Comments on: Full Disclosure

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:32:20 +0000

Since the dog bait seemed to cause more reaction than the wolf let me clarify. The dog was not harmed, we felt so guilty we went back and got her. No as in zero images were made from the situation. No one was lied to because it was just a bad momentary decision on my part.

This is kind of fun but I’m not sure the world can handle full disclosure and that again is ulitmately why we end up with shaded truth.

By: Jesús M. García

Jesús M. García — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:21:29 +0000

I think my English is very bad. I correct the above:
Everybody lies when he wants: that’s the truth. Even the BBC in their films, they say they accurately reflect reality. Not true. I’m a naturalist in Spain and last year I was called agents of the BBC to film a sequence in which a bird (Clamator glandarius) eats ants in an anthill of Formica rufa. I was asked to take them to an anthill. The bird they had them (captive and domestic). What is a fraud!
And then the BBC is allowed to disqualify a photographer with the word “allegedly”. To my knowledge, the author argues that it is NOT an animal model as discussed in disqualification. On its Web site. http://www.joseluisrodriguez-fotografo.com has many photographs taken by the comments of the capture infrared and does not seem false. I think that an image behind only author really knows what and as a photographer is required to make the photo more beautiful as possible.

By: Erick Danzer

Erick Danzer — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:59:32 +0000

Nick,

Great article. I think one thing that’s hard to convey is just how HARD it is to get really high quality images of truly wild animals. As one who’s tried, and talked to a lot of Wildlife Conservation Society folks trying to camera trap animals in Sumatra, I have to say I have an intense degree of admiration for the amount of work that went into your tiger shot.

One of the points I always like to hammer home is that in many genres of photography, your creative and technical mastery of the camera is just one small part of getting a good image. It’s like the tip of the iceberg – the final moment when you judge exposure, compose, and click. Beneath the water is a months-long or year-long process of planning, obtaining visas and permits from police/home affairs/parks departments, arranging local relationships/partnerships/guides, then international travel, slow and painful local travel, sometimes miserable conditions of heat/cold/bugs/wetness, then finding the spots, then waiting/waiting/waiting, failing, looking somewhere else, waiting/waiting, and finally … OPPORTUNITY.

It’s only then that your creative and technical mastery comes into play. Most people simple do NOT have the amount of determination to get the image that it takes to get through all the other stuff.

That brings us back to the wolf image. That’s why that image was so impressive to fellow photographers and judges – not just because it’s a nice image but because people understand just how much went into making it.

And ultimately, that’s what is disappointing – that, actually, so much didn’t go in to making.

Because it’s so hard to do it for real, there is an incredible temptation for wildlife photographers to blur the lines, shoot semi-tame or captive animals, and gloss over it. I think your point about maintaining absolutely clear boundaries and up front disclosure is right on.

On another note, I appreciate your disclosure about the dog-as-bait. I know that was a long time ago. I see some sharp comment above. But I think that just drives the point home. Others may not like how you got the shot, but they should KNOW how you got it. It would be easier for you not to mention it, and no one would know the difference. To be up front about it is both courageous and the RIGHT thing to do.

-
Great to have you on Photocrati!

Erick

By: Anna

Anna — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:07:51 +0000

*sigh*

The Wolf capture is still an excellent capture, but lying to the editor of one of the biggest magazines of all times isn’t smart. No money can buy back one’s credibility.

By: PeterKBurian

PeterKBurian — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:41:22 +0000

Great to see you on Photocrati.com Nick.

Cheers! Peter

By: Michael Nicholas and Full Disclosure « Creative Ashes

Michael Nicholas and Full Disclosure « Creative Ashes — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:15:49 +0000

[...] Geographic magazine was a guess blogger on photocrati recently where he discussed the reasons for Full Disclosure of our photographic process. Please take the time to read his comments about one photographers [...]

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:09:12 +0000

If the wolf in the disqualified photo is indeed a trained animal or ‘animal actor’ as I’ve heard it referenced, should we believe it was actually photographed with a camera trap? What is there to stop such an animal from leaping over a fence as many times as a photographer wanted? Just wondering.

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:34:21 +0000

With the dog incident. The whole point of full disclosure is that I am admitting something I did 20 years ago. I can could take the path that no one would know but me, my assistant, and the pygmies that convinced us that a leopards favorite food would be their pet.

But I would know and I still know

Just for clarity. Since one of the comments mentions National Geographic its not like I called in from Congo to ask permission. The yellow border only knew about this later when I disclosed. NGM has been made vulnerable several times by natural history photographers faking or manipulating and not being clear with all their methods . The editor must know so he does not publish and put the 125 year integrity at risk.

Ultimately the Leopard image we published was captured with a camera trap waiting for months on a game trail.

By: gokul

gokul — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:59:31 +0000

After reading this I was left with one question. Who is Wilder? Man or Animal

By: SusanG

SusanG — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:23:03 +0000

The other unfortunate aspect to this is that it is a phenomenal photograph. If only Mr. Rodriguez had not apparently contravened a specific rule he could have gained merit for an outstanding image, regardless of how he captured it. “Baiting” doesn’t happen only in wildlife photography. It is an accepted practice -even in photojournalism- as long as it is not a completely faked happening. There is a great deal of truth to the statement that people would switch off the telly, as sad as that it. Full disclosure is oftentimes more about educating and sharing techniques and tips to others with similar hopes of achieving a specific type of image. Yet it can have such a negative impact in the opinions of those viewing it from the perspective of viewing only. Which is too bad. And too bad for Jose Luis Rodriguez, his reputation may have been once cemented and is now firmly cemented in mud.

P.S. I cringed at the idea of using man’s best friend as bait, but kudos to you for admitting to it. Even if it was a low point.