The next time you see an 'amazing' nature photograph .....

[arthurking83]

Read this blog by heejennwei

The blog is a translation, so some of it is initially weird to read(to us), but it still all makes sense.

Some of his arguments seem to be compelling.
I find it impossible to believe that such a small concentrated group of 'photographers' seem to have so much luck in being in the right place at the right time!

And if some of these images are stored in archives such as the Smithsonian and have won NatGeo photography awards for nature, then something really needs to be done about the practice.

Nature images should be captured of the natural world in it's natural state!

If course there will be the odd 'moment in time' when luck would have it that the fauna will have moved and captured at a precise moment that will look interesting as a photograph ... this is bound to happen at some point in time. But for the same photographer to happen upon such luck in a repetitive and consistent manner seems like such an unlikely proposition.

Faked/staged nature photos have no place in the genre of Nature photography .. and really shouldn't even exist at all.

[Lesley Bray]

Wow interesting article - I felt sick reading it. Totally agree with you re faked nature photos - it amounts to animal cruelty. Lesley

[Mary Anne]

I have seen many interesting sights through the eyes of my Macro lenses though nothing like this.
I reckon they are fakes also as I cannot imagine these wonderful creatures doing these things either.

[Shelley]

A very interesting read. Awful doing that, cannot stand cruelty to animals. No photograph is worth that.

[fess67]

Interesting article. Of course there are always levels of black, white and grey so with that in mind here is my take on it.

The photos are great. Many are artistic and well composed, compelling to look at, comical, interesting photos. All good in my opinion.

Should they be entered or gain accolades as nature photographs? hmmm here comes a grey area. I have seen many 'nature' programmes that show amazing footage of nature at work. One that springs to mind and seems pertinent is film of a kingfisher leaving a brancha nd diving ito the water to catch a fish.....as luck would have it the fish was right above the camera!!! Now, sure you could be lucky and get that shot if you filmed for a couple of years (yeah I know they do that) but with the cost of high speed film I am guessing the camera and fish were in a tank and presented to the kingfisher. Nothing that different from the subject of the article.

I think great pictures are created. If the rules of the game are breached then of course they should not be allowed but other than that they are still great photos. Reminds me of..http://www.theguardian.com/environme...award-stripped

IMO if you do not breach the rules it is all fair game. ahhh the rules, another grey area

[arthurking83]

I get what you're saying there fess, and it makes perfectly good sense, even to the point that I have the same philosophical principles(re great photos are made, etc)

And I understand that it's easier to set up footage of a kingfisher swooping on a fish, rather than simply lay in wait for a few years to happen upon a moment like that.

But to string up an innocent little creature the way the blogger depicts in his possible setup scenarios is just idiotic to say the least.
I'm in no way an animal rights activist myself, but to then try to pass the images off as 'nature' images.

If the photographer wants comical looking unnatural looking images, a dummy rubber frog subject would be a more appropriate tool to 'setup' such scenes.

I remember the 'wolf over the gate' debacle when it transpired, and that fauxtographer was caught out simply because some experts believed that the wolf should have scurried under the gate, rather than jumped over it .. or something like that.
The setup of such a shot is probably not as offensive compared to the cruelty proposed in the images referred too in the bloggers article .. I can't imagine that the wolf was stressed in any way, other than simply being encouraged to jump a gate .. the wolf probably enjoyed it, and with a possible reward afterwards
But I can also understand the offensive nature of the wolf image within nature photographer circles .... in that it's not a true representation of the natural world.


Viewed in isolation to the info provided in the blog link, the images of the hung out to dry animals have an interesting aspect to them, in that they are visually interesting!
But once the added perspective is absorbed, it poses questions as to why(as in is there such a need for it).

With the massive overuse of image manipulation software nowadays, I think I'm just weary of so called 'photographs' naturally anyhow, but I just can't understand the need to create unnatural looking images of defenseless animals as depicted in those setup images.

[Mark L]

The photos are great. Many are artistic and well composed, compelling to look at, comical, interesting photos. All good in my opinion.

And accompanied by misrepresentation from the photogs.

[fess67]

I agree that where creatures are mistreated in order to gain a photograph or the photograph is misrepresented as 'natural' it crosses the boundaries of what is acceptable. My comment was of course more general about the 'setting up' of nature shots.