Many years ago, my parents took a trip to Alaska.  They came back with lots of wonderful images and ended up making some larger prints of 5-10  of them.  One of these was a landscape that shows wildflowers growing on the permafrost and mountains in the distance.  Unfortunately, when they got the print back, there was something unexpected.  Right smack in the middle was a small but distinct "Speed Limit 55" sign.  AAARGH!!!

Back in the days of film, there wasn't really anything that could be done about this.  Nowadays it would be incredibly simple to remove the sign digitally.  But, should you?  Many people would say "of course" without any thought.  Others would say "never" just as quickly.  Ultimately, it comes down to personal philosophy of what is the photograph showing?

For me, I would get rid of the sign.  It is a distraction.  Moreover, it shouldn't be there in the first place.  It is an artificial artifact placed there at the whim of some highway department.  And, if I could remove it before taking the photo, I would.  After all, I've used artificial backgrounds in some shots.  I've picked up garbage and moved (or removed) leaves when I could.  Things like the sign, for me at least, fall into the same category.

The below image of a raccoon print is similar.  If I had been able to reach over and pick up the seed pod next to the print, I probably would have.  But, I haven't.  Maybe because this was taken on film and therefore, in my mind, has to stay the way it was shot.

So, should I go ahead and get rid of it?

raccoon print

The other day a friend jokingly asked whether taking a photo of a mallard counts as wildlife photography.  After all, they are all over the place.  Many are so used to people that they will let you get shockingly close to them.  Almost domesticated, you could say.  Still, I don't think anyone would seriously question whether they are wild.  In fact, my answer was that they are just as much wildlife as squirrels, pigeons, Canadian geese or any other creature that can leave whenever they want.

I then started thinking about some of the more nuanced questions.  Zoos, for instance, are definitely filled with captive animals.  Would butterfly exhibits also count as captive?  Certainly yes for non-native species, but what about domestic ones like the exhibit that just opened at the Arboretum?  For them, probably still considered captive since they can't escape.

But what about birds held by the Raptor Center?  The ones they use for educational purposes are certainly captive.  But, their mission is to rehabilitate and release whenever possible.  Once it is released, I don't think anyone can question that it is once more a wild bird, not a captive or domesticated one.  The below image shows that moment. The Release

If you hadn't realized, I like photographing birds.  They are colorful.  They are difficult.  They are distinctive.

So far, my favorite type of waterfowl are Wood Ducks.  You can recognize them in an instant and the variety and vibrancy of colors are wonderful.

Here's my favorite Wood Duck photo.  This had the added advantage of being taken on a day when I was feeling slightly depressed.  Getting this image added joy to me when it was much needed.  It still makes me happy.

wood ducks