I don't know if anyone else saw this article or anything about this but I found it on another site
http://www.suomenluonto.fi/bbcs-nature-photo-competition-judge-admits-winner-photo-investigated-due-to-fraud-allegations
I'm not quite sure what to think after reading the piece we'll just have to wait for the outcome
it just goes to show yet again that not everything is as it first appears
It's still a great photo though. It's also what a lot of the big time pros in the U.S. do. The go to farms with tame big cats and stage their shots.
It is a great photo I went to the exhibition and it looked great.
Sandy
Quote from: spinner on December 20, 2009, 12:18:00 AM
It's still a great photo though.
Maybe. Maybe not.
If that was an Alsatian dog jumping over a gate it would be a nice snap. It's well lit and everything and he's caught the moment extremely well (though IIRC this was shot with a beam breaker). Stick it onto a photo sharing site and it would get hundreds of "great shots".
But this is the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the year. If it was a picture of an Alsatian it would come nowhere in that comp. Take a look at the runners up (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/category.do?category=7&group=1). Not even close.
It's an example of the subject making the picture much more important than it is. To shoot this of a wild animal is just breath taking. Especially when there are so few of these animals in the wild and this is fairly untypical behaviour for a wolf (see the expert's remarks that they suspect it's a fake because it's leaping the gate). If this were a tame wolf leaping because it's told to then the picture is little better than a dog jumping over a gate. (And yes, I know wolves are harder to work with than dogs but, you know...)
FWIW from a brief glance of the evidence on that site I don't believe it's tame. I think this picture is real. The scene with the tree line etc is similar but not close enough to be right and if the captive wolf had had a fight and damaged its ear then the keepers would know. They would also know if somebody had propped a gate up in their enclosure and asked them to jump a wolf over it repeatedly while he photographed it.
BTW re pros photographing tame big cats......yes this happens. i spent a week in a van with Andy Rouse while he was trying to capture a high quality still of a cheetah hunting. He said that at the time nobody had ever managed it with a wild cheetah. He spent weeks in that van for one shot (and AFAIK didn't get it) - when a few $000s would have guaranteed him the picture of a captive cat. There's a difference.
Interesting... Must confess when I saw the original photo it just didn't feel right, the jump doesn't look natural for a wild wolf; for that matter it doesn't look natural for a captive, but otherwise wild, wolf either - I know it was a triggered image, but it looks 'staged'. There are so many European wolves in captivity its very difficult to try and identify individuals, notwithstanding that their colouration and markings change year on year.
Must agree with Nemesis about a certain 'feel' about the shot. I thougt someone had been down the local dog training centre and decided that a picture of Bonzo junping over a fence would look nice.
I know very little about wolves but I found it quite surprising that they would leap like a young horse over a gate, I would have thought they would just wriggle throught the bars like any other canine, unless they had been trained to do so. Aren't wolves pack animals anyway, perhaps the animal in question had been left behind! :legit:
Actually there's an easy way to solve this (and my guess is that this is the piece of evidence they are waiting for).
This was shot on a 503cw on 6X6 film presumably from a 120 roll. Let's see the negs for rest of the roll.
If it was shot for real on an infra red trap then you'd expect the others on the roll to be total misses - birds, branches, whatever tripping the beam. Or there would only be one shot from that night.
If it's a fake then there is NO WAY he would have shot a single exposure. You'd shoot at least a roll and probably 2 or 3 rolls to make sure you'd nailed it.
Here was his second attempt..
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d142/steveobhave/wolfmscopy.jpg)
;D
Quote from: minky_monkey on December 22, 2009, 05:32:20 PM
Here was his second attempt..
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d142/steveobhave/wolfmscopy.jpg)
;D
Fantastic. :2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
I prefer the Minkey Monkey version.
You can see from the outset that it's real ;D
Have to say that I'm with Jonathon on this if it is a tame wolf it is not a WILDlife shot...
Just heard on the news that the photograph has been disqualified.......... :legit:
Quote from: Dave on January 20, 2010, 01:15:58 PM
Just heard on the news that the photograph has been disqualified.......... :legit:
Full statement here http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/statement.jsp As I posted on another forum regarding this issue, I personally don't like the use of the word
'likely'. They either have
conclusive evidence or they don't. Using the word 'likely' whilst the photographer (Rodriguez) continues to strongly deny that the wolf in the image is a model still leaves the question open in my mind.
Quote from: Forseti on January 20, 2010, 01:35:51 PM
Quote from: Dave on January 20, 2010, 01:15:58 PM
Just heard on the news that the photograph has been disqualified.......... :legit:
Full statement here http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/statement.jsp As I posted on another forum regarding this issue, I personally don't like the use of the word 'likely'. They either have conclusive evidence or they don't. Using the word 'likely' whilst the photographer (Rodriguez) continues to strongly deny that the wolf in the image is a model still leaves the question open in my mind.
The use of the word likely stops them been sued. Mind you, when it was posted in a blog on photoradar, I did object that the photographer had used an remote setup and wasn't even present when it was taken. The whole point of wildlife photography is to be there to take the photo otherwise, where do you draw the line. :o
Quote from: Oldboy on January 20, 2010, 02:13:36 PM
The use of the word likely stops them been sued. Mind you, when it was posted in a blog on photoradar, I did object that the photographer had used an remote setup and wasn't even present when it was taken. The whole point of wildlife photography is to be there to take the photo otherwise, where do you draw the line. :o
I recall making similar comment on the olde DCM forums over a previous competition winner of the snow leopard taken with a triggered remote set up - I also recall being in the minority viewpoint. OK in that case the photographer had done some field work to establish where a wild leopard was likely to travel, but instinct still tells me this wolf pic was staged with a tame/trained animal.
Quote from: Nemesis on January 20, 2010, 02:26:42 PM
Quote from: Oldboy on January 20, 2010, 02:13:36 PM
The use of the word likely stops them been sued. Mind you, when it was posted in a blog on photoradar, I did object that the photographer had used an remote setup and wasn't even present when it was taken. The whole point of wildlife photography is to be there to take the photo otherwise, where do you draw the line. :o
I recall making similar comment on the olde DCM forums over a previous competition winner of the snow leopard taken with a triggered remote set up - I also recall being in the minority viewpoint. OK in that case the photographer had done some field work to establish where a wild leopard was likely to travel, but instinct still tells me this wolf pic was staged with a tame/trained animal.
Quite agree, as a wild animal is more likely to squeeze through the gate unless persued by a pack of dogs. ::)
Quote from: Oldboy on January 20, 2010, 02:13:36 PM
The use of the word likely stops them been sued.
Sued for what exactly? The photographer either cheated (for which they have irrefutable proof) or they are not absolutely sure in which case they should have let things stand. It' like saying that it's
likely to rain which doesn't mean that it definitely
will rain. A bit like your likely it will snow - only it didn't :2funny: I won't comment on either the quality of the image or the manner in which it was captured as this is not the issue in point.
Edit: and if they are wrong and this is a slight on the photographers good name then they
should be sued.
Quote from: Forseti on January 20, 2010, 02:42:13 PM
Quote from: Oldboy on January 20, 2010, 02:13:36 PM
The use of the word likely stops them been sued.
Sued for what exactly? The photographer either cheated (for which they have irrefutable proof) or they are not absolutely sure in which case they should have left things stand. It' like saying that it's likely to rain which doesn't mean that it definitely will rain. I won't comment on either the quality of the image or the manner in which it was captured as this is not the issue in point.
Edit: and if they are wrong and this is a slight on the photographers good name then they should be sued.
If they call him a cheat then they would need a cast iron case to prove it. Using the word likely raises doubts about the photo and the information provided by the photographer. Reading between the lines, I guess the photographer can't or won't provide proof that the image was taken within the rules of the competition. 8)
Ok, more info has now been provided http://www.photoradar.com/news/story/wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2010-%E2%80%9Cno-captive-animals-allowed . Seems pretty cut and dried now.
Quote from: Oldboy on January 20, 2010, 03:22:55 PM
If they call him a cheat then they would need a cast iron case to prove it. Using the word likely raises doubts about the photo and the information provided by the photographer. Reading between the lines, I guess the photographer can't or won't provide proof that the image was taken within the rules of the competition. 8)
It's simple. Put up or shut up.
Like Forsetti I'm not going to comment on the image (in fact I have already and my opinion stands) but if this were me and the magazine couldn't prove (as in "prove in a court of law") that I had cheated I would right now be talking to a lawyer about a defamation case. Especially if I'd cheated ;)
[ETA: just read Mark Cawardine's explanation - doesn't change what I'd do one bit. His reputation is now ruined. And if they can't prove he did it they had better be ready to pay for that.]
Quote
[ETA: just read Mark Cawardine's explanation - doesn't change what I'd do one bit. His reputation is now ruined. And if they can't prove he did it they had better be ready to pay for that.]
Quote
Why is his reputation ruined?
Quote from: magicrhodes on January 20, 2010, 04:12:41 PM
Quote
[ETA: just read Mark Cawardine's explanation - doesn't change what I'd do one bit. His reputation is now ruined. And if they can't prove he did it they had better be ready to pay for that.]Quote
Why is his reputation ruined?
Because he appears to be a professional wildlife photographer. He has been judged guilty of lying about his work.
Quote from: Jonathan on January 20, 2010, 04:16:13 PM
Quote from: magicrhodes on January 20, 2010, 04:12:41 PM
Quote
[ETA: just read Mark Cawardine's explanation - doesn't change what I'd do one bit. His reputation is now ruined. And if they can't prove he did it they had better be ready to pay for that.]Quote
Why is his reputation ruined?
Because he appears to be a professional wildlife photographer. He has been judged guilty of lying about his work.
You mean El Spaniard and not Mark? I thought you were saying Mark's was ruined... hence my question
Ah no. Mark's a mate of Douglas Adams. His reputation is sacrosanct.
You know, the more I think about this, the odder it seems.
Somebody "owns" Ossian, somebody controls access to Canada Real. So if this is what the judges suggest it is then somebody knows that a photographer came along there at night, set up his kit and got the wolf to jump over the fence. Why is this all "he says, she says"? If it's a fake then somebody else knows it. He's still denying it so must be reasonably confident that no such person will come forward.
Interesting.......
If it was taken elsewhere surely it would be easy enough for the photographer to prove it by simply giving the location or taking someone there....or have I missed something. On the other hand if it was the captive wolf....yes, how could he have taken the picture at Canada Real without anyone else knowing and coming forward.
As a slight aside - why is it that there is now "no winner"?
Surely if he is disqualified he must hand back any prize money etc - which should in turn be given to the 2nd place picture.
A point has been made earlier in this thread about his ability to prove the authenticity of the picture. If he has failed to provide authenticity when requested - he has opened himself up for negative thinking.
Would any one here not have multiple copies of a picture they'd entered for such a prestigious competition - or any competition for that matter?
Something is not right about the photographers apparent inability or refusal to provide adequate proof of where the picture was taken etc.
I would like to think he will come forth and clear his name - but i'm not putting any bets on it. Sadly :-\
Quote from: Jonathan on January 20, 2010, 04:34:59 PM
Ah no. Mark's a mate of Douglas Adams. His reputation is sacrosanct.
The late Douglas Adams - author of Hitchhikers Guide etc...?
Rule 8 is very clear! Read for yourselves here:- http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy-entry/Rules.jsp;jsessionid=E756590D504C4B9CB16BCC01BCB16543.
So, the judges only have 'to suspect' to disqualify not 'prove'.
So 'likely' is an extremely apt choice of words which in turn puts the onus on the photographer to prove their innocence.
The story deepens...
Whatever. In my opinion, it is a stunning photograph! Give him the money.
If you don't like 'likely' then never submit yourself to a civil court of law. The burden of proof is 'the balance of probabilities', or what is more likely in layman's terms.
The wolf experts say it is the 'model' wolf, the location is in the park; the balance of probability that this was staged is very high. That's against the rules, ergo disqualification.
Quote from: John Doyle2 on January 20, 2010, 11:40:37 PM
Rule 8 is very clear! Read for yourselves here:- http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy-entry/Rules.jsp;jsessionid=E756590D504C4B9CB16BCC01BCB16543.
Well, it's pretty clear. The suspicion bit only seems to apply to cruel or unethical practises.
Quote from: picsfor on January 20, 2010, 10:43:56 PM
Quote from: Jonathan on January 20, 2010, 04:34:59 PM
Ah no. Mark's a mate of Douglas Adams. His reputation is sacrosanct.
The late Douglas Adams - author of Hitchhikers Guide etc...?
Yep, that's the one. And also according to legend the first ever owner of a Mac in Europe :)
They did this together - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Chance_to_See
I think I missed something here. It's a PhotoRadar sponsored competition? A bunch of other Spanish photogs ratted the guy out? PhotoRadar brought in an acclaimed wolf expert who judged the wolf to be a known tame one in a known wildlife park? Nobody brought the Police into this to investigate, nobody has laid Fraud charges, nobody has held a court hearing with witnesses?
It's a photo contest people, not the O.J. Simpson murder trial. But thank's to P.C. everyone minces words and dances around the story. I, personally, based on the information provided, and no information to the contrary, am satisfied the photo is a put up job. Sue me (you can't get blood from a stone). ;D
Nothing to do with photoradar this one,
Quote from: spinner on January 21, 2010, 11:48:55 AM
I think I missed something here. It's a PhotoRadar sponsored competition?
PR are just cosying up to it to make themselves look important. It's run by the National History Museum and the BBC Wildlife Magazine. It's about as prestigious as photo comps get in the UK. Winning it is a very big deal. Previous winners have included Angie Scott and Andy Rouse. Getting disqualified for cheating is pretty huge too.
Plus, the organisers have money.