Truths behind fake nature photography

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by Kelly Mc »

I cant. And this is an exact example of one I would want to know.

This is my point.

I also am looking at surfaces again. Especially with a species like this - especially with caudates and other cryptic, more sedentary animals as well.

I am not alone in this as I have had this conversation with others and it is interesting that both people were very involved in amphibians, one a physician who travels in his vacation time taking part in conservatory efforts and another person who has permission to breed rare frogs, who does not travel, because of his frogs.

Which is the volitional pic?
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by Kelly Mc »

The ability to raise the survival rate of tads of some threatened anurans was improved when images of amplexus as well as adults laying flat and motionless - in a kind of reverse bask for minerals absorption, in muddy puddles of very high TDS.

Its not so much an ideological nit pic, but can have important impact.
User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2293
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 7:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by Noah M »

cbernz

I say the 1st one is posed.
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by Kelly Mc »

That seems to be the better shaped shot by standards I am naïve to, as an attractive composition.

I keep being pulled to the one in second pic, because it is on the rock perhaps in brief respite from the surrounding wet matter.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by gbin »

chris_mcmartin wrote:Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure every single Bigfoot photo I've ever seen has been staged/faked!
jonathan wrote:I have to give them some leeway on that - Bigfoot is extremely secretive in its natural environment, and filming unstaged shots could be considered illegal voyeurism of a humanoid. The squads of stage Bigfoot willing to be employed to recreate natural shots for photographers and videographers are the only reason those of us who aren't lucky enough to have encountered Bigfoot in the wild are able to observe their behavior at all.
Kelly Mc wrote:A few years ago I had a dream I got to go on an expedition to study tarantulas with Mikhail Bagaturov and long story short we found out that the California Black Tarantula and Bigfoot were actually the same shape shifting entity, which is why Bigfoot had eluded discovery. We were all shocked at this finding but also very pleased.
Thanks for the laughs, amigos, at the end of a day in which I really need such! :lol: (My day included an emergency trip to a dentist an hour's drive away, and that wasn't even the worst of it.)

Kelly, with such lucid, coherent dreams, you should try writing them down and using them as the beginnings of novels - give Stephen King a run for his money! ;)

Gerry
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by Kelly Mc »

Gerry you're good to me. I need to tell you the one about the big racked Whitetail Deer who was a child psychologist named Dr Cohen.

Back to the Plethodon, if the second picture is volitional, without overamplifying the importance of the limestone I would still note it in my mind.

It may have use in replicating/encouraging activity patterns in a captive state or reconstructed natural habitat.

caudates are subtle.
Kfen
Posts: 413
Joined: June 17th, 2010, 5:51 am
Location: CT

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by Kfen »

I am guessing the first is posed because of the strangely bent toe on the rear foot, and weirdly angled front foot. But I think that might be the trick you are playing on us, that it is in fact the opposite.
User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2293
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 7:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by Noah M »

Kfen wrote:I am guessing the first is posed because of the strangely bent toe on the rear foot, and weirdly angled front foot. But I think that might be the trick you are playing on us, that it is in fact the opposite.
This is what caught my attention too. But careful photographers will try to avoid this. Perhaps you are right then and that #2 is the posed pic.
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by chrish »

I guess the second shot is posed.
If the first shot was posed, it wasn't posed very well, so I will assume the photographer would do better than that in posing an animal.
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by Kelly Mc »

I can't guess about the potential kinetics taking place with an animal in a photo for a second, but have watched alot of caudates turn and move unelegantly, so to speak. It isnt as clear as lizards with a withered frame around the eyes and toes balled up or askew, except for a couple that they are hung on the side of a tree by, or placed on some other thing with the zenith blue sky behind them.

I would like to know about both shots, and as a matter of fact would like to have more detail included with all photos in habitat. The Mystery isn't fun for me but information is.
User avatar
cbernz
Posts: 547
Joined: March 16th, 2011, 12:28 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by cbernz »

chrish wrote:If the first shot was posed, it wasn't posed very well, so I will assume the photographer would do better than that in posing an animal.
The first one is the posed one. I guess when I say "posed" I use the term in the loosest possible sense. I basically try to get the animal relatively clean, plop it down on a relatively natural surface, and pray that it stays still long enough for me to get at least one photo that is in focus, which may only be a couple seconds. If I am really lucky I might have enough time to coax limbs and head with a small twig into a better position. It seems you all picked up on the somewhat unnatural posture of the feet, and the lowered head is also a bit of a clue, but I don't think it's impossible for a salamander to assume that posture on its own. Just unlikely.

These were both shot on 5/23/13, within about a half mile of each other. The first was found, as is typical, under a large log in moist mixed deciduous woodland, in the daytime. The log it's sitting on might actually be the log I found it under - I can't remember. It was definitely shot entirely within a few feet of where it was found. The second one was found at night, on a large rock inches from a swollen creek. It sat exactly as you see it for several minutes while we shot. This is an area where it is common to see them on the crawl at night, but this was the first time I'd seen one that close to the stream, and it was an unusual sight (more typically you find Desmognathus and Eurycea on such rocks).

I guess my point with these two photos was that, regardless of the story behind them and whether they were posed or not, if I only had these two photos, and I wanted to use one as an example of the species, for a field guide or to tell a story or just give someone an idea of what P. yonahlossee is all about, I would definitely choose the one on the log rather than the one next to the stream. I associate P. yonahlossee with rotting wood, dirt, and understory plants much more strongly than I associate them with river rocks and running water, so for me the first photo is a more accurate representation of the essence of the species than the second one, even though the second one is perhaps a more accurate representation of reality. For what that's worth.

I was also thinking about some of my photos of Ambystoma and how they reflect reality. When shooting A. opacum guarding egg masses, for instance, I shoot them exactly as flipped. In one sense, these are completely natural shots showing an unaltered natural behavior, but in another sense they are totally fake, because you'd never see that behavior out in the open - they'd be under logs, rocks, leaf litter, etc. At the same time, I have many photos of adult Ambystoma migrating to breeding ponds that I clean up and pose (in my normal rushed, half-assed way) before shooting, but in a way they are more natural, because they show the animals exactly as you might see them in nature - out in the open wiggling across a wet road or field or forest floor.
dthor68
Posts: 295
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 1:26 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by dthor68 »

Orionmystery, If I came across a frog riding on a beetles back I would separate them to get photos of each. Even if it did actually happen it is not at all natural and looks staged. Some people like staging nature, I do not. Some people like the genetically mutated herps that man spent several years creating. I like the natural looking specimens that evolution created over hundreds of thousands of years. To each their own.
dthor68
Posts: 295
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 1:26 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by dthor68 »

After reading everyone's responses I must say this is a great topic and very interesting read.

The one thing that really sticks out at me is the dragonfly photo. That photo is one of the reasons I would never enter a photo contest. The guy who did that photo has a whole series of pics done the same way, it is staged. Does he still deserve the win after knowing the photo was staged? In a way we are all staging photos with lighting, backgrounds, positioning but he lied and said it was natural when it was not. Had he told the truth I doubt he would have won, it would have gone to the next best liar. This is the kind of competition that I never want to be a part of. There are millions of photographers out there, thousands are great beyond belief. How can one be "the best", really the only way is manipulation. Like ballplayers and steroids.

I am just too lazy for HD, Stacking and the countless ways people manipulate to get the win or whatever it is that they want out of it. Not to mention it is unnatural and not possible! I just saw a photo that sells for $25,000 from some Australian Photographer. The photo is of a ocean pier at sunset, done a million times. It was an HD photo and like all, very unreal. There is no way one could look at a sunset and be able to make out the barnacles on the pier between you and the sunset, no way! However, I still cheat because I use graduated filters. Even with a .9 GND filter, you could never get that kind of light in the shadows, people love it?

It really is hard to say if its right or wrong because every photographer does something to manipulate his/her photo whether it is in the shot itself or PP. Like when I shoot a salamander I will cover it with a dip can to calm it, when I raise the can I will gently put the can under its chin and raise the head slightly. Is this not cheating? I realize this is not in line with OP's original rant but it is still in line with faking it.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by gbin »

dthor68 wrote:... In a way we are all staging photos with lighting, backgrounds, positioning...
dthor68 wrote:... every photographer does something to manipulate his/her photo whether it is in the shot itself or PP...
Not to start an argument, but...

I don't believe the first of these quotes is true at all; I feel sure there are still many people in nature photography who don't mess with lighting, backgrounds, positioning, etc., but instead just go with what nature gives them. (They may not be focusing on salamanders and the like, though... ;) )

With respect to the second quote, I for one see a big difference between controlling how a photo is taken, e.g. by setting the exposure or using some filter, and manipulating it after it was taken by post processing. BIG difference.

Gerry
dthor68
Posts: 295
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 1:26 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by dthor68 »

I don't believe the first of these quotes is true at all; I feel sure there are still many people in nature photography who don't mess with lighting, backgrounds, positioning, etc., but instead just go with what nature gives them. (They may not be focusing on salamanders and the like, though... ;) )
You do realize that if you use a flash at all you are messing with the lighting. I can tell you right now that every photographer in here has had to manipulate a herp that he/she wants to photograph at one time. Just photographing small shy animals like earth, ringneck, red-belly snakes is impossible to do without complete manipulation. You can not photograph something under a rock, without first lifting the rock. There are a few herps that I never have to touch to photograph and because they are so easy to photograph I can use natural light, Tree Frogs, Newts, Cottonmouths, Copperheads, Large Rattlesnakes, Sunning Watersnakes and an occasional foraging racer. On the other hand every bird and mammal I have ever photographed has been all natural. I also use natural light on all dragonflies/butterflies.

When you finish your statement with "(They may not be focusing on salamanders and the like, though... ;) )" then you yourslf know that you have to manipulate some animals in order to photograph them, why even respond?
With respect to the second quote, I for one see a big difference between controlling how a photo is taken, e.g. by setting the exposure or using some filter, and manipulating it after it was taken by post processing. BIG difference.
Could not agree more!
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by gbin »

dthor68 wrote:When you finish your statement with "(They may not be focusing on salamanders and the like, though... ;) )" then you yourslf know that you have to manipulate some animals in order to photograph them, why even respond?
I understood you to be talking about nature photography in general, not just what most people likely consider to be a subset of nature photography that focuses on herps or other small, secretive/highly mobile animals. That's why I mentioned that nature photographers who don't manipulate the scene/animals "may not be focusing on salamanders and the like, though... ;) ," to emphasize that you might well be right about that particular subset, anyway.

Sounds like we're actually in agreement on both points, then, and it's only the difficulty of internet forum communication that made it appear otherwise. :beer:

I should emphasize for the sake of whoever might think otherwise that I'm not actually opposed to photography that entails manipulating an animal and/or its setting (so long as it doesn't harm either in the process), and in fact earlier in this discussion I acknowledged that it certainly has useful purpose, most notably for education. I myself just don't think of it as really being nature photography (though I reckon pretty much everyone else probably does). If I had to call it something, I guess in order to be more accurate what I'd instead call it is animal portrait photography. Or maybe naturalistic photography? ;)

Gerry
dthor68
Posts: 295
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 1:26 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by dthor68 »

Gbin, I dont know what to think about it. The first photo, with the frog on the beetles back, I hate it. Like I said I would love to photograph both species seperate, not together. It just kind of reminds me of something my daughter would do with her pet Bearded Dragon for laughs. And although we think of it as cruel her lizard would not care at all. This lizard will jump into her hand, its the craziest thing I have ever seen! Personally, I dont see anything wrong with it as long as nothing gets hurt and you are not gaining something from a lie.
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by Kelly Mc »

The photo of the plethodon on stone reminds me of behaviors I have watched with other species of salamanders kept in vivaria with stone. (and other topographical detail, like bark and buried, partially exposed branch surfaces)

They seek less wet non particulate surfaces in their activities which do not transpire in human time. It does not present as inadvertent happenstance but a delberate repose.
It has also been noticed that salamanders kept in only moist particulate sub or even laboratory settings on uniformly wet gauze, dont move at all, or very much less, have weaker feeding responses and are susceptible to various acquired illnesses.

I share this because I believe the dichotomy between field herping/photography and herpetoculture could have the opportunity to unite in development that could encourage stronger more generous methodology with hobbyests and zoological collections and even more crucially, with conservation captive breeding programs preserving and producing sensitive species for re population and relocation.

Field Herp Photography + Herpetoculture + Conservation.
User avatar
Muchobirdnerd
Posts: 83
Joined: March 1st, 2014, 7:11 pm

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by Muchobirdnerd »

This is a great topic and should be talked about more. Also it would be interesting to get a professionals opinion on levels of stress, signs of animals stress, timing, temperature etc... Any information that would help enthusiast practice better methods. I know that hands off approach is obviously the best but if people are going to handle animals there should be at least a set of guidelines for them to refer to.

This could have been covered already.
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Truths behind fake nature photography

Post by Kelly Mc »

Even if a photographer was personally against herpetoculture, there couldn't be qualms about how his or her images and associated data could improve it.
Post Reply