Back Modifications (0)
Views: 51 (25 Unique)  Award Shortlist   

Ring Tailed Lemur 2

By HP1485  
Taken at Monkey World in Dorset
Details: f.4.5
1/500 sec
ISO 220
Focal Length 98mm
No Flash

Tags: Bears Wildlife Nature General Cute Lemurs Pets and captive animals Wildlife and nature

Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Exclusive 25% off Affinity Photo: Professional photo editing with no subscription!
This photo is here for critique. Please only comment constructively and with suggestions on how to improve it.


29 Nov 2010 11:34PM
An excellent capture

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

debu 8 India
29 Nov 2010 11:42PM
Great capture.
User_Removed 9 26 2 United States
30 Nov 2010 12:42AM
Great capture of a lemur and his glorious tail!
Davesumner 11 28 300 Australia
30 Nov 2010 6:14AM
Hi Susan,

I did wonder why you had put this into the critique area as you haven't added anything in the description, so I hope that what I say is what you are looking for.

Nice image and well done in what looks like midday sun (short shadow). It is one of those shots that the circuit judges love to call 'record shots', a term I've come to hate. They basically mean it is a shot to remind you of what you saw and when you visited. I recently entered what I thought was a great shot of a Kingfisher into a club comp and the master photographer who was judging said "but the bird isn't doing anything" and I feel your Lemur is probably both of these. There are so many digital cameras out there now that we have to look for different shots than what everyone else is taking. I think shots of animals like this have to be when the animal is a bit more active in say climbing or swinging etc. It will mean hanging around for the right moment but it is susally worth while and very rewarding.

However I always say that a good zoo shot is one that doesn't show any bars or cages or man made backgrounds and you've done well there. Just be aware that it is often better to get eye contact with the animal so the image is a bit more engaging for the viewer. Remember to watch out for those highlights and shadows caused by midday sun and you'll be okay. Another solution is to get an annual pass for a local zoo, I got one for Melbourne Zoo which actually gets me into 3 Zoo's and all for $90. This allows me to go whenever I like and to take as many photo's as I like until I get what I want. it also allows you to concentrate on one particular animal at a time.

Hope this helps.

paulbroad 10 123 1250 United Kingdom
30 Nov 2010 9:11AM
As an ex-circuit judge, I'm afraid you are right, that is what I would say. Kingfishers and Lemurs are a bit different, and this is a perfectly good record shot of that animal from which anyone could identify it.

But it is just stood there, perfectly side on and could easily be stuffed. I know it isn't. So, good image, good technique. A success.

HP1485 10 5 England
30 Nov 2010 9:33AM
Hi Paul and Dave
Thank you both for your comments and I am pleased you both liked my shot. I recently entered this image in a camera club Natural History trophy competition and was unsure why it had been passed over in the first round. I should just add that we allow captive animals in our NH trophy competition. When I think back, the winning entry was superb and very simple and I seem to recall seeing some catchlight in its eye.
Dave, your suggestion of getting an annual pass is a really good one -especially living on the edge of London as I do - zoos are rather expensive to go to on a one-off visit. Thanks for the advice. Sue
HP1485 10 5 England
30 Nov 2010 10:05AM
That sounds interesting - I hadn't thought of selling my photographs!
DRicherby 9 269 725 United Kingdom
30 Nov 2010 12:28PM
Note that you would need Monkey World's permission to sell photographs you took there.
HP1485 10 5 England
30 Nov 2010 12:30PM
I didn't know that - thanks for letting me know. Sue
paulbroad 10 123 1250 United Kingdom
30 Nov 2010 1:22PM
You only need permission if the venue specifically says so. They must clearly display a notice saying photography is for personal use only, otherwise you can sell them, particularly if the image, as in this case, could have been taken anywhere.

Selling images can be a minefield, but anything taken in a public place is saleable providing you do not show people in a bad situation or use a title that attributes a statement or opinion to that person. That is in the UK. The states are a different issue altogether and showing people, logos etc. over there can be difficult.

Best to use an agency. They will make it clear if permission is needed and will tag images that do not have release forms. Make sure you get decent return for your efforts - some agencies are not good at paying any reasonable percentage.

DRicherby 9 269 725 United Kingdom
30 Nov 2010 2:06PM
You're correct about photos taken in a public place but this one wasn't and I believe you are wrong about photography on private property. The owner can set whatever photography policy they wish, including restrictions on the sale of images. Any restrictions for part of the terms and conditions you agree to when buying a ticket and there is no requirement that restrictions be prominently posted. Even in the case of private property to which the public is normally allowed free access (for example, a shop or shopping centre), you are on the property at the consent of the owner and that consent may be withdrawn for any (non-discriminatory) reason. Since the property owner has the right to throw you out for taking photos that you intend to sell, I would be very surprised if they did not have the right to prohibit you from selling any photographs you managed to take without them noticing (except in the case where this was in the public interest, e.g., selling photos of the staff being abusive to visitors).

More detail can be found on the UK Photographers' Rights page , which also links to equivalent pages for the US and Australia.
paulbroad 10 123 1250 United Kingdom
30 Nov 2010 6:09PM
I am fairly sure they must display a ban, otherwise permission is granted by default. I am a bit out of touch but this was the case some years ago - however, take care. They would then need to prove you took the picture on there site in case of a ban, rather difficult with this Lemur.

I suppose, in doubt, don't publish, but I shoot images anywhere I like providing I am not told that it is forbidden - either verbally or in writing. I never break the stated rule. I then publish if I wish - or can get anyone to use it! Never had a problem as yet.

Any solicitors out there?

DRicherby 9 269 725 United Kingdom
30 Nov 2010 6:39PM
paulbroad wrote:
> Any solicitors out there?

The page I linked to above contains discussions of cases similar to this one, including the opinions of the lawyer who wrote the main 'Photographers' Rights' document. She answers comments in the questions (she posted one today, even) so you could try asking there.
HP1485 10 5 England
1 Dec 2010 12:23PM
Perhaps I won't bother then - I'll just enjoy my own photographs! Sound like a jungle out there.
Thanks for all your advice

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.