'Not a' wildlife photographer of the year? (1 Viewer)

[Apodemus]

Personally, I like the gate, it is made of cleft coppiced material, typical of rural Spain and not at all "domestic" to my eyes.

 

[TheSeagull]

I liked the gate aswell but personally I don't like the inclusion of remote photography in the competition. It certainly looks like fraud, but you never know, might just be a coincidence.

 

[Gwynn]

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/statement.jsp

Looks like he has been disqualified

Gwynn

 

[dafi]

This photo and competition has come up in threads over and over again, not just here but all over the net.

It looks like the situation has finaly been resolved.

Cheats should never prosper.....no matter how good at cheating they are.

 

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

It even made Radio 4 lunchtime news.

 

[dantheman]

Amazing what you can do with plasticene these days ...

I have to admit that I never liked the photo myself. Presumably we have a new winning pic ...

 

[mike from ebbw]

I was never that keen on the pic either to be honest.Sad that he cheated though but the `truth will out`,as they say.

 

[Marmot]

Here is the BBc write up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8470962.stm

 

[a.dancy]

Interview Mark Carwardine

http://www.photoradar.com/news/stor...-of-the-year-2010-“no-captive-animals-allowed

For myself I think the image is technically superb ....as did the notable photographers and judges who selected it. The lesson to be learned is, 'keep your bat straight and your powder dry' and if you take that once in a lifetime picture it may not win....for being unbelievable. A cruel irony since it is unbelievable pictures (amongst others) that should win. I hope it won't stop photographers taking great images and judges striving to do their best and recognising talent and not burying a picture because it might get outed.

This is a case in which the photographer concerned would have had the means to dispell any doubts over authenticity very quickly (I would have thought), rather than have others prove lack thereof...what troubles me, is that he still maintains that the wolf was wild and what troubles me more is if he is right, though that seems unlikely.

A very sad affair.

 

[paul goode]

An unhappy outcome all round I reckon. There are certainly no winners in this one.
I'd have thought, as Adrian says, that the authenticity of the image could easily be proved and its odd that this has not happened as the photographer is still adamant that the image is legitimate

 

[Claymore]

Will the runner up get the No1 prize now?

 

[RyanEustace]

You'd have thought so wouldn't you , but apparently not ,there is no winner , i personally am glad he has been found out to be a fraud and banned from ever entering again , let it stand as a message to the rest.

 

[jurek]

Well sad.

On the other hand, technology progress might mean that altered photos will be totally unrecognizable within, say 10 years time. What then?

 

[njlarsen]

Well sad.

On the other hand, technology progress might mean that altered photos will be totally unrecognizable within, say 10 years time. What then?

This photo did not seem to be suspicious due to pixel-peeking but due to recognition of the animal itself so it would not make a difference for this one. The removal of irritating branches etc is a different story, which if done well maybe cannot be proven any longer.

I remember a story of a photographer taking a photo of an interesting person in a market somewhere exotic. However, it irritated him that in the frame there was an obvious foreigner, so he waited five minutes until that person left and took another picture; at home he cut the offending person out of the first picture and replaced the cutout with the background of the same part of the scene from image two with an excellent result. However, he told the story himself, so in that case, there was no cheating.

Niels

 

[bobt0248]

I live in Detroit, Michigan were the exhibit is now being shown at the Detroit Zoo and have viewed it twice. It is indeed a good pic, not my favorite but good...............but rules are rules. Now I will have to revisit and see if it has been taken down,

Bob

 

[Chris Galvin]

I'm just glad that that he was found out. The use of 'models' has its place, but not in a Wildlife Competition. There is no doubt that the image was technically brilliant, but to hoodwink not only the judges but the general public is deplorable and should not be tolerated. I'm sad for the entrants of the competition that were placed highly and that they cannot be promoted. This fraud has tainted the whole competition with his nefarious submission. Root all the cheats out I say, and ban them from not only further competitions but blacklist their work.

 

[bobt0248]

Just an update. I finally made it back to the Detroit Zoo where the exhibit is showing. The photo in question is still there listed as the winning photo. I wrote a letter the the director of the zoo questioning why the photo is still up after being disqualified. I asked him if it was going to be taken down or a notation put up explaning the situation. If I received a reply I will keep you informed.

Bob

 

[stonechat1]

Just an update. I finally made it back to the Detroit Zoo where the exhibit is showing. The photo in question is still there [...] If I received a reply I will keep you informed.
Bob

Thanks Bob :t:

 

[Wildmoreway]

Whilst I donn't know the full claimed history of the photograph it does look to be typical of quite a few pictures I see on various forums that simply could not have been taken by anything less than medium format film cameras in staged conditions. The trouble with so many of these competitions is that they seem to be looking for absolute perfection that cannot actually be achieved outside staged conditions by a professional photographer.

In the case of this picture there is also the issue that it does not really tell us anything about the wolf or its life.

 

[bobt0248]

Just an update. I finally made it back to the Detroit Zoo where the exhibit is showing. The photo in question is still there listed as the winning photo. I wrote a letter the the director of the zoo questioning why the photo is still up after being disqualified. I asked him if it was going to be taken down or a notation put up explaning the situation. If I received a reply I will keep you informed.

Bob

Well here is the update for anyone interested. Though I did not receive a reply from the Zoo to my email, when I visited just the other day the photo in question had been taken down with no explanation as to the reason why. But...........it has been removed!

Bob