Full disclosure of captive animal photos…Yes or No? A few people have forwarded me links about a British Photographer who has apparently risked his life to photograph some of the most dangerous animals in the world. For me, they are a serious miss-representation and an insult to the true spirit of wildlife photography. Reason why? They look suspiciously like many other photos taken at a well know reserve in Montana where the animals are effectively captive, and for a fee, you can do workshops to get up close and personal with all the subjects…not quite as life threatening as a truly wild encounter. In fact, there are many photos of these same animals to be found all over the net, including from various pro photographers, as the reserve is well known to ‘those in the know’.
EDIT: I was sent this link recently, a very tongue in cheek article inspired by this very story!
Image by Jonathan Griffiths
Wild or workshop?
One article below writes:
…spending time at the zoo inspired him to take pictures of powerful predators in the wild – and he caught a flight to the Rocky Mountains.
The 32-year-old overcame his nerves to endure bitter -40ºC temperatures, gaining the trust of each animal over days, enticing the ferocious creatures with lumps of chicken.
…but should it maybe quote Animals of Montana’s website which says…
Animals with Individual Rates for Single Sessions
Photo sessions are one hour long. These animals are trained to perform behavior-on-command. Additional time is pro-rated.
Individual Rate Species**:
Grizzly Bear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500/session
Image by Jonathan Griffiths
Read the articles
You can read a couple of articles showing many images, here on the Metro website and here on the Mails website
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with someone taking photos of animals at a workshop, but to say the photographer risked their life for these photos and gained the trust of the animals over days, when in fact they just paid for the animals to perform doesn’t sit right with me, especially if these ‘wild’ encounters are then passed on to the press.
Or, is it just a case of the papers making the photos sound more exciting by exaggerating how they were taken? But then that in turn makes the photographer, Jonathan Griffiths, look bad – and if it were me, I’d be furious.
Hmmm…not really sure what to make of this whole ‘story’ but it’s certainly not he first time I’ve seen shots taken here passed off as truly wild animals. And as someone who sometimes spends a lot of hours and hard work sitting, waiting and planning to capture images of animals, it just gets my back up having images like this passed off as taken in the wild. If it’s a workshop or captive animal, just be honest and make it very clear from the outset.
What do you think?
I guess what with the 2009 Wildlife Photographer Of The Year winner being disqualified for entering an image of a suspected captive animal without declaring it, just has me worrying for the credibility of wildlife photographers the world over. And maybe some of us out there are feeling a bit hyper sensitive about this type of thing at the moment. So, sorry for the rant but I thought some of you might find it interesting to read about. It’s something that’s been on my mind for a while and this latest set of photos has spurred me to write about it, so I guess I’m just curious…
Do you find miss-leading accounts of how photos were taken, right or wrong?
Hi Richard
Totaly agree with your comments. No harm in taking great shots at a workshop. But do not try to pass them of as ‘wildlife’ photography. Sitting in a hide for 4 hours in sub zero temperatures waiting with pure anticipation that a crested tit or a red may show, is far more exciting than taking shots of performing animals.
As always great blog Richard.
As soon as I saw the headline I immediately thought of the controversial Wolf shot, which was disqualified. No need to apologise for the rant, I think it was warranted. One or two unscrupulous photographers passing of their work as “in the wild” when it isn’t, hurts the entire profession in the eyes of the public. If people start assuming every shot that ‘looks to good to be true’ is, then I think it fundamentally hurts all the photographers out there doing a good job and presenting an honest representation.
Nothing really constructive to add, apart from the thought that you’d need a hell of a big pile of chicken to entice a black leopard to jump on a plane and travel to the wilds of Montana in the winter. Unless it was there already…
Why do people do this ? Is it for “hero” points or something ? If I made my living from wildlife photography this sort of thing would make my blood boil !!!
This is not wildlife, it is stage-managed circus photography.
If I was take images of trained animals I would live for them to be this good, but i would be honest enough to admit as to how they were taken.
Cheers,
Si.
Fantastic Blog love the images, cant believe people would take shots of animals in captivity and pass them off as wild, what a joke and a slur on our profession.
Kind Regards
Donna-Michelle
Personally, I think that it all goes back to honesty. Full disclosure is important, but not required. You don’t have to say that the picture was staged, as long as you are not contesting that it was a real thing. I went to a few zoos and preserves myself. It is a good practice. I can do it any time and I don’t need to catch a flight and take a vacation. However I never try to pass it for what it isn’t. Once again, be honest.
Now in regards to “Danger”, if you never been in the wild, how do you tell what’s real and what isn’t. He may have had experience real fear. Even “tame” animals can attack you and sometimes kill you. Is it as dangerous as with the truly wild animal? Of cause not, not even close. But because the fear was real, so is the perceived danger. For most people on this planet it is as dangerous as it gets.
So while the articles are exaggerated, and offending to true nature photographers (of which I’m unfortunately not), it seems “politically” correct. Misrepresentation and embellishment at it’s best.
On another note, here is a question to the real wildlife photographers.
Would you really try to feed an animal in the wild. I was always told that it is not the best idea.
Thank you.
Nicely put Dmitriy. Although, with regards to being in danger…the place these photos were taken are all done so with trained handlers who make the animals perform on command. So when a bear is roaring or a lion pawing at the camera, it is doing so because it has been trained to do it on command – like a circus animal. So, almost all fear or danger is removed in my opinion (like you say though, tame animals can still pose some danger, but I can’t believe in this case there was enough to warrant saying you feared for your life). The photos may show these animals looking menacing but in reality they are just performing an action on cue, probably by the handler raising an arm off camera to signal a certain action or some such similar way.
I completely agree, if you take a photo of a captive animal and try pass it off as being wild then you are misleading the viewer. Photography should be about capturing a moment and telling a (true) story, not about what could have potentially happened if circumstances had been different.