We’ve applied several times to the BBC contest and recieved honorable mentions. It was interesting the one year that they scolded photographers for sending in too many dead animal pictures just because the year before that’s what had won one of the top prizes.

you’ve got to be kidding :(

http://rapidshare.com/files/341673466/Wolf_oops.jpg.html

The wolf image does not bring up the same feelings for me. Do some people have romantic idea about images?

“So how do you reconcile this statement with your take on Andrew Zuckerman’s “Bird” coffee table book”

the question is you are comparing the two statements on two wildly different photographic presentations and presenting them as the same through analogy, and as they are not even close, terrible analogy.

Wild animals do wild animal tings all the time. It’s what they do. The question is whether the circumstances surrounding a particular photograph were contrived. In both cases they were. Zuckerman never claimed his images were shot in the wild. But I haven’t seen any evidence that Rodriguez did either. He submitted a photograph of an animal, in a wild setting, doing wild animal stuff.

Most images, other than perhaps pure journalistic shots (even then it’s debatable), are contrived to some extent.

No, it’s a terrible analogy. I’m going to use non-fancy words.

Your argument directly compares a studio shoot with a bird to a photo of a moment supposedly captured in the wild of a wild animal doing wild animal things. The wolf was not captured in a studio for a book.

Really is a terrible analogy.

Maybe because it isn’t an analogy. It’s a question about consistency.

A famous photographer shoots captive animals on a white seamless background using food treats to encourage behaviour and it’s fantastic art. A not-so-famous photographer shoots an apparently captive wolf in a wild setting and it’s a sin against photographic integrity.

This seems like a double standard to me. And Mr. Haggart appears just as guilty as the British Natural History Museum and BBC Wildlife Magazine.

I’ll guarantee if Nadav Kander did the exact same shot as Jose Luis Rodriguez not only would he have been allowed to keep the award, they would have created a special award to praise his tenacity in finding a particularly photogenic wolf.

It’s not about Zuckerman, or Rodriguez for that matter. It’s how we hold superstar photographers to a different standard than lesser-know photographers.

It seems people want their simulations to appear more genuine. Even if the ‘genuine’ may look simulated. Most of the time photography is pandering to pre-conceived archetypical notions of beauty, composition, stories. That’s true even when counter culture norms lean towards *documentation* of reality, and changing the notions of beauty (raw beauty). The late philosopher Baudrillard theorizes *simulation* has become more genuine than the original. I believe this to often be representative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

In the case of nature photography what elements would make the simulation of photography seem more ‘genuine’? Would images be more appreciated if the lighting was flat and hazy? High noon sun with blown highlights and blocked shadows? Missed focus? Blurry images? Bad composition? Poor resolution? Awkward body language of the subject?

There is a reason why visual elements can become romanticized and cliche.
Given the opportunity to live in a house with a view of a strip mine/parking lot, or a sunset on the ocean, lake, or mountains where would most people choose (all other factors being equal) to live?

Another irony is that of the environmental cost of capturing *true* simulations of nature. It’s very much like trophy hunting. It may take years (a lifetime) of continued effort traveling, stalking, waiting, being prepared for a fortuitous moment. How many gallons of (jet or auto) fuel to achieve this feat well? What is the footprint to capture a ‘genuine’ moment in *nature*, as opposed to luring the subject closer? If the subject is willing, how much of a divergence is that from it’s *true* nature?

While we in the first world discuss such weighty topics, the corporations still lobby the bloody daylights out of our government, healthcare costs rise faster than the price of unobtainium (or any other cost), and the majority of the world focuses on daily survival.

That is a terrible analogy

So how do you reconcile this statement with your take on Andrew Zuckerman’s “Bird” coffee table book where you said:

“He’s certainly at the forefront of testing all these cool new ways to get the word out. Certainly worth keeping your eye on, plus the pictures are fantastic.”

Where is the “sport” in having birds chase bait in a studio?

Velveeta vs. brie perhaps, but both are pretty cheesy.