This is the difference between a "WILDlife photographer and someone who takes pictures at the zoo.
There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at a Zoo.
There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at the back yard feeder.
What is unethical is when you present your pictures as real "wildlife" taken in a natural setting.
But, in the end of the day, if a commercial photographer is assigned a task of getting a specific shot that an advertising or marketing manager wants of a leopard or wildcat stalking a prey and it has to be to ready for press on friday, t
The sad thing about your example is that images of wildlife have become such a basic commodity. Currently on Getty, if you search for a lion image, there are 17,701 results...and they are mostly fantastic shots.
I'm not criticizing you or your comment, I'm just lamenting the fact that there's a lot of "been there done that" in photography now days as a result of the digital camera revolution.
Couldn't agree more. The digital camera revolution changed everything, many good changed, many very bad changes... A lot of bad changes for the working photographers, especially with the rise of millions of amateur photographers popping up that weren't there before, many with pocketbooks and equipment greater than the average working pro. That being said, agencies and business's aren't helping either... It's all about cheaper, quicker, faster... Much like newspapers firing their pro photographers because of the plethora of other cheaper or in some cases free photos being submitted to them from their stories... Istock and getty are great resources, but in some instances, but depending on usage, licensing CAN become issue, and if they have in house photographers, if they can get the same shot, fraction of the price, most will go that route... Sucks, but it's the photography business as we know it.