Wildlife photos - do you need to actually be there?

sk66 said:
Ok, what about this real life scenario? I go to a location I know about to take pictures of Elk during the rut; I know of this particular location because I have been photographing the rut for 5 yrs now. And during one evening I take 20 pictures because, as you say, I am observing the activity and controlling the camera...
And then there is Joe nearby, who also knows about the location because someone on facebook told him about it; and he is just filling cards taking pictures anytime something moves, and many, many, many, multiples. There is no (apparent) consideration, timing, composition, or control... however, we are both triggering the shutter.

But I actually miss a shot because I am being selective with my composition and timing; Joe gets that shot and it turns out to be way better than I ever thought it could be... which of us is more of a photographer? Does Joe's picture not count?
Click to expand...
Joe gets lucky, that doesn't relate to your photography skills ... just means you are getting old and slow! :LOL: :exit:
 
PhilH04 said:
I think gramps is talking about camera traps where the photographer isn't actually present when the image was taken, not a remotely operated system.
Click to expand...
I understand that... the point I am trying to make is that actually tripping the shutter is the least significant aspect of a lot of photography.

That's also why I like photography that is more challenging... where tracking and timing is significant. But I do a lot of other types of photography as well.
 
This photo of a swallow drinking on the wing is from one of my wildlife photography heroes, Stephen Dalton. Pretty much all of his best known images were taken by fully automated remote cameras and flash. Even if he was only inches away when the shutter was fired, he could not have actually taken those shots without a beam trigger. This was in the 1970s and 80s and nothing like his rig was commercially available, so he drew up a unique specification for the camera shutter, the trigger and very fast flash heads, and had them custom designed and built. It took years and cost a fortune, with no guarantee of success.

He has gone to extraordinary lengths in his work, and travelled to all corners of the earth, but I happen to know (because he told me) that this photo was taken in his back garden while he was shopping in Brighton. 100% credit to him as the photographer.

Stephen Dalton: SWALLOW DRINKING

A swallow skims the surface of a pond at high speed for a drink.
www.stephendalton.co.uk
 
Harlequin565 said:
For me, photography is about considering composition and working with the light and how it plays on your subject to take the photo you envision. If you're not there, then that isn't happening.
Click to expand...
Actually, even if you are there that isn't going to happen a lot of the time when mother nature is involved. If you actually have a specific/creative image you envision getting then mother nature has to cooperate. And once you have done everything else required to get that picture, about the only thing left is time and luck.

I think I would call what you are talking about as being "interpretive photography;" and it's the same thing that draws me to most photography. Finding, seeing, capturing the images that exist and going beyond the snapshot. But I don't think it's fair to call all other types of photography "reproductive-utilitarian."
 
As far as I’m concerned, he’s just capitalised on the available technology to get an image that would possibly be impossible to otherwise get.

He had the vision for the photograph, he did the research into the animal, it’s behaviour and the area, he chose the appropriate equipment and the location of the camera/s to give the composition he wanted. The actual act of pressing the button he wasn’t present for, but would he have got the photograph if he had been there in a hide? I don’t know much about photographing tigers in the wild at close range so humour me and let’s assume it’s either risky or very difficult. Would it be more ‘legitimate’ if he’d have fired the shutter remotely from a different location? And what level of automation in photography is acceptable?

To me the ends justify the means, and the subject trumps the technique. Other opinions are available!
 
HoppyUK said:
This photo of a swallow drinking on the wing is from one of my wildlife photography heroes, Stephen Dalton. Pretty much all of his best known images were taken by fully automated remote cameras and flash. Even if he was only inches away when the shutter was fired, he could not have actually taken those shots without a beam trigger. This was in the 1970s and 80s and nothing like his rig was commercially available, so he drew up a unique specification for the camera shutter, the trigger and very fast flash heads, and had them custom designed and built. It took years and cost a fortune, with no guarantee of success.

He has gone to extraordinary lengths in his work, and travelled to all corners of the earth, but I happen to know (because he told me) that this photo was taken in his back garden while he was shopping in Brighton. 100% credit to him as the photographer.

Stephen Dalton: SWALLOW DRINKING

A swallow skims the surface of a pond at high speed for a drink.
www.stephendalton.co.uk
Click to expand...

While I'm entirely comfortable with crediting Stephen Dalton with his wildlife images, I'll admit to more than a little discomfort about some other wildlife situations that could be described as similar. For example, those spectacular pictures of a kingfisher diving for a minnow where the whole situation is set up with a tank stocked with fish hidden just below the water surface, while a beam trigger is set up exactly in the plane of focus so that the camera/flash is fired automatically and the bird takes its own picture. Well, so far so good maybe, but then I understand that you can buy a day at a 'workshop' where all you have to do is turn up with a camera, hand it over and wait. Zero effort, dramatic images guaranteed.

Then I saw some excellent pictures of red squirrels taken at another workshop by a lady with apparently little knowledge of photogaphy or anything else relevant. All she had done, and who could blame her, is pay a guy to take her to a secret location where he set up a flash and put down a few peanuts. Then she sat in a comfy chair with a flask of coffee, snapping away when the squirrels duly appeared.

Now I'm clear about where I stand on the merit of these various situations, but buggered if I could draw up some competition rules that would be a) clear, b) cover everything, and c) that everyone would agree on.
 
HoppyUK said:
While I'm entirely comfortable with crediting Stephen Dalton with his wildlife images, I'll admit to more than a little discomfort about some other wildlife situations that could be described as similar. For example, those spectacular pictures of a kingfisher diving for a minnow where the whole situation is set up with a tank stocked with fish hidden just below the water surface, while a beam trigger is set up exactly in the plane of focus so that the camera/flash is fired automatically and the bird takes its own picture. Well, so far so good maybe, but then I understand that you can buy a day at a 'workshop' where all you have to do is turn up with a camera, hand it over and wait. Zero effort, dramatic images guaranteed.

Then I saw some excellent pictures of red squirrels taken at another workshop by a lady with apparently little knowledge of photogaphy or anything else relevant. All she had done, and who could blame her, is pay a guy to take her to a secret location where he set up a flash and put down a few peanuts. Then she sat in a comfy chair with a flask of coffee, snapping away when the squirrels duly appeared.

Now I'm clear about where I stand on the merit of these various situations, but buggered if I could draw up some competition rules that would be a) clear, b) cover everything, and c) that everyone would agree on.
Click to expand...

And this pretty much sums up why I won't be a camera club Judge to Wildlife (or Nature as its often referred to) as a subject

Dave
 
Brings to mind something I bet we have all heard
"bet that camera takes great pictures"
 
Gremlin said:
"bet that camera takes great pictures"
Click to expand...
Indeed, they all do. "The problem is always with the person pressing the shutter release" as my first boss was fond of saying, when I cocked up yet another shot. :coat:
 
I’m not that keen on the photo itself but imo it’s 100% valid. I think we need to get this notion out of our heads that we have to ‘touch’ the shutter for it to be a proper photograph.

The guy obviously knows his craft and showed his dedication to get this shot. It’s far more than simply strapping a camera to a tree. I could do that and no I wouldn’t get these results.
 
Would it have been more valid if he'd had a video link to a laptop somewhere uncomfortable with a remote release and he tripped the shutter with a press of a mouse? Now what if he was in his office and he got an alert when something moved? Now we just remove the laptop and user we end up with same result.

Ultimately he did frame the shot and took all of the creative decisions he just left a computer to trip the shutter. Where is the line? When the computer takes all the creative decisions at that point we'll probably have fully sentient computers and we'll just have to hope they don't think they can do everything better than us.


Counter point... If he had an infinite number of cameras and infinite number of assistants would he photograph the collected works of Shakespeare.
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
I’m not that keen on the photo itself but imo it’s 100% valid. I think we need to get this notion out of our heads that we have to ‘touch’ the shutter for it to be a proper photograph.
Click to expand...

No one is disputing that it is a photograph, it is a lovely naturalist capture, like some I saw from a BBC Wildlife Unit taken with a trailcam to spot Snow Leopards. They did no end of hard work finding possible locations and were rightly delighted at the first glimpse of a Snow Leopard on their laptop screen.
Fabulous experience, fabulous to see the Snow Leopard was actually there ... a photograph?
Of course but was it a 'photographer photograph'?
Not in my view, it was a recorded naturalist shot, exactly the same as the one we are talking about here.
Tracking and hard work are all commendable but in my view the photographer has to be complicit with the actual taking of the photo, be that pressing the shutter button or pressing a remote from a 'hide' ... sticking a camera out and going off out of the area to let some 'device' get the photo doesn't do it for me.
 
Brazo said:
I could do that and no I wouldn’t get these results.
Click to expand...
I wonder how you know that? I personally don't know how many things I can't do because I haven't actually tried to do them... :naughty: :exit:
 
gramps said:
No one is disputing that it is a photograph, it is a lovely naturalist capture, like some I saw from a BBC Wildlife Unit taken with a trailcam to spot Snow Leopards. They did no end of hard work finding possible locations and were rightly delighted at the first glimpse of a Snow Leopard on their laptop screen.
Fabulous experience, fabulous to see the Snow Leopard was actually there ... a photograph?
Of course but was it a 'photographer photograph'?
Not in my view, it was a recorded naturalist shot, exactly the same as the one we are talking about here.
Tracking and hard work are all commendable but in my view the photographer has to be complicit with the actual taking of the photo, be that pressing the shutter button or pressing a remote from a 'hide' ... sticking a camera out and going off out of the area to let some 'device' get the photo doesn't do it for me.
Click to expand...
Well we will agree to disagree :D
 
I think that some are underestimating how difficult it is to get good photographs with animal triggered cameras. I've been involved with many projects using animal triggered cameras for animal behaviour and monitoring studies, and the time and work that would have been needed to produce "good" photographs from these studies completely put me off forever, from trying to do it.

Without the input of a skilled photographer to position the camera with regard to composition and lighting on an animal, that isn't there when you set things up, it is extremely unlikely to produce anything worthwhile. I can easily see how it took 11 months of finding potential spots for a camera and then regular refining of the camera position within these spots to produce the picture he made. Yes, there is a bit of luck involved, as with all wildlife photography, but there is still a lot of skill involved before you can take advantage of that luck.

As this is the fourth time this photographer has won this same prize, I suspect he will have used all this photographic skills to use the most appropriate technique to make the photograph he was aiming for.

I'm not sure if "pressing the shutter" is a good measure of a photographs validity, is it not more about being "responsible" for the image.

For example should we ban photographs from competitions that rely on capturing a "precise" moment like a fish in mid air within the open beak of an egret, because it was taken at 30fps using pro-capture to anticipate the action along with AF and AE. Where is the skill in that? Especially if you were sitting in a hide at a nature reserve where the water is stocked with fish for nature conservation purposes.

Is this more valid because the photographer "pressed the button" than a photograph that took 11 months to create a situation that tricked the animal into "pressing the shutter" when it was in a position the photographer had chosen to give good lighting against an appropriate background.
 
I'm into Landscape and Astrophotography and don't see any problem with the validity of the winning photo in this years Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition.

In Landscape Photography we are free to do exactly the same thing - use a remote shutter, in effect. As it stands I'm not sure of the wireless range of wireless remote shutters but I'd imagine it's a fair distance. In essence a Landscape Photographer could set his tripod up on the beach, set his intervalometer up to take a shot in half an hours time, go for a walk and come back to 2021's Winning LPOTY entry.

Just because the photographer isn't there doesn't change the fact that the photograph hasn't been composed or that he got lucky with the right amount of light just as the wave crashed on the rocks.

Thought and luck would have to go into the photograph, just as it did here. If the animal wasn't in the right pose, would it have worked? If the light wasn't the same, would it have won? Most likely not, as subject and light are what photography is essentially all about.

In Astro Photography I set my equipment up outside, which takes around 30 minutes, and then spend the rest of the evening indoors until I have to pack my gear away, during that time it could have taken 6 hours worth of photography on a Galaxy or Nebula which landed first place in the APOTY Book.

Photography can be perceived as much about the planning, research, dedication, vision and effort as much as anything else when it comes to the final image.

Everyone will have their own opinion on this, however. I love Landscape Photography because I love being outdoors and stood behind my Camera. I love Astro because it's a challenge, and therefore the satisfaction when it all comes together is the reward.
 
HoppyUK said:
...but then I understand that you can buy a day at a 'workshop' where all you have to do is turn up with a camera, hand it over and wait. Zero effort, dramatic images guaranteed.

...All she had done, and who could blame her, is pay a guy to take her to a secret location where he set up a flash and put down a few peanuts. Then she sat in a comfy chair with a flask of coffee, snapping away when the squirrels duly appeared.
Click to expand...
I think there is a legitimate question of authorship/sole authorship/copyright of/in such an image. IMO that should be a requirement for entry, and it could certainly be a basis for rejection.

And I think that is basically what we are debating... what constitutes "creating" the photo (authorship). We like to simplify it down to who trips the shutter, because when nothing else is in question that is the determinator... but it is not always that simple.

When it comes to the use of automated cameras/trigger traps I think this clause could apply:
9 Authorship of work.
(3)In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
When it comes to the use of automated cameras/trigger traps I think this clause could apply:
9 Authorship of work.
(3)In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.
Click to expand...

Or,

"Who owns copyright in an image?

The person who creates an image (“the creator”) will generally be the first owner of the copyright. However, there are various situations in which this is not necessarily the case.

For photos, it may depend on when the photo was taken, as different rules may apply if the photograph was taken before 1989. Creators also have what are known as moral rights (see example below on stopping the use of an image if you disapprove). If an image was created as part of the creator’s employment, rather than by a freelance creator, the employer will generally own the copyright.

It is also possible that, in instances where a person has arranged equipment and made artistic decisions prior to taking a photo, but wasn’t the one to press the trigger, the person making the arrangements could own the copyright. An example of this could be where a photographer has made the creative choices in setting up a shot, but got an assistant to actually press the trigger."

For assistant read tiger?

 
Did that monkey ever win copyright? :ROFLMAO:

Maybe we should consider the image a work of joint authorship because the model (tiger) chose the time, lighting, pose, mood, and expression to convey.
10 Works of joint authorship.
(1)In this Part a “work of joint authorship” means a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of each author is not distinct from that of the other author or authors.
;)
 
smr said:
I'm into Landscape and Astrophotography and don't see any problem with the validity of the winning photo in this years Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition.

In Landscape Photography we are free to do exactly the same thing - use a remote shutter, in effect. As it stands I'm not sure of the wireless range of wireless remote shutters but I'd imagine it's a fair distance. In essence a Landscape Photographer could set his tripod up on the beach, set his intervalometer up to take a shot in half an hours time, go for a walk and come back to 2021's Winning LPOTY entry.

Just because the photographer isn't there doesn't change the fact that the photograph hasn't been composed or that he got lucky with the right amount of light just as the wave crashed on the rocks.

Thought and luck would have to go into the photograph, just as it did here. If the animal wasn't in the right pose, would it have worked? If the light wasn't the same, would it have won? Most likely not, as subject and light are what photography is essentially all about.

In Astro Photography I set my equipment up outside, which takes around 30 minutes, and then spend the rest of the evening indoors until I have to pack my gear away, during that time it could have taken 6 hours worth of photography on a Galaxy or Nebula which landed first place in the APOTY Book.

Photography can be perceived as much about the planning, research, dedication, vision and effort as much as anything else when it comes to the final image.

Everyone will have their own opinion on this, however. I love Landscape Photography because I love being outdoors and stood behind my Camera. I love Astro because it's a challenge, and therefore the satisfaction when it all comes together is the reward.
Click to expand...

You make some valid points but I think that as far as landscape and astro are concerned you will be judged on the image alone.
It seems to me that many of the wildlife images need a good backstory to help them win.
Also, does the rarity of the animal give the image extra weight?
 
LCPete said:
It’s valid as a photo but not the same thing as taking it yourself with the camera and I don’t think it’s fair that a camera strapped to a tree can enter a wildlife photography competition
Click to expand...
Personally I think the award should be shared between the tree and the tiger...
 
When I first read about the WPOTY winner my first reaction was that the person who won didn't actually fire the shutter, and therefore couldn't be classified as "the photographer."
But thinking about it, there was obviously some skill and expertise invoved in knowing where to place the cemera, and realistically there was not much difference from the "Pro" photographer working in a studio, who has an assistant who just follows instructions dictated by the "Pro" who may not even trip the shutter when it comes to capturing the image.
 
Peter123 said:
Also, does the rarity of the animal give the image extra weight?
Click to expand...

That's been playing on my mind too

I've seen some amazing photos of Tigers over the years, some may have been in wildlife parks or zoos, but often you can't tell

This particular photo is at best a good record shot for me compared to some I've seen, so I can only assume the fact it took 11 months to walk into view and/or it being a very rare one has swung the judges

As a club Judge we're told NOT to take the difficulty/rarity into account and simply judge on the image's merit alone, doing that here and there's no way it'd be a winner for me

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
As a club Judge we're told NOT to take the difficulty/rarity into account and simply judge on the image's merit alone, doing that here and there's no way it'd be a winner for me
Click to expand...

There is a fairly detailed explanation of the judges thoughts here:

Wildlife Photographer of the Year: a tiger's territory | Natural History Museum

Siberian tigers are rarely seen in the wild, let alone photographed. Find out how Sergey Gorshkov managed to get this winning shot.
www.nhm.ac.uk www.nhm.ac.uk

It does look as if the rarity of getting photographs of tigers scent marking was a factor.
 
I have no issues with photos from remote or triggered cameras being entered and winning this competition. If you say they have to be there, it ought to be renamed to Wildlife Watcher of the Year!

I don't think they're judging directly on rarity of subject. But they do value originality and it's much easier to have something original for a subject that is rarely photographed. Plus it's Photographer of the Year not Photo of the Year, so I suspect the wider context has an influence; the world needs good photos of Siberian tigers far more than it needs photos of alcedo atthis, so Sergy is being a better, more valuable photographer than if I spend an afternoon waiting for a kingfisher to turn up.

That said, it's another year when the overall winner is definitely not my favourite of the year. And it's not even my favourite Sergy entry in the WPY.
 
Next year I'm going to submit a screen grab from a wildlife documentary. I'll have spent 12 months watching TV to get it, does that still count ?
 
The W said:
I don't think they're judging directly on rarity of subject. But they do value originality and it's much easier to have something original for a subject that is rarely photographed.
Click to expand...

No they aren't, if you read further down the link I posted they explain in far more detail the photographic reasons for it being chosen.
 
sk66 said:
I think there is a legitimate question of authorship/sole authorship/copyright of/in such an image. IMO that should be a requirement for entry, and it could certainly be a basis for rejection.

And I think that is basically what we are debating... what constitutes "creating" the photo (authorship). We like to simplify it down to who trips the shutter, because when nothing else is in question that is the determinator... but it is not always that simple.

When it comes to the use of automated cameras/trigger traps I think this clause could apply:
9 Authorship of work.
(3)In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.
Click to expand...

"the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken."

Not sure this definition works either. Define 'the arrangements necessary'? The person who set up the rig? Or the person who paid for it? Or organised the trip?What about a team of people, as in the snow leopard example? They're all part of the 'arrangements' that made the photo possible.

But those are all part of the legal copyright question, which is not the same as competition rules or indeed moral questions. Here are a couple more interesting examples, both from the Wildlife Photographer of the Year which is no stranger to controversy.

There's the famous wolf photo that was disqualified after it was discovered the wolf was in a wildlife park in Spain, was semi-tame and could be hired to perform. The photographer lied throughout.
https://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/21/wildlife.photographer.disqualified/index.html

This one is hilarious - the winning photo was of a stuffed anteater.
petapixel.com

A Closer Look at the Stuffed Anteater Photo Contest Scandal

Brazilian photographer Marcio Cabral was disgraced last week after he was stripped of his 1st prize by the prestigious Wildlife Photographer of the Year
petapixel.com petapixel.com
 
HoppyUK said:
Not sure this definition works either. Define 'the arrangements necessary'? The person who set up the rig? Or the person who paid for it? Or organised the trip?What about a team of people, as in the snow leopard example? They're all part of the 'arrangements' that made the photo possible.
Click to expand...

Maybe my earlier post on copyright is more helpful in this regard, as it gives an example.

"It is also possible that, in instances where a person has arranged equipment and made artistic decisions prior to taking a photo, but wasn’t the one to press the trigger, the person making the arrangements could own the copyright. An example of this could be where a photographer has made the creative choices in setting up a shot, but got an assistant to actually press the trigger."
 
myotis said:
Maybe my earlier post on copyright is more helpful in this regard, as it gives an example.

"It is also possible that, in instances where a person has arranged equipment and made artistic decisions prior to taking a photo, but wasn’t the one to press the trigger, the person making the arrangements could own the copyright. An example of this could be where a photographer has made the creative choices in setting up a shot, but got an assistant to actually press the trigger."
Click to expand...

Not trying to be difficult, but define 'creative choices'? Copyright can get very complicated and subjective, and legal definitions only get us so far. Which is why they sometimes end up in court where a jury decides - and juries have been shown to be just as unreliable as you or me.

Copyright laws are primarily designed to sort out commercial interests, ie who gets the money, not who really deserves the credit as in a photo competition entry.

In obviously difficult situations like the snow leopard, involving teams of people and massive joint effort, the Rights will fall to the production company and they in turn will divide up the royalties by way of prior contractual agreements.
 
HoppyUK said:
Not trying to be difficult, but define 'creative choices'? Copyright can get very complicated and subjective, and legal definitions only get us so far. Which is why they sometimes end up in court where a jury decides - and juries have been shown to be just as unreliable as you or me.

Copyright laws are primarily designed to sort out commercial interests, ie who gets the money, not who really deserves the credit as in a photo competition entry.
Click to expand...

I think you have already given the answer I would have given, ie that this would need decided in court, but it seemed pertinent to this discussion in terms of credit being given to the photographer as all the creative decisions were made by the him, even though the tiger triggered the shutter.
 
HoppyUK said:
The person who set up the rig? Or the person who paid for it? Or organised the trip?What about a team of people, as in the snow leopard example? They're all part of the 'arrangements' that made the photo possible.
Click to expand...
The person who set up the rig... the "creative" component of creating a work of art in that scenario.
W/o something in writing, or it being a work for hire type situation, "facilitation" would not affect copyright/authorship. It would be no different from billing a client for equipment rental, travel, and necessary assistants (makeup/hair/costume/lighting/etc).

HoppyUK said:
Copyright laws are primarily designed to sort out commercial interests, ie who gets the money, not who really deserves the credit as in a photo competition entry.
Click to expand...
I do agree that copyright can be convoluted... but it is the only place where authorship/ownership is defined; and it does define/determine who deserves the credit (the Moral Rights/right of attribution).
 
Last edited:
Whilst I have no doubt the guy did his research, put the time in and he knew his stuff, personally, I'd rather be there to press the button myself, although I'd have to be braver than I currently am to be in such close proximity to a wild tiger, or even a captive one for that matter.

I love taking images of wildife. I'm not in the same league as photographers who win these kind of competitions, or even in the same league as some of you here, but I do know what it takes to get close to a subject in the wild, I've done it. For me that's part of the satisfaction and also, the fleeting moment with your subject, it could be over in seconds, forever, but the feeling when you view it in the viewfinder, waiting on the pose to be right and not daring to press the button until it is, that's the moment for me.

Respect though, like I say, he must have a degree of knowledge about his subject, habitat, timings etc.
 
Last edited:
myotis said:
It does look as if the rarity of getting photographs of tigers scent marking was a factor.
Click to expand...


I know a photographer who missed a tiger scent marking. He was chimping and didn't see (or hear) it approaching. Needed a shower or 4 after he got wetted!!!
 
sk66 said:
<snip>

I do agree that copyright can be convoluted... but it is the only place where authorship/ownership is defined; and it does define/determine who deserves the credit (the Moral Rights/right of attribution).
Click to expand...

Primarily, copyright decides who gets the money. The main thrust of it is to protect commercial interests, amongst other things, but copyright doesn't trouble itself too much with ethics.

Copyright of the tiger image is not in question here, certainly not by me, and I think it's a worthy image all round. Yet in the case of the wolf at the zoo linked above, copyright is 100% owned by the photographer, but that photo was thrown out because it broke ethical rules.
 
I’m inclined to think the title “The Embrace” plays a part in people’s view of it. In the NHM link a judge talks about the “expression of ecstasy“ and ”tree hugging” is mentioned elsewhere, none of which seems very accurate to me.

On the practical side, if the photographer could have had a ”web cam” in position with the main camera and could then have triggered the camera remotely when the subject appeared (which is theoretically feasible) then presumably everyone here would be happy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top