Misrepresentation in Photo Contest

[Alfred Forns]

Replacing previous post with a direct link to the Wildlife Website showing a PDF of the release.

http://refugeassociation.org/new-pdf-files/Press%20Releases/2009Contest_Fraud_Release.pdf

This is the text copied form the site

For Immediate Release Contact: Evan Hirsche
November 6, 2009 ehirsche @refugeassociation.org
(202) 292-2429
Altered and Misrepresented Refuge Photo Contest Images Withdrawn
Washington DC- The National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) has withdrawn “Semifinalist”
recognition from five images in the 2009 Refuge Photo contest after a close review
raised questions about the integrity of several images submitted by photographer Maxis Gamez
of Sarasota, Florida.
“The NWRA appreciates the hard work and artistry of the many photographers who submitted
accurately-represented photographs taken on national wildlife refuges, and will be vigilant to
protect the integrity of its contest,” said Evan Hirsche, President of NWRA. “Photos submitted
by Mr. Maxis Gamez were confirmed to have been in violation of contest rules and have been
removed as a result.”
Five images submitted by Mr. Gamez received “semi-finalist” recognition by contest judges, and
were placed in the “Winning Image Gallery” on NWRA’s website. Shortly afterward, contest
staff became concerned that several images were potentially in violation of contest rules
regarding significant digital alterations as well as the stated location of the images. NWRA
promptly investigated the matter, and Mr. Gamez admitted to digitally altering one image and
misrepresenting the location where another was taken. The photographer declined NWRA’s
request to provide the original photographs as evidence in support of his claims, and asked that
his images be withdrawn from the contest.
Contest rules stipulate that photos “must be taken at a refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge
System or at a refuge-associated Waterfowl Production Area,” and prohibits digital alterations
that “add any elements or objects that do not exist in the original scene.”
The winning images from this years contest can be seen here:
http://refugeassociation.org/contest/ContestHome.html
Submission requirements for the 2009 Refuge Photo Contest can be viewed here:
http://refugeassociation.org/contest/2009ContestRules2.html
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge Association is to conserve America’s wildlife
heritage for future generations through strategic programs that protect, enhance, and expand the
National Wildlife Refuge System and the landscapes beyond its boundaries
that secure its ecological integrity.
###

[Rocky Sharwell]

To quote Homer Simpson, "D'oh"

[James Shadle]

In order to give Mr. Gamez the benefit of the doubt we waited to post the press release until we could confirm it's validity.

Here is the reply from Evan Hirsche, President of the NWRA.
'Hi James, thanks for being in touch. The press release is valid. Feel free to post and let me know if you have additional questions about it.

Best,


Evan

*************************
Evan Hirsche
President"

[Fabs Forns]

News made it to the Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/inside-outside/2009/nov/07/the-urge-to-cheat-can-be-overpowering-for-some/

[Roman Kurywczak]

Well this is certainly a warning to others but it is sad that Maxis took that approach. His reputation is certainly taking a hit (deservedly so) and I have seen the image that was manipulated and his response........I find it hard to understand that he didn't consider that going against the rules! No idea as to the other alleged violations.

What is even more disturbing is that the regular media is now picking up on the story and this now puts another black eye on photographers.....as if it wasn't tough enough already at some locations. Good news is that this was dealt with openly and quickly so the NWRA should be commended for that.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Only 4 responses despite 379 hits to this thread! I am wondering why so few responses on this topic? Are we shy of discussing because one individual has been identified? Or are we not concerned about this ethical issue?

In this forums we have discussed whether to disclose cloning or not. Link to one such discussion is given below:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=34461&highlight=branch+eternity

So I was definitely expecting a discussion on this issue.

Unfortunately this issue is going to impact the perception about photographers, which anyway was never great. There have been a few unethical photographers in all era; however, their numbers seems to have increased with the availability of digital tools. It has become easier to manipulate as each indiviudual has got the equivalent of a darkroom in their workstation as opposed to the film era. The proclivity to cheat is perhaps increased due to the ease. I know atleast two people who have won on the basis of digital wizardry in photography competitions that allow prints.

However, I am not suggesting that only ease of digital alterations is the reason for people violating rules. It is a question of ethics as well. Often photographers have been blamed, at times rightly, for unethical practices.

It is often said that photographers who love their subjects won’t try to harm their subjects. Unfortunately, it is not practiced by the majority of the photographers. The Washington Times header for the related news is damning "The urge to cheat can be overpowering for some". In the body of that article the author writes "Since there were no big prizes promised to the photo winners, why try to pull a con?" It appears to point out that some people are kind of habitual offenders. In this case, there would have been some recognition of winning a prize.

The expectation to produce superb images and share in the online forums at rapid frequence becomes taxing on a few individuals and they resort to unethical means. People know of instances where a photographer photographed a rare animal in a zoo and passed it off as a wild one. In the NWRA case, one or few images by the photographer are not from the state location. Does that mean images of some captive subjects have been labeled as that from a National Refuge? Any idea?

I believe acquiring skills at digital alterations is fine as long as one uses it for personal use and not enter into competitions, or send it to magazines etc thereby violating their policy. It is a good practice to disclose if any addition or deletion of elements from the scene were done.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Desmond Chan]

Only 4 responses despite 379 hits to this thread! I am wondering why so few responses on this topic?

I think two earlier responses I saw somehow have disappeared.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Desmond There was only one that disappeared, Mike Tracy asked something about the release so I took the thread down and found direct link and confirmation from the site.

[Nicki Gwynn Jones]

Hi Folks!
I must admit that I do not usually weigh in on these discussions, but am always fascinated to read the opinions of fellow BPNers.
I have to agree with Sabyasachi - I was expecting a far bigger response to this thread. Could it be that many of us are stepping back in alarm - I for one (in my inexperience) am not at all sure as to what would pass for an acceptable level of PP for a competition shot. I fully understand the statement from the article about not addng anything to the scene, but when I found Maxis' images on another site and compared them, it seemed to me that he had removed, not added. Whilst I do not condone cheating, am I missing something here??
Can anyone tell me - if an image is entered in a nature competition what exactly is permitted in terms of PP? If some artistic licencse is taken (ie, using levels or curves to create a sillouette, for example) would this be considered cheating. Is minor cloning or use of the patch tool also not OK?
As always, I look forward to your responses!
Best regards to all,
Nicki
:)

[Arthur Morris]

I am pretty sure that most folks know my basic position on these matters: do whatever you want to an image, let folks know what you have done, and always obey the contest rules. (Nicki: there are not "set rules" for contests; each contest has its own. Levels, Curves and dust spotting are pretty much universally OK."

The fact that Maxis refused to provide the requested RAW files pretty much sums things up for me.

Robert O'Toole told me last week that he had learned that Maxis was doing a complete program on Quick Masking for a local camera club. Another nice touch.

[Greg Basco]

Nicki, as Arthur said, each contest is different but the amount of post-processing allowed for the big ones is pretty minimal. I've only entered Nature's Best (for the first time this year), and if I recall cloning was not allowed and only a slight amount of cropping was allowed or at least recommended. I know one of the judges of the BBC competition last year (not sure if he was on the panel this year), and he told me that the judges there certainly will take into account the purity of the RAW file, giving more weight to a photo that they know or supsect has not been cropped or otherwise altered from what the camera captured. Of course, in the final stages of a big contest, you might be asked to submit RAW files as a matter of course or to prove validity, and so the BBC judges at least apparently will have the RAW file to verify their evaluation. This judge told me that they really do place a premium on the skill of a photographer to produce a RAW file that essentially stands on its own.

While it seems that cloning, cropping, and selective background adjustments beyond NR have become pretty standard tools for many nature photographers, I totally agree with Arthur that a photographer needs to realize that the contest rules will often be different. Even if you could rationalize it inside your own head, this incident shows so clearly that it's just not worth it. I suppose those of us who make a living with our cameras can understand the pressure to produce but this is a big lesson that when it comes to contests, it's best not to submit images that have work above and beyond the contest rules. And as Arthur mentioned, it's important to disclose PS work on the forums as well, both as a disclaimer and for people to learn.

Cheers,
Greg

[Jason G. Harrison]

I too have been following this subject, here as well as on a few other forums. I think many are not responding or weighing in for several reasons. For me, I am always hesitant on "piling on" someone without seeing the proof or the images that are alleged to be manipulated outside the rules laid out by the contest.

After seeing Maxis reply to this matter on Naturescapes, and offer an image to show his side...many questions still remain. It was reported that 5 images were thought to have crossed the line. Maxis showed one image and what he did, but what about the other 4?

THe part that really throws it for me is when they asked him for the original raw files and he would not comply. That action speaks volumes and I believe does the most harm to his reputation and sadly enough, casts a wide shadow across all photographers in general.

As far as working over an image I fall into the camp do what you want, but reveal that it was done. For contest submissions, follow the guidelines completely and have no worries. In all things in life that we do...some basic principles must be the foundation upon which we build or in other words, how we live. Speaking the truth, living it, etc...is among these basic principles. Failure to do that has great consequences...and now Maxis is dealing and will deal with this from here on out. The damage being done to his reputation is going to be very tough to overcome, if at all.

[Ed Erkes]

I didn't comment on this thread (until now) for two reasons:
1) If the thread was a discussion on whether or not you needed to follow the contest rules when submitting images, there would really be nothing to discuss.
2) I didn't quite understand the purpose of singling out the individual, unless it was to shame or embarass him. I think the message could have been delivered without identification of the individual. If we want to get into name-calling, I could name a couple prominent photographers on this forum and NSN that were deliberately breaking posted rules at North Chagrin Reservation last month. I'm much more concerned about violations that potentially harm the wildlife and end up affecting access to the area for other photographers.

[Roman Kurywczak]

I think taking out an entire bird or 2 would go beyond the "Limited image modification" by anyones standards or at least it should. Most contest will not allow it except for digital creations or something similar. Many will also ask for the raw original. I agree with the others above that not providing the other image data speaks volumes. Since the NWRA wasn't going to ask for a RAW file, maybe he felt he could get around it. The question I have is why? Does anyone feel that removing an entire bird......per the contest rules......fall into the minimal modifications? The naturescapes image is what I saw....even if I take into account the crop....he removed an entire bird if you add the BG birds head! That to me is more than "minimal". It will be interesting to see how others feel.
Remember that Maxis's actions have an impact on us all as it reflects poorly on photographers. It's a shame that a talented photographer such as him went that route. I for one have lost a great deal of respect for him.

[Roman Kurywczak]

PS to Ed....as I was typing during your post......his actions affect us all (as do the others you mention)....difference is that this was a national event and if the contest wanted to retain it's credibility.....they neded to take that action.

[Lana Hays]

I have thought about this for the past day. I have always stated clearly what was done on any image that I have posted. I have read the rules from several contests and although I have never entered any, have always thought that PS work on such images would/should be limited to minimal cropping, sharpening, and perhaps levels or saturation......all to enhance what was actually seen....not what the photographer "wanted to see". Cloning of the level that I saw in a before/after image was clearly over the line. As a stretch....one might want to give the benefit of the doubt. Someone might want to dispute that the rules stated not "adding" anything to an image but neglected to mention "removing". But....what about those images that were withdrawn due to location issues which have not been addressed in his NSN post. I'm no Rhode scholar but......what part of location don't you understand?

[Nicki Gwynn Jones]

Artie, thanks for the clarification on contest rules - I do appreciate that they might differ from one competition to another. Of course the fact that he would not reveal the RAW files does indeed speak volumes and Roman, of course I agree that to remove an entire bird and claim it as a minimal modification is clearly ludicrous. It is good to know (from Greg's post) that the purity of the RAW file is so highly prized in the big competitions. And I agree that this does cast all of us in a poor light.
Best as always,
Nicki

[Mike Tracy]

I am by no means defending Maxis disregard for the rules. Personally I think he knowingly went over the line. I have shot with him on two occasions this past spring. He is a dang good photographer who has a body of work with images that could have won with no false representation. Why he chose to do what he did is beyond me.

I have entered several prominent competitions in the past few years and have done well in them. Each contest as stated by others has their own guidelines and I elect not to push them so I won't be the public sacrificial lamb Mr. Gamez has become. I am confident he is not the first who has cheated and won't be the last but was the one who was caught this time with his hand in the cookie jar.

The reason for this post though is that as much as we are criticizing him on this forum I don't think he is a member in good standing here and is no longer allowed to post. Shouldn't the owners make a exception and allow him to state his mindset at the time here on BPN ? I doubt it will change our attitudes and conclusions but it would be only fair to give him the opportunity.

[Kevin Hall]

Rules are rules, you always roll the dice when you decide to break them. What is expected in a sale of fine art will be different from a competition.

One thing that always makes me laugh is when you hear about how photoshop allows so much cheating and unethical behavior. Everyone knows the work of Ansel Adams, is there a greater grandfather of landscape photography anywhere? You certainly wouldn't read Gene Mueller writing about his ethics or calling him a cheat. Mr. Adams was a wizard of the darkroom and even considered the film to be his composed music and the final print to be his performance of it. One of his most manipulated images is Moonrise Over Hernandez. He heavily burned the sky and dodged the ground. The resulting image was a night sky even though it was exposed in the late afternoon. Mr. Adams was not cheating, his ethics are not questioned. He was an artist of passionate vision making magic.

If you are not a PJ or bound by a particular set of rules why place a fence around your options? Dream a little, yes?

[Nicki Gwynn Jones]

Fair point Mike, especially as I am certain that you are right that he is hardly the first to have knowingly crossed the line.
Is he no longer allowed to post on BPN as a result of this contest? If he cannot defend himself then it does rather feel as if we are condemning him behind his back. I am sure that all of us here, if accused of something, would appreciate the chance to tell our side of the story.
Best,
Nicki

[Nicki Gwynn Jones]

Kevin, we must have been typing at the same time.
Dream a little? Oh, I couldn't agree more - essential to me personally. But I guess not for a nature photo contest...
Best,
Nicki

[Kevin Hall]

Hi Nicki

I whole heartedly agree, rules are rules and I never was much of a gambler. I think the breaking of the rules is where the legitimate conversation of ethics takes place here. But not in the use of photoshop and darkroom techniques. And so many who started with digital overlook the manipulation that took place in chemicals.

[Nicki Gwynn Jones]

Keniv I completely agree with everything that you have said.
By the way, I am sure that I remember hearing it said (can't remember where) that it is possible to permanently alter a RAW file. Does anyone know if this is true?
Best to all,
Nicki

[Roman Kurywczak]

I agree with Mike.....it would be nice if Maxis could answer as I for one would like to ask him; What were you thinking?!!! I have seen many great images from him.....so I do wonder like Mike as to the why???

[john crookes]

Just another reason for Photographers to take it upon themselves to state no matter where the photo is shown whether or not the image has been manipulated beyound traditional practices

It is easier to instill that in a photographer at the beginning then the expell and denounce a photographer when it is discovered that they manipulate a photo for whatever reason.

We are too quick to judge as a society and denounce the person when it gets encourage to do the same in everyday life
Look deep at your own comments here and see how many times one is told that to make the imafge better they should clone or remove items or add wing tips and such

We should educate at the same time that if you choose to do so you should also state that you did

Judge others as you would judge yourselves

[Desmond Chan]

Hi Desmond There was only one that disappeared, Mike Tracy asked something about the release so I took the thread down and found direct link and confirmation from the site.

Thanks for the clarification, Al ! I noticed the removal and so I thought no response was allowed to this thread :o


I still like what is said in this article:

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/conservation-and-ethics/40-conservation-a-ethics/345-fine-art-photography-vs-documentary-photojournalism-


So if you are to use your photo in a competition, you follow their rules. It's not really about if it's immoral to manipulate your images. It's your image, you decide what you use it for and make it accordingly.

[john crookes]

The bottom line

You have a right to express yourself, no doubt about it. And you can alter your image in any way you choose. But if you want to sell your work in the editorial arena, you must understand the rules and know the expectations of your customer. By doing this, you’ll maintain your credibility and reputation. It is always best when the photographer, buyer and viewer all understand how an image was made. <O:p></O:p>
this is the last part from the naturescape article

could not agree more with the last line which so many here have a hard time agreeing to

[Rocky Sharwell]

I wonder about the images with location issues--I can imagine some confusion at Merritt Island where as far as I know, the causeway and the ratty looking beachish area after the marine patrol station are not in refuge bounds. I would also have to look up to figure out if Canaveral Seashore is considered part of the national wildlife refuge.

On the other hand if an image was taken at Ft Desoto there is no close call as to weather it is part of national refuge

[Robert Amoruso]

I wonder about the images with location issues--I can imagine some confusion at Merritt Island where as far as I know, the causeway and the ratty looking beachish area after the marine patrol station are not in refuge bounds. I would also have to look up to figure out if Canaveral Seashore is considered part of the national wildlife refuge.

On the other hand if an image was taken at Ft Desoto there is no close call as to weather it is part of national refuge

Rocky and anyone else that might be wondering, Merritt Island and Canaveral National Seashore are kind of a abnormality in that combined with the refuge portions under NASA control are all managed co-jointly. Of course you are not allowed on the closed to the public portions of the refuge under NASA control. If you look at the maps for MINWR and CANA you will see that the refuge boundary includes the seashore. Canaveral however is managed by National Park personnel and the other parts of the refuge are managed by USFWS. I once asked a National Park ranger at the seahsore its boundaries. I was told that the area immediately around the entrance station, the roads to the beach and the beach and its parking areas are in the control of NPS. The areas to the left and right of the entrance road are dealt with by refuge personnel (BTW hunting is allowed in these areas near the beach access).

Two links below for maps of both. Note that on the CANA map the green area is marked as seashore/refuge.

So, an image I took of say the scrub jays at the entrance station is, to me, seashore and not refuge - an image of them at scrub ridge trail is refuge. An image on the beach is seashore and an image on Bio Lab Road or from the seashore access road on either side is refuge.

As I understand it though, NASA owes all the property. That is why they were considering commercial launch platforms on refuge property a few years back.

http://www.nps.gov/cana/planyourvisit/upload/cana_map.pdf

http://library.fws.gov/Refuges/Merrittisland_map.pdf

BTW: I have gotten some excellent images at the "ratty looking beachish area after the marine patrol station" area you mention Rocky. :)

[LouBuonomo]

What John said.. if you are selling it as a FA print go for it, but most of the contests frown upon this.

I was really strict about the images NWPLI would send into NB for just such reasons. The last thing I wanted was to have to justify an entry.

[Arthur Morris]

After seeing Maxis reply to this matter on Naturescapes, and offer an image to show his side...many questions still remain. It was reported that 5 images were thought to have crossed the line. Maxis showed one image and what he did, but what about the other 4?

The part that really throws it for me is when they asked him for the original raw files and he would not comply. That action speaks volumes and I believe does the most harm to his reputation and sadly enough, casts a wide shadow across all photographers in general.

As I said above, Maxis refusal to submit the RAW files as requested says it all. Period. Pretty much all of the big contest rules state that photographers will be required to submit the RAW files for images that have made it to the final judging. There simply is no defense.

[Arthur Morris]

2) I didn't quite understand the purpose of singling out the individual, unless it was to shame or embarass him. I think the message could have been delivered without identification of the individual. If we want to get into name-calling, I could name a couple prominent photographers on this forum and NSN that were deliberately breaking posted rules at North Chagrin Reservation last month. I'm much more concerned about violations that potentially harm the wildlife and end up affecting access to the area for other photographers.

Mr. Erkes wrote me about the Chagrin incident a while back and I asked him why he did not walk into the visitor center and report the offending photographer whose name he knew. He said that he had thought about it but decided to do nothing.

If we cannot police ourselves who is going to? When I see someone breaking the rules I photograph them in the act if possible and report them to the proper authorities. If I judge it to be safe to do so I confront them on the spot. In my 27 years I have done this about four times. To me this pretty much belies the perception that nature photographers are as a whole a damned well behaved group.

Seeing someone break the rules and then doing nothing is to me unconscionable. And folks who do that should quit whining about it. If Mr. Erkes were so concerned about the birds and about photographic access why did he choose to remain quiet at the time?

As for "singling out Maxis" there are two issues:

#1: He was named in a public press release.
#2: Having often been the victim of assassination by innuendo, inference, and exaggeration I feel that a photographer who is accused in a public forum should be named by the accuser in cases where folks might be able to guess the photographer's identity. At least then he is free to defend himself.

[Arthur Morris]

The reason for this post though is that as much as we are criticizing him on this forum I don't think he is a member in good standing here and is no longer allowed to post. Shouldn't the owners make a exception and allow him to state his mindset at the time here on BPN ? I doubt it will change our attitudes and conclusions but it would be only fair to give him the opportunity.

Hi Mike, Thanks for raising an excellent question. The problem is that Maxis lost the right to participate on BPN by acting in violation of the posted Guidelines and continuing to do so after he was asked to stop doing so. His response was to generate a massive spam attack against the site.

If you or anyone else would be kind enough to provide a link to his NatureScapes "defense" it would be greatly appreciated. I used quotation marks around the word defense because, as I stated above, his refusal to submit the required RAW files is indefensible. By doing so he not only indicted himself but he convicted himself as well.

Respectfully.

[Ed Erkes]

Seeing someone break the rules and then doing nothing is to me unconscionable. And folks who do that should quit whining about it. If Mr. Erkes were so concerned about the birds and about photographic access why did he choose to remain quiet at the time?

I'm not going to get into an argument with Art about what I should or should not have done at North Chagrin. You can't win an argument with Mr Morris anyway (I've tried in the past). I chose not tell the park officials of the rules violation at North Chagrin at the time partly because I did not want to be seen as a "snitch" and have park personnel confront several individuals in front of a large group of other photographers. Instead I spoke to one photographer in person that day and several others the next day. Unfortunately the words became heated and had no positive effect at all on the situation. I admit I probably should have handled the situation differently, but find it strange that Art should call my behavior (not reporting the incident to officials) "unconscionable", yet he did not seem overly concerned about the rules violations in the first place. He even suggested a way to attract the ducks that did not technically break the rules (but, in my opinion was also unethical and disruptive to other photographers).
Oh. Oh. I've just started an argument. I'll go ahead and concede defeat.

[Arthur Morris]

Just another reason for Photographers to take it upon themselves to state no matter where the photo is shown whether or not the image has been manipulated beyound traditional practices. It is easier to instill that in a photographer at the beginning then the expell and denounce a photographer when it is discovered that they manipulate a photo for whatever reason. We are too quick to judge as a society and denounce the person when it gets encourage to do the same in everyday life. Look deep at your own comments here and see how many times one is told that to make the imafge better they should clone or remove items or add wing tips and such. We should educate at the same time that if you choose to do so you should also state that you did.
Judge others as you would judge yourselves

John, I agree 100% that folks need to let other folks and for editorial uses, let editors know the truth about all of their images. And we encourage folks to do just that here. As for the rest of your remarks, they make no sense to me. Maxis is an adult. Everyone who enters a contest needs to read and understand the rules before entering. It is not our job to tell folks to do that. It is simply common sense.

I encourage folks to improve their images via Clone Stamping, Quick Masking, Layer Masking and Patch Tooling every day but I assume that they will read and abide by the rules of any contest that they enter.

[Lana Hays]

Artie
Here is the direct link to the Naturescapes "defense".

http://naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=165813

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, thanks for the clarification on contest rules - I do appreciate that they might differ from one competition to another. Of course the fact that he would not reveal the RAW files does indeed speak volumes and Roman, of course I agree that to remove an entire bird and claim it as a minimal modification is clearly ludicrous. It is good to know (from Greg's post) that the purity of the RAW file is so highly prized in the big competitions. And I agree that this does cast all of us in a poor light. Best as always, Nicki

Hi Nicki, #1: There some contests that have "anything goes" and or "digital creation" categories (but you do have to read the rules to find out about them...) And in some contest anything goes is the overall rule.

As for the purity of the RAW file comments I would need to take that judge to task for his lack of understanding of digital photography.... It is often correct technique to vastly over-expose a RAW file to produce a file of the highest quality. In the BBC contest cropping, levels, curves, and color adjustments are permitted.

[Roman Kurywczak]

OK....the main question here is to Ed....a bit off topic...you labeled it as "snitch" yet pretend to be concerned about the welfare of the wildlife....which one is it. To me snitch is cowardly (being from NJ)......telling authhorities in what you believe in....is honorable. Which one is it Ed?
I also did ask Maxis for a clarification on NSN....so far no response.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, Here is the direct link to the Naturescapes "defense". http://naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=165813

Thanks Lana. I do not see any "defense" offered. In addition, I know of no National Park in in Florida where this image could have been created. Maybe Maxis would be glad to take a lie detector test and answer this question" "Maxis, was the image that you posted on NatureScapes in your defense created at Fort DeSoto County Park?

Does anyone have a link to the contest rules?

[Lana Hays]

Artie
Here's the link to the contest rules:

http://refugeassociation.org/contest/2009ContestRules2.html

[Ed Erkes]

OK....the main question here is to Ed....a bit off topic...you labeled it as "snitch" yet pretend to be concerned about the welfare of the wildlife....which one is it. To me snitch is cowardly (being from NJ)......telling authorities in what you believe in....is honorable. Which one is it Ed?
I also did ask Maxis for a clarification on NSN....so far no response.
I simply mean that I chose to talk to the individuals involved rather than going to a third party. In my mind that is not cowardly but simply giving the offenders the opportunity to change their behavior without involving others. However, I will readily admit that it was probably not the correct way to handle the situation.
Mea culpa.

[Jeff Donald]

I really don't have a horse in this race and I know almost no one on this board except Artie. But it does seem inappropriate to keep raising issues around Maxis Gamez without allowing him to defend himself on this board. It also seems to me that the only reason this discussion was started was to highlight this person's difficulties.

I was raised that if I don't have something good to say, don't say anything at all. A great deal of this discussion seems very mean spirited and not in the overall best interest of this forum. I think many of the issues being raised are worthy of further discussion. But the continued abuse of someone that can't defend himself is inappropriate to say the least.

[Arthur Morris]

I just posted this at Maxis' "defense" on NSN here: http://naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=165813&p=1647691#p1647691

There is a spirited thread on BPN regarding this issue here http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?p=377415&posted=1#post377415 and Lana Hayes was kind enough to provide a link to this BPN thread.

Some folks are concerned that Maxis does not have the opportunity to defend himself on the BPN thread (because he was banned for numerous and repeated violations of the forum guidelines). Several folks noted that Maxis "defended" himself on this thread.

Since he cannot participate on the BPN thread I gladly look forward to his answers to the following questions (all of which have been asked on the BPN thread) here:

#1: Did the contest rules state that photographers would be required to submit the RAW files for images making it to the final rounds?

#2: Assuming that the answer to that question is yes why did you refuse to submit the RAW files?

#3: Is it your contention that the wonderful image that you have posted above was not created at Fort DeSoto County Park?

ps: Good job on the image optimization of the image above. Looks as if you used a few Quick Masks; did you learn that technique from Robert O'Toole's APTATS CD?

[Arthur Morris]

I really don't have a horse in this race and I know almost no one on this board except Artie. But it does seem inappropriate to keep raising issues around Maxis Gamez without allowing him to defend himself on this board. It also seems to me that the only reason this discussion was started was to highlight this person's difficulties.

I was raised that if I don't have something good to say, don't say anything at all. A great deal of this discussion seems very mean spirited and not in the overall best interest of this forum. I think many of the issues being raised are worthy of further discussion. But the continued abuse of someone that can't defend himself is inappropriate to say the least.

Hi Jeff, Maxis now has a chance to answer lots of our questions at the NSN post. See the link above. I am anxious to see what he has to say. Also as noted previously, Maxis was banned here for repeatedly violating the BPN Guidelines. And then he retaliated with a massive spam attack against BPN. He simply is not welcome here.

If he had read and followed the rules we would not be uttering his name here.

[Arthur Morris]

I simply mean that I chose to talk to the individuals involved rather than going to a third party. In my mind that is not cowardly but simply giving the offenders the opportunity to change their behavior without involving others. However, I will readily admit that it was probably not the correct way to handle the situation. Mea culpa.

Good to see that you are admitting that you were wrong. Are you stating that you talked to the photographer who was violating the rules?

[Arthur Morris]

I'm not going to get into an argument with Art about what I should or should not have done at North Chagrin. You can't win an argument with Mr Morris anyway (I've tried in the past). I chose not tell the park officials of the rules violation at North Chagrin at the time partly because I did not want to be seen as a "snitch" and have park personnel confront several individuals in front of a large group of other photographers. Instead I spoke to one photographer in person that day and several others the next day. Unfortunately the words became heated and had no positive effect at all on the situation. I admit I probably should have handled the situation differently, but find it strange that Art should call my behavior (not reporting the incident to officials) "unconscionable", yet he did not seem overly concerned about the rules violations in the first place. He even suggested a way to attract the ducks that did not technically break the rules (but, in my opinion was also unethical and disruptive to other photographers). Oh. Oh. I've just started an argument. I'll go ahead and concede defeat.

Hard to win an argument when you admit in advance that you were wrong.

And tossing some pebbles into the pond was not a violation of the posted regulations.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, Here's the link to the contest rules:
http://refugeassociation.org/contest/2009ContestRules2.html

Thanks Lana, You are too good.

This is the relevant portion:

Limited image modifications are allowed. The intent and effect of any modification must be to produce a more natural looking and accurate photograph.

Removing a turnstone and two Laughing Gull heads would seem to pretty much everyone to be more than a "limited modification." And in no way could removing three birds be considered to have made the photograph more accurate.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Jeff,
If you look at the 3rd post on NSN.....i asked Maxis to explain himself......as I remembered he was banned for breaking the rules....that IMO is offering him a chance and not being disrespectful at all and I did quote the above rule..."limited"....so my post at 12:42pm (it was actually 11:42 my time) there asking for a response directly from him......is totally appropriate...still no response from Mr. Gamez.

[Raul Quinones]

My $0.02

I am understand that Maxis did violate the contest rules, he also admitted himself, but the biggest lost is I think is that Maxis was (still into my eyes) one of the best new generation photographers. I hope that Maxis learns from his mistakes and keep up producing awesome images and with time redeem himself by keep working at the best of his abilities. I also hope that with time the nature photographers community forgive and forget...

It is hard to understand someones motivation, but, maybe ... there are some economical motivations, it seems that the photography business have become very competitive, mainly when the biggest source of income for photographers is by teaching classes, therefore winning a couple of contest can help an upcoming photographer establish his name...

I have to admit that I have become a lurker more than an active participant since this type of discussion drive me away from this awesome site....

Raul

BTW: I never have the pleasure to meet Maxis, I did exchange a couple messages on this forum when I was starting on the forum.

[Jeff Donald]

Hi Roman,

Thanks for the reply. It just seems inappropriate to me to keep asking questions and making statements about someone when they can't respond. Call it unfair, unjust, Un-American etc. Everyone deserves their day in court. It is immaterial that he was banned here for a previous violation of the forums rules. If there are questions that need to be raised and asked then do so on the forum that he can respond to. Why continue to stir the pot and raise questions here, when he can't respond? What good can come out of it? I understand that people are looking for answers, but raising the questions here when he cannot respond seems mean spirited to me.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Roman,

Thanks for the reply. It just seems inappropriate to me to keep asking questions and making statements about someone when they can't respond. Call it unfair, unjust, Un-American etc. Everyone deserves their day in court. It is immaterial that he was banned here for a previous violation of the forums rules. If there are questions that need to be raised and asked then do so on the forum that he can respond to. Why continue to stir the pot and raise questions here, when he can't respond? What good can come out of it? I understand that people are looking for answers, but raising the questions here when he cannot respond seems mean spirited to me.

Jeff, With all due respect, it seems that you might not be reading the posts above. Several folks have asked questions of Maxis on the NSN thread. So far, he has not responded. As one of the owners of this site we cannot allow access to someone who generated a malicious spam attack against BPN.

Maxis has the opportunity to defend himself on the NSN thread.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Jeff,
I do relate.....That's why I made sure he had a voice and asked on NSN!... I hope he responds.
PS I was typing when Artie responded....read the posts carefully on NSN....Artie provide a link

[Alfred Forns]

My $0.02

but, maybe ... there are some economical motivations, it seems that the photography business have become very competitive, mainly when the biggest source of income for photographers is by teaching classes, therefore winning a couple of contest can help an upcoming photographer establish his name...


Raul

BTW: I never have the pleasure to meet Maxis, I did exchange a couple messages on this forum when I was starting on the forum.

.. wonder how you feel about people doing felonies to support their families Raul? No parallels but the principle is the same.

[Roman Kurywczak]

And Jeff also....Fred Miranda site link where a contestent felt hurt/betrayed; http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/832639
and another wher Maxis posted an image; http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/831540
Like you....I feel he needs to speak up.....many opportunities B4 this.....silence. Maybe he is away.

[Jeff Donald]

This site, and the others have the moral high ground. What more can be gained by the continued asking of questions when no answers seem to be forthcoming. Ask you stated, Maybe he is away, would seem to be accurate because he has not posted on either Fred Miranda or NatureScapes since Friday.

While we wait for Mr. Gamez to reply, maybe the moderators could steer the discussion in a more enlightening and positive direction that would benefit the entire community here at BPN.

[Arthur Morris]

This site, and the others have the moral high ground. What more can be gained by the continued asking of questions when no answers seem to be forthcoming. Ask you stated, Maybe he is away, would seem to be accurate because he has not posted on either Fred Miranda or NatureScapes since Friday.

While we wait for Mr. Gamez to reply, maybe the moderators could steer the discussion in a more enlightening and positive direction that would benefit the entire community here at BPN.

Hi Jeff,

Here is the message that I sent Maxis via his web site:

Hi Maxis, There is a thread involving the disqualification of your images in the NWRA contest here:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49270

Several folks are concerned that you are not able to defend yourself there. I would be glad to post your answers to the various questions that have been posed or to post any defense that you may wish to offer. Please e-mail me at the address above if you wish.

Please note also that Roman K and I have posed several questions for you on the similar NSN thread. We all look forward to hearing you.

Sorry that I did not think of that sooner. On a related note, there are two relevant life-concepts that might be applicable here:

1-You shall reap what you sow.
2-What goes around comes around.

As for steering the thread in a more positive direction I have clearly stated my thoughts above as have others. To summarize: do what you want to an image, let folks know what you have done, and read and abide by the rules of any contests that you enter (and any groups that you choose to join).

[Jeff Donald]

Jeff, With all due respect, it seems that you might not be reading the posts above. Several folks have asked questions of Maxis on the NSN thread. So far, he has not responded. As one of the owners of this site we cannot allow access to someone who generated a malicious spam attack against BPN.

Maxis has the opportunity to defend himself on the NSN thread.

You and I come from similar backgrounds, having both been (actually still are) teachers in our the pasts. I caught a student cheating once (submitted prints that he didn't print) and had him expelled from college. I'm sure this was a life changing event for him. In some ways I probably ruined his life, I think it's said that the average college graduate makes over $1 million more in his lifetime than the average high school graduate. I'd like to think that I changed that student in a positive way and the lessons he learned have benefitted him the rest of his life. Maybe he's gone on to be a successful photographer, I don't know.

I would just like to see this whole life changing event ultimately be a positive one for Mr. Gamez. Hopefully he will learn some ethics along his way and become a productive member of the photographic community.

[Raul Quinones]

.. wonder how you feel about people doing felonies to support their families Raul? No parallels but the principle is the same.

I agree the principle is the same, when people violate the law, they are punish, and eventually they are re-integrate to the general community, I am only wish that the penal system was better, since the re-incidence ratio is too high. So I feel in the same way, Maxis was punish, I hope he learns his lesson and eventually could re-integrate to the nature photography community (as I mentioned before).

I think that the punishment should by according the "crime"... here I got no answers, although it seems that the punishment was that his work was removed from the contest, and the honorary mention publicly removed.

My points is that there are not many young photographers that have the skills and the passion to carry the torch when our senior members are not going to be able or willing to make the sacrifice to make awesome pictures.

Saludos, Raul

[Rocky Sharwell]

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_162680.asp

The news made the Chattanooga paper

[James Shadle]

Here it is straight from Mr. Evan Hirsche, President of The National Wildlife Refuge Association. He was kind enough to answer these questions for me.

James Shadle's Question
Evan Hirsche's Answer

The NWRA disqualification of Mr.Gamez has become a very active thread on birdphotographers.net. Most of the discussion revolves around the rules violation of digitally adding elements in post processing. Do you consider removing an element and replacing it with a sampled area as "adding an element"?
In the case of Mr. Gamez' photo, he clearly added an element that hadn't existed in the original. It may construed as removing an element (in this case birds that existed in the original), but the removal necessitated adding something in their place. We may decide to clarify further in the future, but the intent is clear and there should be no confusion by photographers.

If can tell me, were any images disqualified because their location was misrepresented?
Concerning misrepresentation of location, Mr. Gamez image of a snowy plover chick taken on Egmont Key caught our attention because refuge biologists have no documented nesting of snowy plover chicks on Egmont in recent history. When I explained that fact to Mr. Gamez, he said that he was simply confused and that he takes so many pictures, he's not always sure where he took them. Perhaps, but then he shouldn't enter photos in a contest that have a specific location requirement if he's not sure where he took them.

Our members are also interested in why you named the photographer.
We chose to name Mr. Gamez to send a clear message to photographers that if they enter, their images will be scrutinized and they will be called out if we determine they've willfully violated the rules. Further, we wanted photographers who take pains to follow the rules to know that their integrity is valued and appreciated.

Our contest has a purpose - to collect first-rate images that illustrate the magnificent natural treasures conserved by our national wildlife refuges. If we end up using images in program and marketing materials that are not taken on refuges or create an artificial scene, then our integrity as an organization is compromised and our cause suffers.

Evan,
Thanks for taking the time to set the record straight.
All the best,
James

[Arthur Morris]

My points is that there are not many young photographers that have the skills and the passion to carry the torch when our senior members are not going to be able or willing to make the sacrifice to make awesome pictures. Saludos, Raul

Raul, I am confused by your remarks about us old folks... Please do explain and let us know what that remark has to do with Maxis' conduct.

[Art Peslak]

[quote=James Shadle;377685]Here it is straight from Mr. Evan Hirsche, President of The National Wildlife Refuge Association. He was kind enough to answer these questions for me.

James Shadle's Question
Evan Hirsche's Answer

The NWRA disqualification of Mr.Gamez has become a very active thread on birdphotographers.net. Most of the discussion revolves around the rules violation of digitally adding elements in post processing. Do you consider removing an element and replacing it with a sampled area as "adding an element"?
In the case of Mr. Gamez' photo, he clearly added an element that hadn't existed in the original. It may construed as removing an element (in this case birds that existed in the original), but the removal necessitated adding something in their place. We may decide to clarify further in the future, but the intent is clear and there should be no confusion by photographers.


.

I am not defending what the photographer did here in light of the misrepresentation about the location but I think this organization, and anyone else running a photography competition, needs to provide more clarity in their rules. This guy is equating removal to addition of something that is not there. If the photographer added the second gull in the picture on Naturescapes, i could see their point. I have a problem with this rule if he took out the oof ruddy turnstone on the beach and replaced it with sand. Afterall there was sand behind the bird before he cloned it out. If they are going to disqualify the shot because of something like that, the rule should state no removal of anything from the image is allowed.

[Roman Kurywczak]

[quote=Art Peslak;377907
I am not defending what the photographer did here in light of the misrepresentation about the location but I think this organization, and anyone else running a photography competition, needs to provide more clarity in their rules. This guy is equating removal to addition of something that is not there. If the photographer added the second gull in the picture on Naturescapes, i could see their point. I have a problem with this rule if he took out the oof ruddy turnstone on the beach and replaced it with sand. Afterall there was sand behind the bird before he cloned it out. If they are going to disqualify the shot because of something like that, the rule should state no removal of anything from the image is allowed.[/quote]
So Art,
Are you saying that removing a good portion of 2 birds falls within "Limited image modifications"?.....because that is what the very first rule states.

[Art Peslak]

Roman,
what I am saying is if one is going to run a photo contest, be clear about the rules. Especially if you are intent on embarassing the **** out of the photographer by issuing press releases that are getting picked up in the national press.

If you don't want anyone to remove anything from the photo, the rules should say that. I have entered photo contests where the rules say you can't add anything in. I would not interpret that to mean I can't remove anything.

[Raul Quinones]

Raul, I am confused by your remarks about us old folks... Please do explain and let us know what that remark has to do with Maxis' conduct.

Mr. Morris,

As I mentioned in both replies, I don't think that cheating is an acceptable behavior, I said he should (an have already been punish). I am not sure if the punishment fits the behavior, but this definitely harder question to the "what is right and wrong?" ... just look at our judicial system.

Regarding age difference, my point is very simple, I believe that future generations should have the same opportunities that my generation have,been able to enjoy the work of talented photographers documenting nature, with the hope that their work will generate the desire to preserve wildlife.


Aside from the controversy on the contest, Mr. Gamez does have the skills and passion (on my humble opinion, from his work), and he is young, again I hope he learns from his mistakes. I also hope this serve as a lesson for other upcoming photographers.


Raul

[Ken Watkins]

It seems in this particular case there was an alltogether too clear violation of the rules, and quite correctly the organisers withdrew the images.
This in my mind is perfectly fair!
My concern is that the strict interpretation of rules is not always upheld by all contests.

This is one of the rules of BBCWPTY

"Adjusting your image Digital adjustments are only acceptable if limited to minor cleaning work, levels, curves, colour, saturation and contrast work. The faithful representation of what you saw at the time of the shot being taken must be maintained.”

I still have no idea how the winners for the past two years, each taken remotely with nobody present fail to breach this rule.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Oh nooooooo! Not that can of worms again!!!
This gave me a good chuckle today.....so I will share;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk

[Arthur Morris]

Roman, what I am saying is if one is going to run a photo contest, be clear about the rules. Especially if you are intent on embarassing the **** out of the photographer by issuing press releases that are getting picked up in the national press. If you don't want anyone to remove anything from the photo, the rules should say that. I have entered photo contests where the rules say you can't add anything in. I would not interpret that to mean I can't remove anything.

Art, with all due respect, the rules state: "Limited image modifications are allowed. The intent and effect of any modification must be to produce a more natural looking and accurate photograph."

Removing a turnstone and two Laughing Gull heads is clearly more than a "limited modification." And in no way could removing three birds be considered to have made the photograph "more accurate."

In addition, Maxis entered an image of a nesting Snowy Plover as having been created at Egmont Key where they have never been recorded as nesting. His "defense" was that he takes lots of images and got confused. That is patently ridiculous; I have been photographing for almost 27 years now, have taken probably close to a million images (film and digital combined) and though my memory is poor (and gets poorer every day) if you showed me any one of them I could with very rare exception (as most photographers could) tell you instantly exactly where it was photographed.

[Arthur Morris]

Mr. Morris,

As I mentioned in both replies, I don't think that cheating is an acceptable behavior, I said he should (an have already been punish). I am not sure if the punishment fits the behavior, but this definitely harder question to the "what is right and wrong?" ... just look at our judicial system.

Regarding age difference, my point is very simple, I believe that future generations should have the same opportunities that my generation have,been able to enjoy the work of talented photographers documenting nature, with the hope that their work will generate the desire to preserve wildlife.

Aside from the controversy on the contest, Mr. Gamez does have the skills and passion (on my humble opinion, from his work), and he is young, again I hope he learns from his mistakes. I also hope this serve as a lesson for other upcoming photographers. Raul

Raul, I am not quite sure how Maxis has been punished. I would call having his images disqualified as him getting what was his just due and in no way do I see that as punishment. And as for us old folks losing our will to make the sacrifices needed to create great images, don't count on it.

[david cramer]

I've never had the good fortune of an older photographer stepping aside so that I can take his/her place. It's always been the case that they step aside because the better shot is a couple of feet over.:)

While the public nature of this discussion may make some folks understandably uncomfortable, I find this to be immensely helpful. A respectful, honest discussion about what we do as photographers can only help the profession as a whole. There are not many online forums that provide this service. Like any group, we are a compilation of many types of personalities, and each of us has to deal with how we manage our ambitions. This seems to be a case of ambition going to far, although I too await the responses of the person in center. I sincerely believe in redemption, and hope that this episode will go that direction. Either way, I am grateful for this thread and those who have contributed.

The current thread on "how close" we should get to our subjects, and the thread on use of audio in the ER section, are both enlightening as well.

[Art Peslak]

Art, with all due respect, the rules state: "Limited image modifications are allowed. The intent and effect of any modification must be to produce a more natural looking and accurate photograph."

Removing a turnstone and two Laughing Gull heads is clearly more than a "limited modification." And in no way could removing three birds be considered to have made the photograph "more accurate."

In addition, Maxis entered an image of a nesting Snowy Plover as having been created at Egmont Key where they have never been recorded as nesting. His "defense" was that he takes lots of images and got confused. That is patently ridiculous; I have been photographing for almost 27 years now, have taken probably close to a million images (film and digital combined) and though my memory is poor (and gets poorer every day) if you showed me any one of them I could with very rare exception (as most photographers could) tell you instantly exactly where it was photographed.

Artie,
I am not defending what Maxis did here. I agree with you that misrepresenting the location is patently ridiculous. My memory is not as good as yours so i always rename my photographs with the location as part of the file name when I ingest the photos into my computer. There is no excuse for what he did on the location.

My point is that there is an ambiguity in the rules of the contest and the association may not have been acting prudently by sending out press releases. Maxis admitted extensively modifying the photos in his naturescapes post and it is clear that it took a lot of work to take out the heads of the oof background gulls underneath the in focus gull.

I will give you a hypothetical to illustrate my point on the ambiguity in the rules and tell me if it fits these rules or not. If Maxis' shot on NSN did not have the out of focus gulls in the water but only had the oof ruddy turnstone in the foreground which could be removed by a simple quick mask from the sand, is that a "limited modification...to produce a more natural looking and accurate photograph."

BTW, a judge once told me not to preface my comments with "All due respect.." because usually that meant the lawyer was going to tell him he was wrong.:)

[Daniel Cadieux]

If a rule is indeed ambiguous then err on the side of caution...why take a chance? Not worth the consequences as we can see with this situation.

[Raul Quinones]

... And as for us old folks losing our will to make the sacrifices needed to create great images, don't count on it.\

I am not counting on it. I do enjoy your work, and the fact that you share it on the internet, so is accessible to millions. I wish you many years of productive healthy life.
We also know that you are not going to be able to do it for ever, we need some talented young photographer to keep producing amazing images, after all skills to make extra ordinary images (consistently) are obtained over a lifetime.

Note: This is from somebody with limited knowledge of photography and the photography business... I just love to browse the net, look a book, or go to nature centers around Florida to admire what a very few are able to do with a camera.

Saludos, Raul

[Nicki Gwynn Jones]

Hi Artie,
Thanks for the clarification (post #37). Like David Cramer, I too am grateful for this thread.
Best as always,
Nicki

[david cramer]

"Limited image modifications are allowed. The intent and effect of any modification must be to produce a more natural looking and accurate photograph."

I don't find this to be at all ambiguous. With the digital age, most photo contests allow for minor adjustments to a RAW file to make the image "more natural looking." This includes minor dust spot removal and adjustments to levels, curves, saturation, and sharpening. This is how we develop a digital file, just as one takes certain steps to develop film. The inclusion of the term "accurate" means that the image represents the content of the scene as photographed. Adding or deleting elements from the scene (note - a dust spot is on the sensor, not in the scene) would result in an inaccurate representation, regardless of how it improved the image in terms of overall beauty.

[Fabs Forns]

I have stayed out of this as much as possible but would like to tell Raul (Whom I personally know and respect) that carrying a torch while cheating at the same time is hardly a way to benefit future generations.
Integrity and honesty as just as important as talent if you want to be taken seriously.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Raul,

re:

I am not counting on it. I do enjoy your work, and the fact that you share it on the internet, so is accessible to millions. I wish you many years of productive healthy life.

Thank you sir.

We also know that you are not going to be able to do it for ever, we need some talented young photographer to keep producing amazing images, after all skills to make extra ordinary images (consistently) are obtained over a lifetime.

I do hope that those talented young photographers can show respect for photography and for the folks that they have learned from. To do otherwise is to dishonor both.

I just love to browse the net, look a book, or go to nature centers around Florida to admire what a very few are able to do with a camera.

Me too!

[James Shadle]

NWRA Rule: Do not add any elements or objects that do not exist in the original scene.
NWRA Decision: In the case of Mr. Gamez' photo, he clearly added an element that hadn't existed in the original. It may construed as removing an element (in this case birds that existed in the original), but the removal necessitated adding something in their place.
Art Peslak's Opinion: My point is that there is an ambiguity in the rules of the contest.
My Opinion: Reading the rules and the NWRA decision, there is no ambiguity.

Raul said: I think is that Maxis was (still into my eyes) one of the best new generation photographers.
My Opinion: Is that the case, or is he one of the best new generation Photoshop editors? If someone adds or subtracts elements in a contests where it is against the rules, can you trust their other images to be legitimate? Could unchecked ambition or desire for recognition motivate someone to take short cuts and make themselves seem like a better photographer than they are?

Ed said: I didn't quite understand the purpose of singling out the individual, unless it was to shame or embarass him.
NWRA said: We chose to name Mr. Gamez to send a clear message to photographers that if they enter, their images will be scrutinized and they will be called out if we determine they've willfully violated the rules. Further, we wanted photographers who take pains to follow the rules to know that their integrity is valued and appreciated.
My Opinion: If the photographer had not been named, there would be a shadow of suspicion cast on all who entered and did not have images displayed on the NWRA's website.

[Jay Gould]

I find all of this discussion so very unbelievalble. Can a photo contest be that important; can any contest be more important than your integrity?

Isn't it how you play the game; not whether you win or lose?

[Raul Quinones]

I have stayed out of this as much as possible but would like to tell Raul (Whom I personally know and respect) that carrying a torch while cheating at the same time is hardly a way to benefit future generations.
Integrity and honesty as just as important as talent if you want to be taken seriously.

Fabiola,

I hope you know that the respect is mutual, for you and Alfred. I respect your opinion, but I belief that most people are good, and people learn from their mistakes.

(BTW... I not talking about hard core criminal, people with mental problems, ....)

In previous post I said: "I don't think that cheating is an acceptable behavior"
and also: "I hope that Maxis learns from his mistakes"

I believe we all make mistakes trough our lives, and we deal with the consequence. Some people are fortunate to learn from their mistakes, and we, as a society should give this small group a second opportunity. I am not saying that this is the case here, is too early to know, but I really wish the best to Maxis.

You are right Integrity, honesty are important, but I will like to add a couple more... understanding and forgiveness.

Raul

[john crookes]

While i do not condone what mr Maxis did in the contest I also do not condone the behavior of this site and the reaction to a former member of the site

There seams to be a personal vendeta against MR Maxis here

If former forums that asked whether or not manipulation should be disclosed there were a lot of members and some moderators that condoned the issue of not telling if an image is modified

Mr Arhtur Morris was not among them but a number of moderators were.

When we condone that activity in everyday life who are we to condem the same practice in any other field

Mr Maxis has already paid the price of his mis deeds and further degrading of his personna here without the benifit of him being a member borders on criminal

I do believe there are too many hypocrits residing here

Those who live in glass houses

John

[Jamie Strickland]

There is a reason he is a former member of the site, that is certainly not going to help his cause on here for some members i am sure.

The rules seem pretty simple to me so I don't see how anyone can clone out 3 birds in one photo and think that's acceptable, although looking at it I had no clue it was done

It will be interesting to see what modifications were made on the other photos. I mean its easy enough to say I took the picture at a location and got mixed up, things like that could happen. Even the picture that he showed with the birds remove maybe he forgot he did it. However putting those 2 and even more pictures together seems to me it was done on purpose.

If he could not come up with good enough reason for them to believe I can see why they spilled the beans. Hopefully its a lesson to him and it will make people think twice before they try the same thing.

[Fabs Forns]

While i do not condone what mr Maxis did in the contest I also do not condone the behavior of this site and the reaction to a former member of the site

There seams to be a personal vendeta against MR Maxis here

If former forums that asked whether or not manipulation should be disclosed there were a lot of members and some moderators that condoned the issue of not telling if an image is modified

Mr Arhtur Morris was not among them but a number of moderators were.

When we condone that activity in everyday life who are we to condem the same practice in any other field

Mr Maxis has already paid the price of his mis deeds and further degrading of his personna here without the benifit of him being a member borders on criminal

I do believe there are too many hypocrits residing here

Those who live in glass houses

John

John, this is not about cloning, and I know cloning is a sensitive issue for you.
This is about not abiding rules.

Trying to pass something as a legit image when it has been modified, seems a lot more criminal to me than discussing it in a forum where we are all photographers and to a point, are affected by another photgrapher's behavior.

If you read carefully, Mr Gamez has a lot of open question in NSN and has declined to make his defense. We even provided a link here.

If we discuss the BBC, and NB contests why not discuss the NWRA?

[Arthur Morris]

Hi John,

re:

While i do not condone what mr Maxis did in the contest I also do not condone the behavior of this site and the reaction to a former member of the site. There seams to be a personal vendeta against MR Maxis here.

Please see my next post.

If former forums that asked whether or not manipulation should be disclosed there were a lot of members and some moderators that condoned the issue of not telling if an image is modified

Mr Arthur Morris was not among them but a number of moderators were.

I am glad that you remember the "Truth in Posting" thread that I started on NSN :) And yes, lots of folks felt that it was fine that they do what they want to with no need to tell anyone. Some of them have to their benefit changed their tunes. And we do encourage folks here to optimize and tell :)

When we condone that activity in everyday life who are we to condemn the same practice in any other field.

Several folks have advanced this argument but it makes zero sense to me. For posting images, making prints, selling images, do what you wish and let the buyers/photo editors/forum participants know what you have done. I have been preaching that for about seven years now. But to argue that because folks routinely optimize their images by removing, adding, and substituting that there actions should be condoned when the knowingly violate the rules of a contest simply does not cut it. As I said above, it makes no sense at all (if I am understanding you correctly).

Mr Maxis has already paid the price of his mis-deeds and further degrading of his personna here without the benifit of him being a member borders on criminal

As stated above several times I have let Maxis know that I would be glad to post one of more statements that he might wish to make here. He has not responded here and he has not responded to the questions asked of him on the NSN thread. If Maxis feels that he has been libeled or slandered here (I forget which would be the applicable term) here he is of course free to institute a law suit.

I do believe there are too many hypocrits residing here.

Are you saying that folks who use Photoshop to improve their images should not be commenting here? If yes, that again makes no sense.

Those who live in glass houses

I use Photoshop to improve my images. I do not enter these images in contests where doing so would be in violation of the rules. I am entitled to throw a few stones when they are deserved. Again, do see my next post.

John[/quote]

[Roman Kurywczak]

While i do not condone what mr Maxis did in the contest I also do not condone the behavior of this site and the reaction to a former member of the site

There seams to be a personal vendeta against MR Maxis here

If former forums that asked whether or not manipulation should be disclosed there were a lot of members and some moderators that condoned the issue of not telling if an image is modified

Mr Arhtur Morris was not among them but a number of moderators were.

When we condone that activity in everyday life who are we to condem the same practice in any other field

Mr Maxis has already paid the price of his mis deeds and further degrading of his personna here without the benifit of him being a member borders on criminal

I do believe there are too many hypocrits residing here

Those who live in glass houses

John
Interesting John,
You name harsh words such as "Vendeta"...and yet you don't provide the link to others so they can decide for themselves if your claim is on topic! On this forum I always give people other options to improve their image.....as far as I know, no one on this site says this is what you need to do to cheat in a competition. For the record also....I was the first.....BPN moderator or otherwise....who gave Maxis a voice on NSN....no response all these hours later.....so how dare you make that statement! Bring the proof and not inuendoes.......otherwise.....you are looking like an A**!

[Roman Kurywczak]

Oh BTW.....please do state for the record if you are friends with Maxis.....have taken his workshops....etc. ....because if you check all my replies to him....you will see as well as on NSN....that I thought he was a fine photographer.....my question to him on NSN is and still will be .....why?

[john crookes]

As a member of NSN that is up to him to respond there. As a non-member of this site we should leave the story and stop condeming him here.

I am not in defense of the man but I think we would be much better served if we educate others here to fully divulge no matter where the image is shown

If we teach from the beginning maybe we can help avoid a simular happening in the future

When one turns a blind eye in our daily lidfe how can we condem when the act happens in another arena

Artie states that this is the number one educational nature photography site on the web

well let us educate not be hypocrits

It is all of our best interests if we try to educate all to tell what they have done to a photograph

even if it is to be shown to just one other

John

[john crookes]

for the record I have never met maxis or taken any workshops what so ever from any one here never mind Maxis

You are missing my point about educating all so this does not happen in the future

Once again some here do not read everything but are quick to jump down one's throat for a single line read everything please

[Arthur Morris]

John, Please let us know via a direct link to the post or posts of any BPN owner or moderator who has not asked folks to disclose what they did to create their images either in the field or at the computer or who has suggested that they instead conceal that information.

And, this thread is serving to reinforce the premise that it is always best to disclose.

[Roman Kurywczak]

John,
Did you read my replies? Did you go see my question to him on NSN?
PS Thanks Artie for asking John to provide the link....I am very interested!

[john crookes]

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7355

a former discussion Artie

Please read that and the other about remove that distraction and you will see that some moderators felt that disclosure was not needed or called for

[john crookes]

Yes i did read your replys and that is fine for NSN where he can decide whether or not to answer But the fact is that he can not reply here either through a personell email or not we should just report the story and then educate about the actions not continue to mention the person

[Arthur Morris]

Yes, I do feel that folks can learn from their mistakes.
Yes, I do feel that that folks should be forgiven.
And, do not be shocked here, I feel that Maxis is quite a talented photographer.

I cannot however ignore the following:
1-Maxis was banned from BPN for his failure to follow the Forum Guidelines despite repeated requests to do so.
2-Maxis then generated a massive and malicious spam attack against BPN.
3-Maxis drove a jet ski up to the shore of the island at Alafia Banks where spoonbills nest. The machine was incredibly loud. I firmly believe that because of the tremendous noise generated by jet skis that they should not be within a mile of any rookery island.
4-Maxis entered images in the NWRA contest that were in violation of the rules involving image manipulation and locations. Maxis' NSN post seems to state that he knew that the image was in violation of the contest rules. In that posts he implies clearly that Photoshop instructors
5-Maxis is currently offering to do Quick Mask slide shows for local camera clubs. Maxis learned to use Quick Masks either from Robert O'Toole or from Robert's APTATS I CD. As far as I know, Robert was the first to utilize Quick Masks for nature photography and has generously shared his knowledge. For Maxis to offer a slide program based solely on the techniques developed and taught by another professional is at best disrespectful.
6-Furthermore, in his NSN post:

Hello,

Thank you for posting this. Let's look at the image above. This is the perfect opportunity to ask ourselves how much is too much? Let this be an eye opener to all and let’s turn it into something positive.
Is it really worth OVER editing our images?
Are we becoming more editors than photographers?
Are there photographers teaching extensive image editing worth it?
Is it worth removing that stick in the background?
Is it worth fixing every part of our photographs?
Should we photograph for a photo contest or should we photograph thinking that we can edit that image later?
Since some edit images to the extreme, should they simply stay away from photo contest? Because they know they will violate every rule?
Today I got a phone call from a camera club president that was told about the press release. She mentioned the dilemma of several club members have in every meeting and their “Photoshop cr**”. The constant battle over editing images to the extreme and that’s just ONE camera club.
The bottom line is this probably an ethic type of question BUT is our “extensive” ethic appropriate? In my own opinion……. obviously NOT.

There are several photographers advertising extensive Photoshop image editing techniques to “enhance” our images. Not to mention how many tutorials you can find online. Some go as far as removing subject’s body parts, and replace it with the next frame, taking or extracting parts of photographs and so on… The list is endless.

I’ve just learned that it not worth it. Let this be a lesson to you. It’s not worth editing our images to the extreme. Let's look at the image above. Would you call that extensive editing? Obviously Yes! Let’s get it right straight out of the sensor. Happy shooting! Maxis Gamez

Does anyone see a pattern?

(Note: Maxis never makes it clear if the Laughing Gull image that accompanies his post we one of the images that was removed from the judging.)

What is ludicrous about his comments above is that he while he is insulting and demeaning folks who teach others to use the latest technologies (including Photoshop) to improve their images out of one side of his mouth while peddling his skills as a Photoshop instructor to local camera clubs out of the other side.

Maxis has been desperate in his desire to get ahead in the industry but I do believe that with his actions of the past few months noted above he is doing just the opposite.

[john crookes]

a Quote from a moderator

It's funny but the more I read the posts it comes down to manipulate or not to manipulate at all or you can do this but not that or this example is over the line and what you can manipulate in a dark room is OK.
Photography is an accepted art form. It differs from painting in many ways but one significant difference is you need a piece of equiptment to get your image. To some that can be the end result or to others that can be the starting point now that darkroom manipulation has expanded to the computer.
Do most artists tell everything they did to create an effect. I don't think so. You go to a show and look at their work and wonder! Should a photographer state after each displayed image the 27 steps he made to get it to that level when he displays at a show? I wouldn't and I don't think most would.
<!-- / message -->

<!-- sig -->
__________________
Dave Mills
<!-- / sig -->

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey John,
I am heading out in 2 minutes and will read the thread when I ge back....but I will leave you with this thought.....I am the father of 2 sons...15 and 13.....my father, who is still with me, taught me personal responsibility which I have taught to my sons......go to my the link on Fred Miranda .com on one of my above responses.....and see Maxis's response after the incident happened and someone asked him about it......his reply on NSN after it was disclosed was not assuming personal responsability....it was a warning to us....to take note of contest rules....so here goes...Jay Gould mentioned integrity....my father taught me that and I am looking to pass it on to my sons....not once, and he has had the oppotunity....has Maxis taken responsibility for his actions???! I offer this....how would you feel if you entered the contest and weren't chosen? I believe in integrity.....all the other stuff is BS!

[john crookes]

Again I am not here to defen Maxis
I think he got what he deserved

But to use this forum to continue to degrade a person who can not do anything to say in defense is just not right

He is banned from that is fine

he got what he deserved I guess so report the other story and then educate

Not keep going back to the person and continuing to raise issues about the person and not the problem of manipulation of images and not being forthcoming about it

with that said you can remove myself from membership as I see no way I can be a Hypocrit to this myself

thanks for the couple of years and all of the fine images that were shared here


John

[Raul Quinones]

I believe in integrity.....all the other stuff is BS![/quote]

WOW! Really! I am glad that most people in society don't share your views.

[john crookes]

Integrity is just one piece of the puzzle and if you choose that as your only piece then i feel sorry for you

And I feel sorry for any feelings I may have hurt while here but it is my belief that I intended only to be the better that I can be and try to educate the same to others

I am not the first to be jumped on here by certain moderators nor will i be the last

I hate to see a site that was trying to be good for photography turn into such a vengefull arena

The past has happened let it go and go forth and educate so as to not relive it

[Ed Erkes]

Hard to win an argument when you admit in advance that you were wrong.

And tossing some pebbles into the pond was not a violation of the posted regulations.

Re Feeding ducks at North Chagrin:
Art, as with previous correspondence we've had, we seem to have trouble detecting when the other is being sarcastic.

And yes, tossing gravel is not in violation of the rules, but it is unethical in my opinion. It only works to attract wood ducks because many others have been illegally feeding them. It disrupts their normal behavior (which could be considered harassment). Also if tossing pebbles draws the ducks toward you and away from other photographers, then you are being selfish and interfering with the rights of other photographers.
In addition, you apparently weren't too concerned about the rules violations in the first place when you stated in your email to me "To get around the no-feeding ban--heck, without folks feeding there would be fewer Wood Ducks and possibly no Wood Duck Festival--I simply toss handfuls of gravel....". In the first place, feeding the wood ducks corn does not necessarily increase their abundance-- it is more probably the habitat and available natural food that attracts the ducks. This is readily apparent if you visit some of the other ponds in the area. I saw more wood ducks in the three ponds at Oxbow lagoon than at the ponds behind the visitor center. Waterfowl management is the responsibility of the park biologists. To justify the selfish actions of photographers (and other visitors) by implying that their rule-breaking actions are responsible for the presence of the wood ducks and thus the Wood Duck Festival IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
This type of circular, irrational logic is the reason you never lose an argument (sarcasm again).

[Arthur Morris]

I agree with everything that Fabs stated above (Pane #83) and with most everything that James Shadle said above in Pane #78. Everything but this In part):

Raul said: I think is that Maxis was (still into my eyes) one of the best new generation photographers.

My Opinion: Is that the case, or is he one of the best new generation Photoshop editors? If someone adds or subtracts elements in a contests where it is against the rules, can you trust their other images to be legitimate? Could unchecked ambition or desire for recognition motivate someone to take short cuts and make themselves seem like a better photographer than they are?

As I stated above I do believe that Maxis is a pretty darned good photographer. And Ansel Adams was a pretty good image editor. And I am pretty good with Photoshop. And I am a firm believer in JIJO; junk in = junk out. James pretty much presents his images as they looked in the viewfinder. That is his call and I respect that. I will spend 30 minutes at times improving a single image. I am fine with that. I let folks know what I do. Whose approach is better? James' approach for James, mine for me.

My belief is that I am simply using the latest technology to create images that make me and others happy and images that sell.

As we all know by now James and I do agree that entering one or more images that are in violation of the contest rules and then refusing to submit the RAW files might not have been the best plan for getting ahead.

Respectfully.

[John Hawkins]

I saw Max at Ding Darling last week. I didn't get a chance to introduce myself. At the time I wasn't quite sure if it was him or not. Someone else confirmed it tho. He has a display of his photos on display in their visitors center.

[Mike Tracy]

This has really taken on a life of it's own. I find it curious that here on BPN members seem to take a much more personal interest based on the amount of posts compared to a similar thread on NSN.

I feel that the parties that have weighed in to date have rightfully so expressed their disappointment, shock and a myriad of other emotions. To keep emphasizing your previous stated position is just beating a dead horse and serves no constructive purpose. I have also noticed what some might take as mud slinging which is not conducive to build a sense of community here and will only fracture the "relationships " we have built amongst ourselves.

Some very good points have been made not just in regards to Maxis but our approach to editing and disclosure.

I wish this was my site as this would be the last word and the thread would be locked.

[Fabs Forns]

I wish this was my site as this would be the last word and the thread would be locked.

So yours would be the last word?

[Mike Tracy]

So yours would be the last word?

No, but someone needs to have it and if you want to I would be obliged.

[john crookes]

5-Maxis is currently offering to do Quick Mask slide shows for local camera clubs. Maxis learned to use Quick Masks either from Robert O'Toole or from Robert's APTATS I CD. As far as I know, Robert was the first to utilize Quick Masks for nature photography and has generously shared his knowledge. For Maxis to offer a slide program based solely on the techniques developed and taught by another professional is at best disrespectful


Are you saying that no one can teach this technique other than Robert If you use that logic then none of us can teach anything only the person that invented it

in that case Robert would not be able to teach either

None of us would be able to

Unrealistic and that post seamed to be very vengefull to me Sorry Artie but I call them as I see them

I do not Believe Robert invented the quick mask as it has resided in photodshop for some time he just showed it to a new audience as Maxis is doing

That remark has nothing to do with this forum and only serves as a vengefull outlet on your part

[Fabs Forns]

No, but someone needs to have it and if you want to I would be obliged.

I really don't see the need to stop a discussion because it touches a personal friend of yours.

[Mike Tracy]

I really don't see the need to stop a discussion because it touches a personal friend of yours.

I don't consider Maxis anymore of a personal friend whom I shot with twice this spring then I do one of BPNS own publishers Robert Amoruso whom I had on my boat both times Maxis was with me.

Your logic is flawed.

[Fabs Forns]

I don't consider Maxis anymore of a personal friend whom I shot with twice this spring then I do one of BPNS own publishers Robert Amoruso whom I had on my boat both times Maxis was with me.

Your logic is flawed.

Coincidence?

[Mike Tracy]

Coincidence?

You lost me.

If I recall I extended a invitation to you to come out to shoot Kites with me. If you had would that make us friends, no, it would have been a professional arrangement ?

[Ramon M. Casares]

I understand that people are looking for answers, but raising the questions here when he cannot respond seems mean spirited to me.

I agree Jeff and that is why mi opinion about this matter was posted in Naturescapes.
And about Maxis responding or not there, I actually believe that he doesn't owe any of us any explanation, and he doesn't need to be forgiven by us... what are we better in anyway? If something he will have to explain himself with the contest coordinators.. as much, but us asking for answers and explanations and discussing if he will be ever forgiven is just too much to me. I think everybody is over reacting and making a bigger issue that what it sohld've been as this things probably happen in every contest there is out there.

Best wishes to all. :)

[Raul Quinones]

I agree with everything that Fabs stated above (Pane #83) and with most everything that James Shadle said above in Pane #78. Everything but this In part):

Raul said: I think is that Maxis was (still into my eyes) one of the best new generation photographers.

My Opinion: Is that the case, or is he one of the best new generation Photoshop editors? If someone adds or subtracts elements in a contests where it is against the rules, can you trust their other images to be legitimate? Could unchecked ambition or desire for recognition motivate someone to take short cuts and make themselves seem like a better photographer than they are?

As I stated above I do believe that Maxis is a pretty darned good photographer. And Ansel Adams was a pretty good image editor. And I am pretty good with Photoshop. And I am a firm believer in JIJO; junk in = junk out. James pretty much presents his images as they looked in the viewfinder. That is his call and I respect that. I will spend 30 minutes at times improving a single image. I am fine with that. I let folks know what I do. Whose approach is better? James' approach for James, mine for me.

My belief is that I am simply using the latest technology to create images that make me and others happy and images that sell.

As we all know by now James and I do agree that entering one or more images that are in violation of the contest rules and then refusing to submit the RAW files might not have been the best plan for getting ahead.

Respectfully.


Not sure I follow your comments... after all English is my second Language.
I think we agree that using manipulated pictures for a contest was wrong,
We both agree that Maxis is a pretty good photographer
We agree that he is also good in PS....

Now this when I got lost "can you trust their other images to be legitimate?"
If the images are not part of a contest, there should not be trust issues, unless the images are use for editorial purposes, if the are artistic representation image editing should be ok....

Could unchecked ambition or desire for recognition motivate someone to take short cuts and make themselves seem like a better photographer than they are?
This goes back to using manipulated images for a photo contest is wrong.


Now that we have dissected all my post, can somebody comment on the following comment by one of the moderators: " I believe in integrity.....all the other stuff is BS!"
Love, Knowledge, compassion, ... All this and more is just BS?

Thanks
Raul

[john crookes]

one of the opening statements in avian


For posting and critiquing avian images. Images may included minor hand of man elements. If your subject is captive, please disclose that fact.
Moderators: <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->Fabs Forns (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=3) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Arthur Morris (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=7) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Juan Aragonés (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=722) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Tony Whitehead (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=1942) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Doug Brown (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=110) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Axel Hildebrandt (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=39) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Daniel Cadieux (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=444) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Randy Stout (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=3391) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->

Why do we ask if a subject is captive please inform but if a image is manuipulated not to inform when I asked this question a long time ago the owners and moderators replyed that they would not ask or post such a question to the viewers

Again I ask why not post it as a guideline to inform others when you have manipulated a photo

Again not a rule just a guideline

[Arthur Morris]

one of the opening statements in avian


For posting and critiquing avian images. Images may included minor hand of man elements. If your subject is captive, please disclose that fact.
Moderators: <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->Fabs Forns (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=3) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Arthur Morris (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=7) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Juan Aragonés (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=722) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Tony Whitehead (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=1942) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Doug Brown (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=110) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Axel Hildebrandt (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=39) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Daniel Cadieux (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=444) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->, Randy Stout (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/member.php?u=3391) <!-- END TEMPLATE: forumhome_moderator -->

Why do we ask if a subject is captive please inform but if a image is manuipulated not to inform when I asked this question a long time ago the owners and moderators replyed that they would not ask or post such a question to the viewers

Again I ask why not post it as a guideline to inform others when you have manipulated a photo

Again not a rule just a guideline

John, Thanks. You have made a valid point above. I shall discuss it with the team and hope to have something in place soon.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Raul,

re:

Now this when I got lost "can you trust their other images to be legitimate?"

If the images are not part of a contest, there should not be trust issues, unless the images are use for editorial purposes, if the are artistic representation image editing should be ok....

I agree. My point would be that if someone misrepresents an image in a contest can they be trusted at all? It's the old once a cheater always a cheater syndrome.

Could unchecked ambition or desire for recognition motivate someone to take short cuts and make themselves seem like a better photographer than they are?

This goes back to using manipulated images for a photo contest is wrong.

Yes, but also to the other points that I raised in my post in Pane #93 above.

Now that we have dissected all my post, can somebody comment on the following comment by one of the moderators: " I believe in integrity.....all the other stuff is BS!"
Love, Knowledge, compassion, ... All this and more is just BS?


Without putting words in Roman's mouth I believe that he was saying that once you have lost your integrity you may have lost everything. If someone's wife loves them dearly, is brilliant, and is compassionate yet they know them to be a liar and a cheat I am thinking that the love, knowledge, and compassion would not count for much.

Would you not agree?

[Arthur Morris]

are we better in anyway?

Most of us are better in one way: we do not cheat in contests that we enter. In addition, as I stated clearly in Pane #93 above, this is just one example of Maxis' recent actions that have done anything but help his career. A clear pattern is evident.

Maxis is of course free to do what he wishes but in this industry what goes around usually comes around.

I do hope that Maxis sees the light and works hard to improve both his reputation and his standing in the world of nature photography. Somebody on NSN wrote that this would all be forgotten in a week or two.

Perhaps in a decade or two might be more accurate.

[Arthur Morris]

5-Maxis is currently offering to do Quick Mask slide shows for local camera clubs. Maxis learned to use Quick Masks either from Robert O'Toole or from Robert's APTATS I CD. As far as I know, Robert was the first to utilize Quick Masks for nature photography and has generously shared his knowledge. For Maxis to offer a slide program based solely on the techniques developed and taught by another professional is at best disrespectful


Are you saying that no one can teach this technique other than Robert If you use that logic then none of us can teach anything only the person that invented it

in that case Robert would not be able to teach either

None of us would be able to

Unrealistic and that post seamed to be very vengefull to me Sorry Artie but I call them as I see them

I do not Believe Robert invented the quick mask as it has resided in photodshop for some time he just showed it to a new audience as Maxis is doing

That remark has nothing to do with this forum and only serves as a vengefull outlet on your part

I have no problem with your voicing your opinion here John but your reasoning is way off base. Maxis' action with regards to Quick Masking show a total lack of respect for the profession. I teach Quick Masking techniques and even include the basics of QMing in Digital Basics. In every case Robert's name is mentioned. Often.

When one professional has developed and taught a community a given technique, it is common practice that other professionals do not develop an entire program based on that technique. Mention it with credit to the person who came up with the idea? Sure. Cover the basics while crediting that person? Sure. But developing a whole program without ever mentioning the person's name. Not cool.

My understanding is that Maxis has been giving away lots of Robert's QMing techniques on another site and that he has never once mentioned Robert's name. Not cool. His actions show a total lack of respect for Robert and for all photographic educators. There are certain lines that folks with integrity simply do not cross. It seems that Maxis is willing to cross any line in order to advance his career. Quite sad.

And as I have been saying repeatedly, the pattern is quite evident to those who open their eyes.