Nature Documentaries not always so "natural"

MRRiley · 09-23-2010, 04:45 AM

Big big surprise huh? Yeah, we all know it happens but a major nature film maker is going public...

Wildlife filmmaker Chris Palmer shows that animals are often set up to succeed

I was particularly disturbed by this comment in the article...

Quote:

The lemmings that plunge to their deaths in the 1958 Disney documentary "White Wilderness" were hurled ingloriously to their doom by members of the crew

In defense of wildlife cinematographers. They work under incredibly difficult conditions and sometimes have to resort to "staged" shots. As long as they acknowledge this in the credits or in the body of thefilm itself, I have no problem but when they do not disclose the use of "animal models or actors" then the veracity of the entire film is brought into question.

The fakery extends into still photography as well. "Wild animals" which were actually game farm inmates... Photos of birds of prey where, had the photographer used a wider lens the handler and his gloved hand would have been clearly visible... I'm not actually trying to knock photographing animals in these conditions, but the conditions should be acknowledged if the photo is used in a fashion which implies a free and wild creature.

For instance...

Wildlife photographer of the year stripped of his award

As far as I know, the photographer, José Luis Rodriguez, has never admitted the photo was "staged"using a game farm animal, but credible witnesses claim they recognize both the individual wolf AND the shooting location.

Its really just a shame...

Mike

**jpzk** · 09-23-2010, 06:33 AM

You have just hit it on the nail and on a sore spot here, Mike.

I have, in the past, posted here and in some other forum a few things regarding the ethics of nature photography.
Your thread may have awakened and old and dormant subject.

I have always been amazed at Nature documentaries in which the videos and/or the photographs always seem impossible to achieve.

Take for instance the case of the oncoming Snowy Owl photographed during DAYTIME where one can "admire" the magnificent bird in all its splendor going for its prey, as small rodent of some sort. We often cannot see the prey but the approaching bird certainly is going after "something", otherwise it would have simply stayed put, especially during high noon time.
We have had this situation right here where the photographers actually were buying loads of mice from a pet shop nearby and used them for bait to attract the owls.
The trick to get the perfect shot was to release a couple of mice then just wait for the bird to attack. But, as if this was not enough, one of the photographer would actually scare the bird away because someone had not succeeded in taking the "best shot"; then they repeated the process until all were satisfied.
This made the news and one would think that it would deter the photogs ... to no avail.

Case number two: photographs of wild animals, some very difficult to approach, no matter what you try, "captured" in such a way that it would be impossible to get such details/closeups if not taken at a zoo, or perhaps at a wild animal/bird sanctuary.
I have no problems with that but PLEASE let it be known that the photo was not taken "in the wild".

I realize that there is enormous pressure, in the professional photo world, to produce "once-in-a-lifetime" pictures, but staging, baiting and/or employing unethical methods should have no place in documentaries or should at least be acknowledged as such: staged.
No big chance of this happening.

Case number three:
... back soon to finish this ... got to go for a few minutes ...

Photographs shown in "contests", galleries, blogs, claiming "wild life" status when in fact they are not. Photos with no description at all.

We could go on and on forever on the subject but one certain thing is that, as Lowell is posting below, as long as the demand is there (under high pressure) the trend is likely to continue.

Whether the problem resides withing the photographers' world or with photo editors does not really matter. If it is faked, it is just not right.

JP

**Lowell Goudge** · 09-23-2010, 06:41 AM

The real issue with the "faked" shots, or shots where people bait preditors so they can get the "perfect shot" lies not with the photographer, but with photo editors, and the ignorent purchasing public.

We, the public, are demanding perfect images, as opposed to meerly "acceptable" images with distractions in the frame, perhaps a twig in front, etc...

Until we start accepting subjects in real life conditions, photographers who feed this market will continue to do as they are presently.

You can criticize the practice as long as you want, but as with any issue, as long as there is demand, someone will step up and supply the images.

The same applies to many many other problems but that is subject for another thread.

**Kerrowdown** · 09-23-2010, 07:59 AM

And there was me thinking it was a damn fine shot (the José Luis Rodriguez wolf) staged or otherwise.

MRRiley · 09-23-2010, 09:07 AM

From a compositional and exposure standpoint, the wolf shot is indeed pretty nice. But as an entry into the contest it won, it was deemed fraudulent and was thus disqualified.

Reportage · 09-23-2010, 12:02 PM

thing is all they have is circumstantial evidence. as far as i know, there is no evidence of the supposed rental wolf actually being there for the shot. They only say it looked like the rental wolf but no one is saying it is the rental wolf.

but then, circumstantial evidence is enough nowadays for lifetime imprisonment, lethal injection or guantanamo bay. oh well.

as for the faked shots, i agree with the above assessment...where there is demand, there will always be supply.

Arpe · 09-23-2010, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Reportage

where there is demand, there will always be supply

Sounds like the paparazzi to me!

BillM · 09-23-2010, 03:49 PM

My wifes a veternarian,be amazed at what some people try

johnmflores · 09-23-2010, 08:34 PM

Has anyone posted these shots from incredibly difficult conditions?

Photographer captures amazing images of lions at watering hole after submerging himself for three months | Mail Online

Talk about suffering for your art! The results speak for themselves.

**Lowell Goudge** · 09-24-2010, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by johnmflores

Has anyone posted these shots from incredibly difficult conditions?

Photographer captures amazing images of lions at watering hole after submerging himself for three months | Mail Online

Talk about suffering for your art! The results speak for themselves.

Although some are drinking, the two left most and the one on the right are thinking LUNCH in my opinion.

no one said getting a wild life shot does not require some extreme patience. I woud love to know how many shots were taken to capture this. I woud have actually used a remote camera.

Rupert · 09-24-2010, 08:22 AM

Well, I can assure you that my shots are quite natural! Sure, I have Squirrels on my payroll, feed them gourmet nuts and fruits, and pamper them night and day....but when I call for them to pose, they are "all natural". And...it is not without some risk, Squirrels have razor sharp teeth, and if you fail to deliver on an agreed contract, they can be very vindictive creatures. It is not like a Lion that will eat you alive...but still, a missing finger is no small matter!

Here I put on my Safari Outfit....stepped out on the back deck and gave Festus an apple slice and asked him to get in a comfortable looking pose for the Bigma.......as usual, he did as asked! Now what is phony about that?
[IMG]

[/IMG]

MRRiley · 09-24-2010, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

Has anyone posted these shots from incredibly difficult conditions?

Photographer captures amazing images of lions at watering hole after submerging himself for three months | Mail Online

Talk about suffering for your art! The results speak for themselves.

Sadly, the guys that do it the hard way... like this... are few and far between. Could have something to do with impatience, or deadlines... but it could also be for not wanting to get the intestinal parasites that Mr du Toit did...

MRRiley · 09-24-2010, 02:19 PM

Rupert... you have to admit that your squirrels are practically house pets... LOL

Rupert · 09-24-2010, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by MRRiley

Rupert... you have to admit that your squirrels are practically house pets... LOL

Yeah....you are pretty much on target, but to keep up appearances and for their huge egos I always refer to them as "Wild Beasts". This is particularly important to Otis!
Best Regards!

Ron Kruger · 09-26-2010, 08:28 AM

When shooting for magazines, technically good images are the foundation. It's a given. Editors don't like any technological tricks and they're not interested in art. They want illustrations for the general public, but these illustrations, especially for covers, must tell a story. Content and composition is where all the creativity lies.
Truth is, the vast majority of big deer and other animals, standing in perfect light, are of semi-domesticated or penned animals, controlled wildlife viewing areas and even zoos. Leaping shots of fish are completely staged with very involved and difficult tricks. Handsome animals sell, just as beautiful women sell to fashion magazines. Ugly, injured, deformed just doesn't cut it.
It's a business, people, and no where near as easy as you might imagine, so if you want to look down your noses as "artists," you best look elsewhere to display and sell your images. Otherwise, learn the tricks of the trade.
You can't simply "walk about" and do it making adjustment to your auto functions.
You can put all this down if you want, or you can learn how to do it and supply the creative (derivitive of "create") images editors want.

09-23-2010, 04:45 AM	#1
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Nature Documentaries not always so "natural" Big big surprise huh? Yeah, we all know it happens but a major nature film maker is going public... Wildlife filmmaker Chris Palmer shows that animals are often set up to succeed I was particularly disturbed by this comment in the article... Quote: The lemmings that plunge to their deaths in the 1958 Disney documentary "White Wilderness" were hurled ingloriously to their doom by members of the crew In defense of wildlife cinematographers. They work under incredibly difficult conditions and sometimes have to resort to "staged" shots. As long as they acknowledge this in the credits or in the body of thefilm itself, I have no problem but when they do not disclose the use of "animal models or actors" then the veracity of the entire film is brought into question. The fakery extends into still photography as well. "Wild animals" which were actually game farm inmates... Photos of birds of prey where, had the photographer used a wider lens the handler and his gloved hand would have been clearly visible... I'm not actually trying to knock photographing animals in these conditions, but the conditions should be acknowledged if the photo is used in a fashion which implies a free and wild creature. For instance... Wildlife photographer of the year stripped of his award As far as I know, the photographer, José Luis Rodriguez, has never admitted the photo was "staged"using a game farm animal, but credible witnesses claim they recognize both the individual wolf AND the shooting location. Its really just a shame... Mike

09-23-2010, 06:33 AM	#2
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	You have just hit it on the nail and on a sore spot here, Mike. I have, in the past, posted here and in some other forum a few things regarding the ethics of nature photography. Your thread may have awakened and old and dormant subject. I have always been amazed at Nature documentaries in which the videos and/or the photographs always seem impossible to achieve. Take for instance the case of the oncoming Snowy Owl photographed during DAYTIME where one can "admire" the magnificent bird in all its splendor going for its prey, as small rodent of some sort. We often cannot see the prey but the approaching bird certainly is going after "something", otherwise it would have simply stayed put, especially during high noon time. We have had this situation right here where the photographers actually were buying loads of mice from a pet shop nearby and used them for bait to attract the owls. The trick to get the perfect shot was to release a couple of mice then just wait for the bird to attack. But, as if this was not enough, one of the photographer would actually scare the bird away because someone had not succeeded in taking the "best shot"; then they repeated the process until all were satisfied. This made the news and one would think that it would deter the photogs ... to no avail. Case number two: photographs of wild animals, some very difficult to approach, no matter what you try, "captured" in such a way that it would be impossible to get such details/closeups if not taken at a zoo, or perhaps at a wild animal/bird sanctuary. I have no problems with that but PLEASE let it be known that the photo was not taken "in the wild". I realize that there is enormous pressure, in the professional photo world, to produce "once-in-a-lifetime" pictures, but staging, baiting and/or employing unethical methods should have no place in documentaries or should at least be acknowledged as such: staged. No big chance of this happening. Case number three: ... back soon to finish this ... got to go for a few minutes ... Photographs shown in "contests", galleries, blogs, claiming "wild life" status when in fact they are not. Photos with no description at all. We could go on and on forever on the subject but one certain thing is that, as Lowell is posting below, as long as the demand is there (under high pressure) the trend is likely to continue. Whether the problem resides withing the photographers' world or with photo editors does not really matter. If it is faked, it is just not right. JP Last edited by jpzk; 09-23-2010 at 07:28 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
B&H Photo Contest: "People and Nature: Mutual Influence" ($200 prize!)	Adam	Monthly Photo Contests	88	08-31-2010 10:59 AM
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge	MRRiley	Post Your Photos!	27	02-21-2010 08:26 PM
Edmonton "Nature" photography	knochelbiter	Post Your Photos!	7	01-21-2009 03:32 PM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM
Spicebush Swallowtail Butterfly "Nature Lesson For The Day" :)	Bud	Post Your Photos!	6	05-05-2007 06:34 PM

09-23-2010, 06:41 AM	#3
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	The real issue with the "faked" shots, or shots where people bait preditors so they can get the "perfect shot" lies not with the photographer, but with photo editors, and the ignorent purchasing public. We, the public, are demanding perfect images, as opposed to meerly "acceptable" images with distractions in the frame, perhaps a twig in front, etc... Until we start accepting subjects in real life conditions, photographers who feed this market will continue to do as they are presently. You can criticize the practice as long as you want, but as with any issue, as long as there is demand, someone will step up and supply the images. The same applies to many many other problems but that is subject for another thread.

09-23-2010, 07:59 AM	#4
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,863	And there was me thinking it was a damn fine shot (the José Luis Rodriguez wolf) staged or otherwise.

09-23-2010, 09:07 AM	#5
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275 Original Poster	From a compositional and exposure standpoint, the wolf shot is indeed pretty nice. But as an entry into the contest it won, it was deemed fraudulent and was thus disqualified.

09-23-2010, 12:02 PM	#6
Reportage Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 739	thing is all they have is circumstantial evidence. as far as i know, there is no evidence of the supposed rental wolf actually being there for the shot. They only say it looked like the rental wolf but no one is saying it is the rental wolf. but then, circumstantial evidence is enough nowadays for lifetime imprisonment, lethal injection or guantanamo bay. oh well. as for the faked shots, i agree with the above assessment...where there is demand, there will always be supply.

09-23-2010, 02:13 PM	#7
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	Originally posted by Reportage where there is demand, there will always be supply Sounds like the paparazzi to me!

09-23-2010, 03:49 PM	#8
BillM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ferguson, Mo. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,348	My wifes a veternarian,be amazed at what some people try

09-23-2010, 08:34 PM	#9
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Has anyone posted these shots from incredibly difficult conditions? Photographer captures amazing images of lions at watering hole after submerging himself for three months \| Mail Online Talk about suffering for your art! The results speak for themselves.

09-24-2010, 05:47 AM	#10
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by johnmflores Has anyone posted these shots from incredibly difficult conditions? Photographer captures amazing images of lions at watering hole after submerging himself for three months \| Mail Online Talk about suffering for your art! The results speak for themselves. Although some are drinking, the two left most and the one on the right are thinking *LUNCH* in my opinion. no one said getting a wild life shot does not require some extreme patience. I woud love to know how many shots were taken to capture this. I woud have actually used a remote camera.

09-24-2010, 08:22 AM	#11
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Well, I can assure you that my shots are quite natural! Sure, I have Squirrels on my payroll, feed them gourmet nuts and fruits, and pamper them night and day....but when I call for them to pose, they are "all natural". And...it is not without some risk, Squirrels have razor sharp teeth, and if you fail to deliver on an agreed contract, they can be very vindictive creatures. It is not like a Lion that will eat you alive...but still, a missing finger is no small matter! Here I put on my Safari Outfit....stepped out on the back deck and gave Festus an apple slice and asked him to get in a comfortable looking pose for the Bigma.......as usual, he did as asked! Now what is phony about that? [IMG] [/IMG]

09-24-2010, 02:17 PM	#12
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275 Original Poster	Originally posted by johnmflores Has anyone posted these shots from incredibly difficult conditions? Photographer captures amazing images of lions at watering hole after submerging himself for three months \| Mail Online Talk about suffering for your art! The results speak for themselves. Sadly, the guys that do it the hard way... like this... are few and far between. Could have something to do with impatience, or deadlines... but it could also be for not wanting to get the intestinal parasites that Mr du Toit did...

09-24-2010, 02:19 PM	#13
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275 Original Poster	Rupert... you have to admit that your squirrels are practically house pets... LOL

09-24-2010, 04:12 PM	#14
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by MRRiley Rupert... you have to admit that your squirrels are practically house pets... LOL Yeah....you are pretty much on target, but to keep up appearances and for their huge egos I always refer to them as "Wild Beasts". This is particularly important to Otis! Best Regards!

09-26-2010, 08:28 AM	#15
Ron Kruger Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 534	When shooting for magazines, technically good images are the foundation. It's a given. Editors don't like any technological tricks and they're not interested in art. They want illustrations for the general public, but these illustrations, especially for covers, must tell a story. Content and composition is where all the creativity lies. Truth is, the vast majority of big deer and other animals, standing in perfect light, are of semi-domesticated or penned animals, controlled wildlife viewing areas and even zoos. Leaping shots of fish are completely staged with very involved and difficult tricks. Handsome animals sell, just as beautiful women sell to fashion magazines. Ugly, injured, deformed just doesn't cut it. It's a business, people, and no where near as easy as you might imagine, so if you want to look down your noses as "artists," you best look elsewhere to display and sell your images. Otherwise, learn the tricks of the trade. You can't simply "walk about" and do it making adjustment to your auto functions. You can put all this down if you want, or you can learn how to do it and supply the creative (derivitive of "create") images editors want.