Enjoy these photographs.

:thumb96715919:
:thumb96078769:












:thumb76318699:


A couple from my gallery.





:thumb96715919:
:thumb96078769:












:thumb76318699:






| Journals / Art News / Photography | ©2008-2013 ~Merlinstouch |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness |
The challenge remains no matter where you go: wild life photography is boring to do (I am ironic), because usually it is not a wild life at all. I made some 5 min movies of the life of buffaloes, and was so happy that there where birds in the background, otherwise people would think, I use a still.
Zoo photography has the merits that the animals are actually there, and a good zooer will go often to know the animals and with the proper light and less visitors, when the animals are quite. It also has the merit that lenses are smaller, and lighter. Problem is, you cant chose the setting, the fenced area and perspective is rather small and perspective given by the paths arranged. Nonetheless there is the chance to surmount the obstacles (isnt that what art is about, to go beyond the limitations of the material) and produce excellent stuff.
So far some loose thoughts from someone who is living at an 'exotic' place. Check out my gallery for some big game wild life shots... Love to discuss with you...
thanks for this gallery, very nice sot amongst them! I actually dot agree that wildlife photography is an forgotten art. I do see many example around here in TV (okay its film, but...) and elsewhere. Also by saying 'forgotten' you imply that it was better some time back (some guy, Machiavelli, said already in 1500 that this might be true, but usually isnt).
With all the improvements on equipment side, in weight, speed and price, wildlife photography has become accessible to many more people than before. Also travel infrastructure is much better. When Stanley (1880) was in Africa, it was normal that half of his porters and staff dies, today you can go without risks to a four star lodge in Amboseli.
I think one problem is, if there is one, that for NAmericans and Europeans the backyard has become so conventional and their are flooded with good programmes, that they think, wildlife would only be in exotic place, thus neglecting they backyards.
I see also that if you dont photograph a blue whale copulation in sunset or so, people will say we have seen that. What I am trying to say is that the art has increased its standards. Some years ago, people would be happy to see a lion at all, now it must be a lion in this or that setting. So the art has progressed.
I dont agree that there is no wildlife in Europe anymore. It might just be more difficult to see. I go 20 min by car and have buffaloes, giraffes, hippos, zebras and sometimes lions in front of my camera (so far to the term EXOTIC), within 4 hrs range of driving I find Oryx and Elephants. But I would need to make greater efforts to do that in NAmerica and Europe, well to see big animals/mammals that close. So there it is exotoc to see big game. Big game comparable to Africa actually never existed there in the first place.
i agree with what has been said regarding zoo animals, in my opinion, there should be a seperate catagory for 'captive animals' most of my photography is from animals in captivity, and I see nothing wrong with it, providing they have enough space.
I tend to always check the place out thoroughly prior to giving my hard earned to visit.
In some circumstances, photographing animals in captivity can actually be a lot harder than in the wild! trying to eliminate man made structures etc, and tourists, can be a challenge in itself!
Good feature mate!
I do agree with most of the above in that Zoo & Wild Photography should be seperate.
Sitting in a zoo waiting to capture that perfect shot doesn't even come close to getting that perfect shot in the wild! In a zoo... atleast you know your subject is there... in the wild... you gotta go find that bugger! LOL...
Keep up the good work!
Catching an animal in the wild is a totally different experience... the time, effort, conditions and situations dictate how the pictures will come out. With a wild animal, you are shooting on it's terms... far different than a captive animal.. where you can control some of these aspects.
A captive animal gives some the chance to see and photograph a subject that otherwise would never be seen.... so they both have their place... and if the photographer is creative, you would never tell if the shot was taken in captivity...
both categories have their place on this site..as long as people enjoy and are aware of wildlife, then it will be easier in the long run to protect what we have left, and maybe help to protect more places so our children can still enjoy true wild critters...
. . . keep up the great work . . . and i still love your photo of the mink!
I agree with you that true wild life shots are way better, but in Europe it's almos impossible to get real wild life shots. Almost every wild species - no matter if it's birds, deers or anything else - is almost extinct here. Can you imagine how many wild bears we have in Austria? 2! I repeat...two!
So, I had to travel over 7000km to see wild life in Kenya. ^^
An article I read in Nature Photographer once talked about taking full advantage of the wildlife you find in your own back yard. Finding out what is in your area, where you can find it, and when the best time to see it can be a big advantage if all you have is a weekend to get good shots. If you know hummingbirds are common in your area and you have the space to do so set up flowers that will attract them to your yard. The same goes with butterflies. If you can't go to the wildlife make the wildlife come to you.
You have some great choices for both back yard and exotic wildlife.