Wildlife winner stripped of award

[Deborah Harrison]

A sad day for nature photographers

** Wildlife photo stripped of award **
The winner of a major wildlife photography award is disqualified because the wolf featured in his photograph was likely a "model".
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8470962.stm >


** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/email >

[Richard Peters]

There's a good interview with Mark Carwardine, the head judge, about it all here (http://www.photoradar.com/news/story/wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2010-“no-captive-animals-allowed).

Very sad that this whole thing happened :(

[Lance Peters]

OMG - Sad Sad day - the desire to achieve greatness is overwhelming in some.

[Doug Brown]

A real shame!

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

I guess some will do ANYTHING, then pretend they have no recollection of WHERE they took the photo. :D Good decision by the judges. :)

[Bibhav Behera]

I agree it was a good decision. The photoradar article gives a good insight into it...

[philperry]

Sad to say the photographer concerned also entered a similar wolf photo in another competition (Wild Wonders of Europe) which also forbade the use of non-wild animals - per the link below:

http://www.wild-wonders.com/photo_competition_winners.asp?month=2&year=2009&cat=EWW&age=18+&show=3

At least he did not 'win' this competition, he just got a highly commended award. But infuriating nonetheless for those of us who try to stick with the competition rules.

[philperry]

Thanks for that link Richard. I see that the BBC have actually given Snr Rodriguez a lifetime ban from the competition. A measure of how much they value honesty in the competition.

[Chris Ober]

Off topic but if you haven't had the chance, check out the BBC series, Last Chance to See. Mark goes with Stephen Fry to re-visit the areas and critically endangered species he wrote about with Douglas Adams 20 years ago. The original book, Last Chance to See is a good one too.

[Jim Fenton]

The fact that the jidges even selected that image boggled my mind the moment I saw it.

Nothing about the image looked unstaged IMHO.

[paul leverington]

Well good. Him getting caught keeps others in line. For grins and giggles casually start asking the average person if they believe the pictures they see nowadays. The answer is more likely to dishearten you. Between PS and boldface lying people do not trust what they see. I wonder if there were an organisation that would certify an image for a fee as being authentic, if that might not be a good idea. Some seal of authenticity backed up by a full third party trusted investigation. Sort of like a wilhelm rating is for media. But as is now, who here believes in most photos they see?

Paul

[Cliff Beittel]

The fact that the jidges even selected that image boggled my mind the moment I saw it.

Nothing about the image looked unstaged IMHO.
Jim,

In partial defense of the judges, there was nothing in the rules prohibiting a staged photo, the photographer described how he staged the photo, and the disqualification had nothing to do with the photo having been staged. One can like the studio-like lighting or not (hard to see how a nighttime image could be done otherwise), but that isn't what got the image disqualified.

[Jim Fenton]

I guess I should have stated that the image didn't come across as being of wildlife.

To my eyes at least, it looked like a contrived, non wild animal image.

[Fernando Cerra]

The image could have used a bit more space on top

[Arthur Morris]

Well good. Him getting caught keeps others in line. For grins and giggles casually start asking the average person if they believe the pictures they see nowadays. The answer is more likely to dishearten you. Between PS and boldface lying people do not trust what they see. I wonder if there were an organisation that would certify an image for a fee as being authentic, if that might not be a good idea. Some seal of authenticity backed up by a full third party trusted investigation. Sort of like a wilhelm rating is for media. But as is now, who here believes in most photos they see? Paul

Hey Paul, Nice of you to lump folks who embrace using Photoshop to improve their images with the boldface lying people. Not. Some folks who use Photoshop are actually quite honest about what the do to an image.

There was exactly such an organization; it was called Found View. Don't waste your time looking for it because it went down the tubes. I am with you on being glad that he got "caught."

And shame on the BBC for continually awarding prizes to photographers who were sleeping when their winning images were created.

[paul leverington]

Hey Paul, Nice of you to lump folks who embrace using Photoshop to improve their images with the boldface lying people. Not. Some folks who use Photoshop are actually quite honest about what the do to an image.

There was exactly such an organization; it was called Found View. Don't waste your time looking for it because it went down the tubes. I am with you on being glad that he got "caught."

And shame on the BBC for continually awarding prizes to photographers who were sleeping when their winning images were created.


No Artie there was no lumping of PS use by folks as boldface lying in my comment. Of course PS work is ethical and OK--I do it also. The word use of "between" seperates the two. My point is that images are not believed at face value any more. A shot on film ten years ago was mostly never questioned, however now it is the exact opposite. But just because one uses PS does not mean the image is faked--but there is enough of that now that perceptions have changed. It might be found view was too early or didn't go about things right but I still feel there's a need for something like this.

If I had a fantastic shot let's say--a down and awesome for real great one--and I sent the raw and finished version to them to certify as to the level of work done I would think with certificate in hand for a sale of that print or entry into a photo contest would be of great value to people who buy a print or the judges. Not always cause some people don't care cause they just like the shot but a for real shot to many definitely augments the emotional and visual impact of the image is my thinking.

Paul

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . shame on the BBC for continually awarding prizes to photographers who were sleeping when their winning images were created.
Arthur,

If the WPOTY organizers are right that the wolf was a trained model, then I question whether the image was even made with a camera trap. Camera traps can capture unpredictable or wary animals. But with a trained animal model, potentially even with a trainer present to throw meat as needed to get the behavior desired, there would be no reason for the photographer not to trip the shutter in person, especially as the image could be staged at the best possible time to give that twilight sky in the background. Was the camera trap, like the wildness of the wolf, a lie? A lie made to reinforce the claimed wildness and wariness of the wolf? If so, we may need to give Rodriguez credit at least for being behind the camera rather than asleep. ;)

[philperry]

Excellent point Cliff. Of course, the wolf will only jump the fence when you throw the biltong (jerky) over the gate ! So you need to be there to get the timing just right. Infra-red trips are so hit and miss in terms of framing and so on (not that I have used them).

I totally agree Artie - maybe BBC should set up a new category for 'sleeping photographer photos' (but not let them win the overall competition). Two years in a row for (allegedly) camera-trip photos is just way too much.

[David Fletcher]

Sad to say the photographer concerned also entered a similar wolf photo in another competition (Wild Wonders of Europe) which also forbade the use of non-wild animals - per the link below:

http://www.wild-wonders.com/photo_competition_winners.asp?month=2&year=2009&cat=EWW&age=18+&show=3

At least he did not 'win' this competition, he just got a highly commended award. But infuriating nonetheless for those of us who try to stick with the competition rules.

Brilliant detective work Phil. Actually, your copy is fairly conclusive evidence of the "trained" aspect in this. (I know, I'll practice using the D2x and then get the Hassleblad out for the real deal). Remarkable that Wild Wonders didn't flag it up though. :confused:

Don't please get me wrong. I'm not applying for sainthood. :D. Made plenty of mistakes in the past, and have not always shown images divulging full details, (not nec' by deliberate choice); but have not entered any competitions that compromises any aspect of any rule, no matter how minute.

The whole thing bothers me greatly. Most photographers have at least some knowledge on biology. Many of the judges are photographers. Yet it went through the whole process. I've made my views known on this in the past. No need to repeat, but I fear very much we have a problem.

When I first saw that image, I thought, "oh so not believable". Simple country bumkin can spot it. Are judges, who are often working professionals so concerned that a comment may bite them in the bum that it's better to say nothing. (don't get me wrong about the judges, as I have spent time in ice and snow with some, and I know their knowledge is not an issue). But, is this what we have come to? You can see a problem, but can't say anything for fear of the effect it'll have on your own business and life....

There's the rub. If you want entry to the dance floor, nod your head, make the right noises, and don't have the temerity to say, "hey, something ain't right here bud".

Sad days indeed. We don't need policing or regulation, but are the facts of life in competitions so unpalatable we compromise our own integrity: (I'm not writing about J L Rodriguez. He's done what he's done for his own reasons and has to pay that price. What bother's me more is the "silence" when something is clearly wrong and the fear of saying something that may try and help put it right).

The issues run deep and there's a lot that needs to be looked at, but do we have the power or will to look?

[David Fletcher]

Hey Paul, Nice of you to lump folks who embrace using Photoshop to improve their images with the boldface lying people. Not. Some folks who use Photoshop are actually quite honest about what the do to an image.

There was exactly such an organization; it was called Found View. Don't waste your time looking for it because it went down the tubes. I am with you on being glad that he got "caught."

And shame on the BBC for continually awarding prizes to photographers who were sleeping when their winning images were created.

Here, here Artie. Couldn't agree more. Don't expect much from the BBC though or any better. The B's stand for a lot of other things for the laymen in the UK. (biased, ..... and a few others, but not the nasty words, :)).

Re The PS thingy, can only add, once with trannies, we had processing done for us and now we have to do our own. Not making a big statement, either side, but that is all it is. That's not defending for example, Mr S Bloom who clearly over layed the same snow patterns on two Polar Bear shots in his book Untamed, nor am I knocking it, just pointing out the difference.

[philperry]

David - Cannot claim credit for any detective work. I confess I cribbed the link to Wild Wonders from another forum. Its a fair cop ! :)

[David Fletcher]

No worries Phil. :D. Artistic license. :D. Nothing wrong with a bit of plagiarism.

[Ken Watkins]

And shame on the BBC for continually awarding prizes to photographers who were sleeping when their winning images were created.


Art,

I could not disagree with this!!!!!!
The past few years have been a disgrace!

The February BBC Wildlife Magazine has an article on this years (2010) competition.

There are some interesting rule changes including no longer allowing images of captive animals, personally I never knew this was allowed.

There will also be a return of portfolio (6 pictures) this will form a category "Wildlife Photo Journalist of the Year"

[Sabyasachi Patra]

There is another change in the competition rules as well. You can now use only a 10Mp or above camera. Earlier it was 6 MP camera. Last year it was 6 MP camera with a minimum tiff file size of 18MB. This year it has to be atleast a 10MP camera. :(

Sabyasachi

[Harshad Barve]

What a shame ,


There is another change in the competition rules as well. You can now use only a 10Mp or above camera. Earlier it was 6 MP camera. Last year it was 6 MP camera with a minimum tiff file size of 18MB. This year it has to be atleast a 10MP camera. :(

Sabyasachi

May be for rich photographers only

Now who is going to get first prize

[Sabyasachi Patra]

What a shame ,



Now who is going to get first prize

I hope not another absentee photographer.

[peter delaney]

There is another change in the competition rules as well. You can now use only a 10Mp or above camera. Earlier it was 6 MP camera. Last year it was 6 MP camera with a minimum tiff file size of 18MB. This year it has to be atleast a 10MP camera. :(

Sabyasachi

Sheeesh.. very surprised by that new ruling.That is very unfair to those who not able to afford semipro/pro camera....
I thought the whole idea of this competition was to celebrate wildlife/nature photography be you an amateur or professional. This ruling will deny many people an opportunity to show their work .

I thought if they were going to change anything would be derisory amount of 500 pounds for category winner!! I know everyone says they do not enter for the money. But you can not buy much equipment for that amount or stay long in a game reserve!!!

Maybe in light of what has happen over the past few years with this competition and the controversy it has received of late . It maybe time for an introspection by NHM/BBC on what their ultimate goal is, "Revenue" or "celebrating an Art form"

[Ken Watkins]

There is another change in the competition rules as well. You can now use only a 10Mp or above camera. Earlier it was 6 MP camera. Last year it was 6 MP camera with a minimum tiff file size of 18MB. This year it has to be atleast a 10MP camera. :(

Sabyasachi

Must confess no reference to this in the magazine article.

Are we expected to believe that if someone happens to be in the right place at the right time and gets an exceptional picture then it will be rejected.

I am afraid that this will only add further disgust for hobby photograhers, just how silly can these people be.

[Michael Lloyd]

I guess I should have stated that the image didn't come across as being of wildlife.

To my eyes at least, it looked like a contrived, non wild animal image.

It didn't come across as "zoo life" either or "real life" for that matter.

10MP is less than a lot of point and shoots and it certainly is not a "pro level" sensor size...

[William Malacarne]

10MP is less than a lot of point and shoots and it certainly is not a "pro level" sensor size...

But that also does away with the Canon 1D MKII N.....:eek:

Bill

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

This year it has to be at least a 10MP camera. :(

Sabyasachi

How stupid is that rule? Only Pommies could think of that one. :eek:

[David Fletcher]

How stupid is that rule? Only Pommies could think of that one. :eek:


yup, and probably only those that clearly don't know too much about photography..... they look to be a tiny bit out of touch with what's going on, (on the third rock from the sun).... (course, it's probably being driven by minimum file sizes that libraries like, just can't figure why now). Let's hope they do enjoy patting themselves on the back on a job well done.. LOL

[john jackson]

I, too, am sorry to see the 10MP limit. I suspect it has to do with the size they use images in the exhibition. Even so, the idea that a 1DII is not well-specified enough but a digicam is fine is crazy. That said, my favourite from the exhibition this year was taken on a digicam (an image of Bramblings gathering to roost).

Why the sniping about remote releases (again)? Not my style/equipment, but photography none the less and it requires a great deal of skill to do well.

[Jim Neiger]

So, now that they aren't going to award the top prize. What happens to the prize money which originaly came from the photographer entry fees. Do the competition owners simply keep the extra money? This doesn't seem right.

[philperry]

I did suggest on another forum that the money goes to the wolf - a real champion hurdler. That would keep him in wolf chews for life. :)

Or a bit more seriously - why not a wolf charity.

[Jim Neiger]

I did suggest on another forum that the money goes to the wolf - a real champion hurdler. That would keep him in wolf chews for life. :)

Or a bit more seriously - why not a wolf charity.

Seems to me the runners up should all move up a slot and the prizes should be awarded. The alternative should be refunding the entry fees. I think they had something like 48,000 entries at 20 pounds per entry. That's close to a million pounds.

[Ken Watkins]

Why the sniping about remote releases (again)? Not my style/equipment, but photography none the less and it requires a great deal of skill to do well.

A remote release is OK by me as long as the photographer is operating the release (such as prior winning images by Andy Rouse amongst others). What I and others are against is the fact that the photographer was probably asleep when the subject took the photograph.