Un-natural photographers


Haha.. very creative.. But I hope no living creatures were hurt in the process..
 

Haha.. very creative.. But I hope no living creatures were hurt in the process..

I think the insinuation is that there were beings hurt/killed in the process.
 

I think the insinuation is that there were beings hurt/killed in the process.

Haiz.. there's an ******* in any place with a human being.. better off being a bear.. *pun intended
 

Deplorable. I do not see creativity when it is built upon pain of others.
 

also.

some of them have been featured in NG.. you'd think they'd be the first to smell something fishy with the location/species of frog.
 

I always wondered how some of those shots were obtained, since it doesn't seem intuitive.

It's sad if the accusations are indeed true. Treating wild animals as your personal puppet is behaviour that should not be encouraged.
 

Haiz.. there's an ******* in any place with a human being.. better off being a bear.. *pun intended

a bear also has what you're talking about. if that is what you're implying..

how about bearing with it as a very bearable bear?
 

No need to insinuate. It is clear.

Common sense tells you that the poses do not reflect natural behavior of the animals.

He did something very bad to the animals in the photo. They may well be dead or dead soon after the shoot.

To pose them like that, he may have frozen them first or dipped them in some embalming chemical (is it formaldehyde?)

National Geographic should reject all the relevant photos.
 

Last edited:
Holy molely.. What a chocolate starfish... that's such a terrible act..