Possible fraud in BBC WPY competition!

[Janne Heimonen]

Finland’s largest nature magazine Suomen luonto (”Nature of Finland”) published an article with the pictures, that says that there may be an fraud in this years Veolia Environnement Wildlife photographer of the year competition! Under suspect is the overall winner picture of the whole competition and the judges of the WPY-competition are investigating the evidences of the possible fraud.

The pieces of evidence are apparently collected by a group of Spanish photographers. They are conserned about the reputation of all Spanish photographers and, thus, want to bring the evidence in public.

”But until one bit of evidence can be verified I don't think it's possible to accuse the photographer of cheating. It's not 100 percent”, Kidman Cox states.

English version of the article with evidence pictures can be found here -> http://www.suomenluonto.fi/bbcs-natu...ud-allegations

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

very interesting.

[Alfred Forns]

A shame if it turns out to be factual. I'm sure the truth will come out.

[Harshad Barve]

Oh man , not in wildlife photography atleast , we all do this as we love nature and not for awards

[phillane]

Yes, it is a shame however I am not at all surprised.

[Mike Tracy]

Oh man , not in wildlife photography atleast , we all do this as we love nature and not for awards

If there is potential money / fame involved it doesn't matter in what walk of life it is, some people will cheat to win.

It's a shame.

[Jamie Strickland]

wow I hope this trend doesn't continue or these things will start getting blown out of proportion by the media :(

[Ed Cordes]

Before I read the article and just looked at the image I did wonder why a wolf would be jumping a fence?

[Juan Aragonés]

We, spanish photographers, are really concerned :( by this case and we hope to see the true about it as soon as possible. This case is a hot topic in many, many nature and photography forums in Spain since several weeks ago.
The author, José Luis Rodriguez, is a very well known spanish wildlife photographer with a very long carrer in the field of animal photography, in fact he is one of the most famous photographers in Spain and he has been in the past one of the references to follow by everyone who loves wildlife photography. As far as I know, he has said nothing about those serious acusations.
I know that the team of judges in the Veolia BBC contest are doing their job and I look forward to see their conclusions as soon as possible. If the acusations are true this will be the end of the reputation of a very acclaimed photographers in Spain.


Ed, wolves in Spain jump fences to attack cattle in the farm, mostly sheeps. It is a very common beavior of wild wolves :)

[Ed Cordes]

Juan, thanks for the clarification. It is interesting to learn of this behavior.

Here is a link to an explanation on the making of the image. Interesting reading and will answer some questions while raising others.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-...ory=56&group=4

[philperry]

This is very interesting. I have looked at the Finnish article but cannot really say either way whether the winning photo features the tame wolf the article refers to. So I await the outcome of the BBC Wildlife enquiry with great interest.

When the results of the competition were first announced on BPN ( http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=48128 ) I made the following comments:

..... But am I the only person really depressed by the overall competition winner ? To me this photo involved turning a wild wolf into a circus act and I find the photo most disturbing. I am not against set-ups per se. We all use them to a greater or lesser extent. For example many African waterholes are artifiicial - but excellent places to photograph birds and mammals. South Africa's legendary Giant's Castle uses bones to attract vultures and raptors and has generated many excellent photos. I guess everyone draws their own line. For me that is training wolves to jump over farm gates.

By the way I did not enter this competition this year - but I do love and support many photo competitions. A colleague and fellow BPN member suggested that maybe the judges should more often give a precis of their reasons for believing a photo is 'award winning'. A good idea.

So for me whether the photo is a 'fraud' or not I still do not like it. I understand from Juan that wolves do apparently often jump fences in Spain. But the photographer described how he 'trained' the wolf to jump over a particular gate so he could eventually get his photo. Sorry but I an not comfortable with this photo.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

It is unfortunate. People want to take short cuts to success. All such short cuts come at a heavy price.

I am surprised to hear that in Spain wolves jump over the fences. I wonder from where they picked up this trick. The images of the tree and the marking on the Wolf suggests that it is a tame one. I would wait for BBC to clarify.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Ken Watkins]

Juan, thanks for the clarification. It is interesting to learn of this behavior.

Here is a link to an explanation on the making of the image. Interesting reading and will answer some questions while raising others.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-...ory=56&group=4

I have not seen this explanation before, but recall a previous statement saying that the equipment was placed near where the wolves came to feed. My interpretation of this was baiting a practice which I think has no place in Wildlife photography, now we get training of the animal, whatever next?

[adrian dancy]

I am curious to know how and why this news was leaked out. If the allegations are not proven then those photographers seeking to protect their collective reputations will collectively have egg on their faces. If the allegations are true I do not see how anyone would condemn a nation of photographers just because of one fraudster? Or am I missing something?

[Ed Cordes]

I have not seen this explanation before, but recall a previous statement saying that the equipment was placed near where the wolves came to feed. My interpretation of this was baiting a practice which I think has no place in Wildlife photography, now we get training of the animal, whatever next?

I agree that the baiting/training process described will create yet more questions. The answer to this question is most likely similar to how much Photoshop "cleaning up" is OK for an image to still be a good nature photograph. A personal answer from a personal perspective with responses all over the place is what will be forthcoming.

[Ed Cordes]

I am curious to know how and why this news was leaked out. If the allegations are not proven then those photographers seeking to protect their collective reputations will collectively have egg on their faces. If the allegations are true I do not see how anyone would condemn a nation of photographers just because of one fraudster? Or am I missing something?

Sorry about the double post but I wanted to quote both responses.

I agree that to condemn a whole nation of photographers for the possibly questionable (not yet proven) actions of one citizen is ludicrous. Besides, even if the image is deemed to have not strictly followed the rules, his perspective will be that he didn't understand that what he did was in violation.

I am not taking sides; I am just anticipating the logical progression of the discussion. I believe the point is that each of us have different approaches and perspectives. We need to be careful how we judge others. The questions of baiting and Photoshop manipulation will be ongoing in our field for a long long time. I believe there are reasonable people on all sides.

[Ken Watkins]

I agree that the baiting/training process described will create yet more questions. The answer to this question is most likely similar to how much Photoshop "cleaning up" is OK for an image to still be a good nature photograph. A personal answer from a personal perspective with responses all over the place is what will be forthcoming.

In theory the rules are that the image must be what the photographer saw at the time the image was taken, quite how you apply that here is difficult to understand. But lets not flog the old dead horse again.

By my ethics cleaning up is OK, adding is not.

A good nature photograph is in the joy it brings to the viewer not whether it is a fake or not, but for this competition there were certain standards, which like most standards nowadays appear to be disappearing?

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . even if the image is deemed to have not strictly followed the rules, his perspective will be that he didn't understand that what he did was in violation.

I am not taking sides; I am just anticipating the logical progression of the discussion. I believe the point is that each of us have different approaches and perspectives. We need to be careful how we judge others. The questions of baiting and Photoshop manipulation will be ongoing in our field for a long long time. I believe there are reasonable people on all sides.

Not having read or understood the rules is never a valid defense, but would particularly not apply here if, as the Finnish magazine alleges, the image was made one place with a captive animal, but described as being made somewhere else with a wild animal. That would be misrepresentation clear and simple, and has nothing to do with baiting (which the photographer stated he did) or Photoshop. Reasonable people can differ on baiting and Photoshop, but not, one hopes, on misrepresentation.

The photographer, Jose Luis Rodriquez, has denied any wrongdoing, as reported yesterday:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...olf-image.html

[David Fletcher]

Before I read the article and just looked at the image I did wonder why a wolf would be jumping a fence?

Have to be said, I was a major sceptic when I first saw the image too and the potential scandal, whether proven or not, comes as no surprise. What also comes as no surprise is that some very gifted and experienced photographers on the judges panel could easily have raised some issues at the judging stage, but didn't. (whilst acknowledging there may be a host of reasons for that, it appears yet again that the competition has produced yet another "how did they arrive at that" year. - irrespective of whether the evidence is unproven I am of the view that the image is unremarkable and hardly qualifies for WPOTY). And that's without the issue of a wolf jumping fences which we see all the time it seems. Either way, a darn shame.

[David Fletcher]

I am curious to know how and why this news was leaked out. If the allegations are not proven then those photographers seeking to protect their collective reputations will collectively have egg on their faces. If the allegations are true I do not see how anyone would condemn a nation of photographers just because of one fraudster? Or am I missing something?

Not making any judgements at all and am only following a logical thought process, but being as you say, there is risk involved for those that make the allegation: (yeh, not much these days as accusers cause horrendous damage and get off scott free usually,...... they won't be paying much as a price if wrong compared to the author), the only logical conclusion as to why several might "flag this up" is they have a history with this man. They are most likely not worried about their reputations, and are more likely concerned with what they see as an injustice, probably by someone who has "crossed their paths before". Don't know is the answer. But logic dictates more behind this than is being revealed right now. Would be nice to see some hard facts, not conjecture.

Regarding the competition, I remain of the view that there aught to have been sufficient collective knowledge at the judging stage to have raised appropriate queries regarding this image. I frankly refuse to believe the judges to be that inept and cynically believe a corporate policy exists which encourages "whacky" results in order to encourage future entries for money making purposes. (Do the maths... revenue from entries in, exhibitions, book sales, image rights. Marketing. expenditure versus prize money and hosting, judging expenses, yet alone goodwill from the publicity). Darn good money making machine.

Wildlife Photographer of The Year should be the most outstanding wildlife image. Whilst I offer sincere congratulations to those past winners, can I in my heart of hearts actually look at some of the winning images and believe that to be the most "outstanding" image. "emperors clothes". No. marketing and revenue. This time though, their policy seems to have bit them in the bum, or leaped the fence. :D:D. seems to me, was going to happen one day.

[Ken Watkins]

Not making any judgements at all and am only following a logical thought process, but being as you say, there is risk involved for those that make the allegation: (yeh, not much these days as accusers cause horrendous damage and get off scott free usually,...... they won't be paying much as a price if wrong compared to the author), the only logical conclusion as to why several might "flag this up" is they have a history with this man. They are most likely not worried about their reputations, and are more likely concerned with what they see as an injustice, probably by someone who has "crossed their paths before". Don't know is the answer. But logic dictates more behind this than is being revealed right now. Would be nice to see some hard facts, not conjecture.

Regarding the competition, I remain of the view that there aught to have been sufficient collective knowledge at the judging stage to have raised appropriate queries regarding this image. I frankly refuse to believe the judges to be that inept and cynically believe a corporate policy exists which encourages "whacky" results in order to encourage future entries for money making purposes. (Do the maths... revenue from entries in, exhibitions, book sales, image rights. Marketing. expenditure versus prize money and hosting, judging expenses, yet alone goodwill from the publicity). Darn good money making machine.

Wildlife Photographer of The Year should be the most outstanding wildlife image. Whilst I offer sincere congratulations to those past winners, can I in my heart of hearts actually look at some of the winning images and believe that to be the most "outstanding" image. "emperors clothes". No. marketing and revenue. This time though, their policy seems to have bit them in the bum, or leaped the fence. :D:D. seems to me, was going to happen one day.

I think you have summed up my feelings entirely.
Does wildlife photography need to go down to the levels of most of the wildlife documentaries produced nowadays, I sincerely hope not.

Earlier in the year I posted this on another forum

"next year I will enlist the help of the Hubble telescope to get a picture of the cow jumping over the moon"

Merry Christmas

[Deborah Harrison]

"next year I will enlist the help of the Hubble telescope to get a picture of the cow jumping over the moon"

Ken, you've summed it up perfectly!!
:D:D:D

[Ken Watkins]

"next year I will enlist the help of the Hubble telescope to get a picture of the cow jumping over the moon"

Ken, you've summed it up perfectly!!
:D:D:D

Thanks for that.

[Marc Mol]

I'm afraid these types of (possible) fraud will unfortunately continue to happen whenever $$$$$ are involved.:(

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . I frankly refuse to believe the judges to be that inept and cynically believe a corporate policy exists which encourages "whacky" results in order to encourage future entries for money making purposes. (Do the maths... revenue from entries in, exhibitions, book sales, image rights. Marketing. expenditure versus prize money and hosting, judging expenses, yet alone goodwill from the publicity). Darn good money making machine.

David,

The contest may be a moneymaker, and I agree with you that some of the judges (Jim Brandenburg, for instance) know a lot about wolf behavior. But I don't see how whacky results would encourage future entries, and I'm not even sure what whacky means in this connection. Wouldn't whacky winners have just the opposite effect, of causing people to lose respect for the contest and perhaps not enter? I didn't see anything whacky in last year's winner, or even in this year's (apart from questions of behavior, which I'm not expert enough to judge, and now allegations of misrepresentation).

Fresh images, rather than whacky ones, are what they say they are looking for:

"While there is no magic formula for winning and no hard and fast rules to explain why one photograph wins and another doesn’t, there are ways to get your pictures noticed. The trick is to include one key ingredient, something that is common to almost all the winning shots - originality. The judges are looking for something that stops them in their tracks.

Imagine you are a judge, looking at thousands of photographs. Many of them are technically flawless: well exposed, perfectly sharp and pleasantly composed. After a while, we take these key ingredients for granted and become desperate for something really creative, fresh and surprising to leap out from the screen. It is the pictures that leap out that tend to be the ones that win.

. . . you do have to think laterally and use every ounce of your imagination. Anything too obvious will have been done before - probably many times. . . .

One mistake many people make is attempting to copy previous competition winners. This is always a bad idea, because there is a very good chance your hard work will go straight in the seen-it-all-before file - it’s just not original."

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Wildlife Photographer of The Year should be the most outstanding wildlife image. Whilst I offer sincere congratulations to those past winners, can I in my heart of hearts actually look at some of the winning images and believe that to be the most "outstanding" image. "emperors clothes".

Nicely stated David! Emperors clothes it is.

The Winning image should be the best image. Last year it was by an absentee photographer. This year too it is by an absentee photographer. At least, last year it was not a tame snow leopard. ;) May be if a scientist uploads a photograph taken from a satellite, he may get the prize.

I agree that originality is the key. However, there are ideas/issues and compositions that get awards more than once.

Also, some of the images that get commended are brilliant and much better than the winning images.

As far as the original point was concerned, it is illogical to think that all the photographers from a country get bad name from the action of one. However, that is how we humans behave. In an organisation, if an employee of one nationality does a fraud, all the other employees from that country are viewed with suspicion. However, this is never expressed in so many words. We are always quick to condemn and typecast people.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . The Winning image should be the best image. . . .

Sabyasachi,

Everyone will agree that a particular image is the best only if everyone has exactly the same artistic taste--something that can never happen, given that what we like in photographs is highly individual. If you, for example, were sole judge, would you really expect every other photographer in the world to agree with your selection? And even with a hypothetical sole judge, in a world awash with great images, couldn't there be two--or 20--equally worthy?

[philperry]

Just wondering when this matter will be resolved. A whole month has passed and so far no meaningful comment from the competition organisers. Surely that is long enough to put this matter to bed.

[john jackson]

This has been resolved. The image is disqualified as being of a captive animal.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-.../statement.jsp

I had the pleasure of seeing the exhibition a while ago, before this issue surfaced. The ex-winner is a fine photo and an impressive image shown large. It will now surely be decried in a way that it would not had the photographer declared it to be of a captive. Maybe there's a captivelife competition out there for it...

[Alfred Forns]

Thanks John Did take a while to resolve !! The negative effect will take time to overcome !

[philperry]

Thanks for the link John.

Well, resolution of sorts. But with the photographer still denying it is a captive wolf the controversy will continue. Its a pity the wildlife park could not have confirmed that it was their wolf. Its so unsatisfactory for there to still be lingering doubts - though I guess not many.

And how stupid that the photographer would risk a reputation built up over many years just for one moment of glory. All in all a sad tale rather than a storybook ending.

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . Well, resolution of sorts. But with the photographer still denying it is a captive wolf the controversy will continue. Its a pity the wildlife park could not have confirmed that it was their wolf. Its so unsatisfactory for there to still be lingering doubts - though I guess not many. . . .

Not many is right. I'm sure the organizers would have preferred to avoid the embarrassment, not to mention the mess of modifying the book, etc. I haven't seen any statement that the wildlife park couldn't comfirm that Rodriguez had photographed there, but clearly he couldn't produce the alternate landowner and location he claimed.

[Fabs Forns]

I just read the news in a Spanish nature forum and they say that Rodriguez HAS BEEN a frequent visitor to the wildlife park for years. Of course, this does not mean the pic was taken there.

[Rich Steel]

more info on the disqualification here. A sad day for wildlife photography.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_294010.html

[Ed Cordes]

Andy Rouse's analysis is a good one! Follow Rich's link above and click on his aritcle.