New Rules for Wildlife

Out is the Big Brash World of camera clubs many are now using different rules for wildlife images. Or "Natural History" if you prefer. ADAPS has decided also to follow new competition rules. Whereas once this category meant animals and plants out in the wild, now it has been broadened to include zoo animals. Domestic animals are still excluded.

So, today I thought I'd find a few where I've at least tried to minimise the signs of captivity, to see what we think. By all means, p-lease add examples of your own. Personally, I don't think any of these qualify for a natural History section, but apparently now they do!






The shot of the seal is definitely Natural History though - found basking on the beach at Horsey in Norfolk.

Hi John, interesting news. Isn't your seal in it's natural environment? I would think creatures photographed in a man made constructed environment still remain wild creatures by nature. But if the 'wild' refers to a wild environment, and then 'life' refers to the creatures in that environment then ... But I'm thinking the debate could go around and around in circles.

I can imagine in the future, if not already in the present,as part of the photo exif will be coordinates to show if the creatures were took in the wild or actually London Zoo

Deryn

I think it's a silly rule change and a bit of an insult to the patience and dedication of true wildlife photographers. Will the way a photograph was taken - wild or captive - be taken into account in judging? Of course, it will by viewers, and that's more important than what the judges, with their odd, arbitrary rules, say.

Here are the definitions for the main two salons PSA & FIAP LINK
John

This was taken at Monarto Zoo a few months back,it could be entered in Nature comps,I don`t think any one would know.

It's an interesting debate. I'm with Pentaxophile; although having said that I do see a large number of truly stunning pictures of captive animals, so perhaps it would be better to create a dedicated category for images of captive animals (is there one already? I am not involved with any camera clubs so am not familiar with typical rules). I enjoy trying to get images of both wild animals in their natural wild habitats and in captivity, although I am disproportionately more successful at the latter!

I also think there are some images which can be taken of animals in captivity which it would be pretty much impossible to get in the wild - the ability to get so close to animals which might be almost impossible to see at all otherwise is wonderful. I was at a Falconry centre last weekend, and took this pic, which I cannot imagine being able to get in the wild... certainly not if I'm driving the camera.




Cheers

I don't like the idea of Zoo animals being included - I will accept those in semi-natural surroundings such as large game parks but not a confined Zoo.

Your picture of a terrapin reminded me of one I have ... These two tortoises were actually fighting in the middle of a road! and it was getting quite violent.

Yep, some animals are extinct in the wild!

John K

This fella chose to take up residence in the greenhouse one morning. Not quite sure how the 'rules' would apply to that!



John K

There's no doubt that photographing captive animals is valid - I've seen some great shots such as the meerkat above and many of MattW's shots. Just feel there should be a distinction.

I don't like the idea of captive animals being included but for many club members the wildlife/natural history competitions are the preserve of the uber wealthy members, with the big lenses and the yearly safari trip...

Hopefully it'll 'shake up' the competition scene and spread the accolade...

Wild or captive?

To be honest places like the Masai Mara and Ngorongoro sometimes feel like a big zoo anyway. A couple of cheetahs completely habituated to the presence of humans and surrounded at close quarters by twenty safari vehicles doesn't feel that wild. So the boundaries aren't black and white anyway. For me the distinction comes through with the look and feel of the image not through any set of rules.

It doesn't matter what rules are implemented, cheaters will still cheat.

As for the guidelines in the link provided by DOIK people have been ignoring these and still winning competitions for years, I have snapped birds in the wild and presented many of them as Natural History images only for a judge to suggest the image would be improved by cloning out distracting branches etc, so even the judges don't take notice of the rules.

Personally I have no problem with good images of captive wildlife, but I do think such images should be clearly defined as should those that have been largely digitally manipulated but I already think that of any such images of any subject.

Cheaters will always cheat,there is not an easy answer to that problem but to make it clear and transparent the rules for nature photos should exclude the hand of man,if a photo has a bird sitting on a fence post or wire,or a branch has been cut it is excluded the same would apply with animal shots.

The wild life-parks are the only way for a lot of amateur's to photograph some of these animals,in Australia we have different animal and bird to the UK,I can photograph Tasmanian devil`s and Kangaroo`s in the wild you won`t be able unless you come here.that is why it is fairer and lets any one obtain photos of exotic animals and birds.