Fakery in wildlife photography: Here's a link to an interesting story from the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/apr/30/fake-animal-photography-taxidermy-baiting...

2mdman

Here's a link to an interesting story from the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/apr/30/fake-animal-photography-taxidermy-baiting

I like the picture of the great grey owl sitting on the camera.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

2mdman wrote:

Here's a link to an interesting story from the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/apr/30/fake-animal-photography-taxidermy-baiting

I like the picture of the great grey owl sitting on the camera.

How do we know that Owl was not PhotoShopped on that Gimbal Head?

2mdman

Or glued on?

papo76522

PixelStan77 wrote:

How do we know that Owl was not PhotoShopped on that Gimbal Head?

Plus the owl is sitting (resting) on a lens, not a camera. There isn't a camera anywhere near that owl (other than the one maybe taking the picture).

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

2mdman wrote:

Here's a link to an interesting story from the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/apr/30/fake-animal-photography-taxidermy-baiting

I like the picture of the great grey owl sitting on the camera.

There is much fakery in photography. Most of it comes from post processing. Putting in a different sky is fakery, putting in a different background is fakery, removing or adding an object or person is fakery. It happens all the time.

Shellback Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas

Mac wrote:

There is much fakery in photography. Most of it comes from post processing. Putting in a different sky is fakery, putting in a different background is fakery, removing or adding an object or person is fakery. It happens all the time.

It's art - and if it looks good to the viewer - then enjoy

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

For many - the zoo is the only place they will see their favourite species......
Many people here are into 'Birds in flight' which omit any reference to habitat in preference to sharpness and detail. Macro is also a popular area of photography where detail rather than habitat is the main goal.
If this makes people happy (& putting a different sky onto an image seems to.)...Good luck to them.

Just abide by 'the rules' when entering a competition. Over the last couple of decades 'The Environment' has become an 'equal' to 'Species' in competion and publishing. A move in the right direction in my humble opinion. Without one you lose the other. I would hate to live in a world where 'digital manipulation' was the only option for 'seeing' wildlife.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

G Brown wrote:

For many - the zoo is the only place they will see... (show quote)

Well I think the key here is intentional misrepresentation to either win an award or to skirt submission requirements.

2mdman

To me, it's using fake animals (if true about the anteater), abusing animals or insects (like gluing them to take a photo), or feeding them mice (unnatural and harms the animal), or the aggressive pursuit/harassment of wildlife for pictures (think Yellowstone) especially for profit.

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

papo76522 wrote:

Plus the owl is sitting (resting) on a lens, not a camera. There isn't a camera anywhere near that owl (other than the one maybe taking the picture).

Diocletian

2mdman wrote:

Here's a link to an interesting story from the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/apr/30/fake-animal-photography-taxidermy-baiting

I like the picture of the great grey owl sitting on the camera.

We're reading the same stories..My fave is still the anteater....how seriously dumb do you have to be to think nobody would notice?...

I'm still laughing....