Veteran cameraman claims: BBC 'fakes wildlife shots all the time'

[ME]

I believe that it is sometimes ok to set up scenes, but also important to disclose that fact, depending on what the situation is. I have watched quite a few wildlife programs over the years, and am usually disappointed to find out it was set up, but not as much if it is not revealed. I know sometimes it might be necessary. On the light side, I am usually amused at weather people who stand in the middle of a hurricane or very bad weather to show what it is like. I get the idea of how powerfull the weather is without them risking their lives. I have not seen one killed yet, but it would be very popular news and would wind up on youtube .

[Don Haines]

I would never fake or stage a "wildlife" picture

[takesome1]

What is amazing is that these stories pop up and we still talk about them.
Fake wildlife pics and video have been going on for a very long time.
As long as budgets and money are involved people are going to take short cuts.

[ME]

I would never fake or stage a "wildlife" picture

  .  Predator & prey living in harmony. Do you have any BIF photos of those birds? Would be interesting to see

PS: Nice bokeh!

[Beamengine]

'An interesting article on Daily Mail'

Sorry, I stopped reading there.

For those of you not familiar with the DM, it is an absolutely vile paper with an anti-BBC obsession that make the Tea Party look like an Obama fan club.

I wouldn't wipe my arse with it – seriously.

Others may disagree, they are simply wrong.

[Orangutan]

"Fake" is when you don't get what you're led to believe you're getting.  If I buy a poster of a Picasso, I know what I'm getting, so it's not fake.  I guess I'm just a fan of science, but it would not bother me that they took video of polar bear births in a "fake" (i.e. constructed) den if I'm told, outright, that's what it is.

"Nature films" are a form of journalism, and should be held to the same standard.  It's OK to stage something for educational purposes so long as it's plainly disclosed.

I do not accept at all that everything we see in image or video should be presumed "fake" (manipulated, staged, fauxtoshopped, etc) unless specifically stated otherwise.  Everything has context: what looks "real" to a reasonable viewer ought to be presumed "real."  Aesthetic does not reign supreme.

[mackguyver]

I would never fake or stage a "wildlife" picture

Surely you put out some food or something, that's just amazing to have so many stuffed, ahem, wild animals all together.  Great photo!

[gary]

I am surprised that this is thought of as a news piece as the Daily Mail wouldn't know news if they fell over it. This way of filming was addressed by David Attenborough a number of years back when he was asked about how some of the great shots were achieved. So Mr Editor Daily Mail, this is old news very old news.

[CharlieB]

Quite obviously, the previous responders to this thread are beyond the age that would remember "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom', with Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler, whereupon, on some back of some studio in California, Marlin would "watch from the safety of the helicopter while Jim wrestled the crocodile".   Whereupon, the helicopter was in fact on the ground (the chopper shots of Marlin looking on were often repeated from show to show), and the crocodile was... well it was somthing in the mud, and could have been a deflated weather balloon for all we know.

[Pi]

It is fake, indeed.

[GDub]

Surprise, surprise!

[Orangutan]

Quite obviously, the previous responders to this thread are beyond the age that would remember "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom', with Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler, whereupon, on some back of some studio in California, Marlin would "watch from the safety of the helicopter while Jim wrestled the crocodile".   Whereupon, the helicopter was in fact on the ground (the chopper shots of Marlin looking on were often repeated from show to show), and the crocodile was... well it was somthing in the mud, and could have been a deflated weather balloon for all we know.

I remember watching that show as a young kid, and loving it.  At the time I didn't even think about whether it was fake/staged/dramatized, I just took it at face value.   A few years later I watched zoologists bring captive animals onto the set of the Tonight Show with Johnny C, and that was equally fascinating.  As a child, the Tooth Fairy is interesting; as an adult, physical anthropology (or any "dry" science) is interesting.

At some point I'll have to watch some episodes of "Wild Kingdom" to see them through adult eyes.  If it's obviously fake I'm willing to write it off as a dramatized children's show.   I'm more concerned with well-done fakes, where it's not possible to find the fakery unless you're an expert.

[takesome1]

Quite obviously, the previous responders to this thread are beyond the age that would remember "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom', with Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler, whereupon, on some back of some studio in California, Marlin would "watch from the safety of the helicopter while Jim wrestled the crocodile".   Whereupon, the helicopter was in fact on the ground (the chopper shots of Marlin looking on were often repeated from show to show), and the crocodile was... well it was somthing in the mud, and could have been a deflated weather balloon for all we know.

Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom was presented as real wildlife at the time. I have never heard the stories that you just outlined but some of the cast later talked about going to remote locations, they would bait the wildlife or arrange for wildlife confrontation. They would also release tame animals in to the wild to get the action shots they wanted. They did what they had to do to arrange the shots and told no one.

This was old news and it is amazing that some will read this news story and think it is something new.

But the whole thing cheapens the value of wildlife photography. Those of us that would rather take pictures of wildlife in wild settings doing their natural thing work hard to produce a product that compares to a so called Pro's staged, lighted pictures of animal actors.

Of course we can say these pro's are deceptive. But then I know many bird photographers with feeder in their back yard, great lighting and great photoshop skills and they pass their bird photography off as wild life pictures. When a wild animal starts eating from the food you provide and sits on the perch you provide it is semi domesticated IMO.

[AprilForever]

Only thing I cared about in the thing was the lens. Was the venerable 150-600 L FD I saw?

[moreorless]

Not commenting directly on this article, but it's a sad fact that as long as money is involved, people will fake wildlife photos.  Whether it's shooting in zoos, using animal models, roadkills, reeling in a dead mouse to attract owls, etc. it will be done.  If your livelihood depends on it, you really can't blame people for doing it.  I just wish people would label it as such, as the North America Nature Photography Association (NANPA) advocates: http://nanpa.org/positions_overview.php.

For me, wildlife photography is all about the challenge of finding wild animals, which is often about luck, and the skill of getting the shot when the opportunity presents itself.  If it were easy, I don't think I would enjoy it.  Then again, my income doesn't depend on getting these shots.

Bare in mind that the nature programs involved generally involve the best wildlife video footage the world has ever seen.

For Americans the Daily Mail is basically Fox News in print form and is opposed to the BBC as an independent public broadcaster. The grandfather of the current owner was a fascist sympathiser pre WW2 yet he ran a highly dishoniest story on the current center left leaders dead father "hating britan".