I came across an article called Owls — Not Quite as Clever as We Think and after the post about AI generated images and today’s is it real or isn’t it pic of the Northern Lights , I felt now was the right time to share this article and see some of your opinions on the matter. I feels it’s a good conversation starter on where video and camera magic ends vs what we would consider unreal, like the infamous Disney documentary on lemmings.
I’ll share a few bits from the article, as you should go to the source for this one. It has some good stories and a lot of accompanying pictures.
From Owls -Not Quite as Clever as We Think, by Steven Bolwell
Here’s a bit about why this article intrigued me:
Wildlife film-makers rarely admit to deception, but we all have to own up to the realities of what is possible in a world that is rapidly disappearing. I don’t think it matters one hoot whether an owl exits a real window, or a fake one, because nothing about the bird’s behaviour changes. Nobody questions an edit in a natural history film, because if an audience wanted to experience natural events in real-time they’d be waiting for days. However, as soon as you tighten up the progress of events the result is a story; and the real problem with telling a story is the disappointment of the viewer should they discover the deception.
I also enjoyed this guy does not appear to be a big fan of owls to start with, and many of his experiences show when he relied on them for his income, the owls could be less than cooperative.
I am aware that most owl enthusiasts would be singing the praises of experiencing such wonderful birds first hand, but I couldn’t wait to see the back of them. They whole thing had been a time consuming failure. I’d been unintentionally mislead about what these owls would do, and was a long way past the point where I was going to train them to fly through my phoney window. They were the wrong birds for the job and never again did I make such an expensive mistake.
And here is the story why our Flammulated Owl is not happy with the author and his crew:
A few years later I found myself in the high mountain woodlands of New Mexico filming the small nocturnal flammulated owl. It was a surprise when the scientist working with the birds told me he could chainsaw out the back of the tree they were nesting in and they would remain entirely undisturbed. If you needed to observe or weight young birds this was perhaps an effective way of doing it, but I was sceptical. Chainsawing a tree before the owls started nesting seemed a better option, but how many trees would you need to cut into to guarantee a nest being present later in the year? Predicting such events is very hit and miss.
The filming occurred more than 35 years ago when a great many species were far less threatened than they are today; but even back then if I hadn’t been confident about what I was doing, I wouldn’t have been filming; and in this case, certainly not without the supervision of a scientific advisor who had been working closely with the birds. I haven’t named him because many will consider this kind of intrusiveness unacceptable; but as none of his birds ever seemed disturbed and the information gleaned went into conserving the species, I didn’t have a problem with it. Nevertheless, I am not sure we need to see every wild bird on the nest just for a television programme, although there is no doubt that this kind of media exposure is the best way to get a general audience informed and proactive in conservation… But don’t try this at home… you might lose an eye! The alternative is to film captive birds on sets and there are many people who are equally disturbed by this alternative dishonesty.
I hope this is enough to get you to check out the full article with either the above or below links, and I encourage you to come back and share your opinions. I feel this article is coming from a much more neutral point of view than is typical for this type of discussion.
As a bonus for scrolling this far, here are the baby Flammies from the chainsaw accessed nest:
It’s pretty crazy to think they could cut a hole in the tree with a chainsaw and not disturb the owls.
This was a good read. It makes me wonder how much of these documentaries are staged. They often have beautiful cinematography, but probably the animals would be better off without humans in their remote habitats. I suppose they do help bring in conservation dollars, like he said, but at what cost? Perhaps some of the conservation would not be needed if we weren’t traipsing through animals’ homes to make a movie!
Also, that’s a great shot of the Barred Owl at the end of the article! Just the kind of lucky circumstances that makes photography fun.
I’m really enjoying these articles you’ve posted lately. I like cool owl pics, too, but it’s nice to have a bit of discussion beyond “I love that shot!”
They took down the bird netting way too early during construction on my loading dock and some Finches started bringing in nesting material up in the rafters. I thought all the noise of moving heavy things, running my equipment, and the hammer drilling, sometimes directly on the rafter they were in would have gotten them to look for a different location. They’re still there now, so I imagine they’ve got eggs up in there now.
I found another blog post discussing stress in owls you may find interesting.
The article did end nicely. As I’d said, the tone is different than most things I share here, and between the title and initial standoffishness he had towards owls, it was a lovely conclusion to the story.
I’m glad there’s a handful of you guys that enjoy these articles. I’m here for the learning, and I feel the articles and longer posts could be great things we can all talk about. I try to keep them for the weekend too so people more likely have some time to read them, but I feel they always underperform. I’m probably expecting too much and most people are probably here just to see a happy looking birdy, which is perfectly ok, but I also hope they at least read a little of the educational stuff too. I started off posting mainly for the neat birds too, but there is so much more to owls than I ever could have imagined. A lot of it applies to other birds too, so it’s fun to see some of what I learn in the birds I typically come across.
I want you all to always know I appreciate you coming to look at the photos and read the articles. It’s fun to have people to share it with, even if most of you are quiet or not as serious about it.
I just shared this article in another reply below.
Is Flash Photography Safe for Owls?
I also share the controversy with the aurora photo in that comment as well, so I thought you would want to see that as well. Link to comment
This kind of reminds me of an article I read about an exotic animal ranch that specialised in faking photos for wild life shoots or films and I’m not for it.
I’ll rather I never see the animals than how disruptive we are being to them in their habitats or faking shots for the camera. I know a good wildlife photographer means lots of wasted time trying to get good shots and helps to raise awareness but I think animals should be left alone as much as possible rather than danced in front of us like a circus.
Very fair thoughts. For animals in the wild I heartily agree.
Does the same apply to, for example, the captive raised Barn Owls from the article for the staged window shoot, or the Hedwig “actors?” While still technically wild, they are not from the wild and are used to human handling. For the Barn Owls in the article, is it being a staged shot for a documentary the issue and Harry Potter is obviously fiction so the staged owl stuff is ok?
(For you and anyone else I talk to in this thread, I’m not challenging your opinions, just trying to get deeper into conversation. I know we’re all probably accustomed to responses to moral issues being attacks on our opinions, but I hope you all see this group as a place safe from that type of thing!)
I didn’t think animals raised in captivity were considered wild, that’s why they usually cannot be released. In any case I do a lot of wildlife photography and one of the things I stick to is no setups. I just go out and let wildlife be wildlife. I wouldn’t consider hedwig or animals in captivity to be off limits though, but I also wouldn’t portray them as being wild or lie about where I took the photographs at.
Apologies, I meant wild in they are not domesticated animals like a dog/cat/horse. While captive raised owls aren’t from the wild, it is not their nature to live that closely with us. Some could look at them in a fun AnimalsWithJobs way, while others could see them as circus animals made to perform while a person gets paid for it way. There are definite concerns when we entrust these animals to their care when Hedwig’s handlers and other related entertainment oriented groups are given custody of these animals.
Especially once profit becomes involved, some people’s morality can become quite…flexible. There are a ton of great people out there working with animals in all capacities, from volunteers to for-profit businesses, but they all have the same responsibility to care for these animals. I support zoos for instance, and thankfully I’ve only ever been to one that I felt should have been shut down (it was!) and I am glad they are under pretty consistent scrutiny, because they should be. So I try to keep my opinions on a case-by-case basis, especially since many of these jobs are hard work with long hours and don’t pay well, so most people are going to be dedicated to animal welfare, but I am all for removing animals from anyone not treating them with respect.
The problems there is how you make exotic wildlife ‘perform’. Unlike say dogs, wildlife rarely enjoy performing tricks. So far places like zoos have managed to make them ‘perform’ stuff they pretty much always do (eg. Fly from place to place or sit still). But when you start reading about stuff like the whales from Free Willy and Seaworld dolphins I’ll rather we have shitty cgi animals in shows.
I know we’ve progressed a bit beyond those days but you just need to see the reports of ongoing exotic animal abuse for me to once again say we can forgo realism for the sake of animal welfare. Animals that can never be sent back to the wild should at most be used in documentaries that usually go like “this is Sigrid, who can never be released because their wings were permanently damaged in a fire” or something. There are always humans who are ready to ruin a good thing so by stopping all of it we avoid the issue in the first place.
And yeah don’t worry I don’t think you’re attacking me. It’s good to have an open discussion and it can always spark new ideas.
I’ve seen some wild articles about owls being used in Halloween costumes, some involving amateur wing clipping, and others with glue to keep them from flying away. Some people really disappoint me.
Things like the article’s staged window shoot seem fine, as he was just waiting for them to move. Things like drones and smaller cameras that can be remotely operated seem to help both the animals and people. With the Sea World drama being mostly resolved, I feel we’ve come a long way in using animals improperly.
Heck yeah, Flammy Friday 💪 I’m interested to learn that our little buddy was so chill about his home being invaded for research and photography.
Tl;dr for those who didn’t read the article - the chainsawed out parts of the tree could be placed back over the nest like a lid when visiting time was done, and filming/botherance was kept to 20 mins max each night.
Honestly quite respectful for someone who reads as being so burned out as this guy. He seems quite cynical (even calling out his wife’s choice of inferior camera lens for a picture she seemed excited about? My dude.)
The debate on wild pics vs. staged pics (personally I wouldn’t use the term “fake” because it’s not like they’re using animatronic birds) reminds me a lot of the debate about using “false color” photos in astronomy.
Almost none of the astronomical structures you see published from the fancy telescopes would look anything like that if you were in a spaceship up close. Because decisions have to be made about things like how to present wavelengths of light that can’t be seen by humans, but are present in the telescope data. So there a certain amount of actual artistry that goes into producing the final published photos.
I’m happy for the artifice as long as it’s done with careful consideration specifically to achieve science communication and education. I think staging photos and videos of animals that would be intrusive or impossible to capture in the wild falls within the same realm of art performed in service of education and I’m ok with it.
You’ve reminded me I forgot to share the controversy with the aurora photo!
Usually when I come across amazing shots there will be people challenging them on this and that, but I felt the challengers may have been right in this instance.
Someone asked how the owl was lit, and he said he had used a flash. Flash photography of owls is a debated subject, and here is a brief Audubon article about it.
That admission led to the further accusations that this photographer purposefully set up a camera too close to this nest (I’m not sure the effective range of a flash at night) and blasted this bird with light as it was flying back towards its tree, which is not the safest thing for an owl. It sounds much like if someone would shine a light in your face while trying to park a car.
The other claims were that this was a composite image, which looking at it again, seems likely. The photography people, much like what you said, said to photograph the aurora takes a long exposure, and to get the owl is a fast exposure. The photographer did not mention before or after if it was a composite or not.
Here’s the pic in question for anyone just joining in: