Ahh i fully agree with you,
If i had my way I would have a seperate category for zoo animals than wild animals. I have spent hours even days to have everything be in the right place at the right time for just a few moments of the shot I am looking for. Its a completly diffrent level of dedication and respect for the animals to photograph them in there habitat.

It's hard work. Now it's time to spread the joy.

--
Wildlife Photography the way it is supposed to be...WILD
Merlinstouch

Where I work
Midwest Signtech/

Great choices.

--
Member of
*WildlifeUK, =wildlifephotography, =Birds-Club and *Macro-Beginners-Club

Thanks Cy. Next week I plan on digging deeper.

--
Wildlife Photography the way it is supposed to be...WILD
Merlinstouch

Where I work
Midwest Signtech/

Look forward to seeing more.

--
Member of
*WildlifeUK, =wildlifephotography, =Birds-Club and *Macro-Beginners-Club

Way to go.. nice touch.. and I agree 100% Zoo animals belong in a seperate cat. Its takes deditaction to get a killer shot of almost any wild critter. Anybody with OK gear can get good shots of tame animals.

Photographing animals in a zoo isn't always a walk in the park, I've spent countless hours sitting in the heat and cold and rain waiting for a shot, sometimes up to seven hours. Plus you have to deal with screaming children and jostling obnoxious crowds. I know this PALES in comparison to what the hardcore wildlife photographer does, but please don't think that *simply* because some of us don't have the means to get out in the wild that we don't love or respect animals, or that we're not dedicated. That's actually a ridiculously huge insult. Simply consider yourself lucky that you are able to go to the habitat and realize that not everyone is as blessed as you are.

--
[link] <- my wildlife photography

Thanks for the feature

I agree that zoo photography is something else (in fact there should be a separate category for them). Sure you can get neat shots, but it's something that anyone can do.

Also, I think it goes deeper than that, it means that the picture was taken of a caged animal. For instance, if I saw a picture that I thought was a really cool shot of an animal, and then I was told the shot was taken in a zoo, the picture would lose something in my mind. It won't stop the picture from being a neat shot, but it will lose the "wildlife" sense, which in some cases can make or break the intended feeling of a shot.

Many of my pictures are taken in Calgary Zoo, because it was convenient. I've gone countless times and I appreciate how difficult it is to get a good shot in a zoo, but I know from personal experience that if the same amount of time is dedicated to going to a local park or something, the same quality of shots can be achieved, and they will be from the outdoors. Personally that means a great deal to me, I look at my pictures printed on the wall and I find far more pride in shots that have been taken in the outdoors than the ones from the zoo.

Zoo shots are great for the average person, but as a very picky person in my photography, there is something in wildlife photography that brings a feeling that a zoo shot can never achieve.

A bit of a ramble there, but that's my opinion.

A note to anyone who thinks their local wildlife isn't very interesting: this is an international website, and chances are there are people out there who don't get to see your common animal every day, and will think it's neat to see. It is possible to get neat shots of common wildlife, for instance seagulls .

--

Then lobbeth thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
May Pixie Sticks rain down upon all!!!!!

My apologies I certainly did not mean offense. I can see how my comment may have been taken in that regards.