Wildlife photos - do you need to actually be there?

DG Phototraining

DG Phototraining

Woof
Messages
5,064
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
DG Phototraining said:
So, 11 months of strapping cameras to trees & hoping for the best
Click to expand...
Apart from the strapping cameras to trees bits that's what most photographers do all the time. :D
 
DG Phototraining said:
I'm sure you'll all have seen the news re the 2020 Wildlife Photographer of the Year, but just in case... https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news...ographer-of-the-year-2020-winning-images.html

So, 11 months of strapping cameras to trees & hoping for the best

Dedication yes, but really? Seems odd to me to win an award as a Photographer without being anywhere near the subject as the photo is taken

Dave
Click to expand...

There was another one a couple of years back taken of an Orangutan by the use of a GoPro strapped to a tree ... that one and this one both superb photos but for me they would fit better entitled 'Naturalist Photo of the Year', I can't see them as being 'photographer' photos.
 
gramps said:
There was another one a couple of years back taken of an Orangutan by the use of a GoPro strapped to a tree ... that one and this one both superb photos but for me they would fit better entitled 'Naturalist Photo of the Year', I can't see them as being 'photographer' photos.
Click to expand...

Yep that's where I'm coming from too

This Tiger one this year, lovely photo that it is, had it been a less rare Tiger would it have faired so well I wonder?

Or if he's said "I put up the camera and the first shot the following day was this one" - would it being 'easier' have cost him?

All seems a bit odd to my tastes

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
I'm sure you'll all have seen the news re the 2020 Wildlife Photographer of the Year, but just in case... https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news...ographer-of-the-year-2020-winning-images.html

So, 11 months of strapping cameras to trees & hoping for the best

Dedication yes, but really? Seems odd to me to win an award as a Photographer without being anywhere near the subject as the photo is taken

Dave
Click to expand...

Is it much different than any photo taken with a camera in a fully automatic mode?

He has selected the site to locate the camera to effectively frame the subject and I am guessing he knew that tree was bing used as a scratching/scent marking post...

I feel it's a lot more authentic than many photos that have been heavily processed in Photoshop such as HDR landscapes ect...
 
I imagine that there will be a wide range of opinions on this one, depending on what the reasons for recording the image are. My own opinion is: if it gets the picture you want, you did the right thing.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I imagine that there will be a wide range of opinions on this one, depending on what the reasons for recording the image are. My own opinion is: if it gets the picture you want, you did the right thing.
Click to expand...

Yep and I can agree with that too

I suppose my 'concern' (not sure that's the appropriate word) is in relation to some of the other entries where real skill & technique was used in real-time to capture most of them, as opposed to using locals to point scratching trees out to you where you then hang several cameras & hope for the best

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Yep and I can agree with that too

I suppose my 'concern' (not sure that's the appropriate word) is in relation to some of the other entries where real skill & technique was used in real-time to capture most of them, as opposed to using locals to point scratching trees out to you where you then hang several cameras & hope for the best

Dave
Click to expand...
Yes I agree and that’s what I was trying to say with my reply
 
Pete E said:
Is it much different than any photo taken with a camera in a fully automatic mode?

He has selected the site to locate the camera to effectively frame the subject and I am guessing he knew that tree was bing used as a scratching/scent marking post...

I feel it's a lot more authentic than many photos that have been heavily processed in Photoshop such as HDR landscapes ect...
Click to expand...
Disagree there’s nothing wrong with using automatic mode on camera you are still putting yourself in the right place at the right time and framing the shot it’s not the same as putting random trail cameras or whatever on trees and coming back the next day and seeing what you’ve captured
 
I think in many of these competitions the "back story" helps a lot.
I visited the same competition at the Natural History Museum a few years ago and the winner was a primate (can't remember which) sitting looking very sad (to the human eye).
The story was that this female had just lost her baby and the photographer captured this sad moment.
No proof that there had ever been a baby or that the primate was indeed feeling sad.
But the story fit the image (which was technically perfect).
I'm sure it was all true but it seems to me that if you want to win the accompanying text must be good.
 
Jelster said:
And, you don't know how many camera traps he put up. This could have been just one of twenty or so. That puts a different light on it.
Click to expand...
There's a shot of him preparing lots of them.
I preferred the shot of the 2 flying ants.
 
Steve Winter was the first to use camera traps to be declared Wildlife Photographer of the Year with his image of a Snow Leopard, I spoke to him at the awards ceremony and the dedication, research and hard work left me in awe. Many times rare specimens are best photographed remotely in order for them not to be spooked and desert the area, even the act of putting out camera taps will leave some scent but not as much as if you are physically there.
 
PhilH04 said:
Steve Winter was the first to use camera traps to be declared Wildlife Photographer of the Year with his image of a Snow Leopard, I spoke to him at the awards ceremony and the dedication, research and hard work left me in awe. Many times rare specimens are best photographed remotely in order for them not to be spooked and desert the area, even the act of putting out camera taps will leave some scent but not as much as if you are physically there.
Click to expand...
TBH I don't think that changes anything, perfectly valid and commendable a for naturalist/conservationist but not for a 'Photographer'.
Having said that if the rules of the competition allow a trained monkey on a lead to take your photo then I suppose that's valid. :whistle:
 
gramps said:
TBH I don't think that changes anything, perfectly valid and commendable a for naturalist/conservationist but not for a 'Photographer'.
Click to expand...
Thats fair enough, every one will have differing opinions, it was controversial when Steve won and always will be methinks.
 
jerry12953 said:
Photography sure does seem to be going in funny directions sometimes...
Click to expand...
Camera traps have been used for wildlife photography for over a century. There's at least one picture dating from 1890 something of a Bengal tiger that was made on such a device. In that case the camera had a single glass plate in it so presumably the photographer had to return several time to reload the camera, in order to get the image that was used. The picture was published in several books and magazines over the years and may well be on line somewhere.
 
It would have been a very different photograph had he had taken a more traditional approach...In years gone by to get a "shot" at a tiger, you would have spent hours over many nights in a Machan (highseat) about 12 foot up in a tree ( far too low for actual safety) watching over a bullock you had tethered by its foot to the base of a near by tree.

If the tiger appeared, and everything went to plan, the resulting picture would certainly be eye catching, but far from politically correct.

If things did not go to plan and the tiger sensed your presence in the tree, you would probably not be entering the next year's competition!
 
Last edited:
Some of the best wildlife photos I've ever seen were done with camera traps in particular the stuff done with bears and wolves in Yellowstone and Grand Teton by National Geographic - all of it a million times better than baiting animals or birds as is common with wildlife photographers.
 
Pete E said:
...you would probably not be entering the next year's competition!
Click to expand...
...but your obituary would no doubt include a comment on how committed you were to photography! :naughty:
 
It's one of those 'authenticity' questions that has always plagued photography, now more than ever, but has never found a satisfactory answer. And probably never will, it's about where you draw the line and every image is different. FWIW this one is okay with me, but if an identical photo was taken in a zoo or with a tame tiger, it would not.

Cue the monkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
 
Last edited:
davidy233 said:
Some of the best wildlife photos I've ever seen were done with camera traps in particular the stuff done with bears and wolves in Yellowstone and Grand Teton by National Geographic - all of it a million times better than baiting animals or birds as is common with wildlife photographers.
Click to expand...
You are missng the point and making a sweeping generalisation.
 
I struggle with this type of thing, but I'd say it counts.
In fact, I have done very similar... spend the time doing research about an animal, spend the time in the woods to locate the animal, spend the time in the woods learning their particular habits... where you might find them and when, spend the time to find one of those locations that might make for a better image. Then setup the camera on a tripod, and move away into a hide to trip the camera with a remote release.

In reality, the majority of good wildlife photography is about the time and effort put in before an image is ever taken... the triggering of the camera is just the culmination. Landscape photography is similar really... If you think about it, that's true of a lot of types of photography. It's also why, if you do all of the backend/creative work and have an assistant trigger the camera, it's still your photograph.

But I do kind of have a problem with leaving a camera set somewhere for 11 months... and I kind of have the same issue with trigger-trap water drop photography and the like. It becomes impersonal and more of just a technical challenge; and that doesn't interest me much as something I want to do.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I have done very similar... spend the time doing research about an animal, spend the time in the woods to locate the animal, spend the time in the woods learning their particular habits... where you might find them and when, spend the time to find one of those locations that might make for a better image. Then setup the camera on a tripod, and move away into a hide to trip the camera with a remote release.
Click to expand...
But that isn't the same is it, you are still the photographer, in control of the camera at the time the image is taken. :)
 
gramps said:
But that isn't the same is it, you are still the photographer, in control of the camera at the time the image is taken. :)
Click to expand...
What control? I would probably take a lot fewer pictures because I'm not taking the ones I know I don't want, but I've seen a lot of photographers just filling cards in the same situation.
With a lot of wildlife photography (and landscape as well), once it's time to start taking pictures you either take what is offered or you take nothing at all.
 
sk66 said:
What control?
Click to expand...

The remote release ... you are in the hide, observing the activity and you control the camera with the remote release.
I have a trailcam, it takes videos of my garden wildlife but I am not in control of it, most of the time I am asleep in bed, no doubt exactly like the 'photographer' in question.
 
gramps said:
You are missng the point and making a sweeping generalisation.
Click to expand...
What's the sweeping generalisation you object to - baiting - it's hideous? As to missing the point - not I'm not, there's lots of ways of taking a photograph, remote cameras are still photography.
 
gramps said:
The remote release ... you are in the hide, observing the activity and you control the camera with the remote release.
I have a trailcam, it takes videos of my garden wildlife but I am not in control of it, most of the time I am asleep in bed, no doubt exactly like the 'photographer' in question.
Click to expand...
Ok, what about this real life scenario? I go to a location I know about to take pictures of Elk during the rut; I know of this particular location because I have been photographing the rut for 5 yrs now. And during one evening I take only 20 pictures because, as you say, I am observing the activity and controlling the camera...
And then there is Joe nearby, who also knows about the location because someone on facebook told him about it; and he is just filling cards taking pictures anytime something moves, and many, many, many, multiples. There is no (apparent) consideration, timing, composition, or control... however, we are both triggering the shutter.

But I actually miss a shot because I am being selective with my composition, lighting, and timing; Joe gets that shot and it turns out to be better than I ever thought it could be... which of us is more of a photographer? Does Joe's picture not count?
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
And during one evening I take 20 pictures because, as you say, I am observing the activity and controlling the camera...
Click to expand...
I think gramps is talking about camera traps where the photographer isn't actually present when the image was taken, not a remotely operated system.
 
For me, photography is about considering composition and working with the light and how it plays on your subject to take the photo you envision. If you're not there, then that isn't happening. Are you more of a curator? Going through the (thousands of?) resulting images to find that single award winner? Perhaps that's what wildlife photography is? If a sports photographer sets up 12 cameras round a football field and presses fire every ten seconds for the whole match, I'm sure she'll get a useable picture. Does that make her a great photographer?

Feininger called it "reproductive-utilitarian" photography. That which just represents what is there. There is no creative interpretation to it. There can't be. Does that make it better or worse? Well that's up to the judges to decide - and they did :)

IMO though, a competition titled "photographer" and not "photograph" should be looking for creativity. The image is ingeniously captured, but cannot have any interpretation. It just is.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top