NikonGear'23
Travelogues => Travel Diaries => Topic started by: elsa hoffmann on January 12, 2017, 22:51:43
-
I really don't know where to post this - but wanted to share.
If you are able to open the photos large - I couldnt - but I saw the big ones on Facebook - of the diving kingfisher underwater.
Custom built hide - which can be rented - or go build you own
truly something different and if you are dutch speaking - you will also understand!
http://www.djhutfotografie.nl/
facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/pg/Djfotografie/about/?ref=page_internal
-
A cabin with underwater glass. It's rented most of the time. I have a bit uncomfortable feeling with it. Feels like 'trained' Kingfishers.
-
Any situation where you make a plan to get closer is up for debate. Feeding the birds in my garden is not natural. Yet the birds are wild and have learned where to find food. The classic shot of a fish eagle fishing with a fisherman is the same thing - the bird learned where to find food. Putting owl boxes up, building a bat box, building a feeding station. Putting up a perch, cutting branches to have a better view - one can argue about all of this. Personally I wont hire a hide like that - but I am fascinated by the shots he gets.
-
Personally, I think you can extend the debate right up to allowing tourists into nature reserves.
We as people have destroyed the animal's natural habitats to the point where there are very few places in the world where wild animals can survive without human intervention. And that human intervention ALWAYS come at a price. Privately owned reserves usually have to make at least as much money as the owner/s could make by more traditional farming on the same ground. Governments all over the world are under immense pressure to provide more land for burgeoning populations.
The result is that wild animals are pretty much always exploited to some or other extent.
The question is, what level/types of exploitation are morally acceptable. And after a lot of thought, I have come to the conclusion that the only rational measure AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED is how the animal is affected by our exploitation.
Thus, as far as I am concerned, if the animal is not harmed, then it is not immoral. And in this situation, presuming that, if food is given, it is either given so irregularly that the birds will not come to rely on it, or so regularly that they can rely on it absolutely, I cannot see the harm.
Rant over, I love these low-level photos. I am often found lying on my stomach, but even that does not get close to these hides. I would love to have the use of one.
In recent times, quite a few have sprung up here in Southern Africa. I know of five, although one is not open to the public, and one is designed specifically for elephant and other mamals, being situated further away from a water-hole.
The remaining three are so expensive that only the well-off can consider them As an example, look at this: http://www.irl.co.za/activities/4-night-photography-package/). I wish there was a local sunken hide at the prices this guy is asking!
-
Peter - I am working on it.... Perhaps I should make one here at my place :)
-
Elsa, that would be very cool!
-
Peter - it is an excellent opportunity that this guy created with the kingfishers. (and who ever else dreams these things up)
The underwater images are stunning. Had it been on National Geographic - everyone would have gone crazy. For some reason no one else thinks the images are great.
It is possible to get down at water level at my place - but currently that means you have to get in the water :) put your camera on a floating block - and shoot from there. It has been done by someone I know - just down the waterway from me. Really not too difficult. But devising a drum to get into - the only difficult part would be getting in and out of it
-
Hi Elsa
I think these are impressive shots - and still not what would require to be called "controlled conditions" (as with trained Tigers or so). There is a whole lot of nature photography ongoing with feeding and such. I prefere these shots over others where an excavator was used to dig a big hide also touching a breeding hole to do nest photography through glass.
-
The problem isn't primarily with the hides offering opportunity to get much closer to the natural subjects of choice. Far worse is the boring sameness of the ensuing images from participants looking at the similar scenery and thinking of the 35 Euro per day paying rate instead of how to turn the occasion into something unique.
We have organised nature events for whales, sea eagles, brown bears, and what have you. On a personal level the photographers visiting these events might have an enjoyable experience, but the photography from these arrangements are getting worse by the year.
-
Sooner or later it turns out to be just more of the same
-
Why the negativity. These are damn fine shots - just because 66 people will photograph them from the same hide - now it's going to be more of the same, so it becomes less good? It's not like there are much in the way of award winning images on NG (most of the time) - in fact - it's more of the same. SO best I don't post another bird or wildlife - it's more of the same - and has been done a brazillion times before. Probably you are all just too polite to tell me my stuff is boring too. At least I participate on this forum, not only do I post regularly - but I take an interest in what is posted. I TAKE AN INTEREST IN NG PEOPLE. Unlike some that just post and never bother to look at someone else's images.
I enjoy the stuff posted on Nikongear - not because they are award winning - but because they are special to those who took the shots. Because it brought them joy. And because I can often see that in the images. And I see they achieved what they set out to do. It's not always about ourselves - sometimes it's about other people too.
If it isn't about the experience of the photographer - but about the shots getting worse and worse - best I don't pull out the BORING MORE OF THE SAME images in the forum. You might then consider closing NG down.
I have to admit I am truly disappointed. None of us know it all. Clearly some do more than others though.
-
Sorry to hear your disappointment, Elsa. However, what I described has developed into a major headache in my part of the world. People have so much more money than talent and are led to believe once they pay to get to specific locations, their photography will be fantastic. We all should know this is just a dream and almost never will materialise.
I'm on the applicant assessment board for the Norwegian Nature photographers association and see this problem becoming worse all the time. A longer lens and more expensive hide will not trump a lack of talent.
-
I have to admit I am truly disappointed. None of us know it all. Clearly some do more than others though.
Sorry Elsa that I contributed to your disappointment.
Please keep in mind that I called this shots impressive. And no your shots are not boring neither the old ones nor the expansion to widlife/outdoor
and we dont stop taking pics though virtually every place and species have been pictured already and there is enough versatility to find
What i tried to adress was (not too eloquent)
Those setting up outdoor studios do a great job. I have seen other people placing branches for the kingfisher to sit on before the dive. Its their right to make money out of this place like Manfred Delpho did in Germany.
But imho if epigons go on repeatedly using the same setup, this will lead to standardization.
Getting joy and also do so enjoying other peoples joy is a good point.
I am doubtful about the joy derived from buying oneself into a setup like the current one
-
Why the negativity. These are damn fine shots - just because 66 people will photograph them from the same hide - now it's going to be more of the same, so it becomes less good?
It is not about how many people do it, it is about their attitude. There is a story about the difference between French cooking and Italian cooking: if you give a French cook a tomato their aim is to show you how good their cooking is; if you give an Italian cook a tomato their aim is to show you how good the tomato is. It is the same with nature photography: a photograph of a kingfisher underwater ought to be about how amazing the kingfisher is, not about how amazing the photographer is.
The trouble with photographing a kingfisher in a perspex tank, or using any kind of baited hide, or using a trained animal, or cooling insects to keep them still, is not that anyone can do it, it is that you have affected the animal's behaviour, so the photograph is not telling the viewer the truth about the animal, so it can't be about how amazing the animal is.
-
"I have a bit uncomfortable feeling with it. Feels like 'trained' Kingfishers."
Subjective observation. And not an observation about the photographs. (which actually is what the post was about)
boring sameness of the ensuing images from participants looking at the similar scenery and thinking of the 35 Euro per day paying rate instead of how to turn the occasion into something unique.
And this is the norm? People all feel like that? BEST NO ONE ever travels again. You might consider how much the trip is costing you rather than trying to have a good time. And anyway - someone else has been there before.
We have organised nature events for whales, sea eagles, brown bears, and what have you. On a personal level the photographers visiting these events might have an enjoyable experience, but the photography from these arrangements are getting worse by the year.
Funny that we now have a growing amount of photographers producing a stunning amount of brilliant photographs. You can hardly pick out the good photographers anymore as they are a dime a dozen. Especially since everything has been done before- the challenge to get something different, makes the pressure of getting the better shot, huge.
Boring sameness of images
are subjective and patronising to those who also want to get THAT SHOT. Who cares if it has been done - if you want to do it - why should you be discouraged by others? Just because someone else has done it - I shouldn't? Just because someone else doesnt like it - no one else should?
Sooner or later it turns out to be just more of the same
And that's a problem? Maybe we shouldn't post anything online anymore. If Ansel Adams had internet... BTW thank you - I did notice your kind comment about the shots.
People have so much more money than talent and are led to believe once they pay to get to specific locations, their photography will be fantastic. We all should know this is just a dream and almost never will materialise.
Can you tell us who these people are because I have never heard of that in my LIFE. Perhaps they can help me out with a couple of locations.
I'm on the applicant assessment board for the Norwegian Nature photographers association and see this problem becoming worse all the time. A longer lens and more expensive hide will not trump a lack of talent.
Your post now includes a longer lens. Slight problem with that statement. I have never heard of anyone saying - go to such-and-such a place and your photography will improve. If ANYTHING is a problem - it's that people are forever being encouraged and led to believe buying NEW GEAR will make them better photographers. Buy a DF and a new 105. Or who's buying the new D500. Oh wait what about the new 600. And go for it guys - buy the new mac too while you are at it. There you go. Better pics. Just look at the clarify, sharpness, bokeh, colour rendering, Speed. Look at the threads posted on NG. If anything - it leads people to believe how important gear is.
But imho if epigons go on repeatedly using the same setup, this will lead to standardization.
You are under estimating photographers. Since when have we just been happy to get the shot everyone else gets? Are you? Those who are happy with shit - are they photographers or person with camera?
Attitude ..... The trouble with photographing a kingfisher in a perspex tank, or using any kind of baited hide, or using a trained animal, or cooling insects to keep them still, is not that anyone can do it, it is that you have affected the animal's behaviour, so the photograph is not telling the viewer the truth about the animal, so it can't be about how amazing the animal is.
How do we know what a person's attitude is when he/she makes a photograph? How do you know that affecting an animal's behaviour is necessarily bad? And let me remind you YOUR presence and camera affects YOUR behaviour and that of your subject! Very few on this forum (and elsewhere) are animal behaviour experts. Have an opinion - fine - we all have one. How can one judge something it you don't have the facts? I don't - do you?
On a photographic forum - you judge a photo. Not the photographer or his subject. You like it or you don't. To make comments about something one knows nothing about - is unfair. I expected more from this community.
-
Appears you might have the wrong end of the stick.
If anything, the experiences really indicate *gear* is not the solution to better photography, it is the commitment of the photographer.
-
Well this is the "principle" adhered.
In fact our site appears to be at least as much about gear than about photography.
Bird photography is at least one area where this principle does not work. You either have some tele range or you dont this is the entrance card. (One can do nest photography with wideangle i know). It s a requirement but it does not do the job as our colleague "gavin brooks" has shown who was dreaming about a steep career after having bought his Sigmonster in the old NG site. Nevertheless modern photographic equipment enables shots that were impossible in former decades. the already mentioned D500 brought a signfigicant improvement here.
-
Yesterday, I went to my local little game reserve (Rietvlei, for those couple who may know of it) with a colleague.
We found a tree which some White-fronted Bee-eaters were using as a place to hunt from. For those who don't know, Bee-eaters are revered for launching and returning to the same perch while hunting.
I spent about 45 minuted trying to get sharp pictures of them taking off or landing. Shot over a hundred frames.
The result: not one single sharp image of a bee-eater in flight. Not one.
No matter how you build the hide, or how often you feed, or what camera and lens you use, make no mistake, that is still an insanely difficult shot.
The fact that 20 or 50 or 200 others have or have not pulled it off does not change that. So perhaps the shots are the same, perhaps that's enough for some people. I for one could not judge them.
-
The result: not one single sharp image of a bee-eater in flight. Not one.
No matter how you build the hide, or how often you feed, or what camera and lens you use, make no mistake, that is still an insanely difficult shot.
The fact that 20 or 50 or 200 others have or have not pulled it off does not change that. So perhaps the shots are the same, perhaps that's enough for some people. I for one could not judge them.
The question, however, is why you want a photograph of a bee-eater in flight? I realise many people will think this is a bizarre question, but it goes to the heart of our relationship to the natural world.
If the answer is to say something about climate change or threatened species, fine - but then there is no excuse for creating artificial conditions. If the answer is for the challenge, fine also - but then there is no reason to create artificial conditions because that merely reduces your triumph when you finally succeed.
What is not fine is treating the natural world as something that has value because we can take great photographs of it (please note that I am not suggesting that you - or anyone else here - is treating the natural world like that). We act wrongly if we treat the natural world as a means to an end, instead of as an end in itself - that is how we end up with ivory poaching.
-
It is a bizarre question.
How could a photographer not understand the joy in creating a beautiful image of a beautiful animal in action?
The natural world has great value in many ways, and one of them is as a source of beauty, directly to our eyes or less directly via photography. There is no need to justify this on the grounds that the photographer is preaching to people or is meeting a challenge. It is absolutely fine to treat the natural world as a source of images. How this is done is another matter altogether.
The suggestion that nature using nature as a means to a photographic end is on some sort of spectrum which includes ivory poaching is obvious nonsense.
-
It is a bizarre question.
How could a photographer not understand the joy in creating a beautiful image of a beautiful animal in action?
The natural world has great value in many ways, and one of them is as a source of beauty, directly to our eyes or less directly via photography. There is no need to justify this on the grounds that the photographer is preaching to people or is meeting a challenge. It is absolutely fine to treat the natural world as a source of images. How this is done is another matter altogether.
The suggestion that nature using nature as a means to a photographic end is on some sort of spectrum which includes ivory poaching is obvious nonsense.
Well, the photographer might do better if he were given an explanation of what the word "beautiful" means when applied to an image. As far as animals go, surely it cannot be controversial to point out that calling them beautiful - or brave, or cruel, or angry or any other term based on human experience - is radically misleading?
The vast majority of the ivory trade, legal and illegal, happens in China. Ivory carving is a centuries-old tradition in China, and in May 2006 was included by the Chinese government on its National List of Intangible Cultural Heritages. To preserve this cultural heritage, China has not only refused to shut down the ivory trade, but arranged a CITES exemption for shipments of ivory from southern Africa to China. The result has been an increase in the price of ivory and a rapid expansion of the trade in carved ivory. The legal (ie, using stockpiled and legally culled ivory) market was and is more or less fixed in size, but the black market (ie, using poached ivory) and the auction market expanded. The auction market is especially important, because it is very large and has driven the increase in value of carved ivory. The auction trade is often called the grey market, because although it is supposed to deal in antique (pre-1949) carvings at least 2/3 of the works sold at auction are in fact new, and there is a very close correlation between the increased volume of ivory traded in the Chinese auction market over the last 15 years and the increase in the number of illegally killed elephants over the same period.
The point is that saying that it is reasonable to weigh the value to us of a photograph against the interest of the animal in living its life undisturbed is exactly the same, logically and ethically, as saying that it is reasonable to weight the cultural value of ivory carving against the survival of elephants.
Of course I am not saying that using the world as a source of images is wrong. But stopping there and leaving consideration of how it is done for another day is silly: you have to decide how you are going to do it before you take any photographs. So the acceptability of how you are going to do it has to be judged before there are any photographs. To put that another way, when we are talking about something as trivial as photography, ends do not justify means.
-
Perhaps I am too stupid to fully understand what you mean, but the simple fact of the matter is that, in Southern Africa (I can't speak for anywhere else, but I expect this is true for most places), if the wild animals do not bring in more revenue than the land they occupy can earn through other means, they will cease to exist on that land, because that land will be used for some other commercial enterprise.
As I have already mentioned, none of the existing game conservation areas in this part of the world are large enough that wild animals that they can exist without human intervention. Coupled to that, the only ways they can "pay their way" is by, to put it crudely, entertaining people.
So, effectively, we are talking here only of the scale and/or nature of the disturbance, not of principle.
Furthermore, since humans have existed for far longer than they have been able to write, nobody knows how animals behaved before we started interfering. There are a number of scientists who believe that the population of Africa's pachyderms were controlled untill surprisingly recently by the sabre-toothed tiger, but that that was hunted to extinction by man in self-defense...
-
Perhaps I am too stupid to fully understand what you mean, but the simple fact of the matter is that, in Southern Africa (I can't speak for anywhere else, but I expect this is true for most places), if the wild animals do not bring in more revenue than the land they occupy can earn through other means, they will cease to exist on that land, because that land will be used for some other commercial enterprise.
As I have already mentioned, none of the existing game conservation areas in this part of the world are large enough that wild animals that they can exist without human intervention. Coupled to that, the only ways they can "pay their way" is by, to put it crudely, entertaining people.
So, effectively, we are talking here only of the scale and/or nature of the disturbance, not of principle.
Furthermore, since humans have existed for far longer than they have been able to write, nobody knows how animals behaved before we started interfering. There are a number of scientists who believe that the population of Africa's pachyderms were controlled untill surprisingly recently by the sabre-toothed tiger, but that that was hunted to extinction by man in self-defense...
Sure, and the point is not to exalt an imaginary state of nature free of human influence - although I reject the idea that market forces cannot be overcome, or that if wild places and wild animals cannot pay their way they will disappear and there is nothing we can do about it. The point is to think about how we see what we photograph, and how to see differently in order to photograph better.
There is a strong tendency, which AFAIK people everywhere have, to define others - other people, other places, other species - by comparing them to us. So we talk about the Near East, the Middle East and the Far East - near and far being relative to England, of course. Needless to say, it is always the socially dominant group that is the standard. So a beautiful woman is one whose appearance appeals to men, and a beautiful animal is one that appeals to photographers. That is an ethical problem, of course, at least in the case of women, but the point I am trying to make is that it is also a problem photographically, because it restricts us to a limited and conventional vision.
The key to better photography is getting outside the conventional vision - for example, in regard to beauty, Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs of Lisa Lyon. To bring out how different and how much less interesting a conventional vision is it is worth comparing Mapplethorpe's photographs of Lyon and those taken of her by Playboy around the same time.
-
"... the simple fact of the matter is that, in Southern Africa (I can't speak for anywhere else, but I expect this is true for most places), if the wild animals do not bring in more revenue than the land they occupy can earn through other means, they will cease to exist on that land, because that land will be used for some other commercial enterprise."
This view of nature, thankfully, is not universal.
-
This view of nature, thankfully, is not universal.
+1
-
Well, the photographer might do better if he were given an explanation of what the word "beautiful" means when applied to an image. As far as animals go, surely it cannot be controversial to point out that calling them beautiful - or brave, or cruel, or angry or any other term based on human experience - is radically misleading?
It is not at all misleading. As a concept, it is not capable of being misleading. It is a statement of one of the emotions we have about what we see. Nobody is entitled to tell another person what that person can or cannot find beautiful.
You are mixing two separate issues when you treat statements about beauty with statements about courage, etc. If I say I find an animal beautiful I am saying something about my feelings. If I say I find an animal brave, I am saying something about the animal.
The vast majority of the ivory trade, legal and illegal, happens in China. Ivory carving is a centuries-old tradition in China, and in May 2006 was included by the Chinese government on its National List of Intangible Cultural Heritages. To preserve this cultural heritage, China has not only refused to shut down the ivory trade, but arranged a CITES exemption for shipments of ivory from southern Africa to China. The result has been an increase in the price of ivory and a rapid expansion of the trade in carved ivory. The legal (ie, using stockpiled and legally culled ivory) market was and is more or less fixed in size, but the black market (ie, using poached ivory) and the auction market expanded. The auction market is especially important, because it is very large and has driven the increase in value of carved ivory. The auction trade is often called the grey market, because although it is supposed to deal in antique (pre-1949) carvings at least 2/3 of the works sold at auction are in fact new, and there is a very close correlation between the increased volume of ivory traded in the Chinese auction market over the last 15 years and the increase in the number of illegally killed elephants over the same period.
The point is that saying that it is reasonable to weigh the value to us of a photograph against the interest of the animal in living its life undisturbed is exactly the same, logically and ethically, as saying that it is reasonable to weight the cultural value of ivory carving against the survival of elephants.
That comparison lacks any sense of proportion. The ethical decision concerning when to take a photograph of an animal are entirely different from the ethical decision as to the illegal slaughter of elephants.
Anyone who knows anything about wildlife knows that the concept of an animal living its life undisturbed is nonsense. An animal's life in the wild is one of constant disturbance and threat. Very many wild animals are habituated to humans and interact with them peacefully. Typically they find humans much less disturbing than many other animals (often including those of their own species). How we behave in the presence of animals is, of course, important.
Of course I am not saying that using the world as a source of images is wrong. But stopping there and leaving consideration of how it is done for another day is silly: you have to decide how you are going to do it before you take any photographs. So the acceptability of how you are going to do it has to be judged before there are any photographs. To put that another way, when we are talking about something as trivial as photography, ends do not justify means.
The photography of wild animals (including from hides or in artificial environments such as that in Elsa's original post) is not in itself unethical at all. Properly carried out, it contributes to animal welfare by making the animals valuable to the locals and helping to save them from the threat of habitat erosion. Peter Connan is correct.
-
"... the simple fact of the matter is that, in Southern Africa (I can't speak for anywhere else, but I expect this is true for most places), if the wild animals do not bring in more revenue than the land they occupy can earn through other means, they will cease to exist on that land, because that land will be used for some other commercial enterprise."
This view of nature, thankfully, is not universal.
I don't think it is a view of nature. It is a statement of the reality of the future of wildlife throughout Africa and in many other places which are under population pressure.
-
It is a view of balance of the interests of man vs nature. Only if man sees himself superior to all other creatures can land use be described in commercial terms.
By the way, Anthony, please edit your next to last post. Some code tags obviously are missing so formatting is all wrong.
-
In South Africa alone, around 7.5 million people do not have adequate housing (https://www.homelessworldcup.org/homelessness-statistics/). the great majority of these people believe, due to political mistakes both past and present, that they are entitled to housing, land and jobs.
These people have no understanding of the importance of nature in our own survival. Nor do they have any interest in nature, and virtually none of them can afford to travel to a nature reserve or anywhere else they may see the beauty of wild animals.
For them, any area reserved for conservation is land they feel should belong to them. The animals look like a good meal to them. The fact that most of these areas are too dry to farm, and will be destroyed in short order if they try to farm it is totally beyond their understanding.
Our government, since 1994 and before, has been promising them land and jobs, which promises they have largely failed to deliver on. In the latest (unfortunately only municipal) elections, the ruling party has lost a lot of ground, and they are now scrambling to recover their lost ground. Recently, they have been mooting new legislation such as "use it or lose it". The purpose of this legislation is that ground which is not earning income will be repatriated and re-distributed.
This is our reality, and it is not a unique reality either.
I realize (and gladly so) that things are different in Europe. However, that knowledge does not solve the problems in Africa, India and South America, the very places where most of the biodiversity is.
Here, we need desperately to find ways in which nature can be saved, and the only likely contender at this stage is if the earnings are greater than the cost of the loss of conservation land to agriculture.
-
The NG admins consider the previous post by P.Connan to provide background data for some earlier statements. However, do not use this as input to further off-topic discussion in this thread.
-
It is a view of balance of the interests of man vs nature. Only if man sees himself superior to all other creatures can land use be described in commercial terms.
By the way, Anthony, please edit your next to last post. Some code tags obviously are missing so formatting is all wrong.
I don't want to add to the discussion, except to say that Peter is correct, although the specific underlying issues are different in different countries.
I am not sure what is wrong with the formatting of my post (apart from some of the paragraph spacing). It looks fine on my screen. Please let me know what the problems are and I will try to correct them.
-
The entire post appeared as a block quote. Thus impossible to see what you added or quoted.
-
On my screen my comments appear in bold. I did this by typing in the comment, highlighting the comment, and pressing the B button above the typing window. This inserted b in square brackets before my comment and forward slash b in square brackets after it. This put my comment into bold text.
It still looks fine to me. I wonder if it is showing wrongly for others.
-
I only see ONE quote, and not really understandable who is saying what.
-
I wonder what is happening here. This is a screenshot of how my comment appears on my screen.
Over to the technical experts!
-
The blue box is usually expected to enclose quoted material.
You have put your comments within the blue box and designated it as different using bold formatting.
There is not a technical problem, but there is a style problem which only you can solve.
Best practice is to end the quote using /quote within square brackets before adding your text. To start a new section of quoted material use quote within square brackets to start a new section of quotation like I have done below.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet. -Abraham Lincoln 1862
Add your text after the /quote tag.
-
I wonder what is happening here. This is a screenshot of how my comment appears on my screen.
Over to the technical experts!
The problem is that when someone clicks "quote" in order to reply to your post-within-a-post, everything disappears, because only the most recent text is preserved in the blue box in the reply.
What is unethical is treating others as a means to an end, rather than as an end in themselves.
A photographic example of treating a person as a mean to an end is photographing them without their consent.
The idea that it is perfectly OK to treat the natural world as a means to an end is at the root of all the environmental damage done by humans, and as long as that idea dominates thinking the environmental destruction will continue. It is a fantasy to imagine that the natural world can be saved by making it the means to a lucrative end, because always, sooner or later, people have found a yet-more-lucrative end that the natural world is in the way of.
What links ivory poaching and the underwater kingfisher photograph is that both are being justified by the assumption that it is OK to treat the natural world as a means to an end. The fact that in one case the end requires a large mammal to be killed and in the other it requires only a few fish to be killed makes no difference of principle. Of course it is possible to photograph the natural world in a way that does not treat it as a means to an end, but whether that is the case for any particular photograph is a question the photographer has to answer before the shutter clicks. Asking "How do you know the animal's behaviour is being changed?" is beside the point: if you do not know that it isn't being changed the photograph is unethical.
-
Please note that while off-topics may be entertaining and even valuable at times, they also capable of disrupting the NG communication lines and as a consequence even divide members into groupings. This is against site policy and one of the reasons why we don't support Off-topic boards or content.
We note the opinions on the question(s) and ethical issues derived from the initial post are highly varied. The NG Community cannot hope to solve such issues on its own. Basically there is a larger, political scope at play.
I am going to lock this thread to make it contain the informative content it has generated from all parties contributing. Any reader can digest whatever views have been put forward and make up their own mind about the state of the affair.
-
We decided to open the thread again. As long as the contributors abide the NG Guide Lines, the thread will remain in that state.
-
Not wishing to reopen the debate, but thank you to Jack and Les for putting me right on the technique for inserting comments.
-
I won't join the debate but wanted to thank Elsa for posting this link. I've always wanted to photograph the kingfisher - my personal favourite bird - so this might be an opportunity for someone with eyes that are not so good as they used to be.
-
;)