Here's a good topic to start a discussion!

[rtbaum]

If one were to photograph a norway rat in a grain bin, would it be a nature photograph?

[Mike Buckley]

If one were to photograph a norway rat in a grain bin, would it be a nature photograph?

Only if you photograph it in Norway.

[tbob]

If one were to photograph a norway rat in a grain bin, would it be a nature photograph?

From my experiences with the old wooden granaries as a kid, and the dislike I had of opening the door only to have three or more rats charge the opening to escape, this is their natural habitat. Of course; I would rather drive red hot nails into my feet than photograph a norway rat in any habitat.

[rtbaum]

It is indeed their natural habitat...neither the norway rat nor the common house mouse exist in the absence of humans

[Andrew1]

The classification of a rat in a grain bin would again depend on where you submit it. It some it would be Nature but possibly not Wildlife. Even then, the percentage of the photo showing human impact comes into question and can sometimes give judges a hard time. A bird sitting on a fence post may not qualify as Wildlife if the post contributes to the overall composition. If the post is visible but is of minor size and does not impact the shot then it may be allowed. The variance on opinion is no different in scoring either. You may get a score of 8 from one set of judges and another group may give it a 9. It's the human factor. There are no set-in-stone rules when it comes to judgement. If someone is after guarantees of uniformity in results then you'll be disappointed. All you can do is trust in the experience and consistency of the judge and learn from their comments to improve the next one.

[rtbaum]

My point is that a norway rat in a grain bin would be depicting the rat in the correct context. I further submit that a norway rat in this situation is indeed wild. Depicting a norway rat without any human influence would be out of context. Norway rats evolved concurrently with humans as our "cleanup crew", to depict them otherwise would be erroneous. To photograph a wild norway rat in a "wilderness" setting would not be natural.

[pnodrog]

Wild in this context I think means uncultivated e.g. a wild flower and as I very much doubt that anyone is cultivating the norway rat (certainly not farmed) I must assume it would be classed as wild. The fact that rats have adapted to exploit the human environment does not make them any less wild.

Curiously some people grow wild flowers in their gardens - I suspect they do that just to confuse the rest of us.

[rtbaum]

Wild in this context I think means uncultivated e.g. a wild flower and as I very much doubt that anyone is cultivating the norway rat (certainly not farmed) I must assume it would be classed as wild. The fact that rats have adapted to exploit the human environment does not make them any less wild.

Curiously some people grow wild flowers in their gardens - I suspect they do that just to confuse the rest of us.

Precisely!!!

[Andrew1]

Paul and Trevor seem to be some of the only ones catching on here.

Any of us can call a photo anything we want. Nature, Landscape, Wildlife. Call it whatever we want. Nobody cares. If we think our bird on the roof is Wildlife or Nature, fine. Our rat gnawing on the wiring in a car is Nature, good for us. When it comes to competition though your opinion is just that, only an opinion. The criteria of the competition and/or club direct how the judges will look at the photo. If the rules say no man-made artifacts in a Wildlife category then the rat in the car is disqualified. It's your responsibility to know that ahead of time and submit your photo in a more appropriate category. Nature may or may not be suitable either depending on the description from that organization for that competition. Perhaps the Open category would be a better choice for some. You may even find there is no Wildlife category and everything is bundled under Nature with a totally different set of guidelines. Again, you need to find out ahead of time. In my somewhat limited time at observing the parameters for differentiating between Nature and Wildlife I've only seen one subject that creates confusion and did allow man-made artifacts within the Wildlife group that stipulated none.

You are in for a bigger shock when you get into judging where even more of a human factor comes into play. Your photo may get an 8 from one set of judges and a 9 from another. Hell, the ones that gave an 8 this month may even give a 9 the next. If you are looking for set rules and guarantees then you are going to be disappointed. All you can do is trust in the experience and consistency of the judges and take their comments with hopes of improving in the future.

[rtbaum]

Paul and Trevor seem to be some of the only ones catching on here.

Any of us can call a photo anything we want. Nature, Landscape, Wildlife. Call it whatever we want. Nobody cares. If we think our bird on the roof is Wildlife or Nature, fine. Our rat gnawing on the wiring in a car is Nature, good for us. When it comes to competition though your opinion is just that, only an opinion. The criteria of the competition and/or club direct how the judges will look at the photo. If the rules say no man-made artifacts in a Wildlife category then the rat in the car is disqualified. It's your responsibility to know that ahead of time and submit your photo in a more appropriate category. Nature may or may not be suitable either depending on the description from that organization for that competition. Perhaps the Open category would be a better choice for some. You may even find there is no Wildlife category and everything is bundled under Nature with a totally different set of guidelines. Again, you need to find out ahead of time. In my somewhat limited time at observing the parameters for differentiating between Nature and Wildlife I've only seen one subject that creates confusion and did allow man-made artifacts within the Wildlife group that stipulated none.

You are in for a bigger shock when you get into judging where even more of a human factor comes into play. Your photo may get an 8 from one set of judges and a 9 from another. Hell, the ones that gave an 8 this month may even give a 9 the next. If you are looking for set rules and guarantees then you are going to be disappointed. All you can do is trust in the experience and consistency of the judges and take their comments with hopes of improving in the future.

So it basically comes down to exhibition vs. education.

[Andrew1]

Yes sir. Although I see it as "and" rather than "vs".