Captive vs. Wild
by Bob Brind-Surch, professional photographer and naturalist. www.naturesphotos.co.uk
I frequently receive inquiries about whether wildlife photographers should focus on capturing images of captive animals or prioritize those in their natural habitats.
This can be a complex and debated issue. For starters, many animals in captivity are kept in unsuitable conditions, and anyone passionate about wildlife would be against supporting that. Additionally, there are purists who believe that true wildlife photography involves only images captured in the wild, deeming anything else as unworthy. However, there is often a middle ground. While I prefer to avoid entering the heated discussions surrounding this topic, I would like to share a few insights.
Improving your technical skills as a wildlife photographer requires practice and controlling some variables. In one of my articles on my website, titled how I select keepers – you can read it there or find it in the musings section – I shared my early experiences of trying to photograph a wild otter. Back in the 70s, otters were quite rare, and I spent over 20 hours across seven days just trying to get a glimpse of one. Although I was pleased with any photos I managed to take, I believe if I had honed my skills earlier, I could have captured much better results. Some wildlife, like mountain hares in snow, can only be photographed in their natural habitat. However, practicing with captive animals can certainly help boost your chances of success in similar situations.
I intentionally organize workshops at well-maintained centers where wildlife is kept in spacious, naturalistic enclosures. By limiting the number of participants, I can focus on both skill development and capturing stress-free animal photographs. With a small group and the assistance of knowledgeable animal handlers, I can support and teach everyone regardless of their experience level. This preparation increases our chances of success when photographing animals in the wild – something I lacked when I encountered that otter years ago.
Moreover, because these centers provide a more natural environment, we can obtain fantastic photographs of animals that would otherwise be harder to capture in the wild. For instance, I’ve never managed to photograph water shrews in their natural habitat, but I have successfully done so while they were in captivity. I’m starting a project to photograph them underwater and while some have done so in the wild, I’ll be using captive ones and being transparent about it. © Bob Brind-Surch http://www.naturesphotos.co.uk. Another point to consider, which some wildlife photographers may find controversial, is that wildlife photography has historically been about documenting animals in their natural settings to showcase their behavior and environment. Recently, many of us have become interested in viewing photography as an art form rather than merely a scientific documentation process.
In reality, I suspect this has always been the case. For example, when the painter Landseer depicted the red stag (Monarch of the Glen) in the Scottish Highlands, he utilized both his observations of the animal in the wild and his artistic talent. He likely observed red stags in their natural habitat, but he also incorporated his skills as an artist to create an impactful image. The otter captured in the accompanying photograph was a captive one at the center I work with in Devon. I trust that my years of studying and observing wild otters, combined with refining my technique, enabled me to create an image that, while not wild, still presents a pleasing and naturalistic portrayal of a remarkable creature.
Over the years, my understanding of what constitutes wildlife photography has evolved, and this shift applies to all photography genres. While I remain a committed naturalist and professional zoologist, I also consider myself an artist creating images rather than just a scientist collecting data. This distinction is intentional because I have always believed that being a naturalist who photographs – rather than just a photographer focusing on wildlife – leads to stronger work.
Artists like Landseer and others create impactful images because they invest time studying their subjects and thoroughly understanding them. With that said, my goal in wildlife photography is to convey the awe of the subjects I capture, as well as my passion for this art form. I often reference a talented fine art photographer named Lisa Langell…
Sure! Here’s a paraphrased version of the article while keeping the HTML structure intact.
Who informed me about this
“Photography goes beyond merely showing what you saw – it’s about capturing your experience of the moment”
This is exactly how I approach my photography today; it centers around capturing and sharing moments as I experienced them. Just as Landseer brought his artistic experience and talent, I aim to apply my expertise as a photographer to the images I create. However, the question of whether a wildlife photo of a captive animal can truly be classified as such is quite complex. First and foremost, I firmly hold that no one should misrepresent a captive photograph as a wild one. Honesty must be the foundational rule for all photographers, regardless of the genre. Deceiving the audience not only misleads people but can also severely tarnish one’s reputation in an instant.
For instance, consider the case of José Luis Rodriguez, who submitted a photo of a wolf leaping over a gate in the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, claiming it was wild. It was later revealed to be fraudulent, as the wolf was sourced from a wildlife park in Madrid. Not only did he deceive the judges—a completely inexcusable act—but he also accepted the award, which ultimately cost him his reputation.
Another difficulty arises around the question of what constitutes ‘wild.’ During my wildlife photography in Africa, I’ve faced accusations that my work isn’t authentic because guides direct us to the animals in specialized vehicles. Additionally, is it genuinely my photography if someone else located the animal? We can take this further: there are parks in South Africa where animals are introduced to vast areas. Furthermore, is photographing from an RSPB bird hide or capturing birds at a feeder in my garden considered wild photography? What about images taken with remote camera traps? The nuances of this question reflect the complexity found in many aspects of life.
Most would likely agree that an animal living freely in nature qualifies as wild, whereas an animal that is restrained, trained, or specifically brought to an area for photography is considered captive. But does that distinction truly matter? Personally, I believe it does not as long as the photographer is transparent about their methods and the circumstances under which the photograph was taken. If I’ve captured an appealing image of an animal even if it was taken in captivity, and if the photograph is well-executed and technically sound, I see it as a valid wildlife photograph—provided I openly acknowledge it was of a captive animal. Extending this idea, I don’t think there’s an issue with being guided by an expert when photographing on safari as long as I disclose that fact. The crux of the matter lies in the purpose of the photographs; if they’re meant for a wildlife book, they might necessarily need to be entirely wild images, even though many stock images do not adhere to this standard. If they document a study on a wild species, they too should ideally be sourced from the wild.
However, if the purpose is to create artwork, then I believe it is acceptable—even if I’m transparent—whether the subjects are wild or captive. When it comes to submitting work for competitions, I feel judges should focus on well-executed photographs that not only capture the spirit of the animal but also convey how the photographer experienced the moment, aligning with Lisa’s quote. For instance, viewing the photo of a fox drinking from a stream taken at a center in Devon, where wildlife is maintained in spacious enclosures, it’s deemed to be well-captured yet not entirely representative of wildlife documentary photography in the strictest sense. Nevertheless, the image is visually appealing, and many skilled photographers have produced similar or even superior images during my workshops. I have never represented such a photograph as being wild.
I haven’t captured a fox drinking from a stream in its natural habitat, but I’ve taken numerous photos of different animals doing so. There seems to be a prevailing belief among many photographers that the essence lies in the challenge of photographing true wild subjects. While that is certainly important, and I have relished those experiences multiple times, the key issue is truly enjoying what you do while continuously improving your craft. Many think this can only be realized through wild animal photography. My perspective diverges here: while I strongly believe a naturalist must study and comprehend a creature to photograph and portray its behavior, as a photographer, I also need to apply my skill to capture that perfect moment. Artists like Edwin Landseer exemplified this blend, whether their subjects were wild or captive. If a captive image offers a striking result and helps refine my skills, being transparent about this reality makes it inconsequential to me.
One essential principle for me is that the captured image must reflect a natural environment—the animal should exhibit natural behavior, and no elements should be artificially added or removed using editing software like Photoshop. While it is fine to crop images or adjust exposure, adding or removing elements is out of the question.
The PAGB, FIAP, and RPS recently tackled this very issue and produced insightful guidelines. I believe it’s crucial and beneficial to share their definition in full here: The official nature photography definition established by PAGB, FIAP, and RPS (2016) states that nature photography involves utilizing the photographic process to depict all aspects of natural history (excluding anthropology and archaeology) in such a way that an informed individual can identify the subject matter and verify its honest representation.
The value of a photograph as a narrative should outweigh its artistic quality, while still maintaining high technical standards. Human elements should not be present unless they are integral to the nature story (like barn owls or storks adapting to human-modified environments) or depict natural forces (e.g., hurricanes or tidal waves). Scientific tags or collars on wild animals are permissible. However, photographs involving human-created hybrid or cultivated plants, feral or domestic animals, and mounted specimens are deemed ineligible, alongside any manipulative techniques that distort the truth of the photographic representation.
This version maintains the original HTML format while rephrasing the content for better clarity and readability.Sure! Here’s a paraphrased version of the provided HTML content while keeping the HTML structure intact:
Only cropping is allowed to adjust the appearance of elements in a photograph. Techniques that improve the image’s presentation without altering the original scene or its story, such as HDR, focus stacking, and dodging/burning, can be used. It’s permissible to remove elements added by the camera, like dust spots, digital noise, or film scratches.
Stitched images are not allowed. All modifications must look natural. You can convert color images into greyscale monochrome. Infrared images, whether direct captures or manipulations, are prohibited. Images submitted in Nature Photography competitions are categorized into two groups: Nature and Wildlife. Nature section entries that comply with the Nature Photography Definition can feature landscapes, geological formations, weather events, and living organisms as the main subjects. This includes images captured with subjects in controlled settings like zoos, game farms, botanical gardens, aquariums, and areas where the subjects entirely rely on humans for food. Entries in the Wildlife section that fit the above definition are specifically for extant zoological or botanical beings that are free and unconfined in either a natural or a modified environment.
Images of landscapes, geological formations, or animals from zoos or game farms, or any living zoological or botanical species obtained in controlled settings do not qualify for the Wildlife sections. Wildlife isn’t just limited to animals, birds, and insects; marine life and plants (including fungi and algae) in their natural environment are also acceptable. Furthermore, carcasses of extant species can be classified as wildlife images for Nature sections in Exhibitions. The PAGB, FIAP, and RPS guidelines raise additional discussions on whether to include cultivated plants, what editing techniques are permitted, such as focus stacking and dodging and burning. My position is straightforward: using specific camera techniques like focus stacking or limited editing, such as dodging and burning, is not a problem. Ansel Adams, for instance, spent extensive hours perfecting his nature photographs in the darkroom using similar methods, and he has never faced criticism for it. To summarize, I believe photographing captive animals is acceptable as long as the integrity of the image isn’t compromised by adding or removing elements or placing the animal in an unnatural setting.
What is most crucial is that everyone, including those enjoying or judging our work, understands what we’re trying to convey, the skills involved, and the context in which the image was captured. One note: when participating in competitions, be cautious of the rules, as the PAGB and others have created these guidelines partly due to some insisting that images of non-wild-caught subjects are of lesser quality. Certain competitions demand that entries be genuinely wild, with different criteria applying.
I suspect this article might spark further debate, but I hope it encourages thoughtful consideration. I have been photographing wildlife for nearly 50 years and have been lucky to learn from remarkable naturalists and photographers. I feel I’ve experienced the “best of both worlds,” working with wildlife in natural habitats and honing my skills alongside professionals. Times have changed; we’re now aiming for exceptional images, and modern technology enables us to achieve this. Limiting our wildlife photography solely to wild animals will not allow for quick improvement, particularly for those of us who may have less time to capture memorable wildlife moments.
Bob will return next month with more insights. If you’re eager for more of Bob’s thoughts, visit http://www.naturesphotos.co.uk.
Related
Feel free to let me know if you need further modifications!
