 |
 |
Canned Cameras? The scandal of tame wildlife photography28/05/2010 14:01:31
Tigers in Chinese tiger farms can be used for morally bankrupt photography. Photo credit: Keeley Bishop. There is a stinking, festering canker that has been navigating the murky waters of wildlife photography for many years, that of tame animals taking the limelight from their wild cousins. It is particularly pertinent after the shambolic pantomime of the ‘Storybook Wolf' which ‘won' the BBC Wildlife competition and before being stripped of its dubious title. Sadly it has again has raised its contagious head after some quite appalling images in five national Newspapers last week: (links here) the Sun, The Mirror, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail and The METRO. For anyone who has been sensible enough to avoid this appalling attempt at journalism let me explain: It is the supposed ‘brave' photographer who encountered both biting cold and ferocious animals to get his prize winning shots. He has his tawdry cheque stashed away in his bank now and several millions have seen his ridiculous photographs. Fortunately many are true wildlife fans and do not, for a moment buy into his lamentable intrepid tale:
Quotes from some of the newspapers:
Incidentally, when contacted the newspapers were not apologetic, refusing to admit they had been duped, and one even threw the phone down on me. Captive animals and camera traps But it is more than this, this effort is not only ethically derelict it is also stupidly presumptuous; thinking for a moment that any fully paid up member of the human race would be fooled by such a charade. This bare-faced bravado is nothing new, people have been cheating with so called wild photos for years but it was time it was properly outed. In 1975 the eminent conservationist George Schaller took the first ever wild photo of a snow leopard. Not by chintzy camera trap or in a mid-west holding facility but in the wilds of the Hindu Kush. Grainy and dark it is one of my favourite ever photographs as it shows the grail for this legendary photographer after a long and demanding pilgrimage. It is aesthetically nothing like as pleasing as a fat, steak-fed cat taken against a blue Montana winter sky, yet it is by far the better photograph as it shows graft and integrity.
This charlatan has merely highlighted what is a despicable trade which is wrong at every level. The papers are at fault for publishing and stupid for being deceived, and for publishing what are patently not images of wild cats. However I am currently looking at the publicity for ‘Natural China' by Heather Angel, a British Photographer who has made thirty one visits to China. The mere word China made me suspicious right away and when I look at the literature for her book I am stunned by its beauty and the skill of the photos, that is until I see an Amur Tiger running in sunlight through snow. There is no caveat telling me it is captive as I know it must be. She may explain in the book but this is YET another hoodwink based on, as ever, endangered species, and it makes me seethe, I will not be buying her book now.
Digital sorcery As for these cheating frauds, I wonder how they sleep at night. It is time they grew up, stopped treating us as morons and swallowed a fat ethical pill. They do nothing for photography but more importantly they do even less for the animals. Paul Goldstein Please let us have your comments :
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Read the comments about this article and leave your own comment
Ok, I am new to wildlife photography. I have seen a lot of work and it amazes me. I understand both points of view. But how has such an inspirational subject such as the natural world become so immature? Playground tactics to not buy her book. Maybe she wont let you play hopscotch. I thought the people who appreciated the natural world were sophisticated. clearly not . . . . .
Posted by: jon | 14 Oct 2011 01:21:11
Paul;
I think to cavill about the comments you engendered after posting a diatribe of your own explains a lot of the problem & is, once more, patronising. I accept without reservation your comments about the need to distinguish fully between photos take in captivity & those which are taken in the wild, & I do admire your skill in doing so. However, I do feel it would sit a little easier had you contacted the other photographer out of professional courtesy before you launched into your rant rather than after as it seems from your post.
Nothing else you have posted really answers what I said in my last post, each to his own regarding how they take their photos but I still maintain you were grossly unfair to the other chap.
The world is full of people who are unable to afford the luxury of being guided on tours by yourself & yet who do find interest in such photos & I don't think it unethical that they should be allowed to view these creatures, either via photos or in suitable zoos, provided they are properly cared for.
Ethically, to use a word you have bandied around yourself, should we restrict such appreciation of wildlife to those who can afford a couple of grand to go to Kenya & be guided?
Surely the more we can inspire people with the beauty of such creatures the better?
Posted by: Paul Radbourne | 01 Jun 2010 19:22:15
'High horse', 'ridiculous', 'indulgent' - I am delighted to have caused so much chatter of the emotive kind which is always so much more interesting than 'constructive criticism which is sanctimonious and dull. So thanks Mike, Paul and Adam.
However, although harsh, I stand by what I wrote. I have written at some length to the photographer and he informs me it was the papers fault. That is maybe, but it is still naive to issue images like this to rapacious media outlets. They may have been stunning shots but Mike I disagree with your doctrine, if they are captive they may be pretty but ethically they are valueless, especially if they are peddled as wild. Surely this matters.
For your interest as well Paul, I will be guiding photographers in Kenya next week, we may be lucky or not but we will be grafting for hours on end in search of 'that' moment. If this is a 'high brow (or horse)' of approaching wildlife I'm a Dutchman as to me it is the only way. For your interest also every penny I have earnt through image rights for twenty years, have gone to charities in Kenya and India as the privilege of photographing is enough, I would no sooner sell an image for personal profit than I would take a captive animal.
Image libraries, papers and websites are happy to publish captive animals, ones often kept in deplorable conditions, if people keep buying into this nothing will change.
Posted by: Paul Goldstein | 01 Jun 2010 14:54:35
Frankly, putting aside a little tabloid hype, where does it say that in any of the newspapers that these are wild animals? I can't see it stated anywhere, although there are references to these pictures being taken at a breeding reservein Montana. But nothing from the photographer to say these are in the wild.
Does Paul Goldstein really beleive your average tabloid reader is so stupid? Wow, there are lions & tigers living wild in the USA and we never knew. Spare me the patronising homily please.
The implication that most people would beleive these are wild taken photos by Goldstein frankly insults the intelligence of most people. I agree with him that it is wrong to photograph captive animals & pass them off as wild; but it is acceptable to use them to show the beauty of the species, as the photographer has.
David Attenborough showed Amur Tigers in a similar way in Life of Mammals. Many of the scenes in his epic series of programs were staged. Where is the criticism of Sir David?
What is at fault here is the tabloid tendency to hyperbole rather than the actions of the photographer himself & I think perhaps Goldstein might like to offer the guy an apology for attacking him in such a harsh way when all he has done is to take some interesting photographs. Or will we see Paul Goldstein photographing the high horses he seems to have mounted at some point?
Posted by: Paul Radbourne | 28 May 2010 20:17:06
I agree wholeheartedly with Paul. I have been a commercial victim of captive animals used to dupe publishers. There is a centre which keeps captive beluga whales in Russia. An underwater photographer gained some very close up images of the captive whales the same year I travelled to Churchill in Canada and achieved to get some images of wild animals I am particularly proud of.
You can guess which one the editor chose first. The newspapers where also full of another underwater photographer's pictures of a freediver riding the same captive whales. As an underwater photographer I find the holding captive of any marine mammal abhorrent. When I raised the topic of a wildlife forum I was at best ignored and at worst shouted down in favour of the 'image over the animal'. My belief is that it should be the other way around.
Wildlife should be wild not penned in. And I'm of the opinion that if a photographer can't afford to travel to photograph a species in its rightful environment, they should stay at home and get the most stunning shot of an animal they can afford to find.
I don't think captive animals have a place in wildlife photography. Actually I don't think there is really a place in the world for captive animals anywhere, but I am also a realist and know that zoos and safari parks are here to stay. They just instill the thinking that animals are there just for entertainment. The only time I think its ok is when the animals are rescued and the photography is done to tell a story or highlight an issue.
But the popular media is full of images of captive animals. You only have to look at the picture galleries on newspaper websites. Most images in the 'week in wildlife' or whatever they call it are taken in zoos. Very rarely are wild animals ever shown.
And the majority of the public sadly don't seem to care as long as they can see some 'pretty' pictures of impressive animals. Perhaps some photographers should take a step back from the camera and think about what life is like for their subjects rather than pursuing the image.
Posted by: Gavin Parsons | 28 May 2010 19:30:55
I agree with Mike Jordan, though can empathise with the motives of the article.
Personally I feel that, although perhaps requiring less effort than 'wild' photography; 'captive' photography nevertheless requires a similar degree of skill. A photograph should be judged as an entity separate from the process required to take it. Of course someone who trekked for months through the Himalayas for a photograph has put in more effort than someone who uses a captive animal, but it should be the photographic result that speaks for itself.
However, I do take issue with the ethics of using the 'captive' animals, not in terms of being photographic subjects, but in that they are being kept and bred for unethical purposes. Tiger farms are, of course, unethical and the use of the animals as photographic subjects is clearly a sideline for the business, but animal holdings which exist purely to provide photographic subjects disgust me. They are just as cruel as any form of keeping wild animals for anything other than education or conservation and it worries me that wildlife photographers who you would expect to value the wildlife they photograph unflinchingly play a part in funding these businesses.
Posted by: Adam Morris | 28 May 2010 16:51:51
What a self indulgent and ridiculous article. A great picture is a great picture and if one can afford to travel to Siberia to photograph Siberian Tigers that's very lucky, but if one takes a stunning picture of a captive Siberian Tiger it is still a stunning picture and equally worthy, provided the welfare of the animal wasn't compromised to get the picture, but then again this applies to both wild and captive animals. The issue of lying over the circumstances is a different one, lying is lying and not to be condoned whether it is about the circumstances of a picture taken in the wild or captivity!
Posted by: mike jordan | 28 May 2010 14:26:35