articles

my top 12 wildlife photography peeves

A recent article in Nature Photographers Magazine — about the "top eleven nature photography peeves" (see the article here) — has made me reflect on what are such peeves for me. I share the opinion of its author, Stan Rose, about the annoyances he has listed for landscape photography, and even could maybe add a couple of mines. However, not being a specialist for landscapes, I am more concerned with wildlife photography, and cliches in this field of nature photography annoy me much more. Thinking about it, I came up with my own list that goes to 12.

#12: field-guide-style macros of herps


My own example of a field-guide style photograph: A turtle, just a cute little turtle.

Photography of reptiles and amphibians is my main field of interest where I hope to have developed my own style some day. Therefore I am paying attention to what other photographers do in this area — to learn from them or to compare what I am doing.

The most usual approach in herp photography that I am observing in online portfolios of photographers and on numerous image critique forums is to use a macro or telephoto lens and to create an image where the animal occupies at least 50% of the frame, and nothing is visible except some elements of closest surroundings, such as leaves, grass, or stones. Artificial light (coming from flash) makes all this look even more like in a terrarium. Thus, unless the animal is a rare species or one that doesn't live in captivity, I am usually thinking why does the author show such a photo as his/her photographic achievement. Is the much greater effort of making an image of a wild animal justified at all when a much better result can be achieved at home or in a zoo?

The best images of amphibians and reptiles — both technically and aesthetically — that I've ever seen were made in captivity or in a studio — with simulated natural setup. I also observed such images to receive commendation by more viewers than photos of the same species in the wild — when the photographer had been struggling with the usual problems of bad lighting, large distance, etc. (Below I will return to this issue again when I will be writing about annoying images of captive animals.)

Some of my images, such as the example with a baby turtle that you see above, are also in this field-guide style. However, I am well aware of the fact that it has no other value than its content, i.e. it is just a photographic document of a baby Emys orbicularis and not a piece of fine art photography. I photographed this animal because I encountered it during an excursion, and when I am displaying this image on my website, my intention is just to show a baby pond turtle but not to impress anyone with my photographic achievement. I wouldn't show it to other photographers and ask for critique. The only purpose of such images is zoological documentary, hence I wouldn't expect all people who aren't zoologists to appreciate it. If I should need a feedback about it from someone, I would show it rather to a zoologist than to a photographer. This is why such images of common herps that were made only for the sake of showing a herp annoy me when they are presented on photography critique sites. I just don't know how to respond when the author is awaitng a comment: What I am seeing is a turtle, a lizard, a snake... but not a piece of photography worth to be commented. To critisize the photographic mediocrity would be useless and unfair because usually nothing is wrong with the image itself: It is just presented in a wrong place and a wrong audience is being asked for an opinion. From the photographic point of view, many such images appear mediocre when they are compared with stylistically similar but artistically and technically better photographs of captive herps.

If an image is presented as a piece of wildlife photography and the author wants to impress the audience with it, it should be more than just a simple record of an animal.

#11: no artificial light was used where appropriate


Here you see an almost unprocessed image from archive. The background is much lighter than the subject which appears backlit. A fill flash could have helped. If it haven't been used for some reason, it still may be possible to correct the lighting in postprocessing. However, I observe that many photographers publish such images as they are.

We use the light to create a photograph. Like paint in art, light in photography is a "material" that makes the image: it "draws", or "prints" the image on the camera sensor. Every photographer knows that the "work" of the light is crucial for a photographic image. The more surprising is for me that so many photographers neglect this.

In wildlife photography it is often difficult to control the light — but not always impossible. Although it is being usually said that the "soft-light" hours — in the morning and the evening — are to be preferred, wildlife photographers are rarely free to choose the daytime for shooting. Quite often we have to photograph in the harsh midday light or in dark places, such as forests. Sometimes we even have to make shots against the sun. In all such situations the lighting conditions aren't favourable for photography. This will never stop a wildlife photographer, however, who would always want to use the maybe only chance in his life to get a shot of a particular animal that he sees only for that one moment — regardless of the bad lighting. Often in such cases photographers manage to set the exposure correctly, so that no part of the image gets over- or underexposed. Nevertheless, the subject may appear on the photograph too dark, or the shadows on it and in front of it would be too deep... Being still proud about "that one cool" shot, the photographer usually says: "Sorry, the light wasn't perfect but just look at the animal!" No! People would rather judge the whole image than look at the subject, unless it is a Yeti, or a Loch Ness monster. (This confidence of the author that his image is still worth to be presented to the audience because the subject matters is competing in this list of my peeves for the first place, but I have put it on place 5 — see below — but other winners are there.)

In many situations a better lighting can be achieved with artificial light — such as with flashes or lamps, or through bouncing the sunlight with a reflector. To be fair, I have to say that I myself do not always use flash where it makes sense — because of the lack of time or when flash is not allowed. But such cases are for me a failure rather than a rule. Normally, I have the flash or a Pocket Wizard transceiver constantly mounted on my camera or lens when I expect the light to be not favourable. I always think about using flash and too often regret not to have used it. This is why maybe, when I see an image of a poorly lighted subject on a wildlife photography site in the Internet, I am wondering what did keep the photographer from using a flash or a lamp! If he hasn't used an artificial light source to improve the lighting, why didn't he try to fix it in processing of the image afterwards?

If the photographer for some reason has failed to correct the lighting — with artificial lighting sources or in postprocessing — it isn't an excuse for a poorly lit subject: The image remains bad.

#10: overdone flash


This bird was deep in a tree where the lighting was very bad. I used flash — but obviously too much: The contrast is too strong; the bird and the branches are casting deep shadows; the image looks like shot at night. A better result could have been achieved with a higher ISO combined with less flash output — but not with an EOS 30D that was that time in my hands. Thus, I had to sort out this image as failed, and am showing it here only as an example of such.

The opposite of not using a flash — shooting with too much flash — annoys me even more because an otherwise good photograph is often ruined by that. For an image to look naturally, the output of the flash has not to exceed the available natural lighting. It may be very hard to achieve if the ambient light is too low — in a forest, at dusk, etc. Using a high ISO or, under some circumstances, multiple flashes can be a solution. This may help to achieve a realistically looking image even at night.

However, I observe it quite rarely in the images published in the Internet. Even more often there are photographs made during the day with too strong flash light. This results in a night look.

Second, for the image to look realistically, the light source should be much larger than the subject. Since flash is a relatively small source of light, light modifiers, such as diffusors or reflectors, have to be used. Unfortunately, many photographers ignore this. The result is strong contrast and deep shadows that reveal too much the use of flash and make the image look artificial.

I know that sometimes it can be an intention of the photographer — to use the flash to achieve an artistic effect. One example of this is the photographic style of Brent Stirton (see www.brentstirton.com): In many of his images he makes the day look like night. However, I like it, and in my animal photography, I also experiment sometimes with this technique. On this site there are a couple of images where you may notice such effects which I have used deliberately.

But frequently encountered images where it is obviously a technical fault usually irritate me, and this why it is the peeve number 10.

When the use of flash is well recognizable and it isn't obviously an artistic effect, such an image is spoilt.

#9: raptor in flight


My first BIF shot ever — a typical case of a boring raptor-in-flight photo.

Years ago I showed the above image of a mouse buzzard on a general photography forum. A member of it who wasn't a wildlife photographer wrote in a comment that it should be very interesting to shoot such photos but to look at them is boring. He was right.

For a bird photographer, chasing a flying bird with a camera is always an exciting action. Making bird-in-flight (BIF) shots is also quite challenging — particularly if the autofocus of your camera is poor, you are not using a gimbal head, your camera tends to make mistakes in exposure measurement for subjects on light background, the bird is quickly leaving the view field, etc. If you, nevertheless, have managed to get one sharp image with good composition of several dozens, you have a reason to be glad and proud. Unfortunately, the viewers of your photos usually don't know all this. What they are seeing, is just a brown bird with its wings spread — on a uniform, blue or grey, background.

The easiest subjects for BIF photography are large and slow-flying birds, such as raptors, gulls, herons, egrets, ducks, geese... Among them raptors appear to be preferred by photographers. So tons of photos of eagles, large owls, buzzards, kites, harriers and the like are being proudly presented on wildlife photography sites all over the Internet. Many of them even show captive birds photographed in aviaries and during shows. Because they are so frequent and look similar, the raptor-in-flight shots are for me classical boring BIFs. In my opinion, they are equivalent to images of star trails in landscape photography that Stan Rose criticizes in his article. In both cases photographers are exercising the technique more than realizing an image concept. The first such image ever could have been a great photographic achievement — but certainly not when it is the millionth one.

I don't want to say that BIF as a bird photography genre is bad and that all such photos are boring. I am always impressed by images of flying birds in a beautiful environment — for instance, of parrots in a tropical forest, swarms of migrating birds, flamingos over a lake... — or when the birds are in an action of catching prey, fighting, etc. I want to see more such images. Images of most bird species in flight don't exist at all. Why not to fill this gap and to show something new instead of expecting the audience to appreciate further images of all the same subjects?

Only extraordinary or at least original images of raptors in flight are worth to be published in portfolios.

#8: bird on a "creamy" background


This bird was perching on a palm tree, and the leaf behind it was to close to appear completely blurred in the photograph. I tweaked the background in this image when I applied additional lens blur in Photoshop on it. After that this image received extremely positive feedback from all photographers who had seen it. Put the mouse cursor over this picture to see the unprocessed original.

In a picture of any subject, the background shouldn't be detracting from it. This is one of very basic rules not only of photography but of imaging in general. Wildlife photographers should break it only in rare cases, such as for showing animal's ability to camouflage, an animal in habitat, and similar. Although this rule doesn't say that the background has to be absolutely smooth, making it look as uniform as possible appears to be an absolute canon in bird photography. The origin of this trend is not completely clear. It may have emerged already in last decades of film photography — as a result of technical advancement and in response to appearance of "fast" lenses, i.e. those having wide apertures of f/5.6 and less. Even more possibilities for it arrived with digital imaging that allows blurring the background when the image is being processed in a software.

Bird photography is a very popular genre which is sometimes being treated separately from wildlife photography. (In the USA, they even call it "avian photography". Since I am not a native English speaker, this name appears to me as if it has more to do with aerospace industry than with animals.) According to my observation, bird photographers prefer species that live in open habitats — such as sea shores, river deltas, lakes, wetlands, rocks, meadows, etc. I suppose that this has influenced their attitude to the quality of background: In such environment, it is very easy to achieve an almost completely uniform background in a bird photo.

For bird photography lenses with focal length 400-600 mm are common, while the 5.6/500 mm one is the most popular. If it is a photo of a single bird perching, it would be a typical case of so-called "bird-on-a-stick" (BOAS) shot. (BOAS are actually portraits. Therefore, rules of human portrait photography are applicable here.) The photographer would usually want an image with the bird occupying about 50% of the frame. For the background to be almost completely blurred, i.e. to appear "creamy", it is not enough to use a wide aperture of f/4 - f/8. Even then the distance from the subject — the bird — to the nearest objects behind it should be about 10 times its size. According to my experience, if, for example, a 10 cm tall bird is being photographed with a 500 mm lens set to f/5.6, things behind it, such as branches or leaves, should be at least 1 m away to appear in the image only as shadows. While it is not difficult to achieve when it is a lapwing or a heron at sea shore, it is a very rare case with forest birds. Even when a thrush is perching on branch in a tree about 15 m from you, and even if you set your 500 mm lens to maximum aperture, the background won't be "creamy" in the photo that you'll get.

I am a big friend of a beautiful bokeh and a smooth background, and do my best to achieve them in my photography. But the common demand for a perfectly uniform background in wildlife photography really peeves me. Too often I have to apply special processing to it in Photoshop in order for the image to be accepted by the audience which is regularly being pampered with photos of birds and other animals made in open areas.

The photography of shorebirds should not be defining the standards for the quality of background in all wildlife photos.

#7: kingfisher photo

I have no example of this among my photos. If you have yours, imagine it here.

In Central and Eastern Europe — where many of European wildlife photographes live — the Common Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) is the most colourful bird. Even if it isn't yet statistically confirmed to be the most photographed bird species, there are good chances for it to be. Anyway I have an impression that almost every day a new kingfisher image is being published in online portfolios and on photography sites.

When a kingfisher is hunting, it observes the movements in the water from a dead tree, a dry branch, or a pillar. To photograph a hunting kingfisher you have to find such a perch or to provide it yourself. Then you just set up a hide near it and wait. One should be a really poor photographer or have a very poor equipment not to get his "great shot" of a perching kingfisher. Very few photographers manage to capture moments of action — when the bird is flying, diving for a fish, returning with prey, etc. Such images are interesting to see — particularly if the environment is contributing the the composition. But they are rare. The usual kingfisher photo is a portrait. Certainly, an occasional viewer — who has not seen as much of bird photography — would be impressed. But I am usually peeved when someone publishes another technically good full-body portrait of a common kingfisher asking for comments. It is just boring when every week a couple of such portraits get published on the same website by different people. Usually there are no technical aspects in such an image deserving critique, hence many would just write something like "Great!", "Well done!", "Amazing!!!"...

There are about 90 species of kingfishers in the world. Most of them are very colourful and shiny like jewels. All are excellent subjects for photography. Of course, I understand why some are being more frequently photographed than the others. The Common Kingfisher has a huge range that extends over southern parts of Eurasia with moderate or warm climate where it is a quite common bird. It can be found near the places where the photographers live. It is not difficult to photograph this bird (as I described above), and the bird usually looks great on photos — unfortunately on too many.

There is another bird species currently competing with the Common Kingfisher for being the most popular and rewarding — and the most trivial — subject in European bird photography. It is the European Bee-eater (Merops apiaster). It has a huge range in subtropical and tropical Eurasia. Bee-eaters are quite easy to photograph because they live in open habitats — such as steep river banks — and aren't shy. These birds are not only very colourful but are also very interesting to observe when they are catching insects and interacting with each other. At any time, if you look at the images of birds recently published on any photo site, you'll find a dozen of Bee-eater photos that were made by different authors but look very similar.

I don't want to say that both these bird species aren't worth to be photographed anymore because someone has already did this many times. I am just meaning that, when someone wants to show the world his own photograph of a Common Kingfisher or a European Bee-eater, he should be willing and planing to give a new look at these birds and not just to produce another copy of what was already done.

#6: a portrait of a grey bird


My own photograph of a "grey bird". As usually with such birds, I am not sure about the identification, but it might be a young Wood Warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix). This is not a good illustration of what I am writing below because someone may find artistic elements in this image, such as a beautiful background, composition, and, of course, the cute bird. However, I hope that you are getting the idea: The images that I am going to criticize below are of similar kind although they may be not so well composed and processed.

The highly urbanized areas of Europe are not blessed with such biological diversity and so many spectacular species of flora and fauna as the North, the Mediterranean region, or the tropics. For the photographers who live in the regions with moderate climate and for some reason don't travel only remains to do what they can — to photograph wildlife around their home. I have sympathy with this — particularly because I live in Central Europe myself and am suffering of the lack of subjects, too, when I am not away — to a southern country. When I am at home, I usually photograph on weekends just any animal that I have come across. Often I do it not because I of the result, but only for practice and because I want to spend a couple of hours with the nature. Certainly, those little grey birds that only experts are able to identify are among such subjects, and if I happen to encounter one and have a suitable lens with me, I would make a shot. I suppose many photographers do the same in my situation. This should be the reason why so many portraits of little grey birds are being produced on a daily basis — pictures of warblers of the families Phylloscopidae (Leaf-Warblers), Cettiidae (Bush-Warblers), Locustellidae (Grass-Warblers), of small tits, flycatchers and other simple-looking passerines whose species the photographer wouldn't even be able to tell.

I understand the reason why such birds are frequently photographed. I also can imagine that such images are of certain interest for ornithologists. These birds are certainly nice-looking, so that someone can collect their photographs. They are also worth to be photographed not only just for practice but also for a purpose, such as illustrating a field guide, creating education materials, population monitoring, etc. However, it is really annoying to find almost everyday another such photo published as someones photographic achievement. This is the peeve #6 in my list. I don't see why in the world someone wants to impress the public with such an image when just yesterday another excellent image of a similar bird has been already published on the same website. My conclusion about portraits of Common Kingfishers and Bee-eaters should be valid here, too — but even more because the little grey birds and their behaviour are not that spectacular.

Do photograph the little grey birds but don't expect the audience to share your passion. To impress people, the images of such species have to be more than just technically well-done portraits.

#5: a photograph just for record


This is one of my shots that I did only for a record. I did it with the only purpose — just to document a baby viper that I had found. Such images are useful only as scientific documents or for own memories.

Images of trivial animals made "just for record" but presented to the world as a kind of photographic achievement are under the number 5 in my list of annoyances. Persons who do this belong to one of two categories. In the first category are people who own a good digital point-and-shoot camera with a power-zoom lens. Such cameras are able to produce completely automatically pictures with decent quality and their zoom lenses make composing the picture very easy. A typical user of such a camera bothers neither with technical issues of photography nor with its artistic side. Please get me right: I have nothing against digital cameras. Such a camera can be a good tool when it is in hands of a good photographer. It is the point-and-shoot concept that I find harmful because it has changed the attitude to imaging and photography in many people. It is making many people believe that they are photographers when they receive with almost no effort the images that they like. With this approach the role of the photographer has been reduced to simple aiming the lens at the subject. Many people with such cameras have keen interest in photography. They even see that the images they are making are different from those by professional photographers that they admire, but only few know the real reasons. Hence, with digital efficiency, they continue producing tons of mediocre images and to share them proudly on Internet forums. Any deficits that they may occasionally recognize themselves or would be pointed at by someone, they would explain through the lack of equipment: "If I had a better camera (flash, lens...) the image were even better!"

The second category are zoologists or similar professionals who photograph their research subjects. Some researchers are also passionate photographers who pay attention not only to the subject they are photographing but also to the technical and aesthetic part wishing to achieve at least a well-composed and technically a high-quality image. On the other hand, much more researchers who regularly photograph are interested almost entirely in the content and ignore compositional and other artistic or aesthetic aspects of photography. Quite many wish their images to be fine-art nature photos, but few are ready to work on it. Thus, most images that such photographers create are suitable for scientific publications but can't be regarded as a fine-art photography work. Nonetheless, they are being published in photographic portfolios or presented on photography discussion forums. Nothing or very little in such images can be discussed in the context of fine-art photography.

If you would like to capture on a photo the moment that impressed you or an animal that you liked, keep in mind that your excitement with the subject doesn't automatically result in a piece of creative photography. Don't publish every such image and await appreciation of the audience.

#4: icons


My contribution to photography of icons: a Mountain Gorilla. However, I didn't go to the place where 90% of mountain gorilla images are being made — Parque Nacional de Virungas in Rwanda. Instead, I visited a group of gorillas in Bwindi Impenetrable Forest that lives in a place that is less visited by tourists. Nevertheless, what you see here is a typical photograph of an iconic animal made in a typical style. With photographing Mountain Gorillas, there can be an excuse: The access to them is very restricted, and the organized daily visits for tourists are not suitable for photographers.

Every year hundreds or even thousands of photographers (even professional ones) go to a very limited number of destinations in the world to photograph all the same subjects. In those iconic mass tourism places popular animals are working as models for beautiful postcard style photos: the "Great Migration" at Serengeti/Masai Mara in Africa, tigers in India, bathing "Snow Monkeys" of Nagano in Japan, King Pinguins of South Georgia, fishing Grizzlies in Alaska national parks, Red-eyed Frogs in Costa Rica, Mountain Gorillas in Rwanda... Sometimes, when I see the next photograph that the next visitor has brought from an iconic place, I am almost feeling that I recognize the same animals that I have seen before on other photographs made by different people. Even if the list of iconic places will grow in future, when more governments and companies realize how profitable the mass "eco" tourism is and create further destinations for it, the number of photographers will grow too, and new subjects will soon appear on thousands of very similar images.

No doubt, such locations are beautiful, and the animals are absolutely spectacular. The images of them may be of excellent quality. But all this is getting more and more difficult to appreciate because too many copies of the same postcard-style content are being produced every year.

For me the photos of iconic animals are the same as photos of landmarks such as Big Ben, Eiffel Tower, or Egyptian Pyramids. Too many scenic nature places are now popular touristic destinations just like Venice or Paris. Certainly any cityscape photo of Venice may still be beautiful but no serious photographer would try to present it as an achievement unless it is artistically something new. The same applies to popular animals and other iconic nature subjects: If someone still wants to photograph an icon, he should do it in his own way and not repeat what other photographers already have done. Otherwise it is better to go to new destinations, find new subjects, try out new techniques...

I want to see something new — either the iconic animals and places photographed differently, or images of less known animals and places.

#3: photos of big cats


My version of a pussy cat portrait: I photographed this lioness in western Uganda. She belongs to a population of lions who often spend the day resting on a tree, and this is why I made this photo. What you see here is just a lion portrait — nothing special!

I love all animals, and am convinced that all species — the Infusoria and the Blue Whale alike — can be exciting subjects for photography. Of course, a photographer can have his favourite subjects, and this is why there are bird, herp, macro, underwater and other photography specialists around. Certainly, cats are also impressive animals and it maybe very exciting to photograph them. However, I still can't figure out why so many people are so crazy specifically about these mammals. It is quite understandable why a cat keeper so often photographs his or her pet — for the same reason as a dog keeper: because of love to this particular animal. It shouldn't be a reason, however, to demonstrate such pictures to the public as a photography work.

The photos of big cats — tigers, lions, cheetahs — in wildlife photography are the same as of a kitty on a pillow in general photography, and the motivation may be the same: Big cats should be reminding such photographers of their pets at home. Since I don't have this passion, cats are for me just normal animals. So I register the disproportionate presence of them in online galleries of photographers, in books about Africa, calendars, etc., and wonder why so many photographers still want to impress the world with their trivial-looking photos of felines.

#2: "as-shot" images


For illustration, I would just use the same example as for number 8. This is an almost unprocessed image of a thrush from Cuba. Please compare it with the final image that will be visible when you put the mouse cursor over this picture. As I mentioned in #8, the smoothness of the background may be a bit overdone. Buch which of these two images do you like more?

Although I am tempted to begin with explanations of importance of postproduction in photography, I won't. I am just assuming that every serious photographer knows that capturing an image with a digital camera is only the first stage of the imaging process. I also hope that amateurs, too, know that the images they see in books, magazines and portfolios of famous nature photographers didn't come out of the camera as they are but are products of extensive postprocessing. So I am omitting further discussion of this topic for now.

My peeve number 2 is to see unprocessed images published on photography sites and in portfolios. It is really a pity when an otherwise excellent image looks bad only because the author obviously didn't bother to apply even minor colour and exposure adjustments before publishing. I am meaning not a bad or wrong processing but a complete absence of any signs of it which I unfortunately notice in many images published in the Internet even by people with decades of experience in photography.

I just can't believe that these people don't know how to use RAW converters and Photoshop, or don't know that they need to use them. I think the real couses could be either laziness or reluctance. Even more irritating is when the author of a photo attempts to explain and defend the obvious deficits caused by the lack of postprocessing through a sort of personal ideology of "faithful photography" which prohibits any manipulation of what "the camera has seen". Since suggestions of improvements encounter resistance, it is clear that receiving critique wasn't a purpose of the publication.

It is really disappointing to see that a well captured image ends up as a fail due to laxness or stubbornness of its author.

#1: false wildlife photography


This is the Eurasian Scops Owl — an extremely rare bird in many parts of Europe. There is absolutely no chance for a photographer to get an image of this bird in the wild with such quality as shown here. I photographed this owl in a zoo with a 200 mm lens. I was standing inside a cage with 4 birds and had all the time and means I needed for a perfect photograph like in a studio.

This is the winner among things that annoy me in wildlife photography: Images of captive or tamed wild animals that are presented or perceived as wildlife photographs. First of all, it annoys me because because the subjects aren't wildlife, hence it isn't wildlife photography at all. Sometimes — very rarely though — I photograph captive animals too, but never did it as serious photography and therefore nowhere present such images as my photography work.

The effort and costs of getting a photograph in captivity don't even get close to the effort and costs of photographing the same animal in the wild. On the other hand, the quality of images made in zoos, breeding stations, private collections, etc., is often much higher than of wildlife photographs, and easier meets the requirements of publishing houses, magazines and agencies. For majority of printed publications such as calendars, book illustrations, popular magazines, post cards, product designs the clean and perfectly composed photographs of captive animals are better suitable. According to my observations, people appreciate animal more than wildlife photography. The majority of producers and consumers of print products don't care whether it is a wild animal on the photo or not: It is always the picture that matters — not the way it was obtained. This is certainly very disappointing for me as a wildlife photographer, but it is a reality that I have to accept.

Since wildlife photography is a very expensive and difficult occupation that financially almost never pays back, most photographers, including me, do it more out of passion than for profit. Therefore authenticity of a wildlife photograph goes for me first. In my opinion, it isn't a wildlife photography when the subject's freedom of movement is restricted. These are not only photographs taken in zoos but also of animals that are being kept in "quasi natural habitats", but actually in enclosures in sanctuaries, so-called wildlife centers or similar institutions. I am sorry, but I don't see any reason for anyone to call, for instance, the animal that lives in an enclosure in the British Wildlife Centre or the Bavarian Forest National Park a "wild wolf" or "wild cat" even if the place looks like natural habitat. It is a captive animal, and a person who photographs animals in such places is just an animal photographer — like any other zoo photographer — but by no means a wildlife photographer.

When animal and wildlife photography meet in one place — at an exhibition, on a website, in a coffee table book — one of them looses. Images of animals in habitat and in cages can't be compared, then why should we do it? When wildlife photography looses in this comparison, i.e. when I see, for instance, how much people admire a photo of an eagle that was made during a raptor flight show or of a lynx in a wildlife sanctuary, I often get angry. And it is not because of envy: I can go to such places too and make such photos, but I don't because it is not interesting. What annoys me so much is just the situation of unfairness. Therefore, it is certainly my peeve number 1:

Photos of captive and tame animals really suck when they are presented in a way that makes people confuse them with wildlife photography!

* * *

As you may have noticed, I have written this article with a premise that wildlife photography is a division of fine-art imaging. Perhaps you would disagree with me and say that any photographing of wild animals should be wildlife photography, and perhaps you would be right. But even then, it wouldn't make sense to put together in one context "simple" shooting of animal photos and creation process of aesthetically appealing images of living nature.

My complaints about peeves that you have read in this article can be divided in only two categories — actually it could be a list of only 2 instead of 12. The numbers 12 - 2 can be joint to a single category of cases — when trivial images are being presented and treated as wildlife photography achievements.

To illustrate this article I have used my own images. I suppose most photographers — if not all — would have plenty of such examples in their archives and even published on personal sites. My critique was not on the fact that trivial or mediocre images are being produced, but on the annoying tendency of some people to show them off.

October, 2011