Hi, I've recently posted some photos of a dead stag and, as I usually do, I've retouched them to remove blood spots; afterward I asked to myself if it's not a sort of hypocrisy. One posts the photos of a DEAD animal but it's "politically correct" to NOT show the blood. What is your opinion?

I would not remove them for my own behalf,

let´s say that I were to show them to non hunters or in public, I might, but since I don´t have that sort of skills to do it, I just show the pics they are,

still people should know how game is taken.


Best regards Chris

In most cases, a hunting picture is a documentation on what went on. Hunting has to do with death and blood, why should we try to cover that up?

Unless, of course, the pictures we take are intended to be pulbished in VOGUE...

Last but not least, political correctness is a mental desease we should try hard not to give into.

.....of course I've kept the original photos, WITH the blood.

I've post my idea in your first report. I've read also a nice article in the wildsheep.org site some time ago about this argument. And in some Italian hunting periodics.
Anyway, I think that the best hunting photo is the one whit the animal composed in a respectfull pose and whitout visible blood. At the last not the big, bloody exit hole or a fully red muzzle/ head.
This when the Hunting photo is for the trophy, the ones you can put on your wall or desk. Maybe in a report some blood is ok, but in my opinion not in the "trophy photos" but only in the reference (es terminal effect of a bullet).
Not hipocrisy or "politically correct" but simple respect for the animal. Better if cleaning is make before the photo, ok, maybe after some "click" of the exact position of the animal when recovered, joust for a memory of this moment. Sometime a field cleaning of the animal can be hard, so some pixel work can be good.. A thing is slaughtering, another hunting, in my idea hunting isn't in the first killing and the show of blood point attention only in the killing direction.
In simple words, I prefer photo whit a animal that looks sleeping whit the happy hunter not whit the dead and blood cover animals and a trionfalistic hunter, maybe whit a feet on the animal.
This is only my taste anyway...

Not the best english, I'm sorry

Lorefuma, no offence intended of course! I've never blamed you or anybody here to be a hypocrite, that's only food for tought.... . I agree with you on many points. For instance, I've seen yesterday, on ARforum, a photo of a guy SAT on a dead animal and found it really uncommendable.

però che fatica l'inglese...

Già!

Ohhhh Come on you two, "che fatica l'inglese"!! It is an exercise for you and your brain. It will maintain you young and elastic, mentally speaking.
About your question, WB it is a feeling problem, Johan, an outfitter in Namibia, always cleans the blood at the best before take any shot (photo), it is rare to see blood or wounds in the photos. He works the animal to make it the most natural that it is possible. I think that he wants to make it seems still alive.

We could enter in that mine field that is the behaviour (for Brits)/behavior (for the Americans) that is coming out on the hunting magazines (see the last number of Cacciare a palla)

Maybe the hunters don't care to the blood, maybe a seldom not hunter viewer can be irritated by it.

This is one American's opinion and I'm not in the mainstream of many American (or any nationality for that matter) opinions, but you didn't kill the animal by putting it to sleep, blood is part of the hunt and I see nothing wrong with it in a photo of a trophy. Naturally, there is no reason to show a giant exit wound close up, but the animal died as a result of the hunter's actions and trying to pretend otherwise (by cleaning up all signs of wounds) seems kind of silly to me.

Strange that views can be so diametrically opposite!

One of my pet 'hates' is seeing a picture of downed prey covered in blood, tongue hanging out, nose covered in dust etc! Generally, our proud hunter has got hold of the thing by one ear - leaving the carcass looking 'rumpled' as Ruark put it.



I am not fortunate enough to have room for full/shoulder mounts of my kills + in the UK we shoot enough that it is often not practical to do so. Point being, the trophy for me is the photo. A bit of thought will turn a simple 'snap' into something to be proud of. Something our very own 'Puntgunner' seems to achieve more often than not!

Accordingly, I will clean the animal as best possible, pose it to it's best advantage, remove grass and debris from the vicinity and generally do my best to ensure a record that is complimentary and appealing to hunter and non hunter alike.



Anything less is disrespectful to your quarry and mars an essential part of the hunt - the memories!

Just my opinion of course - and worth exactly what you paid for it!

Rgds Ian

quote:

Originally posted by IanF:
Strange that views can be so diametrically opposite!

Strange and interesting!

Fortunately views are different. Some "typical" trophy pictures like the ones above are very well made.

However, most of them look pretty much the same, dead beast put in front, rifle, grinning hunter behind.

I prefer pictures that tell us a little bit more on what happened, where it took place and also, where and how the animal was hit. Not necessarily a war report but I am thinking about the kind of hunting pictures Robert Capa would have made, maybe even in B/W, why not?

Like already stated here by Gatogordo, hunting is sometimes a bloody and messy business. This should be reflected in the pictures, as well.

I think there is a place for both types - let me show rather extreme example of a tracked red deer calf.

If I wan't to just tell somebody that I have tracked a red deer calf I'd show him a staged "trophy" photo that puts the quarry in focus:



However if I would like to talk about the tracking and stuff, a "scene of the crime" photo comes at hand - quarry is put into second plan - and certanly to publish photo like that there is a need to find an excuse since pics like that doesn't show a respect (no matter how genuine they are or how much they tell) to the animal nore hunting per-se:

Dog cleans it for me although not to the extent of Mouses dog which appears to have removed a leg - Mouse you really should feed your dog more

Is it me or does Mouse's dog look like Mutley in that second photo?

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:
Dog cleans it for me although not to the extent of Mouses dog which appears to have removed a leg - Mouse you really should feed your dog more

Actually calf was hit by car and chased for 4 hours (broken rear leg) - demolished shoulder is from 9,3 TUG that I fired when animal jumped from the bed and ran (turned just as I squeezed so bullet went in behind the shoulder and exit infront of the same shoulder) - FMJ 230gr coup de grace from .45 ACP H&K can be seen under the ear.

see - not much to talk about without an appropriate pic

quote:

Originally posted by Deerdogs:
Is it me or does Mouse's dog look like Mutley in that second photo?

good eye - she does it regulary - many doesn't notice it

Personally I like the neat average picture in a natural environment, doesn't matter if there's a little blood or whatever. But I don't care for anyone sitting on them, out of vehicles, massive holes in the sides, etc. Imagine most hunters pay their respect, but I see enuf pics that are not my style and with a little thought and respect could have been taken much better with little time invested, Waidmannsheil, Dom.

I can see both sides of this argument.

Firstly, hunting does involve blood and guts. The taking of game can't occur without this as being part of the process.

But as sportsman, and the fact that we hunt in a gentlemanly manner; we owe our quarry the respect to be seen at their best at their last moment.

Hunting in Africa taught me that a beast can still be admired for what it is. A beautiful creature. Even though it has been killed, it deserves the right to be admirable.

To see a beast with its head blown off, or shot so badly that it can't be identified, does nothing for our sport.

Blood is acceptable in my opinion, it has to be. But when it appears gratuitous , I think that I would have to draw the line.

When we have trophies mounted, we always show the beast at its best. Those that do not have the luxury of plentiful room, have the the option to have pictures to remember the hunt by.
These should , I think, should also show the beast at its best. Remember that we, the hunters, will not be the only ones to see these pictures.

Just my own personal thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by mouse93:
I think there is a place for both types - let me show rather extreme example of a tracked red deer calf.

If I wan't to just tell somebody that I have tracked a red deer calf I'd show him a staged "trophy" photo that puts the quarry in focus:

Nice to see bavarian bloodhounds in action! Here is my dog and a Boar.



But back to topic. When I track game, or have shot game and come to get it, I have started to take a picture of the animal just as I found it. I don't remove a twig. These pictures are extremely powerful in tehir own sesnse - for me - but I wouldn't show all to a non-hunter.

I don't like to clean the animal before taking a picture either because hunting IS killing and I can not pretend that the animal isn't shot by me or another hunter. What I usually settle for is a twig "accidentially" placed over the shot wound. It looks good, it keeps the animal's dignity intact and still it isn't a "makeup" that I find a little bit weird...