noob will be able to see if he could attempt a similar shot with is gear or not. I like the idea of knowing the "setup" the picture was taken in.

 

[skieur]

I should point out that the mountain sheep shot was not very likely taken at any zoo, so why is it necessary to point what should be obvious, Overread? Moreover how is the difference relevant?

skieur

 

[davev]

I should point out that the mountain sheep shot was not very likely taken at any zoo, so why is it necessary to point what should be obvious, Overread? Moreover how is the difference relevant?

skieur

You're quick, I just had that up for a minute to test something out.

But here's my real post.

Sometimes a little effort on the viewers end can go a long way.

Lets take this shot:

If you right click on the shot, and choose "open in new window"
the photo will open in it's own window.

From there, go to the address bar and from the right, start deleting until
it would seem like you're at the gallery that holds that shot.

For this one it would look like this with out the quotes.

"http://davev.smugmug.com/WildLife/Badlands-2010/IMG6958-watching-the-kids/793008620_7kahT-L.jpg"

Delete till it looks like this.
"http://davev.smugmug.com/WildLife/Badlands-2010"

Hit return.

You should now be in the gallery that the shot came from.

Click on the thumb of the shot you were viewing.

Roll your mouse over the image click the "I"
An EXIF screen appears and you can see what camera, and many other things about the shot.

As you can see, I use smugmug, I don't know if this will work with other sites, but it does with mine.

I know that there are EXIF viewers out there that can tell you about the shot.
I haven't found one that works with a Mac using Safari.

I hope this helps someone get the info.

 

[Overread]

most of my stuff has been from the zoo's so far so ive always been hesitant to post them up.

Don't be
There is no reason to think that a shot taken under controlled conditions is any less of a skill than taking a good shot in uncontrolled conditions - different situations call for different skills.

I should point out that the mountain sheep shot was not very likely taken at any zoo, so why is it necessary to point what should be obvious, Overread? Moreover how is the difference relevant?

skieur

Eh mountain sheep shot? I think I've missed something here that you and Davev know about because there was no mountain sheep influencing me.
My reasoning is simple, the section itself is called "wildlife" however it also accepts most species taken both in totally wild through to totally controlled conditions and mostly just excludes none-exotic pets. Thus one can post a shot and the conditions - captive or wild - from the photo alone are hard or impossible to determine. Now of course one can comment and ask the photographer - they can also try to source the shot as Davev demonstrates - however I feel that its better for us to encourage photographers to be upfront about the shooting conditions.

Like it or not the shooting environment often matters a great deal when commenting on a photographers work and considering it outside of the realm of art - so I feel that its honest and also in the photographers best interest to be upfront about the environment they took the shot in - especially in a section where the title might be missleading.

PS Fantastic shot Dave!

 

[davev]

most of my stuff has been from the zoo's so far so ive always been hesitant to post them up.

Don't be
There is no reason to think that a shot taken under controlled conditions is any less of a skill than taking a good shot in uncontrolled conditions - different situations call for different skills.

I should point out that the mountain sheep shot was not very likely taken at any zoo, so why is it necessary to point what should be obvious, Overread? Moreover how is the difference relevant?

skieur

Eh mountain sheep shot? I think I've missed something here that you and Davev know about because there was no mountain sheep influencing me.
My reasoning is simple, the section itself is called "wildlife" however it also accepts most species taken both in totally wild through to totally controlled conditions and mostly just excludes none-exotic pets. Thus one can post a shot and the conditions - captive or wild - from the photo alone are hard or impossible to determine. Now of course one can comment and ask the photographer - they can also try to source the shot as Davev demonstrates - however I feel that its better for us to encourage photographers to be upfront about the shooting conditions.

Like it or not the shooting environment often matters a great deal when commenting on a photographers work and considering it outside of the realm of art - so I feel that its honest and also in the photographers best interest to be upfront about the environment they took the shot in - especially in a section where the title might be missleading.

PS Fantastic shot Dave!

Thanks.

I made a quick post to test out the road a person would have to take to get to the EXIF on my site.
I only had it up for about 2 minutes, skieur must have seen it in that short amount of time.

I don't want to blow this up, but really, the shooting environment doesn't have much to do with whether or not it's a good shot.
I have shots that have a very plain to look at, but I know of the work that went into it. Most of the time, the amount of work
means little or nothing about the quality of the finished shot.

I don't do this, but I know people that do:

If I stick a branch into the ground, put some jelly or feed on the side away from the camera, fire up my ipod with downloaded bird calls,
then take shots of perfectly positioned birds with great, smooth backgrounds, how would you comment on this shot?

Should this shot be considered as something less because it's not "natural"?
The photographer still went through the planning to get this shot. So what if he sat in a chair with a remote in his hand and snapped the shot
while eating McDonalds. Does that make it an inferior shot to someone who takes an image as they come upon the same thing while walking down
a wooded path?

I don't think I'm qualified to make that call.

Here's something I have done, clone out a bunch of "junk" to make the shot prettier.
Once again, is this shot now an inferior shot?

I think sometimes we just have to take things at face value.
If you see an image that makes you stop and say, "Wow", does it really matter what the setup was, or how it was taken?
Unless you're shooting for a nature magazine, it doesn't really matter.

To the noob's, read what you can, but go out and take a lot of shots, and post on a few different forums for feedback.
Shooting is still the best way to get better.

davev.

 

[icassell]

I agree. I have always stated if mine were zoo shots. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with zoo shots (it will likely be the only way I will see some of these animals) as long as they are identified as such. In fact, zoo photography has many of its own challenges (it often isn't easy to get good lighting and it is frequently a challenge to make an image that doesn't look like a caged critter).

 

[Overread]

Dave you raise some great points

First off, as I said, I'm not saying this to form some kind of superiority game between captive and wild shots - as I said each area has its own distinct skills requirements and each is just as challenging as the next with regard to getting a good photo. You might have to bait certain animals to get the shot; you might have to use remotes and laser/wire trips to get the shots - a lot will depend upon the animals in question.

It's not a game about "who's better" but more one of ensuring that shots are not misinterpreted by the viewer. Take this shot:

Is it a captive or wild shot? Who's to say from viewing it alone, you can't really tell - however the wild surroundings might hint that its a wild shot - maybe using baiting or camera traps, but the subject could be totally wild and "uncontrolled". Rather like how many "wildlife" calendars are portrayed this is in the wildlife section -- however its not a wild shot. The animal is within a strict controlled environment and the shot is taken through the wire.

I have no problem and in fact I greatly prefer that people know its a captive shot - that I avoided bars, glass glare, distracting backgrounds etc... to acquire the shot and I like to know of peoples shot I see if the subject is wild or captive as well. In truth I love reading about the full background of a shot - what was used, when, where, how etc... ie to understand the context of the photo I am seeing. However I know that such a stipulation is a lot to ask in some cases so thus I'm falling back to the most simple of questions - is it wild or captive?

 

[Rekd]

I should point out that the mountain sheep shot was not very likely taken at any zoo, so why is it necessary to point what should be obvious, Overread? Moreover how is the difference relevant?

skieur

You're quick, I just had that up for a minute to test something out.

But here's my real post.

Sometimes a little effort on the viewers end can go a long way.

Lets take this shot:

If you right click on the shot, and choose "open in new window"
the photo will open in it's own window.

From there, go to the address bar and from the right, start deleting until
it would seem like you're at the gallery that holds that shot.

For this one it would look like this with out the quotes.

"http://davev.smugmug.com/WildLife/Badlands-2010/IMG6958-watching-the-kids/793008620_7kahT-L.jpg"

Delete till it looks like this.
"http://davev.smugmug.com/WildLife/Badlands-2010"

Hit return.

You should now be in the gallery that the shot came from.

Click on the thumb of the shot you were viewing.

Roll your mouse over the image click the "I"
An EXIF screen appears and you can see what camera, and many other things about the shot.

As you can see, I use smugmug, I don't know if this will work with other sites, but it does with mine.

I know that there are EXIF viewers out there that can tell you about the shot.
I haven't found one that works with a Mac using Safari.

I hope this helps someone get the info.

Whew!

Or, if you're using Firefox, you can right click on the image and select View Image EXIF Data. (plugin)

 

[Frequency]

My God; i think my post "Wild Wild East..." is the basic reason for this thread to be started. It was my fault that i did not mention the images were from an animal protected zone, in Mysore, Karnataka, Kerala. They are not caged, but not free too.
I regret my silence regarding this.......

Regards