Disney’s Animal Kingdom…Photogenic?
Asia is undoubtedly my favorite land in Disney’s Animal Kingdom for photography. Not only does it have the park’s most photogenic icon, but it also has a fair amount of diversity in its attractions, so you can capture a wide array of shot types (architecture, details, animals, etc.). Expedition Everest alone is quite diverse, offering multiple angles and shot types of the mountain itself, plus some very interesting photo ops on the attraction itself if you dare to take them. On the few days a year when Disney’s Animal Kingdom is open late enough for guests to see it at night (in the winter when it’s open until 8pm some nights and the sunset is early), Asia is absolutely beautiful, and great for photography. In fact, when we’ve been in Disney’s Animal Kingdom after sunset, over 75% of my good photos have come from Asia.
In light of this praise for Asia, it might be surprising to hear that Disney’s Animal Kingdom is the least photograph-able park for me. Enemy of the site Josh from easyWDW.com and I have fiercely debated this on a couple of occasions. Both times, the “fierce” debates were rather short, and ended in tears. (I won’t say who cried…but it wasn’t him!) He views Animal Kingdom as the most photogenic park, an assessment with which I obviously disagree.
Like most things I expend energy debating, this is sort of a pointless debate since the photogenic qualities of something are largely subjective. Some people find urban decay photogenic, others like photographing scantily-clad pregnant women to showcase the beauty of life or some baloney like that. I’m not into either of those subjects, but I can appreciate that other people like them.
Animal Kingdom is the same way for me. My shooting style is decidedly wide angle, and over half the photos I’ve taken on recent trips have been with my Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. With the exception of Asia, it’s tough for me to capture compelling wide angle photos in Animal Kingdom. This is for a few reasons: the design of the buildings, the incredibly wide walkways throughout the park, and the abundance of foliage. Most of my wide angle photos in Animal Kingdom suffer from too much dead space on the top and bottom of the frame or are filled with foliage but have no dominant focal point. This makes wide angle photography pretty difficult in Animal Kingdom, especially as compared to the other three parks, all of which have stunning architecture that lends itself to my style of photography.
For me, while the foliage is beautiful in person, it presents additional obstacles for photography. Namely, it’s everywhere! This can make capturing a photo of any subject against a nice blue sky with puffy clouds difficult. It’s especially problematic when attempting to photograph the park’s main icon, the Tree of Life. It’s quite difficult to find an angle to photograph the Tree of Life where other trees don’t creep into the frame and minimize the visual impact of the Tree of Life.
My other big knock against Animal Kingdom is nighttime photography there. It’s not even possible for most of the year, but when it is, the only areas that really offer much are Asia, Dinoland, and the Tree of Life (which finally becomes an excellent icon to photograph thanks to its lighting). The rest of the park is dark or doesn’t offer much in the way of dramatic artificial lighting. This, alone, is enough to put Animal Kingdom in last place for me.
Of course, all of these qualms are based on my style of shooting. If I were more interested in wildlife photography or abstract photos of details, I could see Animal Kingdom being my favorite park. However, those things don’t interest me so much when I’m at Walt Disney World, so it’s not. I love Kilimanjaro Safaris as an attraction, but all of my photos from the Safari end up looking like regular ‘ole animal photos that could have been taken in any number of locations. There’s very little that’s unique to Disney about those photos. By contrast, how many other places outside of Walt Disney World can you photograph Spaceship Earth? As photos of the little details that make Animal Kingdom such a unique park, photos of those just aren’t of great interest to me, personally.
Again, this ranking is based solely on my personal preferences when it comes to photography. Everyone has a different style, and based upon that style, I could see compelling arguments for ranking any of the parks first and any of them last.
Check out over 1,000 of my best Disney photos (a whole 29 of which are from Animal Kingdom!) in my Disney Photo Gallery!
What’s your style? Where do you rank Disney’s Animal Kingdom photogenically? Share your thoughts in the comments!
Informative article, totally what I was looking for.
Here is my page: isagenix
I expect that your opinion will change with the opening of Avatarland!
See my comment about above about AK being the whipping boy.
that said, this is a pretty good burn. 🙂
Tom, I disagree completely. Animal Kingdom is alive with detail and shadow, and happens to be one of the best, and most challenging parks to shoot. I think time of day, and lensing are huge at this park, but my suggestion would be to break away from the wide angle shots a bit. Wide angle imagery is cool with symmetry and distortion which creates interest alone, and is great when your trying to show a lot … but in my opinion is one of the easiest lenses to use on a camera because you don’t have to spend a ton of time framing and can crop and straighten in post. I prefer a longer lens at AK to stack up the frame, pull things in and give it depth and dimension. It’s also a lot more challenging to get a great shot this way because you have a narrow margin for error on your frame. Just my two cents.
Don’t have to spend a ton of time framing with a wide angle?! I can’t count the number of otherwise good frames I’ve trashed because the symmetry was just a little bit off or because some visual element intruded in my frame or because there was too much dead space.
I think each lens and shooting style presents its own challenges, so to say any one type has a narrower margin of error is inaccurate.
(Great portfolio, by the way; your mastery of shadow and light is AMAZING!)
Thanks for the compliment Tom … I can’t take credit for the work on that site … I produced it, but thats Tom Roche’s work you see. I am his ‘humble’ producer. You know me by Janoimagine on Flickr. Cheers.
Thanks for posting this. I completely understand that if your primary (sole?) criteria was wide-angle photos how you could come to this conclusion.
I think where some in the community drew ire from your comments were the lack of context about the criteria. Instead we heard a respected photographer dis the park as not being (as) photogenic. “Well, Bricker says AK isn’t photogenic…” I think this is one of those “congrats, you’re famous” moments where moving you’ll need to be careful with what you say and how you say it, since people are watching closely. The other thing is that most people don’t shoot wide-angle so a blanket statement to the faithful followers is sort of a disservice since most would not benefit from your advise in this regard. So, again, the clarification on this is really helpful.
Intrinsic to our opinions of photos are the emotions they bring. If you could care less about Figment or Michael Jackson then even the most beautiful photo of the Imagination Pavillion will do nothing for you. Whereas even a lousy photo of the Safaris will remind you of that thrilling adventure you had there.
Of course, the elephant in the room (see, I made a funny) is the role AK plays in the WDW fan community. For most people, it seems, that the park serves either a whipping boy for Epcot or Studios fanboys — or as the focus for chip-on-my-shoulder AK park lovers who appreciate the park yet feel shame or ridicule from other WDW fans. Thus, the intense reaction to your statement about the park.
Anyway, the post here is very much appreciated. It really helps to explain things.
Keep up the great work!
So you’re saying that with great power comes great responsibility? Unfortunately, it seems here I only get the responsibility part! 😉
The wide angle lens choice is a big part of my criteria, but I probably couldn’t articulate all of my criteria. I just know that for me *personally* Animal Kingdom is the least photograph-able.
Due to my personal preferences (which I’m sure you’ve read, so I won’t rehash them), I also spend the least amount of time in DAK, which I’m sure influences the photos I take there. I know the other three parks like the back of my hand, and know exactly where to go at certain times of day to capture specific shots with great lighting. At DAK, I find myself wandering more.
You’re absolutely right about emotion playing a huge role with how photos impact us, too.
I’m warming to DAK more and more (both for photos and as a park), so time will tell as to how my opinions change on this subject and all subjects DAK-related.
I dont Get it either. I think the park is very photogenic. I have great shots of the Gorillas and tigers. Some very nice bird shots. The imagineering is very nice in Asia and the dancers in Harari(?) are very good. THe waterfalls are bay far the best in the park. My wife and I go into the parks TO photograph and this is our favorite.