First, there are more ways to judge photos than ethics. Though there are clearly many variables operating such as type of camera and length of lens, a photographer shooting a sparrow from say 18 feet has a better opportunity (though not necessarily better product) than a photographer shooting the same sparrow at 50 feet. So I think it is useful information for people to know the distance from which a photo was taken so they have some basis with which to judge the photograph and the photographer's skill and even different photos by the same photographer.
I will give you a couple of examples, using myself stir paranoia. I try (and I may not always remember to do it) to note when I am posting a photo that I digiscoped since that technique tends to provide greater enlargement than many (maybe not all) lens combos. I took photos of the mega-rarity Bare-throated Tiger-Heron, a species found for the first time in the U.S recently in So Texas--the digiscoped photos were far better than those I took with my Canon xti even though it had an effective 640 mm focal length. And they were a lot better than most of the other dslr photos being taken at that time--I posted them as 'digiscoped pics' on my blog and noted that fact. I think that provided helpful information (actually I have also posted explanations of digiscoping on my blog for those not familiar with this technique). The way I was able to crop these photos didn't show the telltale ring so I could have passed them off as more of my handheld Canon xti photos but I think that would have been deceptive. Yes, there is a difference in the ethics for how close you photograph a sparrow versus a Snowy Owl (or a Bare-throated Tiger-Heron). On my blog I photographed a LeConte's Sparrow, though not a rarity where I photographed it in the Lower Rio Grande Valley it was only my second LeConte's and the first I got a real good look at and photographed. As shown on my blog I posted that I was able to get the photos from only about 25 feet away. I don't consider that too close for a sparrow (at least one that is not being sought by hundreds of birders as the tiger-heron was) but I can't imagine taking a photo of a Snowy Owl that close without disturbing it's activities of daily living. That 's where each person has the *opportunity *to judge both the merits of the photo as well as the ethics of the photographer. If the photographer is hidden in a blind, gee, they can add that or any other relevant piece of info that they believe explains their actions. No,you can't *make* birders and photographers behave ethically but we can have ethical guidelines so they have some idea of what is and what is not considered ethical by their peers. And in the case of photography, we can choose to avoid/not purchase/stop watching photographers who put up photos that each of us can decide for ourselves merit or is ethical--but you can't do that when the information is not made public. This is exemplified by the push for photos species that are captive situation to be so identified. Some photographers said they were not being deceptive when they sold a close-up of a polar bear without revealing that they took it in a zoo-they didn't lie, they just let people think whatever they wanted to think. I believe that happens with photographs of rare birds. I think it is human to want to get the best photo possible so there is a pressure to get closer. I think those taking photos of rare birds will be less inclined to get too close if they are expected to post the distance and equipment info. Additionally we all do make mistakes and mistakes cannot be corrected without the knowledge that we made a mistake (got too close, trespassed on someone's property, etc) And please recall I didn't say that we should provide that information for every photo just those of rare and sensitive species something most of us don't do everyday (that said, I have photographed 4 birds of some degree of rarity in the past month and the Snowy Owl is only the third rarest so I am going back on my blog posts to add distance info where I didn't do so originally). Though I don't do so all the time, I do add distance for some of the photos I post as I think it provides useful information for the viewers for the purpose of perspective as well as merit and ethics. We can throw up our hands or we can start expecting that information to be revealed. That is how the push to get wildlife photographers to reveal their photos were of captive animals began. SeEtta Moss Canon City http://BirdsAndNature.blogspot.com On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Dennis Garrison <[email protected] > wrote: > I am not entirely in agreement with your distance disclaimer as a useful > tool for determining if the photographer is acting in an ethical manner. No > two photos are taken under the same circumstances, and absolute distance is > not, in my experience, a valid index of disturbance to the animal. >
