For some nature photographers, taking pictures of captive subjects is taboo, not "real nature photography." In this article, I start from the premise that there is nothing inherently wrong, unethical, or invalid about shooting captive subjects. I am well aware that there are ethical, moral, and even environmental issues surrounding the keeping of any subjects in captivity. Yet in the interest of stressing the practical and technical aspects of making good photos, I will avoid discussing those issues here. Further, I will argue here that photographing captive subjects does have a place in nature photography. Overreliance on captive subjects, however, will stunt your growth as a photographer and decrease the enjoyment nature photography gives you - whether you are professional, serious amateur or casual hobbyist.

The main point of this article is that no portfolio should be built on captive subjects alone or even primarily. I see captive subjects as offering two principal opportunities to the nature photographer: 1.) they offer a way to round out your portfolio by adding species and capturing images simply not possible in the wild; and 2.) they provide a chance to practice your technique in order to increase your creativity and confidence with the camera when you do venture afield.

While it's fun to take pictures of animals at the zoo, having a nice picture of a tiger or a giraffe probably won't make much of an addition to your portfolio if you photograph the flora of the Texas Hill Country, the reptiles of the Southwest deserts, or the birds and mammals of the Rockies. Some stock photographers apparently make pretty good money by having built up portfolios consisting largely of captive subjects, often ranging from lions to pythons to owls. As we all know, there are game farms dedicated to providing photographers with the opportunity to photograph mammals, and at least one well-known nature photographer runs workshops that allow participants to photograph a variety of creatures from around the world in controlled studio environments. Children's books seem to be leading consumers of these types of images. Many calendars I've seen recently showcase outstanding pictures of tropical birds, frogs, and butterflies which seem very likely to have taken in captivity. So if you want to make money, go captive!

Nevertheless, I would argue that most nature photographers, whether shooting to make money or not, derive pleasure from being out in the field and capturing the images that nature throws their way. Shooting captive animals primarily or exclusively will eliminate the central joy of nature photography for many of us. Further, it's usually quite easy to spot photographs of captive subjects. A portfolio with virtually no wild subjects will quickly grow stale. I'm guessing many of you have viewed a nice photo, only to downgrade your opinion moments later upon learning it was shot under controlled conditions. The photo is technically the same, but the impact is diminished simply because we perceive the image to be less representative of nature and devoid of challenge and chance. Fair assessment or not, captive pictures will tend to lack "soul."

That's why I would suggest photographing captive subjects that complement the photography you practice in the field. It will make your portfolio more interesting, and, if you shoot to sell, having a larger, more diverse portfolio can expand sales. Whatever your area of choice for photography you should visit botanical gardens and zoos that showcase the native species that interest you. You will quickly extend your coverage of your specialty area by adding species. Guide books often need pictures of numerous species of plants or animals, and as long as your pictures look natural, most publishers will be happy to have them. Or use captive subjects as an opportunity to obtain closeups of those species that are difficult to approach in the wild. I would estimate that with the exception of some camera trap photos for National Geographic, the vast majority of published jaguar photographs were taken at the Belize Zoo. Another advantage to including captives in your portfolio is that some subjects, especially plants, may be less subject to the ravages of weather and insect damage under controlled conditions. The cover photo of Frans Lanting's masterpiece Jungles is a stunning view of exuberant and perfectly formed rainforest vegetation bathed in soft, directional morning light. Because I happen to specialize in rainforest photography, I know that this combination of beautiful light and flawless vegetation would be miraculous in a dark, closed tropical forest. Dejected at my inability to capture anything remotely like that photo, I was somewhat heartened to find that Lanting's image, still stunning, was in fact taken in a botanical garden setting. Interestingly, though taken in a man-made setting, Lanting's photo arguably expresses more about jungles than any photo taken in the wild.

Shooting captive subjects is an excellent way to practice your technique and to try out new photographic ideas. Since animals in controlled settings often will stay posed for considerable lengths of time, you will be able to make sure of your settings. You will also have the freedom to try different compositions and experiment with flash, aperture, and shutter speed. If you mess up, you can always come back. If what you did works, try it the next time out in the field. You may bring back inspiring photos by breaking out of your typical routine.

To have access to subjects, you'll probably need to make personal contacts with the staff of your local nature center, botanical garden, or zoo. Unless you know the staff, I suggest you visit the site with your camera gear and a few examples of your work. Ask to speak with the person in charge of the appropriate area and propose a photo shoot. Often the person will be thrilled with the possibility of having quality photos available. You can offer to give the person a print or two or to share photos with the institution for educational display if appropriate. You may even end up making a sale directly to them. By way of example, I've been working with a local frog breeder recently to take pictures of his tropical frogs. I have access to numerous tropical frog species, many of which are difficult to locate in the wild. The photos I take will mesh well with my portfolio, and the breeder will have nice pictures of his stock to display on his company's web site. In addition, he will credit me for the use of the photos, thereby giving me a bit of free advertising.

Once you've made your appointment you'll need to think about the kind of photo you want to produce. Scout the location and decide what specific areas would provide the best backgrounds and lighting to make the photos look natural. Take into consideration the time of day that will yield the best photos. If you'll be shooting macro subjects, you may want to bring your own cloth or cardboard background. Ask the staff what kind of plants they have available, always choosing plants from the subject's native habitat. If none are available on site, you might bring your own potted plants or dried leaves, making sure, of course, that they are free of chemical residue.

OK, you've done the shoot and managed to produce some great images. Do you tell people you took them in the wild? Though you might be tempted to do so, especially if only you know where you took the image, honesty is always the best policy. If you have a web site, you might choose to state which specific images were taken in captivity or you might just have a blanket disclaimer that you shoot both wild and captive subjects. I chose the latter for my own site because I wanted the pages to be a showcase of the kind of work I have available and am capable of producing. Upon posting to PhotoMigrations or similar fora, however, you should always make it perfectly clear that a subject was taken in captivity. Professional communities, whether maintained through personal or electronic contact, are based on trust. Similarly, if someone inquires about using your work, point out any captive subjects to the potential client. Often they won't care - as long as the photo is good quality and looks natural - but it just seems right to let them know. Also, from a more practical standpoint, if the buyer later misrepresents the photo on purpose or by accident, it won't be because of your failure to disclose information.

Editor's Comment: Let us know what you think! Please email the Editor to let us know your thoughts.

Greg Basco lived in Costa Rica for the past two years while doing field research for his dissertation on the politics of ecotourism. Greg is now moving back to continue his photography and other quests. His favorite photographic subjects are the forests of Central America and the plants and animals that inhabit them. Check out his website at Deep Green Photography. Please direct comments and questions regarding this article to Email Greg Basco.