Re: Nature shows, nature photography (including 3D)

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I generally like to watch nature shows (BTW, Discovery Channel has spun off
an all-nature-show cable channel called Animal Planet), and have tried to take
a number of more-or-less natural 3D photos myself, which has perhaps encouraged
an increased awareness of the issues being discussed. I believe the technical
requirements of good 3D definitely place additional constraints on the degree
of "naturalness" that can be achieved for a given level of effort. Comments and
questions regarding Eric's posts:

>Some of these "nature" shows are currently being roundly criticized for these 
>filmmaking/production processes, which can deviate quite far from what is 
>natural and at best represent a recreation or depiction. 

I was aware that a number of accusations had been made regarding "Wild America",
but not that any of the serious ones had been substantiated. Marty Stouffer
does not appear to claim *not* to use recreations, etc. (some of his shows
specifically reveal how certain difficult shots were done). Do you know of any 
other shows that have been criticized? I recall having seen a few (but don't 
remember the names) that seemed more questionable to me.

>Only recently have 
>they been compelled to started coming clean and tell us if events were staged 
>or recreated.

I don't know about being *compelled*, but I believe some shows were using
the expression "all scenes, whether actual or created, depict authenticated
facts" back in the 1970's.

>Thankfully, there are some filmmakers who shoot their nature films in situ, 
>without "stunts." The real thing. Takes longer, it's more expensive and it's 
>less reliable. But the result is what it purports to be, which is worth a 
>something in some people's eyes...

It seems to me that there's a broad range of practices that can be used in
making nature films, without a really clear cutoff between "this is OK, that
is bad", in part because nature shows may serve multiple purposes - they can
entertain, provide the viewer with scientific knowledge, be used to promote
conservation, be used to tell a story (in addition to just entertaining),
provide wildlife with employment so their home won't be covered with
condominiums, and document events for scientific research (mentioned in a 
later post). Some of the manipulations that can be done:
 - time compression, editorial choice of where to point the camera
 - during editing, changing the sequence or context of events (could be very
     minor changes or major changes) (example: combining footage from several
     actual hunts into one "typical" hunt)
 - playing the video backwards (dancing scorpions in "The Living Desert")
 - adding sound effects (I expect this is extremely common in TV shows)
 - adding lighting
 - building photographic facilities into animals' nests, dens, etc.
 - allowing humans to interact with the animals on-camera
 - allowing humans to interact with the animals off-camera (i.e. saving
     otherwise doomed animals, but not mentioning that on the show)
 - stating that the outcome of a certain event was something that the
     photographer is either uncertain of or knows to be false
 - luring animals to a certain area to be photographed
 - temporarily putting aquatic life in a tank of clear water to be photographed
 - acclimatizing the animals to a human presence so they will behave naturally
 - training the animals to behave a certain way
 - manipulating a situation so that the animals will behave in an interesting
     manner
 - putting animals together so they will fight, hunt one another, etc.
 - implying that the Lonesome Cougar's name was actually Charlie
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 08:28:19 -0500
Errors-To: 3d-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Originator: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
From: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Multiple recipients of list <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: PHOTO-3D digest 1601
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:   The Stereoscopic Image (Photo-3D) Mailing List  
Status:   

 - replacing the animals with people dressed in animal costumes (Gilligan's
     Island, Cats, Scott of the Sahara)

I would be interested in whether you consider some of these techniques to be
"always OK", and some "always bad". My tentative view is that it may depend on
the context. To consider some extreme examples, I don't think I've ever seen
a shot on a nature show in which an owl catches a mouse, and the mouse is
clearly running free. If a mouse is restrained so the photographer knows
where the capture will take place, then it's not a completely natural situation,
but on the other hand it does let millions of viewers see how an owl swoops
down on its prey, and probably takes 1/1000 of the time required to find mice
running around in the dark and track them with a camera in the hopes that an
owl will fly down. Putting false eggs of various sizes, shapes, and colors
into birds' nests to see how the birds react is not entirely natural, but it 
can be used to document scientific research into the natural behavior patterns 
of birds.

>This is simply not true. There are true documentary-style filmmakers who
>set up cameras in blinds for months, even years, and shoot in
>unspeakably high ratios so that they might capture action as a true
>observer. In fact, some of them are conducting and documenting
>scientific research as well, and any "entire" manipulation of reality
>would not be tolerated by the scientific community.

>If you are being Hysenburgian in your definition of "manipulation" to
>mean that the simple act of observation changes the outcome, then by
>this definition no documentary, photojournalistic or candid work (stereo
>or plano) is possible. This is so non-functional a definition as to stop
>any discussion dead in it's tracks.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies unusually strongly to wild
animals, and in more ways than one. (Anyone who has seen a squirrel hemmed
in by traffic can verify that the smaller the volume to which the squirrel 
is confined, the greater its kinetic energy! :-)

Many animals are highly attuned to the presence of humans or their equipment -
a blind may serve to reduce obtrusiveness more than it causes the animals to
be unaware that they are being watched. I'm really impressed that wildlife
photographers are able to get any pictures of cougars and bobcats at all -
I've seen *one* wild bobcat, though I've probably been seen by hundreds.
I expect a major part of the work in most nature shows is to get the animals
sufficiently accustomed to the presence of humans and/or cameras that they
behave naturally. (This may not be a problem for the lions of the 
Serengeti - by now they probably get vaguely uneasy when humans
*aren't* watching them. :-)

One of the useful tools in minimizing the obtrusiveness of the photographic 
setup is the long-distance shot. In 3D photography, the usefulness of this
technique would be greatly reduced by the desire to get something reasonably
close to orthostereo conditions. The requirements for control of depth of
field would also be different. So for 3D nature photography, either a much
greater effort will have to be exerted, or a reduced degree of "naturalness"
will have to be accepted, relative to 2D nature photography. In deciding what
tradeoffs to make, input from interested parties would be useful.

So, Eric (also Larry, Marvin, etc.) - what are your criteria for a nature show 
that's "natural" enough to suit you? What do you look to get out of seeing a
nature show? Did I list all of the significant manupulations, or did I miss
some? Is there a context in which some of them might be acceptable to you?
Do you feel that 3D nature photography (within your criteria) is practical?

John R


------------------------------