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?
