More 'controversial'

FourRingCircus

FourRingCircus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,949
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
This quote is lifted from FaceBook and althouogh I don't know the person who made it (Dave Dimmock from West Yorks), there are some (ex) members from here - and for all I know some who are current - who are involved in the ensuing 'discussion'.

Dave Dimmock said:
"Next time you comment "Wow" "Amazing" on a kingfisher photograph and compliment the photographer....consider this, is there a long sequence of dive shots? Does the water look unnaturally still? Is there a white line visible across the shot? All these are signs of a photographer who takes shots of the birds diving into a tank which will contain a few minnows or sticklebacks, usually a mossy perch is provided and the focal length can be pre-set. How many photographers disclose the methods behind their shots? Sadly very few as they would gain no approbation if the public knew just how they were taken, an unnatural distance away and the birds habits altered, respect for the subject should be paramount, these people treat them like mannequins, sick. Share the post if you wish because I am disgusted with this manipulation of wildlife."
Click to expand...

Discuss....... :naughty:
 
I thought at least of the sort of images he is referimg to were taken at wildlife locations but "configured" to create a reflection pool and photographically pleasing background, with I think the hide being partially buried to ensure the PoV gave the view/angle he infers is so false. The birds though are wild but in one or two ways no different as in the case of kingfishers of placing a branch (stake) in the rivers edge to give them a perch.

When does location creation to yield better positioning become inappropriate to the point at which it is deemed to be all out manipulation of the animals behaviour?
 
Ha, cheats and charlatans. No great surprise. Happens all the time all over the place John.
 
If you can't tell the difference between a set up shot such as your mentioning and a normal grab shot ,then quiet frankly your observation skills are so low that you should choose another hobby .

But saying that how many of us can say in truth we have never put seed or bait out to bring the birds in ,take that a stage further what about feeding the ducks,gulls ,etc on the local pond ,nuts for squirrels in the park . It's a grey area indeed .

Taking it a step further the recent autumn watch series on t.v featured two presenters in a hide waiting for a sparrowhawk appearance how many peeps noticed the post it landed on was baited .
 
  • Like
Reactions: den
A very common practice and the fish tank method has been going on for years.

So who is against live baiting to gain photographs? This is live baiting using minnows, live fish etc? Something to discuss? Is it different from using live mice in a barrel to get owl pics?
 
Last edited:
Ethically I don't agree with it but photographically I don't see too much of an issue. If you're prepared to put in the prep work to get the shot and then get the shot, surely that's worthy of praise? Maybe the poster should say so, but I don' think it takes anything away from the image.
 
BRASH said:
Ha, cheats and charlatans. No great surprise. Happens all the time all over the place John.
Click to expand...

I would think that bird photography and shots taken by normal people of such subjects are at the minor end of the situation

the example quoted is at the extreme end

Look at some wild life shots by the "pros" on TV, (the contraversial Polar Bear example on the RA programme) and other types of photography,

It is all relative ...... from using feeders, throwing seed into the garden and even using hides and blinds ....... I constantly feed small birds in the garden from November to early Spring .. not particularly to take photos of them, but to help them along ..... but putting food out does really help and allows me to take some of my "better" images

and look at what happens in some of the other sections on here .........

Most of my shots are taken in the garden, on local walks or when I am abroad, (on holiday) ....... but we all know that for certain shots you have to get very near and who would not take the opportunity if presented to take Raptor shots which was "bated" or set up .. I wish I could find suitable hides and opportunities when I am in South Africa ...... I spend 8 weeks a year taking "pot luck" as when I put food out in the garden the small animals and even baboons grab the bloody stuff at night

and of course then we have digital manipulation .. from minor to major changes to an image

to me, the comments smell of "sour grapes" - if they feel like that they should throw their camera equipment away and used binoculars like most bird watchers so .... like I do 50% of my time

comment like "WOW" and "amazing" are a different issue

I would never "knock" a good wildlife shot unless the animal was harmed
 
Last edited:
Does providing food to encourage wildlife to be at a place you want them constitute a "manipulation of wildlife"?
I guess by the strictest definition it does, but who has not at some time or another fed wildlife to enjoy seeing them or photographing them ... are we to stop feeding birds in the garden, using specific foods to attract specific species?
If the bird (or other wildlife) is endangered then yes draw a line but otherwise I see no problem with this, from the photographer taking images of Kingfishers to the infant feeding the ducks in the park. If you extend this to wildlife reserves and trusts etc all the good work that they do would come to an end, e.g. we would not see European Cranes reintroduced to the UK by the Great Crane Project.
If the wildlife is endangered by what you do, don't do it, otherwise get down off of your high horse.
 
I think you lot have missed the point (or maybe I have). Was Johns question not about contrived, artificially staged shots masquerading as natural shots? I don't think the issue is about feeding bloody birds in the garden or the like:rolleyes:
 
BRASH said:
I think you lot have missed the point (or maybe I have). Was Johns question not about contrived, artificially staged shots masquerading as natural shots? I don't think the issue is about feeding bloody birds in the garden or the like:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Maybe I've missed the point massively. But don't see a problem. Does everyone need to detail exactly how they have edited a photo to get the final image?
 
BRASH said:
I think you lot have missed the point (or maybe I have). Was Johns question not about contrived, artificially staged shots masquerading as natural shots? I don't think the issue is about feeding bloody birds in the garden or the like:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

how big an issue is this? - it is on the marginal edge - it's just how photography is these days, look at other subjects, can you truly believe any "WOW" digital image as being totally "natural" ..... look at all this fashion stuff and arty farty stuff ...... most of it is false - I don't even see the subject as, for example, a woman, any more........ most of it is IMHO truly horrendous

There are far more important wildlife issues to concentrate upon than a few "manufactured" bird images ............. most know when an image is "too good" ......... after concentrating on the (photographic) subject for the past three years I just let them pass by ........ I do not think they are masquerading as natural shots ...... if you are interested you can usually tell why they have been produced ....... and if the general public cannot tell .. when that's "par for the course" and normal these days in most thing that happen
 
Last edited:
Isn't sticking some small fish in a glass tank on a river bank with a perch nearby the same as me filling a feeder with seed in my back garden and then taking shots around the set up

the same would go for mice
 
  • Like
Reactions: den
BillN_33 said:
Isn't sticking some small fish in a glass tank on a river bank with a perch nearby the same as me filling a feeder with seed in my back garden and then taking shots around the set up
Click to expand...

Eh, no. If you think that's the same then you are more senile than I thought you were. Time for your first glass of red of the day to get you back on an even keel;)
 
BRASH said:
I think you lot have missed the point (or maybe I have). Was Johns question not about........
Click to expand...
John didn't ask a question!!! However, you didn't miss the point.;)

A number of people have become involved in 'the other place' including the likes of Alan McFadyen who used to be a regular here and it has become heated to say the least.

There appears to be two issues for the respondants. The first involves profiting from the con. The financial gain in selling images (or from selling hide time), puts the interests of the pocket in front of the interests of the bird. The second issue is the public perception that these people are somehow marvelous photographers and wildlife experts at the same time.

The stock answer from the baiters is that feeding blue tits in your garden is the same thing. However, I disagree with them on this. I've never nailed a sunflower heart to a post in my garden to prevent a bird making-off with it.

the black fox said:
If you can't tell the difference between a set up shot such as your mentioning and a normal grab shot ,then quiet frankly your observation skills are so low that you should choose another hobby .

But saying that how many of us can say in truth we have never put seed or bait out to bring the birds in ,take that a stage further what about feeding the ducks,gulls ,etc on the local pond ,nuts for squirrels in the park . It's a grey area indeed .

Taking it a step further the recent autumn watch series on t.v featured two presenters in a hide waiting for a sparrowhawk appearance how many peeps noticed the post it landed on was baited .
Click to expand...

I noticed that it was; a) Baited, and b) Nailed in place. You could actually see the Sparrowhawk make a veilled attempt at removing it, but it seemed to know that it was wasting its time from the outset.

Your first sentence gets to the crux of the matter Jeff. The point being that it is fooling the general, non-birding, non-photographing public. So, it's not about the poor observation skills of the photographer looking at an image. It's about presenting something to the public for profit which can cause a conflict of interests.

I know a chap locally who has some fabulous shots of Sparrowhawks and Kingfishers. I know he drives all the way down to Alan McFadyens place at Dumfries to shoot them in the space of an hour. Whether that's right or wrong, I certainly wouldn't do it. I've never paid to take a shot of a wild bird in my life. I drive 200+ miles to the Isle of Skye in the HOPE of seeing and photographing a golden eagle. Perhaps I'm the fool?

My point here was to post up a discussion starter. It's good to read the views of others. (y)
 
Last edited:
Clearly this is a contentious subject... and, I was amused to read some of the comments on the facebook page about the discussion. But, I feel that as long as it is not a long term thing, and especially that it should not coincide with the breeding season, and that these birds can revert back to their 'normal' habitat/way of doing things, without human intervention/meddling, then it's not really that much of an issue for me.
 
BillN_33 said:
Isn't sticking some small fish in a glass tank on a river bank with a perch nearby the same as me filling a feeder with seed in my back garden and then taking shots around the set up

the same would go for mice
Click to expand...

Its the question you can answer- are you ok using live bait to get the pics?
 
Last edited:
markyboy.1967 said:
Its the question you can answer- are you ok usibg live bait to get the pics?
Click to expand...
This opens up a whole new can of worms however... as someone who has kept birds of prey, it is not the done thing to feed live bait that has no means of escape, not even to get the bird 'started off'..... So, I'd be against that. However, I also know it is done.
 
BRASH said:
I think you lot have missed the point (or maybe I have). Was Johns question not about contrived, artificially staged shots masquerading as natural shots? I don't think the issue is about feeding bloody birds in the garden or the like:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well if "masquerading as natural" then that's maybe a different thing and related purely to deception and nothing to do with the welfare of wildlife.
I would suggest that very few are able to go out and get 'natural shots' of many types of wildlife ... possibly due to where they live or the time they have available.
Dozens of togs on here, myself included visit reserves and 'Trusts' to photograph the wildlife that are attracted there ... is that wrong?
If I said my shot was in Tanzania when it was the Cotswold Wildlife Park then yes of course that would be a deception but I think this whole thing is another case of the 'Street Photography Police' only in this case 'Wildlife Photography Police' ... you can't do it your way because only my way is right! o_O
 
Is it Alan McFadyen that is being talked about in the OP?
 
markyboy.1967 said:
Its the question you can answer- are you ok using live bait to get the pics?
Click to expand...

I don't use live bait - but I have thought about meal worms - are they live bait?

when you are fishing anything seems to go - ask an angler
 
Last edited:
phil_b said:
Is it Alan McFadyen that is being talked about in the OP?
Click to expand...
Alan seems to be the main target in the Facebook post. He is certainly the main respondant against the chap who put the post up.
 
Last edited:
BRASH said:
Eh, no. If you think that's the same then you are more senile than I thought you were. Time for your first glass of red of the day to get you back on an even keel;)
Click to expand...

Thank you for that Brash, as gracious as ever ........ senility is something that we all have to a degree ...... and a pleasure that I am looking forward to
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
WOW - that's a great shot!
Click to expand...
You may be senile but you haven't lost your sense of irony!! :D

BillN_33 said:
but technically there is motion blur
Click to expand...
I noticed that too. After almost 3/4 million shots of 'spray and pray', you'd expect it to be pin sharp. However, I don't imagine you could get enough light in at 1/8000s.:thinking:
 
FourRingCircus said:
Alan seems to be the main target in the Facebook post. He is certainly the main respondant against the chap who put the post up.
Click to expand...

I can't see anything posted by Alan on FB or most other forums etc as i blocked him many moons ago.
 
FourRingCircus said:
2EBB262300000578-0-image-m-100_1448279286129.jpg


Looks like the press tog was a bit shakey too!!
Click to expand...


motion blur again or poor focus technique - must have been taken with a Canon

first stages of senility = unsteadiness
 
Last edited:
Some intersting comments to Alan now from a pro wildlife tog (edited only for punctuation):

Craig jones said:
My views are about the ethics and subject and so I feel in my rights to help give the voiceless a voice so to speak. I don't like these kinds of images or agree with them. They are ruining the skill base and attitude coming into wildlife photography and it makes it harder for full time pros like me to sell our images when the market is saturated with "set up" wow images born about from paid sites. You are providing a service and there is a demand, I get that, but its not true-ethical wildlife photography and over the years its killed image sales and projects that guys like me do, because we (or I) simply cant simply match these kinds of images working the way I do. This is another reason I hate all set ups etc. Im not going to get into a slagging match, if you met me you'd find im a very easy bloke to get on with, but i will not nor will i ever take a back step when it comes to wildlife and its welfare. You are making a living most probably making more in a month than I do. What you're offering is killing the industry because the public really only want to see "wow" images and most of those are only achieved from set ups. How can working wildlife pros like myself make a living when the market is saturated with so many set up images here in the UK? its getting to be impossible it really is.
Click to expand...

I just want to reiterate that I'm merely the message boy here. I don't know these folks, but I've been finding some of the views expressed to be quite an eye opener. One such example is this:

Alan McFadyen said:
It's a wild kingfisher that comes to a baited are. They [paying customers] get spectacular shots. You walk about for 5 and a half hours finally getting a shot that I'd be embarrassed to put in my recycle bin let alone post on Facebook
Click to expand...

As someone who has done the 'five hour thing' for nothing, I did feel some sympathy with the target.
 
I'm guessing links to this can't be put up??
 
Cg_Girl said:
I'm guessing links to this can't be put up??
Click to expand...
I tried that in the first instance, but the link wouldn't work for anyone who didn't have the OP or a respondant on their facebook friends list.

I've only seen the goings-on in my news-feed because someone I know actually commented on the post. So, unles you are on Facebook and have a connection to the people involved, you can't see anything from a link.
 
FourRingCircus said:
Some intersting comments to Alan now from a pro wildlife tog (edited only for punctuation):



I just want to reiterate that I'm merely the message boy here. I don't know these folks, but I've been finding some of the views expressed to be quite an eye opener. One such example is this:



As someone who has done the 'five hour thing' for nothing, I did feel some sympathy with the target.
Click to expand...

Hard to make a judgement based on the extracts however i like one persons attitude and hate the others..lol
 
They are ruining the skill base and attitude coming into wildlife photography and it makes it harder for full time pros like me to sell our images when the market is saturated with "set up" wow images born about from paid sites.
Click to expand...

and there you have it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top