BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Overread" data-source="post: 1675809" data-attributes="member: 68571">I did as well. I know that the use of remote photography methods is quite hotly debated by some, since some feel that its not real photography because a machin is pressing the shutter button. However I have always held the view that unless your rich enough to cover every inch of an area with cameras (which is pretty much limited to just the BBC or a random millionair <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />) then it still takes skill and effort to locate the camera in the right place and the trip to get a good shot. The backgrounds is the clearest part of the case I feel, whilst also if the wolf is a well photographed animal in the photography community chances are many might recognise the animal as well (I bet if someone tried to enter a shot of one of the foxes or otters from the BWC chances are they might be recognised). However should it prove to be a genuin shot for the setup that was needed it should be possible for the photographer to show exactly where the shot was taken without any problems. There is also another downside to this (though with respect we don't know all the details of how this possible fraud was reported) but as it is not directly mentioned in the article one has to wonder about the staff of the wofl centre as well. If it is indeed their animal in teh shot then they must have been party to at least the taking of the shot itself (for setting up the stones and the fence as well as the camera gear) and since the competition is a very publisised and high profile event it would be very odd for no member of the staff to have seen the photo. So it does bring to question their honesty as well - though so far only in as much as they are not mentioned in the article as coming forward. This is my hope as well</blockquote>

Verification