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

[P3D Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxx>]

John W Roberts wrote:

> 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.

First, thanks to John Roberts for a thoughtful and interesting reply.

It's my recollection from the television industry trades (this
controversy is at least several years old) that many, if not most of the
natures shows and docs came clean and self-achnowledged that they were
using production techniques which crossed over the line to
theatricizing, dramatization and recreation. There is nothing inherently
wrong with this _IF_ this is disclosed to the viewing public. As a
general rule, it was not. Marty Stouffer 'fessed up to using many more
recreations than he disclosed on his programs. And I'm afraid *not*
claiming to *not* use recreations doesn't cut it with the FCC.

> 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.

Compelled is fully accurate here. If memory serves me correctly, the PBS
documentary which Larry Berlin discussed was produced as a concession to
correcting past deceptions. Broadcasters have an obligation and are
compelled not to knowingly deceive the public (though this does seem
difficult to believe at times). Examples: NBC cannot recreate the gas
tank explosion of a GMC truck and air it without disclosing that it was
a recreation. Those "real life" programs with Robert Stack and William
Shatner which recreate actual events must disclose that they are
recreations. Broadcast distributors, be they networks, syndicators,
cable channels or local stations, are legally obligated to disclose that
which is real from that which is dramatized in any and all of their
programs IF there is a reasonable question of confusion by the viewing
public. 

> 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).

Remove the qualifier "nature" from your first sentence, and we're on the
same page. 8)

As I'm trying point out, this is a discussion which rightly applies to
all documentary film-making and photojournalistic pursuits which purport
to depict situations "as they happened" or as they "really exist," and
addresses matters of _disclosure_and_misrepresentation_ rather than what
is "OK" and what is "bad." 

I'm saying that misrepresentation in our work or anyone's work is a bad
thing. Two points were raised on the list with regard to this topic: (1)
that certain practices have gone undisclosed and unchallanged in the
past and are in general use, the implication being that they are then
acceptable for use undisclosed by this standard alone, and (2) that the
very act of photographing and making editorial choices by definition
removes us from the realm of what we would have seen had we "been
there," and so implies (or perhaps I infered) that therefore we need not
concern ourserved with the undue pursuit of being truthful or accurate
in the course of our own photojournalistic or documentary endeavors.

I dispute both arguments vigorously. We try to build impact and emotion
into our work. But we also need to have honesty. If we have contrived a
photo, let's not say that we "found it" in nature.

> 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! :-)

At an MIT lecture I attended in the late 60s/early 70s given by
Heisenberg himself, he cringed at any non-small particle physics
application of his theory!  8)

> 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. 
  (snip)
> 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.

All excellent points. I would point out that there are documentaries
which have been made in which researchers and film-makers have
introduced themselves into the ecosystems of their subjects over the
course of many months/years, and so have no need of long lenses. Jane
Goodall's work is a good example of this. It would seem some nature
subjects are more suited to stereo than others? (A stereo doc of flowers
perhaps?  8---) ) I'd also point out that no matter how anyone tries to
recreate a lion stalking and killing it's prey, you ain't gonna do it
without a looooooooooong lens...
 
> So, Eric (also Larry, Marvin, etc.) - what are your criteria for a nature show
> that's "natural" enough to suit you? 

My point is that I'm happy to view interesting content and excellent
quality in lots of contexts, as long as I'm being truthfully informed of
what I'm really seeing.

Erlys' original post I believe addressed itself to the suitability of
entering into competition a stereo "nature" photo in which the subject
has not been shot in situ. My feeling is that I would judge more
favourably those entries which were captured in their original
surroundings, if for no other reason than the category seems to imply
some photojournalistic honest. Also, it sounds as if we're agreeing that
it is the more difficult shot!

Anybody else?


Eric G.


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