Quotation from the 1x 'About' page....

"Zoo-photos where it's obvious the photo is not shot in nature, but there is no special point of it being shot in a zoo, will not be published unless they are extremely good. A photo of a sad animal clinging to bars or a really happy one may in contrast be published since it raises the question whether it's right to have animals in captivity or not."

I am sorry to harp on about this but it is frustrating when the screeners fail to recognise the importance of the above. If they want to continue to publish shots which are clearly taken in a zoo then remove the statement. 1x has some excellent wildlife photographers and would attract more if the site stuck by its own 'rules'.

PLEASE photographers there is a world of wildlife out there existing in its own environment...beautiful and natural. I know this is a photography site and not an arm of Greenpeace or WWF.....but still the point is made. Thank you :-))

We try to pay special attention to that problem and to publish zoo shots in the "Everyday" instead of the "Nature" category. Can you point to specific examples of zoo shots that you think shouldn't have been published (in private if you want)?

I guess Stephen means the latest photo of the gorilla in B&W>

But i must say its a very good image, well processed and thought out!

But in all honesty Stephen i bet a large majority of the wild life images are shot in some sort of captive areas!

I vote for this image as there is nothing degrading towards the animal at all and im sure the screeners must take all these points into consideration when processing!

Just my thoughts,
Glen

Well Glen I take issue with you on two main counts.

Firstly your assume that most (a majority you say) wildlife images here are shot in a captive area !!

That is just plain wrong and way off the mark. While most of us who specialise in this area have issues
with captivity shots like the chimpanzee for example, I do have to say that 1x is pretty good about
recognising genuine wildlife images. The occasional one sneaks through but on the whole I would give
them pretty high marks for publishing authentic shots. That is not to say that I won't bang on about this
from time to time. I don't think it is out of place of me to say that I know Ursula our ex head-screen
was in 100% in agreement on this issue.

Your last point about the creature itself. If you cannot see that this animal not only looks degraded but
by being in a zoo certainly IS degraded then I just sigh.

Zoos (that is city zoological parks) are there to entertain humans at the expense of animal welfare. They
hide behind the word 'conservation' but in truth these city zoos do little at all to preserve truly endangered
species.

As far as the photos are concerned would you rather see shots by people who spend weeks, even months
in the wild looking for those breathless images or those taken standing next to an enclosure or pen ?

Zoo animals should not be put in nature plain and simple, no grey area IMO. The effort put forth for a real nature shoot vs the Zoo images equals sometimes hours of work with no results and this does not bring into the possibility of danger on real nature shoots. Take Colmar's image of the suckling Elephant calf. My thought was that he put his self in a level of danger that most folks would not tolerate. Thus I much more appreciate a real nature shot than a Zoo one. I really love some of the Zoo shots here and do not condemn those who make them, they just need to go in every day, mood or some category other than nature. My 2 cents, will

Weather they get put in nature, mood, every day etc is not the point being discussed!

Should they be accepted at all?........... Well they have been and they are!

My point was simple, i dont think Judy has degraded the animal in any way. The fact that its caged has nothing to do with photographer. My point was "But i must say its a very good image, well processed and thought out!"

For a point of interest, if i travel to Africa and go to the animal national park, are they not enclosed/fenced areas weather being small or large?

Stephen. I hear your point and understand and mostly agree with it. And I take responsibility for the image being published. It was under my watch.
I felt it deserved to be published otherwise I would not have done so.
The rules are there and they are clear. My own personal issues with 0% tolerance based on rules play a factor in my decisions. I think a diservice is rendered when making these types of judgements. Each individual circumstance, IMO, deserve critical thought in determining an outcome. To me, using rules in their absolute (0% tolerance) terms, is a way to shuck off responsibility for a judgement rendered. It, also, disempowers those involved in the critical thought process.

JB

Absolutely IMO, a great image is a great image, but it should be put in the appropriate place. In reality we are all nature but many (myself included) think pure nature should not show the hand of man.

Hi there everybody,

I also think it's important to distinguish between zoo/animal studio photos and photos taken of unrestrained animals in the wild. It's quite easy to see the difference.

Jerry, I just sent you some URLs of photos that probably belong in the everyday category.

All the best
/johan

It´s the same diference from documentary/photo-journalism and pictorial photos posed, manipulated, with a ordered scene.

It´s not crime to take photos os domestic animals or captive ones, but is not ethic at all publish it on "wild life" theme. Who do that it´s a photographer without honor and ethic.

I agree in full, no zoo shots in nature or heavily edited. That is my view and the crew, however some do slip through the net, if anyone spots a pic that is clearly miss placed in any category please tell us, we will change it. mal

In Toronto, we have a tourist attraction called African Lion Safari. I presume it is modeled after African reserves but on a hugely smaller scale. The various animals in the African Lion Safari do not hunt their own food (I believe) and are separated from one another by fencing enclosures, although each category of animal appears to have quite a large area in which to roam. At the same time though, bus tours and passenger vehicles are permitted to drive through the enclosures to allow for viewings. Would this be considered a zoo? How does the Toronto African Lion Safari differ from African reserves that have resort facilities? I would presume, that in African reserves, the animals must hunt their own food?

My questions are only for my personal edification as my knowledge of African reserves is peripheral, having seen tv shows and a friend's vacation to an African reserve resort.

Rui, when you see something you think is mislabelled just write the crew and they'll take care of it. As pointed out by Mal above. I helped Ursula last year with moving plenty of photos from Nature -> Everyday. It's the simplest thing really!

And of course, zoo shots can be stunning, even though they do not portray animals in the wild. Different people different tastes. This is obvious from almost every discussion here in the forum :-)

Just take a look at that great book Pheromone by Christopher Marley, it's all dead animals arranged in a studio setting. But wow, it's a stunning book. If I remember correctly, Marley didn't even take the photos, but of course, he's the artist behind the book.

/johan

Kevin, I think your comment says more about photo safaris in Africa than about the Toronto African Lion Safari. Africa is mad, animals everywhere, it's unreal. Kind of like a tropical coral reef, but with huge mammals!

/johan

Kevin, I think that the Toronto Safari would not be thought of as wild even though the animals have more room than if in a Zoo. It would not be qualified as nature IMO. But I have to keep on reminding myself that we are all nature even if we do make large buildings (Termites do also) and think that we are technically superior to other life forms (we are indeed animals) will

Thanks Johan. I received it and will look into it when I get time to research them. I don't want to make presumptions before taking any action on them.

jb

@Johan - you're right, mine is probably a two part question and really more about what an African Safari is like. Although I am curious if the Toronto Safari is more a zoo or reserve. Thanks

@Will - glad to know your thoughts - thanks.

A big reserve can be or not man manipulated, so, a photo of a animal in a reserve can be considerated "wild life photo" ?

There are lots of photos from respected wild life photographers taken in large reserves in Africa and in other areas. But there, a reserve have hundreds of Km large areas and the animals have much freedom. It´s not a easy problem and i read a lot of discussions about it whitout a real definition on end.

Well as this was my thread initially then perhaps I should have my little say....and help Kevin with his safari 'wonder'.

First a little statistic. The game ( a word I'm not too keen on ) that exists today in Africa is shockingly just 1% of the
numbers that existed just before 1900. The last wild lion in the Cape Town area was shot and killed about the same time.

The wildlife numbers were drastically reduced due to four main reasons. Zoos were number one ! Under the perverse
pretense that they were conserving numbers zoological gardens across the world rushed to fill their cages and enclosures
with the 'sexy' species, lions, tigers, polar bears, gorillas and so on. It is universally accepted that zoos have drastically
reduced numbers. They would have you believe they are saints.

Fencing is next. Widespread fencing in sub-saharan Africa stopped migration in its tracks and massively reduced access
to natural habitats. I would say that thousands of miles of fences that I have experienced in Africa is utterly pointless.

Urbanisation. Speaks for itself but probably and surprisingly not quite as significant a factor as the first two.

Climate change. Increasingly habitat is threatened by the failure of the rains.

Kevin...it is impossible to put into words what the African bush is like to experience. Mostly I have experienced it in company
with my wife who is mesmerised by all the bush is and all it has to offer. It is a sensory explosion and once it is in your
blood it cannot be removed ! Because of family and business reasons I am forced right now to be in the UK but I can
honestly say I think about 'my' Africa every few minutes of every day. I long for the night chorus to sing me to sleep.

Your Toronto 'safari' is .....well....I wont be rude.

It is true Rui that some of the so called 'reserves' like Etosha are fundamentally enclosed but Etosha is larger than Wales and
all the wildlife in that area live as they would have always lived....they hunt and are hunted with only minimal influence from
man so essentially the Kalahari, the Okovango, the Mara are all truly wild. All of my shots are of truly wild Africa.

Save, save and save and go to the bush for 3 months when your family are a little older. It will be the best experience of
your life. It is proven now that every human on earth came out of Africa, every single one of us has that 'marker' gene.
I am proud to be an African, it is home to all of us.

Well said Stephen, I have always wanted to spend time in Africa but it just was not to be. From all of the information I get on DNA it states that we are all descended from one male African many thousand years ago. I wanted to go with Joe McDonald on one of his photo safaris and spend as much time as possible ;-)

Having been to Africa once, and experienced the "bush", I would also recommend the experience to anyone that has the opportunity. Johan, you are absolutely correct. I cannot get it out of my blood. It is truly a different world.

The thing that affected me most, was the difference I could see (and feel) in the animals found in the zoo. Including the so called Safari parks. There is no doubt the dispare that oozes from their posture being confined. Especially the elephants but no less the others.

Thanks for the info everyone - 3 months - finding that kind of time is next to impossible!

A Wildlife bordercase? Interesting reading in any case:
http://www.suomenluonto.fi/bbcs-nature-photo-competition-judge-admits-winner-photo-investigated-due-to-fraud-allegations

Lars :-)

Why would you call a wolf Ossain? Why would a tame wolf get into a fight and have its ear bashed? Why wouldn't the fox have ran underneath the fence? Why are there no trails visible in the ground? Why is there half a turkey carcass in the background? Where were you on Saturday at 11oclock?

My favourite part though is
The pieces of evidence are apparently collected by a group of Spanish photographers. They are conserned about the reputation of all Spanish photographers and, thus, want to bring the evidence in public.

So they were sour losers then?

Load of rubbish in my opinion Lars.

I also think it's a fake.

Hi Stephen!
I have been doing wildlife photography for the last 20 or so years and as yet i have never ventured near zoos or "wildlife" parks for subject matter. "Wildlife park" now there's a misnomer if ever there was one!!!! My photography is mostly UK based so i refer to UK wildlife parks, not African "wildlife" reserves like the Serengeti. ("Game" reserves are for people armed with guns not cameras!!)
Stephen, i totaly agree with what you are saying here, IMO the work of a wildlife photographer has far more validity than a photograph taken at a zoo. For me, zoo photography can only ever illustrate the failure of humankind to allow animals the space to live unmolested in their natural habitat.
So what defines a zoo animal for me? Any animal who's survival is dependent on the intervention of humanity.....the world then is rapidly turning into one large zoo as habitat is being eroded to make way for more of us.
"Conservation" is just a belated and mostly futile attempt to arrest a decline that was caused by humanity in the first place and is generaly always "too little too late" with the inevitable result of another species joining the ranks of the extinct.
I think we are lucky to still have wildlife to photograph and i dread to think what wildlife photographers will be doing in another 100 years time, i imagine they will probably be cursing the lack of subject matter!
Vic.

I know this is all relating to animals in captivity but I have to say animals in their natural environment is one of my favourite themes for my photos. Obviously this is not always so easy to find/capture. My most success with this was on a recent holiday to Wicklow in Ireland. Wicklow has stunning countryside, so one day I hired a mountain bike and simply set off into the hills! Good photos are often all about chance - chance lighting, chance subjects, and I was lucky enough to capture a variety of animals quietly enjoying their lives in the greenery.

I would like to "re-open" this discussion started by Stephen.

First of all, I don't mind zoo shots, as long as they are honestly presented as such. We all have different interests and there's plenty of room for all areas of interest here at 1x.

But, I really think it's boring with mislabelled zoo shots. There have been quite a few recently and I think 1x would be a more exciting place if photos were correctly labelled. I also think that it'd be cool if 1x, being an exceedingly popular web site, encouraged such honesty. Lots and lots of people come here and look at photos and perhaps clear and honest labels can inspire more people to clearly distinguish different kind of works.

Finally, I don't intend to start another one of those discussions whether a photo of a captive leopard is less worth than photo of a wild leopard. I just think there is a big value in distinguishing the two. This is analogous to people wanting documentary photos being distinguished from directed photos with actors and props.

Good night :-)
/Johan

I like your idea Johan...
That would be nice for all types of photography.

Thanks Willem!

I think the key here is that in principle it is very simple to implement. Just some clear guidelines during submissions. It doesn't have to be a tick box like for nude content, but something that makes it clear what submitting to a certain category means.

Me too. Actually, for me at least, this extends to plant images too. For example flower images, they are often presented as "nature" when they are cultivated, sometimes even indoors. They are beautiful pictures, I have nothing against the pictures, but in my view they are not "nature".

Hi Ursula!

You're perfectly right, I didn't think about plants. So can we do something about this? I've tried previously to work for a more correct labelling of photos through OEmail to screeners but I hasn't always been that successful. I guess it all comes down to whether Ralf and Jacob (what's your taken on this problem?) consider this a significant issue.

Personally I think such clear labelling of photos can be really good for 1x, both because it can show that this is a web community where photography is taken seriously and perhaps it can also increase the activity of photographers that are tired of the dilution between different categories of photography. For this reason 1x might also be able to attract more photographers?

I don't really care what precisely belongs to a certain category or not (nature, street, everyday, documentary et cetera) "photography" covers it all for me,
but it would be nice to get some extra info on the process of getting the image and result like:

captive / domesticated / cultivated - wild,
candid - staged.
environmental light only - added light sources
composite - non composite

That would cover it all or most I suppose

I guess my specific interests has made me fail to see the bigger picture. Yes Willem, such info would be good for all photos, and that would solve all plant/animal/documentary etc ambiguities. Great suggestion :-)
/Johan

I share your thoughts on this Johan. During my time as part of the crew here I regularly took time to go through images in the "Nature" category and moved images to other categories witch did not contain obviously wild animals (or plants). I don't think this work has been taken over by anyone else since I left crew.

what about people in the category street that are not obvious wild people? :D

I don't think that should be the 'job' of the screeners, one could ask disclosure from the part of the artists on the points I mentioned

captive / domesticated / cultivated - wild,
candid - staged.
environmental light only - added light sources
composite - non composite

If somebody isn't honest he or she will can be held accountable by the rest of the community.

And personally I wonder what the relevance is of discriminating between categories like

Humour / Creative edit /Abstract / Conceptual / Mood / Architecture / Landscape
Documentary / Everyday / Street / Portrait
Action / Performance / Nature /Fine Art Nude / Macro / Still life / Underwater / Night

They may be useful to some as search tags, but mostly these ignite debates about what does belong to a category and what doesn't

And what to do with a funny night shot taken on the street during a performance in a moody dense fog.... showing a well domesticated accountant

Maybe the categories are rooted in an idea by the founders on how to organize their virtual gallery.
For abstract pictures go left, macro shots can be found in the cabinet in the hall way... landscapes are in the conservatory, fine art nude in the master bedroom, creative edits in the nursery.... underwater in the cellar as long as the plumbers are on strike..

It can be a useful principle to organize things but it doesn't tell me much about the way the image has been made.

Well....as I started this thread a long long time ago, I thought I should have my little say.

I'm assuming that the powers at be would feel unable to extend the number of categories
and I tend to agree with Willem on this matter.

Ursula as much as I would like to agree with you regarding plants I can't really see the
comparison. Keeping animals in captivity under the pretense of conservation is my main
gripe and passing off images as nature when they are in fact images of forced caging is
in my view very 'naughty'.

I am afraid there is little that can be done to counteract this on the 1x site....I can only see
that we will have to rely on the photographers honesty.

On a personal note I announced last year my wife were to be permanently in Amboseli, Kenya.
For various reasons that didn't work out but I am pleased to say that we are off to the
Masai Mara in two weeks time where we have been asked to take over the running of a
luxury lodge there. Watch this space.

Thank you to all genuine wildlife photographers on this site. Great job ! It would be great
to see an 'expert' in this field on the screeners roster....seriously !!!

I'm not applying for the job :))

So, if a picture have a lot of processing have to be said also? So, we have also to inform is the model is staged or candid in a portrait? or if we change the sky in an architecture shot? or if we removed towers, cables or other distracting things in a landscape shot? so Macro pictures needs to be in real environment, no staged in the studio? What about underwater, need to be in open sea or acuarium photos have to be tagged?

I do not like any staged photographs(but there are very nice ones, I have to admit) but I do not think this information would be necessary If photographer do not want to be known.

Good to hear your thoughts as well Stephen. And that luxury lodge sounds very interesting! But I think Ursula has a point, just like Willem, that many people here at 1x feels that this is an important issue for their areas of interest as well.

Thomas: I know you worked through lot's of photos, that was super of you. But I think Willem has a very good point that this responsibility should rest on our shoulders, the participants here. We are the one that should be honest about what we've captured on our sensors.


I disagree. Given the high standards, photographically, here at 1x I think it's time to raise the bar one more step to make this an even better photo community. I believe that such information can only yield more interest into 1x as a community. It is commonplace at photo competitions and in magazines and journals to provide the context of photos. I don't see any drawbacks for 1x as a community to implement these ideas.

Miguel....Willem....these thoughts should be on another thread. You are 'off-topic'

Sorry Stephen
You're right

Disagree. It is the same topic, why is important the context in nature and not in other genre? If only photo counts, sentence very used in this site, i do not see the difference if the photo is in captivity or not, if the flower is in my garden or in the summit of Himalayas. The context matters in all types of photography... I think or may be not?

How about bug shots? Aren't a lot of the weird bugs we see ordered and shipped into peoples homes/studios?? And aren't many of them either dead or nearly frozen when photographed??

Yes, as mentioned above Willem and Ursula made a very good point about extending the zoo/captive animals vs. wild animals dichotomy to include other categories. So yes, studio/shipped mantises and other insects should be clearly labelled as such.

Gosh, I'm surprised, it's as if we're reaching a consensus here!

Ralf and Jacob, I know that you know that I think you've done something truly remarkable with this site, are you interested in this issue and its potential for the site? I don't think this is a purist/conservative/boring issue, I think it is a quality issue. Even the Veolia Environnement Wildlife Photographer of the Year permit quite a lot of digital modification in their digital guidelines. They focus on the honesty issue, and with your high aspirations regarding where you want to go with this site that competition might be inspirational as it is the most important competition in wildlife photography.

Cheers!
/johan

I just think this is worth saying again. In this glossy world, this is a good point Stephen.

Over and out :-)
/Johan

I don't shoot zoo animals generally, but have a few images of captive animals which I tend to point out as such.

Not everybody has the opportunity to travel to Africa to photograph a lion - so I respect that this desire may be satisfied with portraits from the local zoo (which of course tend to be the endangered Indian lions from Gir forest....). The pros and cons or morals about conservation issues and wild animals in captivity are a very different matter.

When I browse thru 1x animal images I recognize a fair number of clear zoo photos and many others which could be. It seems to be a "trend" on 1x and other photo community sites to display zoo images as "art" by turning them into b/w.

As a wildlife phographer I decided to separate myself from the crowd, so to speak, by making sure I include the natural environment/landscape in the composition. I stay away from full frame portraits and specialize in a style that cannot be reproduced in captivity (except I guess photoshopping....and that is another pandora box...).