Animals That You Have No Luck With

Moebelle

Moebelle

Well-Known Member
10+ year member
No matter how many zoos I've been to that display these particular species, there are just some animals out there that I have absolutely zero luck with photographing. Sometimes it's based on my skill level and available equipment but sometimes I also notice that there are animals that are just plain non-photogenic. Most of which that are high class... Here's a list of animals that I have trouble getting a good photo out of and I would like to read your's if you're a photographer.

Cougars unless they are jumping
African Painted Dogs at any angle
Any gazelle species unless they are rutting
Camels unless they are yawning
Andean condors and all vultures
All snakes
Lizards behind glass
Sloths
Giraffes most of the time
Cheetahs unless they are running
Adult bonobos
All penguins except Blue penguins
Colobus
Guenons
Macaques
Orangutans
Typically Indian Rhinos
All bears, unless they are fighting
Nicobar pigeon - Surprising considering their colors
Saddle-billed Storks - No matter how many times I try, I'm never satisfied
Silverback gorillas
Lionesses
Capybaras
Any small bird
Crocodilians
Bongos
Zebras
 
An interesting question. I am firmly of the opinion that anything can be photographed, provided that you have the right kit and you're in the right place and the right time - however at least half the skill of photography is being right there, right then and with the right gear in your hands. However some species in some enclosures make things very difficult - sometimes the best answer is to got to a different zoo with a different lens at a different time of year :)
However there are still an awful lot of animals for which I have never got a really satisfactory photograph, even after 40+ years of trying. The ones that spring to mind are
  • giant panda (although I haven't seen one for years)
  • birds of paradise (they hardly ever pose nicely for me)
  • squirrels (too fast)
  • aquatic salamanders (usually kept in dim light and they hide away)
  • small tortoises, terrapins & turtles (I know it sounds silly, but it's hard to get the camera low enough in most zoo enclosures)

Alan
 
Lions
Cheetahs
Fishing cats
Bears except giant pandas
Sea otters
Storks except Storm's stork
Rhinos
Great apes (except babies)
Sloths except three-toed sloths
Pheasants
Raptors except for vultures
Pretty much all hoofstock (the smaller it is, though, the better I do)
Elephants
Lizards behind glass
Tortoises
Elephant shrews
Flying foxes except for spectacled flying foxes- and that's only because the one I saw used to be a pet and likes humans
 
@ Moebelle - If you come out here to Arizona Sonora Desert Museum, I can virtually guarantee fantastic cougar and rattlesnake photos.

Some of the animals on the lists above are due to overall poor exhibit quality. There are no good orangutan exhibits anywhere in the United States (from what I have seen), so you will not get a good photo except perhaps for a tight portrait. For reptile houses in general, perhaps you just need a macro lens? Also I always carry a black cloth (napkin) in my bag to shield glare from the viewing glass.
 
Somehow I missed this thread. I agree with Gentle Lemur's statement, "at least half the skill of photography is being right there, right then and with the right gear in your hands." The other half, especially when photographing animals and children, is having the time and patience to wait for the great opportunity to present itself, and the ability to recognize and act on it. I've lost count of the number of great photo opportunities I've missed because I just didn't see them and act in time.
 
I have countless photos of very bad quality - blurry (for example clouded leopard), silhouetted (for example siamang), too much contrasted, too dark (babyrousa), with glass reflections, with flash reflection (f. e. chinese giant salamander), with the wires showing in the front (such as abyssinian ground hornbill) or with the animal in bad or very bad position (such as bush dog). However, I would like to remark on those animals that we saw and tried to photograph, but due to available light, animal moving, too hidden, etc etc.. we don't get any photo at all. Mines are, for example, black dorcopsis at Prague, fennec at San Diego, fossa at San Diego and Berlin, brahminy kite at Taipei, tentacled snake at San Diego, Zoe's imperial pigeon at London, Perdicula asiatica at Plzen... and probably much more. All these are now species from which I lack photos :-(
 
Anytime I come across an animal I'm having a hard time taking a shot of, it's usually due to the enclosure. Mainly lighting conditions, man made obstacles, or barriers such as fencing or glass viewings.
 
Elephants. I never know how much to zoom in, especially with their long trunks. Then you have their long eyelashes that can blocked their eyes a lot.
 
I find it very difficult to take good photos of primates, as they seem to be moving constantly and so my pictures often end up blurry. Same issue with aquatic animals moving underwater.

Part of it is that I'm only using my mobile phone to take pictures rather than an actual camera, so there's that :p
 
cypher said:
Anytime I come across an animal I'm having a hard time taking a shot of, it's usually due to the enclosure. Mainly lighting conditions, man made obstacles, or barriers such as fencing or glass viewings.
Click to expand...

Same here. Only exception I can think of at the moment are the maned wolves at the Houston Zoo. They seem to spend much of their time hiding so I rarely even see them, much less get the chance to take a good photo.
 
Enclosures are a huge part of the problem; especially any where you've got two layers of protection. Often wire on the cage and then a further barrier (eg fence line) that keeps people back; because then you often cant shoot through the wire by getting your lens up close to it; and very few enclosures offer a very long depth to allow you to focus far into them to get to the subject.

The other things that often get annoying are reflections or marks on the glass (marks on both sides!) or very close-up enclosures (I tend to end up with a long lens fitted so don't tend to carry a shorter lens - weakness of DSLR and being lazy ;)).

Indoors is also a major challenge because even if the animals are not light sensitive; most indoor areas that are bright enough for eyes are dim for cameras; to say nothing of the challenge of mixed light where you've got shade and natural light spilling in from windows.
 
overread said:
Enclosures are a huge part of the problem; especially any where you've got two layers of protection. Often wire on the cage and then a further barrier (eg fence line) that keeps people back; because then you often cant shoot through the wire by getting your lens up close to it; and very few enclosures offer a very long depth to allow you to focus far into them to get to the subject.

The other things that often get annoying are reflections or marks on the glass (marks on both sides!) or very close-up enclosures (I tend to end up with a long lens fitted so don't tend to carry a shorter lens - weakness of DSLR and being lazy ;)).

Indoors is also a major challenge because even if the animals are not light sensitive; most indoor areas that are bright enough for eyes are dim for cameras; to say nothing of the challenge of mixed light where you've got shade and natural light spilling in from windows.
Click to expand...

Spot on. This is what I find to be the biggest challenge when taking photos at the zoo. Exhibit constraints and lighting issues (mainly indoors).
 
Fences and other distractions are the reason why I now place some animals in black backgrounds and make "studio shots". If they're easy to photpshop out I'll do it but my main goal is to make it look like I was never even at a zoo.
 
I usually dont bother anymore in aquariums or reptile houses. So any that fall into that catorgory . Also depends on outside lighting and the shine on zoo enclosures are a pain. Especially the ones that blur unless you're face on to them. And again like someone else said that if you have the right kit it makes it easier and the time. Im usualy in the zoo on my own so I usualy pick an animal to focus on before I go and dont have to rush around.
 
OG87 said:
I usually dont bother anymore in aquariums or reptile houses. So any that fall into that catorgory . Also depends on outside lighting and the shine on zoo enclosures are a pain. Especially the ones that blur unless you're face on to them. And again like someone else said that if you have the right kit it makes it easier and the time. Im usualy in the zoo on my own so I usualy pick an animal to focus on before I go and dont have to rush around.
Click to expand...
Generally I find the reptile house as one of the better areas of the zoo to photograph animals in. The problem with the reptile house is many animals may be in poor spots and not move, but since there are so many reptiles to choose from there is usually a good opportunity or two. The glass can be frustrating but many times it can be worked around or actually improve the photo. Aquariums on the other hand, not so much probably due to poor lighting and warping of water and glass combined.
 
d1am0ndback said:
Generally I find the reptile house as one of the better areas of the zoo to photograph animals in. The problem with the reptile house is many animals may be in poor spots and not move, but since there are so many reptiles to choose from there is usually a good opportunity or two.
Click to expand...

I usually try to visit the reptiles as early as possible when I go to a zoo, and then to return later in the day: in the hope that some of the specimens that were not showing well on my first visit may be posing nicely on my second. It does happen sometimes ;)
 
It also might be due to the fact that my interest in reptiles and some fish species is limited. (Wrongly so yes) but I can find I get serious heebies surounded by too many snakes which isnt helped by the dark clostraphobic enviroments most of them are housed in and in turn usualy leaves me with blury or not cared for photos.

d1am0ndback said:
Generally I find the reptile house as one of the better areas of the zoo to photograph animals in. The problem with the reptile house is many animals may be in poor spots and not move, but since there are so many reptiles to choose from there is usually a good opportunity or two. The glass can be frustrating but many times it can be worked around or actually improve the photo. Aquariums on the other hand, not so much probably due to poor lighting and warping of water and glass combined.
Click to expand...
 
I find reptile houses/exhibits a lot easier to shoot than aquariums. But, as mentioned, the only hangup on reptile exhibits is their actually positioning and lighting of the exhibit.

Aquariums can just be a nuisance with all the refraction.
 
Bristol zoo
Flamingo land
Southhampton zoo
All had that species at that time according to zootierliste
 
drill said:
Bristol zoo
Flamingo land
Southhampton zoo
All had that species at that time according to zootierliste
Click to expand...

A deliberate riddle for us to solve, or have you merely forgotten to mention the species? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top