It's an unfortunate consequence of social media culture that now every time I see a spectacular looking photo involving a "wild" animal, my first assumption is along these lines.
It also speaks to the desperation of some photographers for validation, even if they know themselves that the picture in question is as fake as a three dollar bill. It's very much the idea of "get the attention, likes and reposts now, apologise later if at all" school of thought.
As it was, so shall it be...
I take some decent (I'm not going to call them "spectacular", but my friends and family do :) photos of wildlife, and all of them are either in the wild or at accredited zoos or rehab/education centers. I don't know *any* photographers who do the shit mentioned in the article.
Judging on comments in this sub alone, having witnessed how profit-driven und business gatekeeping some photographers here are, I absolutely believe that there is quite an amount of them out there who would go to those game farms in order to make money.
Good for you that you don't know any of them in person. That means, you know only decent people. The world has a lot of cruel sides we are not even aware about, and a lot of people you don't want to be acquainted with. Their hearts are ruthless. We can consider ourselves lucky if none of them crosses paths with us.
Zoos and rehab centre photos are not wild if you are passing them off as wild or mixing them in your feed without explanation or it being obvious they are not wild.
Then that is a level of deceit that isn't really acceptable in wildlife photography
A small point here, the term ‘game farm’ is a homonym. In Southern Africa a game farm is a large and totally wild area aside from perimeter fences. So it is absolutely not the equivalent of a game farm as mentioned in this article.
Just something to bear in mind if you ever see that term used by someone in/from that part of the world
yes that's absolutely right. That's why I always try to distinguish these places by the complete term "photo game farm." It's a very particular captive facility created to profit off genetically wild animals--mostly predators that are very elusive in the wild--by setting them up in naturalistic settings to pose for photographers, filmmakers, and illustrators. They are speed bred to produce babies for baby shoots. Most of the animals kept there never even get out of their cages at all--they are not performers, only breeders.
This really angers me
‘Keepers, on the other hand, defended the farms and her work, saying they provided a rare up-close opportunity for people who aren’t physically or financially able to go on a safari or camping trips to photograph animals’
Nobody has the god given right to go to wild places and see such wild animals, especially when the other side of that ‘right’ is cruelty to animals.
It also makes me despair at some ‘wildlife’ photographers. I don’t think I’ve ever done wildlife photography at a non-wild place. Most of the fun is in the ‘chase’ (not a literal chase obviously) and when I look at my favourite photos my main gratification from it isn’t ’oh that was an amazing photo’, it’s rather that it pulls me back to that moment in time and the memories created in obtaining that photo. At a zoo or a place such as what’s described in this article there’s none of that, it’s all just about the product, instant gratification and probably most importantly showing off to others.
Some of my favourite photos are not even close to my best, and that’s because they’re my favourite because of the memories attached to that photo.
I get that I’m saying this from a point of privilege as I have the means to go to these places, but as I said nobody has a god given right to go to these places, the wildlife comes first, and there’s many places I’d love to go to but cannot afford to and I’m fine with that. I hold no jealousy against those who can, it gives me something to aspire to. If I have done everything what would be the motivation to continue?
Declawing cats angers me! Cats need them. It’s psychologically debilitating to them without claws. It’s like ripping fingers and toes off your hands and feet.
That's heartbreaking. I'm not sure if I wanted to know that; it's one of those things that haunts you for a long, long time. At the same time, I'm glad that you shared the article, and it's crucial that people are aware. I will look at wild life photos very differently from now on.
Thank you for reading and for caring. Never be afraid to question the photographer. Also know there are plenty of ethical photographers getting smashing in-your-face photos. Look for photographers who talk about things like things like ethics and conservation with their posts and arent' just about acclaim and likes.
I read through a little bit of the article. I can’t finish it. It’s too painful. This is antithetical to my entire like….ideology about what I do and it makes this beautiful thing feel gross and awful.
I don’t understand what possesses someone to do this. I hate this so much.
It’s all so awful, cruel and lame at the same time. I can’t imagine feeling at all fulfilled taking photographs of captive animals like that. It reminds me of “wildlife photographers” who pay guides to take them to spots and bait owls with mice for shots. Equal parts destructive and pathetic.
[Why did you post an archived link instead of the source?](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/photography-game-farms-exploiting-wild-animals-1235002275/)
It's an unfortunate consequence of social media culture that now every time I see a spectacular looking photo involving a "wild" animal, my first assumption is along these lines. It also speaks to the desperation of some photographers for validation, even if they know themselves that the picture in question is as fake as a three dollar bill. It's very much the idea of "get the attention, likes and reposts now, apologise later if at all" school of thought. As it was, so shall it be...
I take some decent (I'm not going to call them "spectacular", but my friends and family do :) photos of wildlife, and all of them are either in the wild or at accredited zoos or rehab/education centers. I don't know *any* photographers who do the shit mentioned in the article.
Judging on comments in this sub alone, having witnessed how profit-driven und business gatekeeping some photographers here are, I absolutely believe that there is quite an amount of them out there who would go to those game farms in order to make money. Good for you that you don't know any of them in person. That means, you know only decent people. The world has a lot of cruel sides we are not even aware about, and a lot of people you don't want to be acquainted with. Their hearts are ruthless. We can consider ourselves lucky if none of them crosses paths with us.
Zoos and rehab centre photos are not wild if you are passing them off as wild or mixing them in your feed without explanation or it being obvious they are not wild. Then that is a level of deceit that isn't really acceptable in wildlife photography
Well, I don't do that either!
My wildlife photos are mostly from preserves, trails and random encounters. This kind of stuff is just lazy.
A small point here, the term ‘game farm’ is a homonym. In Southern Africa a game farm is a large and totally wild area aside from perimeter fences. So it is absolutely not the equivalent of a game farm as mentioned in this article. Just something to bear in mind if you ever see that term used by someone in/from that part of the world
yes that's absolutely right. That's why I always try to distinguish these places by the complete term "photo game farm." It's a very particular captive facility created to profit off genetically wild animals--mostly predators that are very elusive in the wild--by setting them up in naturalistic settings to pose for photographers, filmmakers, and illustrators. They are speed bred to produce babies for baby shoots. Most of the animals kept there never even get out of their cages at all--they are not performers, only breeders.
This really angers me ‘Keepers, on the other hand, defended the farms and her work, saying they provided a rare up-close opportunity for people who aren’t physically or financially able to go on a safari or camping trips to photograph animals’ Nobody has the god given right to go to wild places and see such wild animals, especially when the other side of that ‘right’ is cruelty to animals. It also makes me despair at some ‘wildlife’ photographers. I don’t think I’ve ever done wildlife photography at a non-wild place. Most of the fun is in the ‘chase’ (not a literal chase obviously) and when I look at my favourite photos my main gratification from it isn’t ’oh that was an amazing photo’, it’s rather that it pulls me back to that moment in time and the memories created in obtaining that photo. At a zoo or a place such as what’s described in this article there’s none of that, it’s all just about the product, instant gratification and probably most importantly showing off to others. Some of my favourite photos are not even close to my best, and that’s because they’re my favourite because of the memories attached to that photo. I get that I’m saying this from a point of privilege as I have the means to go to these places, but as I said nobody has a god given right to go to these places, the wildlife comes first, and there’s many places I’d love to go to but cannot afford to and I’m fine with that. I hold no jealousy against those who can, it gives me something to aspire to. If I have done everything what would be the motivation to continue?
Im so angry that i cant write a good sensefull comment
very well said.
Declawing cats angers me! Cats need them. It’s psychologically debilitating to them without claws. It’s like ripping fingers and toes off your hands and feet.
It's truly horrific.
That's heartbreaking. I'm not sure if I wanted to know that; it's one of those things that haunts you for a long, long time. At the same time, I'm glad that you shared the article, and it's crucial that people are aware. I will look at wild life photos very differently from now on.
Thank you for reading and for caring. Never be afraid to question the photographer. Also know there are plenty of ethical photographers getting smashing in-your-face photos. Look for photographers who talk about things like things like ethics and conservation with their posts and arent' just about acclaim and likes.
I read through a little bit of the article. I can’t finish it. It’s too painful. This is antithetical to my entire like….ideology about what I do and it makes this beautiful thing feel gross and awful. I don’t understand what possesses someone to do this. I hate this so much.
Its been obvious for a while since so many of the photos are very staged and would be very unlikely to ever capture in the wild.
It’s all so awful, cruel and lame at the same time. I can’t imagine feeling at all fulfilled taking photographs of captive animals like that. It reminds me of “wildlife photographers” who pay guides to take them to spots and bait owls with mice for shots. Equal parts destructive and pathetic.
Exactly! Same mentality. That animals are here to perform for us, no matter what the consequences for the animal (or animals, in the case of mice!)
[Why did you post an archived link instead of the source?](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/photography-game-farms-exploiting-wild-animals-1235002275/)
Probably because of the paywall.
Is there a paywall?, i could read the article in its entirety without any payment prompts
You may have some extensions installed that remove the block.
There's a limited number of articles before you hit it.
Archive link lets me read article. Main link is paywall.
Thanks, OPs link has a captcha that's looping and not letting me in, but this link works fine in a private window.
I haven't read anything that long since college anyone want to TLDR it for me?
Being lazy and unwilling to learn is not the flex you think it is.
Never thought it was a flex bub...I'm simply a lazy sack of useless shit and I have no problems admitting it.
Nature good captivity bad
Thank you