Baited Nature Shots Duscussion

     I would like to hear your opinions regarding competition scoring of nature images when they are captured in baited situations. I belong to a photo club that has a lot of nature photographers. Our members have captured some wonderful wildlife images however it is known that many of the better images were taken in a baited situation where wildlife was attracted to the photo location by the placement of food.  Food is strategically placed to attract wildlife to come to specific locations. These locations are selected to optimize the likely position of an animal in a setting that provides ideal background conditions absent of distracting features.I realize that people offering wildlife photo courses often use this technique so their customers will have better opportunities to get some ouitstanding shots.  The question is should these 'set-up' nature shots be regarded on an even scoring field as nature shots captured in a non-baited or truly natural environment? 

I'm wondering what a non-baited environment is? Or what a truly natural one is? I'm not sure that a person would really know. After all, in 2002 I spent an afternoon chasing a nice parrot around my hotel grounds only to find out two days latter it was a pet. If I hadn't stayed that long, I would have never known the bird wasn't wild and I certainly didn't put any food out to attract it.

I do wonder on the entire ethics of 'nature photography'. Honestly many here frown upon the use of the clone tool to remove distracting twigs etc. but are happy to put out live mice to attract owls or to use bird recordings or a variety of other devices and set ups to get the perfect shot.

A recent study here in Australia found that the use of bird call recordings placed stress on many of the birds as they tried to identify the 'threat' to their territory.

I was going to become a paid member here and post some shots but after reading several discussions on the site and seeing the type of images selected as Editors Choice I decided not to as it was clear to me that the push here is to the more set up shots.

From what I can see there is very little 'nature photography' any more, certainly not the type where one lone individual goes out with simple equipment and some knowledge of the area and/or species and gets a series of shots of the intended subject.

The concept of the 'hand of man' in defining several categories makes no real sense any more either given all the unseen 'hands' that go into setting up the shots.

I am not setting out to be controversial here but as a 72 year old female I am past bitting my tong now and more interested in stating what I actually feel.

Is Nature photography simply photo-journalism of natural things? Or is it artistic photography with nature as the subject?

Certainly I'm not taking pictures to document a moment for science. I'm making images for enjoyment of the subject and pleasing the viewer's eye. That's true whether I'm swimming with turtles, taking pictures of birds, shooting the local play for a charity or shooting a model for glamours sake.

I no longer believe that "a picture is worth a thousand words" as though it represents some sort of truth in the moment. That is since I know that a picture is simply the story that the photographer wants to tell you, nothing more and nothing less. And it rarely represents what most people would call "the truth" as it is a distortion of time, space and light. Angle the camera this way, change the aperture that way, change the angle of the light like this and change the shutter speed like that. All of it distorts the view and the photographer picks which to use so that the image produces a very photographer slanted view of what happened.

Landscape photography taken from ground level with a wide angle lens. When the viewer sees it, they perceive that the image was taken with their eyes while standing. No truth in that as they will not find the image when they visit the location.

Wildlife photography taken with extreme focal lengths. When the viewer sees it, they perceive that the image was taken with their eyes while standing. No truth in that as our eyes can't isolate like that ever and they will see all sorts of distractions if they were with you at the time.

And then to bait. Which is another way to say that the photographer does things to control what is in the image. Building a pond so that birds can bath and swim, yep baiting. Putting out seed so that birds can find food consistently, yep baiting. Putting out seed so that song birds will gather so the cooper's hawk will come by, yep baiting. Going to Bosque de Apache so that you can get Sandhill cranes and Snow Geese in flight, yep baiting. (You didn't divert the river, produce the ponds or grow the food, yet it still happened!) Going to Haines Alaska for Eagles, yep baiting. (Humans control much of natures movement today and even though the food source is a much more natural one, the eagles are still coming in for the food and the photographer is still taking advantage of it.) The list can go on and on.

So coming full circle, the images are all setups. To make a more consistent a group of images more control is needed. And Humans are masters at the art of control, and so are photographers, even when producing "Nature" photography.

Anthony Medici wrote:[snip] a picture is simply the story that the photographer wants to tell you, nothing more and nothing less. And it rarely represents what most people would call "the truth" as it is a distortion of time, space and light. [snip]

I guess next time when you present your passport at the Custom, it's ok for the officer to say to you: "Sir, this is not your passport cuz I don't think it's you in the photo." Or you can say to your "wife": "We've never married despite what that wedding photo seem to be suggesting".

You don't really believe what you said, do you?

You can argue that a photograph shows the perspective that the photographer wants to show you, but saying that it rarely represents the truth is kind of off there because it may not represent the whole truth, it does represents some of it and could be most of it. In fact, most people do think a photograph depicts what has happened at a certain time, something that was real in their life. Otherwise, nobody would be showing you their vacation photos, wedding photos, the photos of their newborns, etc., because it would be meaningless if those photos represent nothing.

DChan wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote:[snip] a picture is simply the story that the photographer wants to tell you, nothing more and nothing less. And it rarely represents what most people would call "the truth" as it is a distortion of time, space and light. [snip]

I guess next time when you present your passport at the Custom, it's ok for the officer to say to you: "Sir, this is not your passport cuz I don't think it's you in the photo." Or you can say to your "wife": "We've never married despite what that wedding photo seem to be suggesting".

You don't really believe what you said, do you?

You can argue that a photograph shows the perspective that the photographer wants to show you, but saying that it rarely represents the truth is kind of off there because it may not represent the whole truth, it does represents some of it and could be most of it. In fact, most people do think a photograph depicts what has happened at a certain time, something that was real in their life. Otherwise, nobody would be showing you their vacation photos, wedding photos, the photos of their newborns, etc., because it would be meaningless if those photos represent nothing.

 You cannot and do not alter passport photos since that would defeat the entire purpose. 

Photos of kids BTW can also be 'baited' by arranging toys or having Mom distract the child and so on. Vacation photos of the guy pushing the Tower of Pisa, stick-selfies with Niagara falls in the background are imaginative creations in a way. Images of landmark buildings with keystone distortion do not look like that to our eyes in person. 

Life as we see it is never truly reflected in a photograph except perhaps in journalism and there too it is always suspect as we well know. There may be some truth in a photograph but it would be naive to assume that it is absolute reality.

Pradeep

Because your question is specific to "competition scoring", and there is no sure way of knowing if any image is the result of baiting or not, your question is and will remain unanswerable.
It does point out why photo clubs should avoid competitions and limit there activities to the sharing of images and knowledge. I have attended many clubs across the country where ego meters rule the day...very discouraging for newbies who come to learn a craft.
On a related topic...I have seen photographers use firecrackers to cause flocks of birds to take flight, to get the shot they want. Other than disgusting, I'm not sure what to call that.

To Kim - I  occasionally need to remind myself that this site is foremost a business...the selling of goods and photo trips. The success of that business is what permits these forums to exist. Any disagreement I have with the site's administration or editors picks is inconsequential to the tremendous amount of good these forums have done for millions of viewers. I refer to the help offered in making wise purchases, the solving of frustrating and highly technical problems, the absence of any brand promotion, increasing the awareness of the natural world, and the ability to view a ceaseless parade of high quality work.

Do you enjoy nature documentaries on BBC or PBS? Do you think they are all shot in wild, without baiting?
If you think, yes, please think again - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/1 ... 49528.html

My bigger problem with using calls is that photographers tend to get carried away sometimes. And if the location is popular, even if you think you have played the call once or twice, 10 other photographers doing the same can cause tremendous stress in birds.

If the question is about the competition, the organizers can create rules/categories to ensure that they are getting what they want. I also feel that (most of the times) it is very easy to find out whether photo was a setup or not, by just looking at it.

Anthony Medici wrote:Is Nature photography simply photo-journalism of natural things? Or is it artistic photography with nature as the subject?

Certainly  I'm not taking pictures to document a moment for science. I'm making images for enjoyment of the subject and pleasing the viewer's eye. That's true whether I'm swimming with turtles, taking pictures of birds, shooting the local play for a charity or shooting a model for glamours sake.

I no longer believe that "a picture is worth a thousand words" as though it represents some sort of truth in the moment. That is since I know that a picture is simply the story that the photographer wants to tell you, nothing more and nothing less. And it rarely represents what most people would call "the truth" as it is a distortion of time, space and light. Angle the camera this way, change the aperture that way, change the angle of the light like this and change the shutter speed like that. All of it distorts the view and the photographer picks which to use so that the image produces a very photographer slanted view of what happened.

Landscape photography taken from ground level with a wide angle lens. When the viewer sees it, they perceive that the image was taken with their eyes while standing. No truth in that as they will not find the image when they visit the location.

Wildlife photography taken with extreme focal lengths. When the viewer sees it, they perceive that the image was taken with their eyes while standing. No truth in that as our eyes can't isolate like that ever and they will see all sorts of distractions if they were with you at the time.

And then to bait. Which is another way to say that the photographer does things to control what is in the image. Building a pond so that birds can bath and swim, yep baiting. Putting out seed so that birds can find food consistently, yep baiting. Putting out seed so that song birds will gather so the cooper's hawk will come by, yep baiting. Going to Bosque de Apache so that you can get Sandhill cranes and Snow Geese in flight, yep baiting. (You didn't divert the river, produce the ponds or grow the food, yet it still happened!) Going to Haines Alaska for Eagles, yep baiting. (Humans control much of natures movement today and even though the food source is a much more natural one, the eagles are still coming in for the food and the photographer is still taking advantage of it.) The list can go on and on.

So coming full circle, the images are all setups. To make a more consistent a group of images more control is needed. And Humans are masters at the art of control, and so are photographers, even when producing "Nature" photography.

Exceptionally well stated, Tony!  My feelings exactly, except I did not know how to say it so well.

Cheers,
Steve Cirone

stevenmajor wrote:..............................

To Kim - I  occasionally need to remind myself that this site is foremost a business...the selling of goods and photo trips. The success of that business is what permits these forums to exist. Any disagreement I have with the site's administration or editors picks is inconsequential to the tremendous amount of good these forums have done for millions of viewers. I refer to the help offered in making wise purchases, the solving of frustrating and highly technical problems, the absence of any brand promotion, increasing the awareness of the natural world, and the ability to view a ceaseless parade of high quality work.

We all tend to forget that.

It is, nevertheless, a tremendous help to so many of us and that is why I am a supporter. I also buy what I can from here. 

I also do not post my pictures here but that's largely to do with the fact that my work is not in the same class and I feel humbled by the images on display here. 

Pradeep

The question was posed to seek opinions concerning whether images submitted to a "Wildlife or Nature" competition categories should be rated on an even basis when some shots are taken in a food baited situation while others are competing images are taken in an environment with only natural food sources. Consider the "bird on a stick" type shot where branches are set up, or distracting branches are pruned away from a location adjacent to the food source where a bird is likely to land and provide a good photo opportunity. The typical technique is to set up a targeted landing branch(es) where there is an unobstructed shooter vantage and a distant enough background that can be effectively blurred with use of a wider lens aperture.  This technique can produce some spectacular shots of a wildlife specimens but should these baited shots be worthy of achieving the same score rating as another equally excellent photo captured in an uncontrolled more natural situation? Let's leave discussion of how to prove whether it is a baited situation or not for another time.  What is natural and what is more valued?

So I control my situation better and the image is supposed to be less valuable that way? Photography is all about controlling the situation yet you seem to think the image shouldn't be rated as highly because it was "easier" to take?

Walking around, hoping that a miracle will occur so that you manage to get a shot you like and the viewer will like versus taking control of the situation and increasing the chances that the thing that I want to happen will happen.

BTW, a bird on a stick type shot is just the first step in a series of harder images to acquire. If you want to judge on difficulty, walking shots, swimming shots, flying shots, take off/landing shots or interaction shots are a lot harder to produce well. Yet in all of these I wouldn't want to just stumble into the opportunity, I would want a repeatable method to produce the images. And setup, or as you call it, baiting, is the best way of doing that.

Is penalizing the photographer because they were smart enough to realize that your goal? Why do you value lesser images that were taken "by accident" over better images that were taken "by good planning?

Anthony Medici wrote:...
And then to bait. Which is another way to say that the photographer does things to control what is in the image. Building a pond so that birds can bath and swim, yep baiting. Putting out seed so that birds can find food consistently, yep baiting. Putting out seed so that song birds will gather so the cooper's hawk will come by, yep baiting. Going to Bosque de Apache so that you can get Sandhill cranes and Snow Geese in flight, yep baiting. (You didn't divert the river, produce the ponds or grow the food, yet it still happened!) Going to Haines Alaska for Eagles, yep baiting. (Humans control much of natures movement today and even though the food source is a much more natural one, the eagles are still coming in for the food and the photographer is still taking advantage of it.) The list can go on and on. .....

" .... to bait. Which is another way to say that the photographer does things to control what is in the image. .."

No, it isn't to say that, at all. It's to say the photographer does very specific things to attract a subject to a location. It helps the discourse if we don't just make up our own definitions for words.

Cheers

Carl

walkinman wrote:" .... to bait. Which is another way to say that the photographer does things to control what is in the image. .."

No, it isn't to say that, at all. It's to say the photographer does very specific things to attract a subject to a location. It helps the discourse if we don't just make up our own definitions for words.

Cheers

Carl

The easiest way to control what is in the image is to pick the location that the image will be taken at. Nature photography is no different in this than any other type of photography. Location and timing are, usually, key. Yet for this discussion, baiting is used as a curse word of what is bad to do. Yet it is a method used to help pick the location and the timing and I will continue to see them as the same thing. It also seems that the photographer doing the baiting is bad yet would seem to allow other nonnatural situations to be ok. (Like shooting eagles in the winter by a darn which keeps the river from freezing over and allows the eagles to fish where they wouldn't be able to otherwise. The photographer took no part in building or controlling the darn yet takes advantage of it to take the images of eagles.)

True, there are different types of baiting but that discussion doesn't say that one form of baiting is worse than another. It is only saying that baiting is bad and the image shouldn't be rated as highly which is nonsense. We've run similar topics through with "captive" animals too.

If we take this to a logical conclusion, any nature images taken in an environment that was changed by man would be considered baited. Yes that's worth repeating, the environment was change, so the image used a baiting technique. All backyards, all planted trees, all planted shrubs, all diverted water sources, etc are all methods of baiting. Whether the photograph cause those events or whether he is simply taking advantage of it has no concern to me. It is still baiting.

In the original question, pruning those things seemed to cause as much issue as making sure there is a food/water supply nearby to bring in the subjects.

Simply put, I don't think that providing a food source is a reason to disqualify the resulting image or less then value of the resulting image. And trying to do so, by putting strict rules on what "type" of baiting isn't allowed, is what generates controversy within the group. Notice I didn't say that you could restrict all types of baiting since I believe, as I've written above, that there are many types of things that I would consider baiting and unnatural.

Primus wrote:

DChan wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote:[snip] a picture is simply the story that the photographer wants to tell you, nothing more and nothing less. And it rarely represents what most people would call "the truth" as it is a distortion of time, space and light. [snip]

I guess next time when you present your passport at the Custom, it's ok for the officer to say to you: "Sir, this is not your passport cuz I don't think it's you in the photo." Or you can say to your "wife": "We've never married despite what that wedding photo seem to be suggesting".

You don't really believe what you said, do you?

You can argue that a photograph shows the perspective that the photographer wants to show you, but saying that it rarely represents the truth is kind of off there because it may not represent the whole truth, it does represents some of it and could be most of it. In fact, most people do think a photograph depicts what has happened at a certain time, something that was real in their life. Otherwise, nobody would be showing you their vacation photos, wedding photos, the photos of their newborns, etc., because it would be meaningless if those photos represent nothing.

 You cannot and do not alter passport photos since that would defeat the entire purpose. 

So there are photos do represent the truth. Many of them in fact. There are all kinds of photos out there, and most people don't photoshop. And truth is more than just the appearance.

Bob, I have no problems with "baiting" to get good nature shots as long as the animal is not being harmed. Tony has stated why in better words what I could ever say on this subject.

I am a member of a camera club and have judged nature photo competitions for over 15 years, from slide film to digital to digital with manipulations. Each competition sets its own rules. As long as the participants follow the rules and the judges also abide by them when they judge the images (not always the case), no harm is being done. If you do not like the rules, do not enter or judge that competition. Most competitions and camera clubs and photographers want good images and that is why baiting is allowed just as tone and color color corrections and sharpening are allowed in processing. There is no easy way to define "natural habitat" any more. Tony's reference to Bosque del Apache could be stretched to include Yellowstone or my backyard or a friend's ranch.

I have seen bird calls and other animal calls used by nature photographers, amateur birders and by professional orinthologists. I have not experienced any bird being stressed from such use. In my experience, most of the professional birders who use them, seem to follow one rule--You only use the call after you have heard the bird so you know it is already near you.

Joe Smith

Kim wrote:
A recent study here in Australia found that the use of bird call recordings placed stress on many of the birds as they tried to identify the 'threat' to their territory.

Tony, you are summing this up well but I would like to add a few points. 

Kim you are way off base here. I will use a few examples that you are probably aware of. Is following around a Red-capped Robin, having it flush multiple times and disturbing it for a considerable amount of time better than playing the call, having the male come in and get your shot in a fraction of the time. It is absurd to assume that disturbing a bird one way is somehow more ethical than another. With the exception of birds that are in high traffic areas (such as Royal National Park near Sydney, Magee Marsh in Ohio or just about anywhere in the UK) the judicial use of playback is better than having it think you are hunting it. I can give you a plethora of examples from every continent of taped birds that have high success rate and return to the same nesting area every year. Is shooting a bird without tape, where it also does not feel threatened better? Absolutely. Pardalotes look very different when photographed using playback. Quail-thrushes look far more natural when coming to playback than when being followed through the mallee. Playback is often poorly done and can hurt the bird, but next time you have a lapwing or dotter turn its back on you, you are disturbing it.

Take a look at the gallery at my shot of a Northern Shoveler next to Glenn Bartley's Golden-crowned Kinglet. A few things come to mind: the first is that his is a better shot, but also that it was (probably) attracted by call. The second is that my bird flushed. I wish that it hadn't, but it did. 

Now as to what makes a shot better for a competition. Being a pretty much global birder, I see plenty of shots where I am blown away at how hard it was to get that shot, not from the technical aspect, but the naturalist angle. It may be my birder snobbery, but in my opinion it is much easier to get a great shot of a common confiding species than a rare skulker, and that should play into the competitions somehow. As photographers, we should all strive to be better naturalists.

DChan wrote:

Primus wrote: You cannot and do not alter passport photos since that would defeat the entire purpose. 

So there are photos do represent the truth. Many of them in fact. There are all kinds of photos out there, and most people don't photoshop. And truth is more than just the appearance.

I like how you picked a single, very specific example of a type of photo and then used it to concluded that many types represent the truth. That type, a passport photo, is taken from a specific distance, with the head a certain size in the frame, with specific lighting and with a specific pose. All so that they will represent the truth. It ISN'T photoshop which distorts. It is the lens chosen, the perspective chosen and the type of lighting which can distort. I can take that same passport picture with a different type of lighting and it wouldn't represent reality at all. (Hold the light under the chin. Yep, the face isn't the same anymore!)

No, you don't need photoshop to distort, you only need a knowledgeable photographer wanting to tell a unique story.

Ian I only read the study I did not conduct it, as for your description of hunting/flushing birds I simple never engage in that type of behaviour.

Tony I agree with most of what you wrote except you seem to imply that it is all OK as the photographer is being smart at controlling the environment. I see no thought or concern for the wildlife in your drive to control the environment.

My personal approach is wildlife first, image second.

The only documentary images I am interested in are pj's and forensics and maybe the passport images D Chan is hung up on. For the rest it is my imagination versus my ability with software with the proviso I do declare any 'edits' beyond the every day acceptable. 

Kim wrote:Tony I agree with most of what you wrote except you seem to imply that it is all OK as the photographer is being smart at controlling the environment. I see no thought or concern for the wildlife in your drive to control the environment.

My personal approach is wildlife first, image second.

My opinion is that humans are very bad for most things on this planet and we are talking degrees of how bad in general. The topic should now drift towards which types of baiting, and I contend that most everything you do is baiting to one degree of another, is acceptable in a contest. I won't take it there. That belongs in ethics forum and generally I think you'll get 1000 opinions from 1000 people. 

Going back to the original question about putting out food or pruning a twig, in what way are those bad for the wildlife? Putting out food/water in most cases isn't harming wildlife. It can be argued that it is reducing the stress and impact of what the rest of the humans do daily. Certainly cultivating a property that is already impacted by humans doesn't impact wildlife more. It only changes the impact slightly. Using blinds to get closer to water holes and food sources isn't bad for wildlife either. So what part of baiting shouldn't be included in the contest? I can think of a few certainly but, again this discussion isn't about types of baiting or is it? I thought it was about how using baiting should make the image worth less in a contest as compared to those images where the photographer didn't bait. Or, as I contented, didn't bait as much.