WHAT IS REAL - WHAT IS FALSE

WHAT IS REAL? - WHAT IS FALSE? - This is a photograph I took of a rattlesnake. If you look closely, you will be able to tell that this photo was taken from a position physically quite close to the snake. The shallow depth of field and the lack of compression of the subject in the photograph are a giveaway. Wow, a highly dangerous position for the photographer (YOUR'S TRULY) to be in. Well, not really. Why is that? Because the photograph was taken under controlled conditions, through glass, with no chance that the coiled rattler would be able to successfully strike at me. So does that make the image a fake? I don't believe it does. But I'm sure there are people out there who will attempt to make the case that if it's not shot in the wild, it's not real. This brings up some questions concerning photographic ethics. First of all, what is the wild? The San Pedro River, located here in Cochise County, is a case in point. If I photograph a beaver, or a pond created by a beaver, that constitutes a photo made of an animal, or a pond, that exists naturally in the wild. On the other hand, a photo taken in a zoo or game park where animals have been introduced by man is less real. Well, guess what? On the San Pedro, named by the Nature Conservancy as one of the last great places in the Northern Hemisphere, the beavers which are thriving there were introduced by man. So, does that mean that if I photograph a beaver, or for that matter a beaver pond, I am faking it? I don't think so. Of course in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that beavers used to be native to the San Pedro River, that is until man hunted them down and tuned them into beaver felt hats. So, does that mean it's O.K. to shoot beavers on the San Pedro River because (Oh, I mean shoot the beavers with a camera) they were once native to that environment? Well, are certain 'guests' at the Central Park Zoo actually in the wild because they were once native to what is now New York City? In 2009, I photographed blue footed boobies and frigate birds on Isla de la Plata off the coast of Ecuador. There's no question that these birds are native to the island. On the other hand, the trails constructed to provide tourists with access to the birds are in large part man made. So how 'WILD' is it really? And what about the bull snake I photographed in my front yard awhile back? It certainly wasn't in captivity. It was just taking its own good time wandering through. So, the essential question remains. What constitutes 'in the wild' and does it really matter? Oh, and here's another thought to chew on. I'd a whole lot rather see a photographer photographing animals in a zoo than I would knowing that a horde of tourists, having been told that it isn't kosher to photograph animals at a zoo, are descending on the Brazilian rainforest. Especially if they're looking for the nearest luxury hotel so they can gulp a few cold ones down before they ride off in their ATV's in search of exotic animals to shoot in the wild (hopefully with a camera). LARRY ELKINS - ELKINSPHOTOS FINE ART PHOTOGRAPHY