Do you photograph caged animals???

[coastietech]

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine who does a lot of wildlife photograpy. We got to discussion some shots I took at the Living Museum, basically a zoo, and he mentioned that he never took photos of caged animals because he thought that it was demeaning to them. I understood where he was coming from but being in the city in VA the only place I have to get photos of animals other than pigeons is the zoos and other places like that. He lives in FL so he spends alot of time getting photos in the Everglades. Well I was curious as to what you thoughts were on this matter. Do you have any problem with shooting caged animals? Do you prefer one over the other?

 

[Big Mike]

I'm not a big fan of zoos and the idea of caged animals...but I do realize that the better zoos are focused on bringing attention to endangered animals and preservation etc.

I was recently at the San Diego Wild Life Park, where the animals have quite large habitats to live it. It was better than any zoo I have seen but there were still cages animals.

I don't mind if people take photos of them, as long as they don't try to pass those off as animals in the wild.

 

[fmw]

I don't think animals feel demeaned. Actually, they don't even think. I don't shoot caged animals because I think the practice makes lousy photographs.

 

[Kerri Rae]

While it is well known that animals DO have emotional ability and are quite capable of understanding, I'm not against shooting caged animals, I also think it's cheap to try and pass them off as wild ones. I think it's a good opprotunity to try and capture the sadness of it all, and to practice shooting animals.

 

[wesd]

I don't think animals feel demeaned. Actually, they don't even think. I don't shoot caged animals because I think the practice makes lousy photographs.

Actualy animals do think ad feel. Parts of a cage can be breought out of focous by useig a wide apature, ad focousing on the animal. But none the less animals do think.
Wes

 

[Mike_E]

OK, so the animals not only have to put up with captivity, now they're not even good enough to have their picture taken?

I like cats, I really like cats but if you think I'm going to go to where a snow-leopard lives just to take it's picture, you're out of your mind!!

This guy was taken @ equiv 315mm if I remember correctly and the bars (maybe 3/16" set 2"s apart) went away nicely.

mike

BTW this was taken hand held on a really rotten day-rain/sleet/snow in turn- and before I got my 80-200 f2.8 so it's a little shaky.

 

[montresor]

Haven't really done so, critters not being my thing as far as subject matter is concerned, though I think pictures of humans looking at or interacting with caged animals is interesting. See Garry Winogrand's zoo pictures for an example of how this can be done with great creativity and humor. His pictures are pretty straightforward commentary on the questionable idea of animals being caged for our own delectation and amusement. All in all, the human zoo is the most rewarding, so I guess this is a qualified yes to the general question, if you think of humans as all existing in one sort of existential cage or other. Would never consider photographing in a prison, though!

 

[Mike_E]

Oh and BTW, Zoos are wonderful places! They keep people who want to go see animals from walking around the countryside and trashing it. If you confine them to a zoo they are much easier to clean up after, put out their fires, paint over their graffiti and keep them from harming the animals they wanted to go see in the first place!

So, the next time you are in a zoo, salute those noble beasts for their sacrifices to save their brethren untold grief and loss of habitat!

mike

 

[xfloggingkylex]

Since I havent taken pictures of wild animals, yes I have shot caged animals at the National Zoo in Washington DC. I got a couple shots that I really liked, given the conditions of the day (very cloudy and about to storm, in fact it did storm)

 

[jsmharley]

Hey I am all for it, actually if you have seen Madagascar you would know Alex thrives on all the attention. :smileys:

 

[elle]

Zoo's arent bad at all. it's not as if they are circus animals or dancing russian bears. They dont have to sing for their supper so to speak. They are treated well and on the most part in an enviroment similiar to their natural habitat. I think zoo's are nescessary. Especially today where community is less and less in touch with nature at least its a way to keep people informed about what's going on in the world around them.

I see nothing wrong with taking photos of them.

 

[Perfect Hair Forever]

Sadness in the animals.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Oh and BTW, Zoos are wonderful places! They keep people who want to go see animals from walking around the countryside and trashing it. If you confine them to a zoo they are much easier to clean up after, put out their fires, paint over their graffiti and keep them from harming the animals they wanted to go see in the first place!

So, the next time you are in a zoo, salute those noble beasts for their sacrifices to save their brethren untold grief and loss of habitat!

LOL.

...and don't worry about Fred: there's two kinds of animals for him: the curmodgeonly bear inside him, and the animals on his plate next to the sauteed spinach.

Or braised black kale, if its fall.

Love ya' Fred!

 

[LaFoto]

While I strongly believe in that also animals know emotions, I as strongly believe that the feeling of being demeaned by having their photo taken is not among them.

Yes, I have taken photos of animals in cages.
There's just so many animals I would otherwise never ever have seen with my own eyes (and camera) in all my life.

Zoos are much better today than they were when they first started, when animals were captured and put into really narrow cages for people to look at them (in pre-TV times, when to see a tiger in a cage was THE event in town, for example).

Today, in most zoos all over the world, large attempts are being made to a) keep species alive that are on the brink of getting extinct in the wild, b) give the animals the most natural habitat and as much entertainment as can be given.

The fact remains that the animals are NOT in the wild.
Yet, out in the wild (and Mike_E points that out well) it is much harder to control what man does to their habitats, and man can wreak true havoc to many animal /whole species out there, as we also all know.

So while the (blooper) photos of the tigers in a zoo where I went to last year in summer (in_this_thread_here ) can only serve as one example of how things should NOT be, but definitely NOT, other photos of caged animals can be one of the motifs you choose to train yourself and your photography... either by trying to totally blend/blur out the cages like is shown in the example photo above, or by working with them as means of your composition (like I did here - just because I had to).

I do like photos taken in zoos that actually manage to make it look like they were taken in the wild, though I do feel it should be TOLD where the photo was taken (so far all our members have done so, I think).

 

[Digital Matt]

I have nothing against zoos. I support my local zoo, and I do visit, but not with my camera. If I want wildlife photos, I will earn them in the wild, capturing the beast in its natural habitat, exhibiting its natural behaviour.