Zoo photography can be bun, but in my mind there is a problem.
I was recently asked to judge a Photography contest and when going through the hundreds of photos, I typically scored zoo animal shots fairly low, regardless of how nicely done they were.
Here's the thing. Getting shots for your personal enjoyment or to document a day out with the kids is great, but serious photographers don't do a lot of Zoo photography unless the Zoo is paying them to do it.
Zoo photos aren't really wildlife photos. In fact, they are about the same thing as pet photos.
The animals are captive, everybody gets the same shot as you do and they just don't qualify as "great photography" imo. Plus you have the added value of the photograph not being of any commercial value. You can't sell a Zoo photograph. Why? Too commonplace and the Zoo won't let you use their images for commercial purposes without a license.
So, why take them? The zoo is a great place to go to practice your techniques and test or learn new equipment. Though the animals are captive, you can learn how to compose, focus and track various animals so if you ever are in a real wildlife situation, you stand a better chance of knowing what to do with your camera.
An even bigger no-no is trying to pass a zoo shot off as a real shot. I have seen it happen from time to time, and it isn't hard to spot.
The best way to spot a Zoo photo is the composition. Look for chain link fences, man made trees or branches. Look for tags on the animals legs or neck. Compositionally, the animals may look very well framed but there is seldom a good context. Take this Lemur, a very clear full body shot, lots of detail, nice color but not at all in an environment where you'd really find one and the photo is a simple animal portrait. Anybody going to the Denver Zoo can get the same exact shot and everybody has.
As for photo contests, If I'm a judge, don't enter a zoo shot.
Lesson #2.
Photographing somebody else's art work.
We've all done it. Walking down the street or someplace, come across a really nice looking statue or sculpture, whip out the camera and take a photograph.
Here's the thing. Look at the two shots I've put up together.
The one on the left is a very centered and clear image of a statue of Apolo in the Elizabethan Gardens in Williamsburg, VA. That's all it is too, a photo of a statue, the artwork of someone else. There's nothing creative about this composition. If a shot like this came up in a photo competition I was judging, I'd ignore it for having no creativity.
Now, look at the image on the right. Same exact statue, only this time with a context. The statue sits in a garden amongst other things of interest. Show the viewer something more than a lack of creativity.
When you come across a work of art that you just can't resist photographing (assuming you aren't being asked to reproduce it for a job), don't just center it up in the frame and take a shot. Put the statue or sculpture in perspective and try to show the viewer the context of the scene. Try to create a scene that incorporates more than just a work of art created by somebody else. It will look far more interesting.
It's okay to put other artists' work in your photograph, just don't center their art in the frame and show a total lack of creativity.
A documentary photo of someone's art isn't art.