Call me naïve. I grew up with a fantastic, albeit distorted, ideal of what nature photography was. As a young boy I would sit and pore over the pages of nature photography books, National Geographic and Outdoor Photographer Magazine, enchanted at times more by the thought of what the photographer had to endure in order to capture the photographs, than I was at the images themselves. I guess you could say that to me being a nature photographer was akin to being a hero of sorts. Though my experiences in the world of nature photography have changed my perception of the ways in which certain images are created, I still hold onto my childhood ideal as the standard by which I measure the authenticity of an image. I had my ‘Walter Mitty moment’ at the beginning of 2012 when I was blessed with the opportunity to leave my day job and embrace my career as a nature photographer full time. The longer I’ve been in this field of photography, the more aware I have become of a number of glaring conflicts of ethics that I’d been largely insulated from up until the past decade or so. I’ve listed a few of them below.
© 2014 Nathaniel Smalley
1). I learned of photographers baiting wildlife with food to bring it in close for that ‘award winning shot’. One of the more common practices is to throw a mouse bought at a pet store (or a fake mouse tied to a fishing pole) into the snow in an open field to bring down an owl from a nearby tree where it is roosting. There are few people anymore that will try to defend the practice of baiting a wild bird or animal. Those that do are either ignorant or just plain selfish. It is simply a no win situation for the subject. As nature photographers (and more specifically wildlife photographers) we must ask ourselves why we are baiting our subjects. Feeding wildlife within the respective boundaries of any U.S. national park or wildlife refuge is illegal. In many states, feeding wild animals is punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Any game warden in the United States will tell you that feeding wildlife causes them to change their natural behavior, teaches the animal to associate humans with food and acclimates them to human dependency. Often disease can be introduced through the food or bait. I’ve heard the argument that baiting owls has saved their lives during hard winter. In response I’d like to say that there are entire agencies and biologists responsible for monitoring and making decisions concerning the health of these species. I don’t see how anyone can justify the practice of baiting a wild subject for photography by saying that they are doing so out of concern for their subject. If you are truly concerned for these species, join a local organization in your area that is responsible for evaluating and caring for them. Baiting a starving subject and then taking pictures of it coming in for food just doesn’t translate to me as someone who cares for the natural world. The bird or animal can also become imprinted and lose it’s natural fear of people, and that never has a favorable result. Baiting animals pretty much always ends up with the animal or bird being killed or imprinted. I’m honestly not sure which of the two is worse. Some people try to compare this to feeding birds at a bird feeder, it is not the same. I have to say that people don’t ‘bait’ songbirds at a bird feeder, they might photograph them while they are there, but that isn’t the reason for feeding songbirds in the first place. Conversely, people didn’t start feeding the owls mice out of concern for them, they did it to get the photo they wanted. Furthermore any ornithological agency would tell you that nearly all the people that feed songbirds seed in the winter do so consistently and without interrupting the food supply. So even if people wanted to make that argument, you can’t even begin to compare baiting owls to feeding songbirds seed at a bird feeder. The fact that the baiters are using a method that jeopardizes the welfare of the owls is simply a base exploitation of the subject. The photographers baiting their subjects are not providing a dependable, consistent supply of food. They show up when they want to, throw out a mouse to get the image they want and then go home to process their images. We have to remember, that even if we as nature enthusiasts would never knowingly harm a wild animal, the birds and animals that get imprinted can’t discern between those that will, and those that won’t harm them. I’ve worked closely with wildlife conservation & rehabilitation agencies for over 20+ years and Audubon for the past decade, filling every role from volunteer to board member and I can tell you for a fact that those types of decisions are best left to the professionals. Regardless of how much we like the outdoors, nature photographers are not biologists. If our actions as nature photographers (i.e. ‘baiting’) is changing the natural behavior of our subjects, can we honestly say that we are “Taking Only Photographs and Leaving Only Footprints”?
2). Staging scenes in a studio can be a practice used by macro photographers to create completely unrealistic settings and positions for small insects, amphibians, reptiles and such. Often the small creatures are damaged in this process and cannot survive once returned to the wild. Hee Jenn Wei published a very informative and equally disturbing blog post on this topic which you can read more about here.
3). Another increasingly common practice is taking images of captive animals and passing them off as wild. The topic of captive wildlife photography is a vast subject and brings with it strong emotions from both sides. Some people say that they don’t have the means to travel to photograph wildlife in their natural habitat and that the animals and birds in their cages and enclosures are still ‘wild’. To prove their point they might ask if you’d be willing to walk into the lion enclosure at the local zoo. Obviously the answer is an emphatic ‘NO’ (or at least I hope it is). Despite the fact that these captive animals are clearly still ‘wild’ in the sense that they could inflict great physical harm if they chose to, there is a distinct difference between these animals and those photographed in the wilderness. For the sake of illustration let’s compare the orcas at SeaWorld to those one might see off the coast of Alaska. For generations now millions of people have gone to SeaWorld and other parks like it and thought, ‘Oh, look at the happy whale!’ With the help and insight provided by the recent expose‘ film Blackfish and the outrage over the capture of two wild orcas for the purpose of being put on ‘display’ at the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, the public is becoming increasingly aware that this isn’t the case. Not all captive animals in zoos, wildlife parks and such are abused or exploited, in fact many of them are unable to return to the wild for a variety of reasons. These animals provide a great service in helping scientists to better understand them and to educate the public. It isn’t the zoos or wildlife parks that I take issue with, in fact, I don’t even take issue with people photographing these captive animals. The staff at those facilities do vital work in a multitude of ways. The issue is people trying to pass off images of captive animals as ‘wild’. We could take pictures of those whales at SeaWorld and say they are wild, and indeed they are, but those images wouldn’t depict what a happy, wild whale looked like at all. It’s the same thing with images of captive wild animals; they don’t accurately represent the element of freedom and the spirit of a wild animal in its true habitat. Say for example, you capture a picture at the local zoo of a lion feeding off of a carcass in its nicely landscaped enclosure. The lion looks fierce; it growls, defending its ‘kill’. You think that lion looks like a hunter, but you are wrong. What you are looking at is a lion that has had a slab of meat thrown into its concrete enclosure through barred doors. That is what a defeated lion looks like. That is what a lion that couldn’t last a day on the plains of Africa looks like. Attempting to pass off pictures of captive animals as wild animals is unjustifiable.
4). Merging elements from the photographs of totally different subjects and trying to pass it off as one, single exposure image is another trend. In this example you might see an image of a striking sunset and a perfectly located flock of geese in the same photo. Though that isn’t impossible, when you see the same photographer posting image after image with perfectly located flocks of birds flying through their epic landscape shots, it starts to makes you wonder what is really going on. These photos are multi-image composites, plain and simple. However I should take the time to clarify, that there is another technique that involves taking multiple, bracketed images of the same scene, which allows the photographer to capture extended dynamic range and hyperfocal distance that cannot be achieved with a single exposure, but is visible to the human eye. The images are later blended together in photo processing software by a very time intensive process. These types of images, like any photograph, can be over-processed, however the finished result when done with the proper post processing technique applied can create a very realistic image. For those of you that might be wondering, this is not HDR, it is a completely different technique and requires a good deal of post processing skill to be done well. I don’t take an issue with this type of photography or processing. In my opinion this isn’t really any different than stitching together images from a series of panoramic shots. When you stitch a panoramic image together you are working laterally to align all the images side by side, and when blending multiple, bracket exposures, you are working linearly (with depth) to align and blend multiple images of the same subject. So long as the finished product represents what the human eye sees, I believe that this is still an authentic representation of nature photography. For the sake of the uneducated viewer it may still be appropriate in this case for the photographer to relate that exposure blending techniques were employed to achieve the finished image.
These and a host of other poor practices are watering down the field of nature photography. They are creating a false expectation of what authentic nature photography looks like within the industry for the photographer, the public, the nature photography awards organizations and the publishers. These practices ’glamorize’ nature photography in a way that becomes incredibly difficult to duplicate when ethical standards of nature photography are upheld. The nature loving family who has bought into all these photos goes on a family camping trip in their favorite national park expecting to view at least some of what they have seen represented in their favorite nature magazine spread or on TV, but they don’t, not even close. All the shots from that magazine article spread or TV nature series were fabrications of reality. Disenchantment sets in and the appreciation for an authentic representation of nature is lost. Granted there are a great number of nature photographers out there that don’t cut corners and don’t take the easy way out, but with each passing day their numbers are depleted. Though the responsibility ultimately rests on the photographer to have the integrity not to engage in these practices, I believe that the publishers and nature photography award organizations bear an equal responsibility not to publish or recognize these images without a disclaimer, if at all. By publishing these ‘counterfeit’ images and passing them off as ‘authentic nature photography’ the publishers and award organizations are seriously compounding the problem and actually encouraging these kinds of practices by the photographers employing these tactics. Over the past decade more and more images that were taken using these practices have been published. In some cases they have even won nature photography awards from organizations and publications that were at one time some of the world’s most respected entities for featuring authentic nature photography. The continued publication and recognition of these types of images makes it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for the ethical nature photographer to remain competitive in this field. Historically one of the elements that made nature photography so appealing to the public is that not everyone could go out and capture the images that a professional nature photographer was able to. The arrival of the DSLR to some degree eroded the separation that once existed between amateur and professional photographers. It only further devalues the work of the ethical nature photographer to have the recognition, monetary gain and accolades handed over to a photographer that exhibits no integrity in their work. Perhaps it is an impossible task to define ‘true’ nature photography, but ultimately I don’t believe it’s so difficult. All one needs is the drive to create the best image possible when presented with the opportunity, the dedication to represent the image as it was in the wild in your post processing work, and a moral compass that won’t allow you to take cheap shortcuts or cave in to the new ‘norm’. It would be nice if the publishers and nature photography award organizations might make themselves accountable for the same.
Your thoughts and comments are always welcome.
– Nathaniel Smalley
You might also like
74 Comments
Great article. It’s unfortunate too great photographs can be so manipulated that it’s no longer about the photographer it’s about the computer software skills.
Thank you Teresa, I’m glad you enjoyed the piece.
Nathaniel. Great article. I fully agree with your views and would say the ethical nature photography is also authentic wildlife photography. Being in the photographic safari business myself, our company stands for authentic wildlife photography. We don’t bait any animals or birds but rely on our knowledge of animal behaviour to anticipate behaviour and then place our vehicle or boat in the best position to get a possible shot. Sometime we get the shot and other times not, but we did not interfere with natural behaviour. I would say that there are very few authentic African Fish Eagle shots of them taking a fish from the surface of a lake or river which have not been baited. Your comments in terms of imprinting is very true in terms of this practice. It is also important to ensure you do not “press” the animals or birds into unnatural behaviour. I have heard of operators in Africa that will use the call of a young Wildebeest to force reaction from a predator. I think the next thing that is going to force unnatural animal behaviour is through drone cameras and as we are also seeing cameras mounted on radio controlled vehicles. I am supportive of this for scientific research but what we are starting to see in Southern Africa is the use of these drones and camera mounted cars in our National parks by “enthusiastic” nature photographers. The general public see these awesome shots and low perspectives, on the internet and TV, taken from the vehicles and go out and want to do the same.
Also agree that very few people actually get to go to Africa to photograph a wild lion,so the local zoo or nature park has to do. As long as the photographer declares this image as being taken of a captured animal, then it to should be ok.
It is our responsibility as nature photographers to educate our clients in terms of authentic wildlife photography.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments Neal, it is great to know that there are companies in Africa aware of this issue and working there with integrity!
Wildlife photography is a very difficult field and demands a great amount of time with no guarantee of success. I feel many people will try any short cut possible without concern for animal safety or ethics to capture an image. We as wildlife seeking students look at the great images and think that could be us without knowing just how many of these images were captured.
One can only look at the many professionals offering expensive long weekends with captive studio settings to promote their professions. The enticement to these exotic locations with 10 or more flash units mounted and hummingbirds fed everyday to guarantee success with images we dream about….This will get an image but to me it is not what the game is all about.
We have all set by our bird feeder in the middle of winter freezing in a small blind waiting and hoping to get a good shot…Is this baiting, yes, is it unethical, maybe. I think a fine line exists between the creation and the unobtrusive capture of wildlife, maybe a gray card area?
People’s Choice Award
Congratulations to our 2013 People’s Choice Award winner, whose portrait of a captive male lion taken in a zoo….
National Geographic wildlife award…Enough said!
A very nice photograph but to even be entered into the contest leaves one wondering where wildlife standards have gone? I also think the DSLR rage has made 9 out every 10 people with a interchangeable lens a professional photographer….(in their own mind)
Thanks for your thoughts William. Scientific data supports the theory that Bird feeders aid in expanding the ranges of migratory songbirds. I have no issue with them whatsoever.
That’s the problem with these false ethics and misguided information, there is no difference in baiting of an owl and a bird feeder, both put negative risks on the birds for humans personal pleasure by use of food.
You talk about spreading disease with store bought mice, you do realize that a bird feeder spreads disease at much higher rate then in natural circumstances or by baiting owls, right?
Also having a bird feeder will unnaturally congregate birds into compact areas which make it much easier for predators to kill them. You can make an argument that birds of prey that get easy kills at feeders need to eat too but what about cats?
What about where bird feeders are placed? If they are put too close to a window then there is a high risk of a window strike or if put by a tree then easy pickings for a Sharpie, Merlin or again a cat.
What about human imprinting on geese and ducks that are feed by humans?
Why is a life of an owl worth more then a chickadee, goldfinch or a mallard? People kill exponentially more birds in one year through feeders then all photographers will, through baiting of owls, in a lifetime.
Now I have to state I am not defending baiting of owls but if you are going to talk about ethics and the well being of birds then get your facts straight. I detest photographers that stand on a platform crying about what’s being done to owls but have no problem killing all sorts of other birds in the same fashion, ignorance at its best!
I don’t see a lot of wildlife shots at bird feeders winning awards in Nature Photography competitions or selling to major magazine publications Jerry, so the topic didn’t seem directly relevant to photography. Every ornithological and bird conservation organization in the world supports the use of bird feeders. There is scientific data demonstrating that bird feeders have helped to expand the range of songbirds. I would never argue that maintaining a clean station of bird feeders was unimportant, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of this blog which is ‘Ethics in Nature Photography’. If birdfeeders are a great source of imprinting and death, I don’t think it makes baiting raptors for the sake of ‘reginction photography’ ok. One has nothing to do with the other. The issue of feral cats is likewise its own separate topic.
It has everything to do with your topic which is titled “Observation of Ethics” surrounding photography, not ethics around getting award winning shots, is it? Now don’t let me put words in your mouth but from what I’m getting is that you’re saying it is unethical to bait an owl for a photograph but it is ethical to bait a songbird for a photograph, is that correct, and if so why?
Don’t get me wrong I am not saying that bird feeders should be banned, just as baiting owls isn’t illegal. They both can have the exact same negative impacts if executed poorly.
William who left the original comment stated that he feels it’s a grey area photographing a bird from a blind at a feeder from an ethical standpoint, which I 100% agree with as it’s the same way for baiting an owl. You comment right back that what he’s doing is ok, which I’m taking as it’s ethically ok to do so, again I will ask why is it ok for one bird but not another.
To me you are running way from this issue sighting useless facts like feeders expand range because you, and most photographers and birders, can’t validate the this imaginary line you’re drawing separating bird species into what is ethical to bait and what isn’t.
Also I love your coward response that, and I quote, “Every ornithological and bird conservation organization in the world supports the use of bird feeders” How in the hell do you know what every ornithologist is thinking and where did you get this stat, please link me to it. Just so you know lying is also unethical in my eyes 😉 I know numerous ornithologists that would ban bird feeders if they had the power, just so you know I don’t agree with them. I also know ornithologists that fully support the baiting owls for photography, science or for whatever reason you would bait them, which I also don’t agree with.
So please stop with the defensive tactics that politicians use and stand by your words or at least defend them with actual reason, not made up lies.
Jerry, I studied Ornithology through Cornell University’s Lab of Ornithology and I’ve worked with bird rehabilitation and conservation organizations for the past 20+ years. I’m currently on the Leadership Council of Audubon Arizona and the Board of Directors with Maricopa Audubon, so I am quite confident in my statements. I’m not sure that anything I might say will convince you of the validity of my position on this subject. Please email me the names of your ornithologist friends that support a ban on bird feeders and the baiting of owls, I would love to discuss the matter with them personally.
fine points Nathaniel. It’s not easy doing wildlife photography but that is one of the things that makes it so wonderful. Look forward to more from you in the future
Peace
Thank you for reading Steve, glad you enjoyed it.
Though I have spent years trying to capture just one subject beautifully in the wild, I know that at the end of the day I have to be competitive and be able to pay my bills. I’m not able to do this just shooting wildlife ethically. A great deal of emotional reward is attached to capturing my truly wild subjects successfully, unfortunately my client doesn’t see that. All they see is the end result. They want what they essentially can’t have, but after having seen so many “wildlife” photos they want you to deliver. Though I have continued to shoot truly wild subjects, I don’t know how to make a living doing it and I struggle as a result. Nathaniel, am I right to assume you offset your wildlife photography with landscapes and even portrait photography? Because, that is pretty much what I have to do.
I only shoot Nature Photography Linda, no portraits. Unfortunately if a client can’t align themselves with your ethics then it may be time to move on.
National Geographic magazine editors can detect manipulated and dishonest photos. Ethics and honesty is
Nat. Geo. standard and that is why they have accomplished the recogntion they have in the magazine world. I recently came back from South Africa on a photo safari. The wild creatures roam there freely. Let their surroundings show forth as it was meant to be. Manipulated pictures place a question mark in the mind of the trained eye . Honesty in post processing brings out the image as something well worth observing. Let the captured image speak for itself . Photography captures the Present to use in the Future to remember the TRUE Past !
National Geographic Magazine needs to put a foot note when necessary under a submitted image to clarify the post processing if it has been altered or a zoo picture.
They sure do Jack. There was a huge outcry last year when the winning image from their photography competition was announced. It was taken in a Zoo.
You hit the “nail on the head”!
For me, wildlife photography is parking the truck and hiking the vast wilderness of Nature.
That’s the best way Britt!
Nathaniel, I understand your frustrations, however, I think there is room for both approaches to photographing “wildlife”, with the caveat that there should be full disclosure (captive v wild). Zoos and similar institutions offer a setting for (esp beginnning) photographers to hone their camera skills with concentrated practice that would not be possible otherwise.
My issue isn’t with the Zoos or Wildlife Parks, they certainly have their place Jerry. I don’t even take issue with people going there and taking pictures with their cameras. The issue comes when these images of captive animals are pawned off as wild animals. The problem is further compounded when the Publishers and Photography Awards Organizations are recognizing the captive shot images in front of the wild shot ones. The captive shooters are at a mammoth advantage with their subjects confined directly in front of them.
I completely concur. That is absolutely unacceptable. In any profession that had a code of ethics this would be clearly unethical.
Thank you!! You have said so much more eloquently what I have been feeling lately….. and informed me of things I didn’t even realize were being done – I am very thankful that someone of your photography skill also has such a strong voice for ethics in this world!
It is great to hear it is appreciated Angelique.
While i tend to agree with your statements about Seaworld and whales, I have to comment about some of the other “theme” parks. Being a senior citizen, with very limited income, and a sincere love of “wild” animals, I love to go to WDW Animal Kingdom and Busch Gardens Tampa to photograph the animals residing there. Some days you see lots of animals and get lots of pics. Some days not so much. However, having spent lots of time at both parks, including behind the scenes tours, I don’t have any qualms, or issues, regarding the animals residing there. Sure, they might be better off in the wild . . . and in many cases easy prey for poachers . . . but, both Busch Gardens Tampa and WDW Animal Kingdom are doing a service to some of the animals by providing a good and safe environment. And, in some cases, even working to avoid extinction of some of the animals. I always list where my pics are taken, including Animal Kingdom and Busch Gardens. If someone has a problem with that, so be it. Yes, there are some zoos in which the animals are not taken care of as they should be. However, I try to avoid those types of places and programs. Just my two cents, felt the need to share it.
I don’t believe there is any disagreement Carol, it isn’t the Zoos or Wildlife Parks that I take issue with, in fact, I don’t even take issue with people photographing these captive animals. As I said in my Blog post, “Many of them are unable to return to the wild for a variety of reasons”. The staff at those facilities do vital work in a multitude of ways. The issue is people trying to pass off images of captive animals as ‘wild’. The problem is further compounded when the Publishers and Photography Awards Organizations are recognizing the captive shot images in front of the wild shot ones. The captive shooters are at a mammoth advantage with their subjects confined directly in front of them.
Right on with all your comments, Nathaniel. You are so right. I think it comes down to respecting or disrespecting nature itself. Nature doesn’t put on a fake image of itself to us any more than we should put on fake images or pictures of it. In another vein, it’s like the micro photography of a simple dew drop. It only has a life time of a few seconds or minutes. So who are we to record through pictures those few precious moments and then without any respect we carelessly bump into it or knock it down, never thinking twice about it. Nature has its natural order and time line, so why would we as Nature Photographers want to disturb it or fake it’s own natural beauty through the pictures we take of it?
Great points Tony, glad you liked the post.
Full disclosure is the answer. Post manipulation blurs the line between natural and man-made. A humans perspective and sense of style can enhance and present a remarkable image. As long as it is labeled as such (photo enhanced, graphic art, post-processing, photo art, etc.), I’m o.k. with it. It is a separate genre and should not be competing with unadulterated images.
I agree Laurie, full disclosure. It just honestly isn’t right for them to be Judged side by side. The Publishers and Photography Awards Organizations are recognizing the captive shot images in front of the wild shot ones. The captive shooters are at a mammoth advantage with their subjects confined directly in front of them.
Thanks Nathaniel. A subject close to my heart. I’ve been an advocate of ‘low impact wildlife photography’ my whole career. I appreciate your article as it may enlighten those that are not aware. Unfortunately it won’t change the behavior of those that don’t get it or don’t care. We now face a challenge as any great wild photo is in question because of all the baited, captive, or manipulated images that are so prevalent on the web and in print. Truth in captioning helps.
Captive wildlife for hire is the worst. If you want to know how happy an animal is in captivity, put yourself in it’s paws or hoofs. Think about prison, they get 3 meals a day, a place to sleep, TV, hmmm. They must be content.
If you do photograph animals in captivity try to find organizations that are saving displaced animals not ones who’s main business is to charge admission to see them.
Ask yourself; how important is it for me to get that photograph? Do I really need it?
Thanks so much for your thoughts Jim, I’m happy to find others that share my position on this important issue.
Well said. One of the unfortunate side affects of the captive-wild images is that once the public becomes more aware of the practice of shooting game farms and the like is that they will question all wildlife imagery. And sadly, the appreciation of the effort and time it takes to capture images of actual wild animals will be lost. There are a few very well known nature photographers whose work I question as some of the images seem near impossible to capture yet they sell for a kings ransom. What happens when the public no longer trusts any of us?
Thanks for your thoughts Trey, it certainly puts us all at a disadvantage from the perspective of the public’s trust.
Very informative. I and my group of students are at the early learning stage of wildlife photography. I am going to encourage them to read this article. Thank you.
Thank you for taking the time to read the article and for passing it along to your students Deepshikha.
I’m new to nature photography and never knew people baited animals for pictures, that seems like cheating and your information on animals getting killed or diseased because of it makes sense. Nature photography gives the thrill of a hunt on wondering what cool pictures or animals you get for the day. I’ve seen an osprey jump up and down on a field mouse to kill it, and learned from my pictures that bald eagles only get their white heads after maturity. A couple weeks ago there was a huge bald eagle in the field with a captured seagull. Two crows kept trying to take the seagull away from the eagle, even though they were much smaller birds. Eventually, the eagle got tired of the crows taking turns jumping over its head and flew off leaving the dead seagull for the crows to eat. It was a stormy day so my pictures didn’t turn out very well but that doesn’t matter because the experience will live with me forever. This is what nature photography is all about.
Don’t ever lose that appreciation for the Natural world Stefanie, glad you enjoyed the post.
Nathaniel, thanks for taking the time to write and post this. There are far too many photographers who will stoop to anything to “get the shot.” They need to be exposed, named, and shamed. I’ve been in this business for thirty years, and the trend is getting worse, not better, I’m afraid. Keep up the good work.
Great article Nathan!
Human nature has its bad side, and without ethics, people tend to do what ever they can get away with. When I get a shot that is unique and difficult, it gives me a sense of accomplishment that you can’t get from baiting or lying about. Not to mention the thrill of going out into the field with the excitement of not knowing what you’re going to see. To me, it’s the endless possibilities of the unknown that drives my passion for wildlife photography.
I have captive shots and stitched shots in my web gallery, and all are clearly labeled as such.
This is a great article in that some who have not thought about the ethical side of this medium will take time to think about what kind of photographer they want to be.
Keep up the good work,
Jimmy
Thanks for your comment Jimmy. I hope my article gives pause to those entering the field of Nature Photography as well as those who are already out there taking photographs. Knowledge is certainly power in this instance.
I’m not really a nature photographer, preferring landscapes. But occasionally I dust off my 150-500mm and visit the salt marshes near me for birds. All along our coast we get birds who migrate at different times of the year to our shores. But we also have some managed bird reserves where there are purpose built hides, the lagoons are dredged and cleared of weeds, but the birds are free to come and go. Would you still consider this as wildlife photography.
Great article by the way…
Thanks Mike, I see nothing unethical about what you have described. Happy shooting!
Nathanial, these are some comments I made in response to comments of others in a FB post that you also commented on. My comments are not directed at you or your comments. I think we are more in agreement than not. Ethics is not however, black and white and that is the case I am trying to make here.
It is my belief that as a genre of photography we must define what we mean by nature photography. If by the term “nature photography” we mean a journalistic approach to the subject then one set of ethics rules applies. If we use it to describe an art form, then an altogether different set of rules apply. If I approach nature photography as an art form then I am not bound by the rules of journalism and these people who like to describe themselves as “purists” need to get off by back. What makes their journalism any more “pure” than my art? Artists have, for decades, used mounted specimens, photographs, and field sketches done at zoos, etc. as models for their beautifully depicted “nature” images. As a photographer, I might sit alongside a split rail fence for ten years and never see a squirrel on the fence barking at a bluebird watching over its nest. As a “nature photographer” artist with the right skills I could create such a scene just as the painter does, or a flock of geese against a sunset, or a soaring eagle with snow-covered mountains in the background. Both journalism and art have the ability to inform and inspire. My beef then is two-fold. First, the publication should make clear in no uncertain terms that this contest, article, front cover, etc. is based on rules of journalism, or of art, whichever applies. Second the elitist should come down off their high horse and understand that their hours sitting in the heat and mosquitoes doesn’t make their work any more important, valuable or pure than the hours I might spend making a composite at my computer. Each has their place. Each has its value. It is not a matter of one being better than the other. As a photographer I just need to know what you want. Do you want journalism or do you want art? Unless you think you are smarter than the rest of the world please understand that “nature photography” is multifaceted and accept the beauty in all the forms.
This was in response to a question about whether baiting is ethical.
Is the photographing of birds near a feeder ethical? Most nature photographers would agree that it is. If I photograph a deer near an apple tree or soybean field is that baiting? If not, then why is putting out some corn or a bag of apples in an area that deer inhabit, baiting? Is it unethical for me to go fishing with a worm on my hook, or should I try to catch them with my bare hands? I have never baited a wildlife shot, but I think intelligent people realize there is more to ethics than “baiting or not baiting”. Which is the biggest violation of ethics? Getting too close to the animal’s space creating stress and danger for them and me or baiting a sight with their natural food and hiding myself where I cause no stress to the animal nor danger to myself? These are difficult questions and perhaps there will never be a complete and correct answer. If you have ever studied ethics, you do understand one thing: There is no such thing as black and white!
The asterik paragraph is a direct copy of a comment on the FB post.
*”I have been photographing animals in their natural settings for twelve years. I do not use photoshop and think that it is a mistake to accept manipulated images as nature photography. Slight adjustments to exposure, color and sharpening are acceptible “darkroom techniques”. But ALL photographers know a good image from a bad one at the time of capture! If it takes more than a minute to adjust exposure and sharpen, than it is not a good image and should not be considered a “nature/ natural” photograph as stated by the very definition of the word. Most of the celebrated images I see today are “cheats”, and should be considered as such. Great nature photography takes enormous effort and patience in the field, not in the edit. Some of the biggest names are some of the worst offenders and it is a shame that they are destroying the veracity of the nature photography field and persons like myself who do not manipulate my images.”
My response was:
Come on! Get off my case. I have spent many hours in a traditional darkroom. So it is ok for me to spend 4,5, or 6 hours making test prints, dodging, burning, making exposure masks, and vignetting to get an excellent print, but if it takes me more than a minute to adjust exposure and sharpen a digital file it is unethical! That is what is so difficult about this whole discussion. One person’s idea of what is ethical may be a shot over the bow of the person who has spent hours capturing and then creating the best quality image possible according to their own understanding of ethics. Unless your image is a mounted animal then your image is manipulated by the camera and the software in that camera. If it was a mounted animal, I would say that is the ultimate and final manipulation for that animal. You figure out the ethics of that!
An excellent and well presented write up, Nathaniel. In agreement with what you have conveyed about ethics and ethical photography. Unfortunately, to get to the limelight, a lot of photographers use whatever it takes, to get that perfect shot, and get away with it.
In the end, it all boils down to personal ethics. The change has to come from within. Hope more people get to read your article, and realize the kind of harm that is being inflicted on wildlife, as regards to their natural instincts. Lets hope their love for nature overcomes their love for personal/professional glory, and a change comes about in the the right direction.
Thank you for penning down such a thought provoking write up.
Sheila
I am happy that you enjoyed it Sheila, hopefully this article will help others navigate the decisions they face in this industry.
Dear Nathan,
Warm Greetings for the new year and thanks for righting a wonderful article on unethical photography.
I completely disagree with the concept of baiting photography or captive photography and consider them to be absolutely unethical and harmful to the fundamentals of life created by nature.
In India infact we dis encourage nesting photography also as it might be harmful to the birds breeding cycle.
However I have a few doubts and need your clarification on the same.
A lot of times artifical perches are created near water bodies using available dry wood. This is to ensure good clean shots with accurate backgrounds for photographers. Is this unethical???
People use camos and bird hides to go closure to the subject for photography. This infiltration of habitat is it considered unethical???
In grasslands vehicles are driven to ensure close proximity to raptors. This is some times not through the stipulated roads. Now these stipulated roads are also constructed by humans. Is this close driving unethical??
Also to think about it, this all boom has happened after social media getting its roots deeper to the large audience. I am sure every photographer is trying the best to deliver good clean shots (more importantly to prove himself/herself better than/ or equal to peers).
But on the flip side by doing all this is it not that awareness about wilderness and its conservation has increased drastically???
And lastly where exactly do we draw a line between ethical and non ethical photography?? After all entering the habitat of a living thing itself is disrupting the wilderness to a great extent.
Nathaniel,
What we can observe in Poland is an extraordinary boom in baited photography. It is not “inflation”, it is rather “hyper inflation”. One of the side effects is the fact worth mentioning that “too much equals boring”…
I read your article with great interest… Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means “first, do no harm.” It refers to doctors, it refers to us, wildlife photographers, too.
Thanks so much for your reply Kaz, it is a growing problem worldwide. Hopefully this discussion has helped to shed some light on the issue.
First I want to say that I think you are 100 % correct. I have never understood the reason to cheat and put nature at risk. I have never shot that money shot yet. I guess I will someday but it will not be by cheating. I want to get the shot the way nature sends it to me. The shots I have I love because they are natural.
I have friends that shoot bird shots from there back deck. They have bird feeders out and they get some fantastic shots. They also feed birds all year round just because they love birds. I see no problem with that. I do have problems with the ones like you described that bate wild animals with human food or salt blocks Etc just to get a shot. I look at these folks the same way as the ones who cheat at sports. For some people money is the driving force for that kind of behavior. Putting wildlife and unsuspecting people in danger is never a good thing.
I also agree about shooting Zoo animals and say the shot was in the wild. Why?? There is nothing wrong with shooting Zoo animals and saying where the shot was taken. I shoot Zoo animals all the time and tell what kind of animal it is and what Zoo the animal is located. The people who look at your pictures would love to go see that animal in person. Plus it promotes the Zoo’s and helps in the education of the Zoo residents. In the end honesty is the best policy. That’s just my thoughts.
Ron.
Great points Ron, thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Excellent blog! I’m a big fan of a few of the most popular wildlife photographers on Facebook, especially those around the Yellowstone area, love hearing about the wolves and bison and seeing the photos from the natural environment. Having a trained eye, I’ve become very disappointed in a couple of them who obviously “manipulate” their photos – ie – cloning in a wolf, a coyote, etc. into a scene – albeit well done and easy to trick the average persons eye, but the obviousness of it to a skilled photographer lessons the value of the photo. These photographers spout honesty, indignation, and ethical integrity all over their page; when it’s anything but. Unfortunately, as someone above in the comments mentioned, wildlife/scenic/nature photography has become more about the photoshopping skills, the hours spent on the computer manipulating a photo to just right so a story can be told. I hope your blog reaches more photographers. Well written, and kudos to you!
Thanks so much for your support and your thoughts on the subject Nick.
First of all I am not a nature photographer, I am an individual who loves to ‘attempt’ to take pix of birds, deer, etc as I look for them along forest service roads, trails, on the lakes, rivers, etc. At home, I have many different types of birdfeeders, suet feeders, hummingbird feeders and bird baths, one heated so birds, squirrels and other animals have water in our cold winters. I have never ‘baited’ any animal in the homes of getting a good pix (other than our dogs and for a ‘treat’ they will do almost anything!
IMHO I think the comparison to fields of corn, soybeans or other crops is disingenious. Field crops or natural grasses, forests, trees, swamps, lakes etc, are natures way of providing for the animls of the worls (including man); but to equate this with ‘baiting’ is like compairg apples/oranges.
I detest baiting of any animal whether or not it is for photograhy or hunting – its like shooting fish in a barrell. I also am not a fan of trapping – too many side issues with domestic and other wild animals that unintentionally get caught in the jaws.
I agree if ‘nature’ magazines are going to hold contests photos should not be eligible which are taken in zoos where animals are caged, they should be identified as such.
I think your article was very good and as an amateur I really got a lot out of it. Thank you.
Hi Nancy, thank you for your comments. I am happy to hear that your benefiting from the Blog. I’ll do my best to keep it updated.
Nathaniel,
Well done.
Well-written, concise, and informative. And I agree with you 100%. I am a beginner nature photographer and I’ve captured some stunning local wildlife…..but I do it the only way I consider responsible: I put in the time and wait for the animal behavior that I’m hoping to capture, and I do nothing to upset, interfere with, or influence my subjects. I recently snapped images at the Detroit Zoo. I was very conflicted, as I am an avid lover of all animals and seeing them in captivity broke my heart. But I captured some wonderful images that represented exactly what they were: wild animals held in captivity. And that’s how I represented them.
It’s our priviledge to capture the images of any wildlife and it is not our place…or our right…to do anything that causes harm in any way.
Thank you for writing this piece and sharing your wisdom and insight. I will be posting images to your site soon. And I’m looking forward to learning much from you and your members.
Best regards,
Julia Kovach
Thanks for your thoughtful comment Julia, and glad you enjoyed the article!
Dear Mr. Smalley,
First of all I would like to say that you have some very stunning work, and are clearly very accomplished.
However, I do strongly disagree with your assessment on baiting for capturing images. I feel that some have become self-appointed conservation officers, and that with respect to this matter, whatever the rules of the local jurisdiction are, the photographer should follow. In my particular state, there is no ban on the use of live mice to bait an owl. A snowy owl who was reportedly fed throughout the winter left on time and was found to head home just fine. I think all are entitled to their opinions on this topic, but if someone is following the laws set out by their local DNR in their location, what constitutes ethical or not is in the eyes of the beholder. I personally do not feel false bait should be used, but have no problems if people wish to use a mouse and release it to an owl. In fact with excessive snow depths and extreme temperatures, I feel this might even in fact help the owl.
People will obviously disagree on this, but I feel as strongly as you do on the matter with respect to the freedom of the photographer to create an image, and do not believe the use of a mouse or live bait would harm the animal. The same can be said with use of a call to call a bird over to pose – again, perfectly legal in my state. My hope is that these matters are left to the DNR, and state governments to decide. Unfortunately I am aware of photographer harassment from very intolerant anti-baiting people, which is also an ongoing problem. Freedom of Speech is a good thing, and I think people should have the freedom to disagree.
Just my two cents, and just wanted to chime in. Again, no disrespect and you are clearly accomplished – but as this issue becomes seemingly polarizing and some seem quick to judge if an owl or bird were fed, to me as a photographer that does not change the quality of an image at all; it’s about composition, quality and sharpness. How a photographer chooses to get that is up to him or her unless he is violating a law of the DNR, or trespassing on private property. But if they are following the laws of their location, why should they then be judged and put down when what they were doing was perfectly legal?
Take care,
Paul
Hi Paul, thanks for your thoughts. While I recognize that everyone is entitled to their own opinion I don’t agree that just because there’s no law forbidding a certain behavior, that makes it acceptable. It may be ‘legal’ in the sense that there is currently no law forbidding it, however if we consider for a moment we’ll see that there are many things that were at one time ‘legal’ that now have laws that now punish certain actions or behaviors. Often these laws are put into place once that type of behavior starts to become more common or abused. I believe that eventually laws will be put into place that limit or completely forbid baiting owls.
Hi Nathan,
Thank you for the reply. I can appreciate your point of view, and also appreciate that people can agree to disagree. My thoughts on it are I just hope that people agree to disagree, and not get into trying to force views on others, especially in the field. I respectfully disagree with it being “unethical,” as you stated on your Facebook page that images using bait should not be posted. Of course it’s your group and you can run it however you’d like. But it’s also I think hard to tell the difference – I have used a mouse to feed an owl on occasion, and also often do not do that; I have images of a great gray taking off as I just happened to get lucky, and another where I worked with another photographer. I’m not sure how one could tell the difference. My own thoughts are that I follow the rules of the location I am photographing in, and that this is an issue where the jury is still out. But, if I am following the law, my hope is that no one would then harass me just because they disagree with me.
Again, thanks for taking the time to respond and best of luck to you in your field.
This is a very interesting article, Nathaniel.
I do agree with you, Nathaniel.. If images have been taken in zoos, conservatories, preserves , I think people should mention that they were captive even thought some are not in cages.
People should say if their pictures were manipulated as HDR, Photomatix, stiched together, masked, colored, sky removed, etc, etc..
I do photograph at zoos butterflies conservatories (worked in one for almost 13 years) , preserves, rookeries ), etc..
All images that I have posted on sites of this kind of photography I would put a (C) on my post and will mention where the picture was taken..
I have photographed home raced butterflies and their complete cycle and I have also mentionated they are home raced.
I have placed frogs on leaves or flowers, I have staged them as you said, people will know I didn ‘t photograph those creatures in the wild..
I don’t send pictures to contests because I feel I can not compete with perfect professional post processed images and it is sad to me that it seems people have developed a great taste for over sharpened or over saturated images..
In my landscape photography I tried really hard to capture the image as I see it , I do bracket and use polarizer and ND filters and my post proccesing is limited to levels, cropping , very little sharpening and resizing my images..
I just wish photographers would be more open to tell how that image was made…
I am glad you have created your wonderful nature & wildlife site, so I can look at awesome images and learn about different approaches other photographers have taken on so many interesting and exciting places and Fauna & Flora they have photographed.
Thanks, Nathaniel..
Regards,
Maria Gonzalez – The Butterfly Lady.
Thanks so much for your thoughts Maria, and I’m happy to hear you are enjoying the Group.
Great article, Nathaniel! I also strongly believe that any temporary set up to attract birds should be avoided. When I post one of my photos, I even indicate if a bird is taken next/near to a feeder or food given by (another) human. I would like to think you are right when you say that most people now feel their baiting practices are immoral, but I’m afraid many photographers engage in them, especially to get owls/raptors. And don’t get me started on people who expose nests so that they can better photograph the chicks!
I think the culture is slowly changing and more people are becoming aware of the harm that baiting causes, but we still have a long way to go Pierre. Thanks for your comment!
I would really appreciate knowing how you feel about the nature photographer who removes leaves from around a flower or even picks the flower, moves it’s position and holds it up with clamps to get a shot of a beautiful flower head and stem in the perfect setting?
I’m aware of this practice Theresa, I think that it is best to capture the subject in the natural environment where it is found.
I find your article and view informative and agreeable. There are too many people exploiting birds and wildlife, not only for the image, but for financial gain. I despair of ‘pay and display’ wildlife images, where the photographer pays (heavily) to sit in a privately owned hide where wildlife is regularly baited. This practice is commonplace with baiting Kingfishers by placing a tank below selected sticks in front of a hide. The tank is regularly filled with small fish, and the end result in a false baited pay and display ‘wildlife’ shot. It annoys the hell out of me from the wildlife ethics and from the photographers ethics. Many amazing images are passed off as wild after paying to have a bird fly down your lens, and it puts pressure on true ethical photographers to push there own boundaries to procure comparable images.
The only problem is that many who read this will be those who already hold to ethical codes themselves.
I couldn’t agree more Maxwell… Thanks for your thoughtful comment and observations.
I couldn’t agree more with Maxwells comments, what angers me the displayers don’t mention the images are captive or tamed with a big bowl of fish etc. However there is a thin grey line, are the Red Kites at Gigrin Farm PAY & DISPLAY ? But where special shortened Jessies or hidden ones are used on Raptures and the displayer does not disclose this to me this is wildlife fraud. The way round this con is to call it a WORKSHOP where the proprietor makes loads of cash from captive animals and some (not all) of the punters use the images in wildlife competitions. One of the latest cons which is going strong at the moment is CAPTIVE Harvest mice. Better shut up now. I must confess I once paid £120 to photograph tamed baited Kingfishers, guilty but never again.
Thank you for your comment Bob. It is a sad state of affairs isn’t it? Glad to hear you support bait free wildlife photography!
My husband and I love nature watching and taking photos both landscapes and wildlife and whereas we spend the majority of our time photographing wildlife completely in the wild on our walks etc. we do occasionally visit wildlife parks and have used a private hide, one for fishing ospreys, one for a kingfisher and one for a sparrowhawk, in each case we know that the birds involved are supplementary fed daily in their natural habitat where they naturally hunt and not just for the convenience of the photographer when the hide is in use. I don’t see that extra food being placed in their natural environment is changing their behaviour as much as bird feeders in our gardens which draws in birds out of their natural environment surely? I don’t want to put any risk on our wildlife it’s the last thing I would want to do for the sake of a photo but in the circumstances I’ve done this I don’t feel that we really are – we’ve researched the 2 sites we have use beforehand. We do not enter competitions and will state if the photo was taken from a hide or if it’s a captive animal. I understand and respect everyone’s opinions on this but it does appear to be a grey area and some are just seeing the black or the white – I don’t like seeing people trying to force their opinions on others – there is a lot worse things happening out there to wildlife – raptors being persecuted, habitat being lost etc. can we not focus our energy on these?
Hi Deborah,
Thanks for reading and for your comments. Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions and I feel like I pretty clearly stated mine in the article, so I won’t repeat myself here. I would encourage you to read the research conducted by ornithological organizations worldwide documenting bird feeders that are regularly cleaned and maintained as having contributed to the range expansion of many bird species. As you can see from my article I feel very strongly about the topic of baiting and if you look over my bio page you’ll see that I’ve also dedicated and volunteered a lot of my time over the past couple decades to causes that you mentioned the importance of, such as protecting endangered species, habitat loss, conservation and wildlife/bird rehabilitation. This work will never be done… Cheers!