Close ups vs. Panoramics

Phantom Gaur

Phantom Gaur

Well-Known Member
Just curious what everybody's preference is for photos? A picture of the animal's enclosure where the animal just looks like a dot or a close up of the animal but their full enclosure can't be seen in the picture. Personally, I like to take photos of the animals themselves. I'm hoping to post some pictures I've taken from the Northeast U.S. zoos as soon as I get the time.
 
Its nice to get photos of both, as members such as snowleopard, geomorph, and Badur do. The animals close ups are nice to see what animals the zoo has, but a photo of the enclosures really show what the zoo looks like. Add photos of visitor ammenities, signs, or interesting features, and you have a great gallery from a certain zoo.
 
Last edited:
I think that unless it is a particularly special shot, very unusual or a unique species close ups add little to the galleries, I'm much more interested in getting an idea of what the enclosures are like as well as the zoo in general.
 
I think the answers on this thread are going to fall into three basic categories:
1) "I want to see the enclosures because I can see photos of the animals anywhere on the internet"
2) "I like animals, especially Garry the orangutan, so I want as many close-ups of them as possible"
3) "A good mix of enclosures, facilities and animal close-ups in balance"

If you look through the galleries you'll see that photos of enclosures get far more views than most animal photos, but this is in part due to the fact that you generally need to see the full-size photo of an enclosure to tell what its like, whereas you can usually see animal portraits fine from the thumbnail. Anything with a comment is automatically going to draw more views as well, because people are curious as to what has been said about the photo.

In general I think most members would lean towards number three (a good balance of both enclosures and animal portraits, with the portraits being more "useful" so to speak if they are of unusual or rarely-seen species - which isn't to say there's not a place for common species like meerkats or ring-tailed lemurs). Of course there are ways to go overboard: if you look through the American galleries for enclosures there are endless photos of grass and trees that all look more or less the same; and likewise some people want to upload dozens of photos of their favourite individual animal doing exciting things like sleeping and breathing.

All in all, at the end of the day, choose what you upload with care and toss out the rubbish.
 
I have to admit that I'm surprised with the response(as few as there were). When I go to a zoo and don't get to see the animals I'm somewhat disappointed. Seeing the animals have plenty of room to move and hide is great for the animals, but unfortunately they make botanical gardens for people who want to just see plants and trees and grass. I do agree with the responses to see a mix of both. I just can't get myself to take pictures where you couldn't tell what the animal is without a caption. As far as being able to see any pictures on the internet of that species, the only thing I think of is that the pic you post isn't any old animal. It's "the" one you were watching. Believe me, I don't go as far as standing there for an hour taking pic after pic of the animal's entire routine. Anyway, these are just my own opinions and everybody is entitled to their preference so hopefully I didn't offend anyone.
 
Being a photographer myself, i would take both portrait (of the animals), the enclosure and everything else in between (the keepers, signages etc)
 
Phantom Gaur said:
I have to admit that I'm surprised with the response(as few as there were). When I go to a zoo and don't get to see the animals I'm somewhat disappointed. Seeing the animals have plenty of room to move and hide is great for the animals, but unfortunately they make botanical gardens for people who want to just see plants and trees and grass. I do agree with the responses to see a mix of both. I just can't get myself to take pictures where you couldn't tell what the animal is without a caption. As far as being able to see any pictures on the internet of that species, the only thing I think of is that the pic you post isn't any old animal. It's "the" one you were watching. Believe me, I don't go as far as standing there for an hour taking pic after pic of the animal's entire routine. Anyway, these are just my own opinions and everybody is entitled to their preference so hopefully I didn't offend anyone.
Click to expand...

I think it's worth distinguishing between what photos people take and what photos are popular on ZooChat. I take plenty, but when I upload them to ZooChat these days I tend to limit animal shots to rare species, new arrivals and the very occasional shot I just happen to like. Exhibit shots are generally far more viewed and commented upon. A shot of a Red Panda at Dudley looks very similar to a Red Panda at Kronberg, but the exhibits are different.

At the end of the day, what you take is entirely up to yourself, and if you're not interested in exhibits then there's no reason you should feel obliged to take photos of them.

Bear in mind though that ZooChatters don't generally take pictures of the exhibits because they can't see the animals properly, but out of a genuine interest in the exhibit design aspect - there are several members who are more interested in the exhibit design than the animals!
 
I take photos of animals.
Sometimes I will take a photo of an exhibit or a feature if it illustrates a specific point. If it's successful, I'll post it in the Gallery.
I only post a very small fraction of my animal shots, mainly to show unusual species, new arrivals, an aspect of behaviour or a named individual which others may recognise.

Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top