I've had several film crews follow us around in the Peruvian rainforest, some of whom I think have done a good job and others have been appalling. I think there is a big difference between moving the animal around to get a better shot and harming the animal for the shot. I've seen photographers/videographers dip butterflies in alcohol to get them to hold still and others put reptiles in the freezer for the same reason. I saw one that held a snake by the end of its tail and swung it around until it seemed nearly lifeless. There is nothing "natural" about harming and immobilizing animals in "nature photography".
Tiffany M. Doan, Ph. D. Associate Professor Department of Biology Central Connecticut State University 1615 Stanley Street New Britain, CT 06050 Phone: 860-832-2676; Fax: 860-832-2594 http://www.biology.ccsu.edu/doan/ "There is grandeur in this view of life. . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." --Charles Darwin --- On Thu, 9/23/10, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Naturefaking in media To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 4:52 AM Here's a link to a timely report on this subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092105782.html WT PS: It seems that some are not concerned; others think the practice is a major problem. I tend to think it depends a lot on whether or not the faking is misleading or truly educational, but I'd like to hear from Ecolog on this issue. It seems that there's a lot that doesn't meet the eye . . .
