Wildlife photographer of the year, possible fraud.

[Forbiddenbiker]

Lie or no lie, you can't deny that it's a great, well executed shot

Well I could easily, If I compare it to a mate who teaches police dogs to jump over stuff ...then think of trained wolf instead jumping over stuff... It all seems very mundane all of a sudden compared to a wild animal.

 

[Arkady]

...He does explain the flash ... set it up for days before to get he wolf used to it...

Which I would interpret as: he made several attempts at getting the shot - ergo - it's set-up.

The wolf may be wild, semi-wild or tame, that to me makes no difference - it's not a random encounter.
The wolf, to 'get used to it' must have made this jump several times.
Might as well be a circus animal.

It's a nice shot, but to my eye the wolf looks artificial: stuffed, almost. The image as a whole doesn't have a look of authenticity to it...

 

[grumpybadger]

I don't think the remote/flash issue people are raising holds water. It is a standard technique and it is far from easy so it isn't just nip off for a cuppa. If it is real then it is a great piece of work showing fieldcraft, preparation and understanding of animal behaviour. The time taken for some of these pictures can be months or even years, but it enables you to get pictures that you cannot get with people present.

I saw José Luis Rodríguez speak at the Wildphotos conference and some of his work is stunning. If this is a staged shot, then it would never have won WPOTY if declared and it will be a real shame for the competition. Almost all wildlife photographers do a degree of captive work to get shots needed for articles etc, but to not declare it is inexcusable.

I hope there is a statement by Mark Carwadine as chair of the judges either clearing José Luis Rodríguez so he can get on with his photography or reconsidering the results if judged to be fake.

However, I think we should wait for the outcome before damning a very experienced and competent photographer on the basis of one internet article.

 

[grumpybadger]

The wolf may be wild, semi-wild or tame, that to me makes no difference - it's not a random encounter.
The wolf, to 'get used to it' must have made this jump several times.
Might as well be a circus animal.

It's a nice shot, but to my eye the wolf looks artificial: stuffed, almost. The image as a whole doesn't have a look of authenticity to it...

Whether it is wild or not does matter to the competition and to all those who didn't win who followed the rules - if indeed this image didn't.

Of course its not a random encounter. Very few of the top end images of wildlife are - you don't walk around and wait and see what happens. Things are planned, baited and then there is often lots of waiting. That process is the same. The only issue is whether the wolf was there of its own accord and living wild and free or whether it was captive.

Flash at night always gives slightly peculiar lighting and that is what gives the image a slightly strange look IMO.

 

[Arkady]

Whether it is wild or not does matter to the competition and to all those who didn't win who followed the rules - if indeed this image didn't.

Of course its not a random encounter. Very few of the top end images of wildlife are - you don't walk around and wait and see what happens. Things are planned, baited and then there is often lots of waiting. That process is the same. The only issue is whether the wolf was there of its own accord and living wild and free or whether it was captive.

Flash at night always gives slightly peculiar lighting and that is what gives the image a slightly strange look IMO.

Apologies if I've misread the situation - I was under the impression that this image was being 'passed-off' as a lucky encounter - albeit one where the equipment was set up in advance.

For this to be a viable wildlife image (in my mind), the photographer would have had to stake-out the location and observed existing habits, then set his equipment up in order to exploit that.
What I'm understanding from all of this is that the animal was 'coached' to behave in this way specifically for the photograph.

I've used flash at night myself, so am aware of the effect it produces - I was referring to the animal looking 'unnatural' rather than the image iteself.

Hope that clarifies things if I confused anyone with my previous post.

 

[grumpybadger]

OK Rob.

What you describe is exactly what the photographer claims to have done. Staked out the location over a period of months having found an area in the mountains where the wolf went. He showed his notebook at the Wildphotos conference in London claiming all the research.

The allegation is that he actually built a set in a captive wildlife park.

If the investigation proves he did, then I hope he is stripped of his title but likewise, if it is considered that his account of the process is true then I hope he can continue without this hanging over him. I don't feel qualified to make a judgement and will wait for the experts to decide.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Rob. He says he used some meat to tempt the wolf back again and again... you could call that training I guess, so I get your point Rob. But for me, I see all that as part of the skills of a wildlife photographer, lots of planning, cunning etc.

The line gets thinner I agree, but if its a true wild animal its still a superb piece of work to have achieved I feel.

 

[awp]

not to mention a photographer just happening to be sitting there to capture it.

The camera was set and an infra red trap used so the animal triggered the camera/flash itself - according to an article in the December issue of professional photographer magazine.

 

[Arkady]

Well, looking at the photos of the location, with and without gate/wolf, I would be satisfied that the 'bent' tree behind the gate is the same and the rocks, though moved around are the same ones. The earth/grass pattern looks remarkably similar as well - too much so when taken in conjunction with the other natural elements for it to be coincidental.

Photographic technique and 'wolf' issues aside, if he's passing this off as a 'found, natural' location, then it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

TP scrutiny is the tops!!



Beware all those that end up here...


The wording of the set-up seems ...well, sparse is the word I think, considering it must have taken weeks, we're are all the stories and details of how tricky it was.

 

[jerry12953]

Well, looking at the photos of the location, with and without gate/wolf, I would be satisfied that the 'bent' tree behind the gate is the same and the rocks, though moved around are the same ones. The earth/grass pattern looks remarkably similar as well - too much so when taken in conjunction with the other natural elements for it to be coincidental.

Photographic technique and 'wolf' issues aside, if he's passing this off as a 'found, natural' location, then it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Yes, there can't be too much doubt about the location. That tree trunk must be unique. The wall could have been built/rebuilt and then removed again.

 

[HoppyUK]

The evidence of fake, sadly, is very strong :thumbsdown: It happens all the time in wildlife photography.

I find the psychology of all this interesting. When I first saw the picture, I took it at face value and thought what a wonderfully evocative image it was. Brilliant capture. Powerful, moving even.

But now I look at exactly the same shot and just see a pet dog jumping...

Edit: look how the wolf has aged with the greying around his chops, and the stone wall changed. I reckon it's an old shot, taken on his ancient Hassleblad, and the guy thought he'd make up a story and have a punt hoping everybody had forgotten.

 

[whiteflyer]

You can fake a shot but you must say it's a fake.

The days when people could get away with photoshoping an image on the quite are slowly coming to an end.

There was the sport shot in a USA paper a few years ago where the tog got sacked for shopping an image, the recent judgement of the airbrushing of twiggy in an advert and now this prestigious award.

About time to IMHO, if you shop it then bloody well say so.

 

[mjolnir]

I was pretty stunned when I first saw that photograph. I found it to be absolutely amazing. It would be a shame to find that it was actually faked.

Regardless of the circumstances in whch it was taken I still find it to be a brilliant image even if it isn't eligible as a wildlife photo.

 

[spaniel]

The evidence of fake, sadly, is very strong :thumbsdown: It happens all the time in wildlife photography.

IMHO, perhaps this should read;

"The evidence of fake, sadly, is very strong :thumbsdown: It happens all the time in wildlife digital imagery."

There is a distinct difference between 'photography' and 'digital imagery'. Both can be manipulated, but the latter is sadly manipulated to the point of forgery.

Nigel.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Not claiming to be wise after the event or some sort of expert, but

Had the mag at work with me, I was flicking through and immediately thought there was something not right with that picture.

Just doesn't look like what you would expect to see in the wild, maybe proved wrong, but looks a dud to me

Reckon I might have a chance with this one next year

 

[Arkady]

I was pretty stunned when I first saw that photograph. I found it to be absolutely amazing. It would be a shame to find that it was actually faked.

Regardless of the circumstances in whch it was taken I still find it to be a brilliant image even if it isn't eligible as a wildlife photo.

And that's the real point - it's not actually faked...
It's still technically very good - it's still a real photograph - it's not a cloned image or photomontage - the photographer just seems to be claiming it as something it isn't...which is a shame.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Looks more like a show jumping wolf to me, do they actually leap like that in the wild?

Surely they would clamber over or through the gate, as you say not a fake, but hardly wild either

 

[grumpybadger]

Please can we remember that, with more detailed evidence, the WPOTY team haven't yet made a conclusion so we don't know if it is fake or not. I think we should wait for the outcome before we jump to conclusions.

On some of the comments about it being an old pic taken on his Hasselblad, a very similar image was submitted by the same photographer to the Wild Wonders of Europe but taken on a D2X.

It will be a sad day for wildlife photography if it is found to be not as stated and not the only such issue this year. In these big competitions, you are aksed to submit RAW files if you are selected for success and in a major competition in the US, a photographer declined at this stage, implying there was something wrong.

In general I think the standards in WPOTY of phenominally high and if they have to change the winner, then that could have serious implications. The book would be wrong too for a start.

Lets wait and see the final conclusion from the experts before we jump to too many conclusions. One article on the internet isn't enough IMO.

 

[Arkady]

Please can we remember that, with more detailed evidence, the WPOTY team haven't yet made a conclusion so we don't know if it is fake or not. I think we should wait for the outcome before we jump to conclusions.

On some of the comments about it being an old pic taken on his Hasselblad, a very similar image was submitted by the same photographer to the Wild Wonders of Europe but taken on a D2X.

It will be a sad day for wildlife photography if it is found to be not as stated and not the only such issue this year. In these big competitions, you are aksed to submit RAW files if you are selected for success and in a major competition in the US, a photographer declined at this stage, implying there was something wrong.

In general I think the standards in WPOTY of phenominally high and if they have to change the winner, then that could have serious implications. The book would be wrong too for a start.

Lets wait and see the final conclusion from the experts before we jump to too many conclusions. One article on the internet isn't enough IMO.

I don't think it's faked - just misrepresented...

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

...

...There is a distinct difference between 'photography' and 'digital imagery'. Both can be manipulated, but the latter is sadly manipulated to the point of forgery.

Nigel.

Lol, that huge can of worms has been opened a few times over the years here.

IMO, its all photography and its always had its fakers and forgers.

I think whiteflyer is right, interesting point I thought.

The days when people could get away with photoshoping an image on the quite, are slowly coming to an end.

I agree I think to some extent ...and if its true then thats only going to help empower photography again as the reliable medium for factual records, which has been a little rocky over the years in ways. ... whole other subject, but... etc.

 

[HoppyUK]

You can fake a shot but you must say it's a fake.

The days when people could get away with photoshoping an image on the quite are slowly coming to an end.

There was the sport shot in a USA paper a few years ago where the tog got sacked for shopping an image, the recent judgement of the airbrushing of twiggy in an advert and now this prestigious award.

About time to IMHO, if you shop it then bloody well say so.

But if you say it's a fake, it won't win.

IMHO, perhaps this should read;

"The evidence of fake, sadly, is very strong :thumbsdown: It happens all the time in wildlife digital imagery."

There is a distinct difference between 'photography' and 'digital imagery'. Both can be manipulated, but the latter is sadly manipulated to the point of forgery.

Nigel.

I don't think this is a digital manipulation issue at all. On the evidence that we have, it's a tame wolf, which kind of spoils it and certainly won't win any wildlife prizes.

Where do you draw the line on this? I once made myself very unpopular with a famous wildlife photographer by pointing out that an amazing picture of a leopard up a tree with its kill of a gazelle, beautifully silhouetted against the setting sun, was in fact a set up. The photographer had killed the gazelle and nailed it up the tree.

I think it was a true wildlife shot, but not in the true spirit. Then again, is nailing worms to the ground (as mentioned above) and waiting for a thrush to pull it up, is that cheating? Or does it not matter?

 

[Craig_B]

I just think that an image taken with a remote camera sensor, even if it's not fake, is wrong to be a winner in a wildlife photography competition.

 

[HoppyUK]

I just think that an image taken with a remote camera sensor, even if it's not fake, is wrong to be a winner in a wildlife photography competition.

Got to disagree with that. If remote sensors were not used in wildlife photography, we wouldn't get to see much of it.

They are used all the time. It's still wildlife.

 

[purpleclouds]

Got to disagree with that. If remote sensors were not used in wildlife photography, we wouldn't get to see much of it.

They are used all the time. It's still wildlife.

Indeed! The BBC NHU are massive users of them.. just look at those documentaries they did with remote cameras with the elephants and lions/tigers a couple of years ago!

 

[Arkady]

...and those bat-photos i saw recently over a pond in some guy's back-garden...

...they were incredible...

 

[purpleclouds]

...and those bat-photos i saw recently over a pond in some guy's back-garden...

...they were incredible...

Indeed! Images that would never have been achieved under 'normal' circumstances

We live in an ever changing world.. it is very hard to come up with unique images, we should be embracing our technological advances not squashing them.

If you deny remote triggers, then do you also deny auto focus? ETTL flash? Digital photography all together?

I think not...

I've no problem with it being a set up shot, although if the rules say it must be declared, then in all fairness he should have declared it. But at the same time, if it is a wild wolf that he baited.. then fair game. That's what he declared.

 

[Craig_B]

Got to disagree with that. If remote sensors were not used in wildlife photography, we wouldn't get to see much of it.

They are used all the time. It's still wildlife.

And you are of course entitled to that view. This competition was for photography, not a NHU documentary and I just feel that the skill of wildlife photographers is many times in the photographer not an unmanned camera.

 

[purpleclouds]

And you are of course entitled to that view. This competition was for photography, not a NHU documentary and I just feel that the skill of wildlife photographers is many times in the photographer not an unmanned camera.

But who sets up the camera? Who figures out the lighting (in the case of this night shot)... it's all still the photographer. If anything, it takes more talent to pull off this kind of shot, as you have to get the animal in exactly the right spot to be perfectly in focus and perfectly in the frame.

You can adjust all those whilst you're there manning the camera.

He didn't just pop along, stick it on a tripod and set up an infra red trap... remember it's an old film camera it was shot on too, so no 10 frames a second etc.

Photography and videography are near enough identical disciplines.

 

[pauld]

But who sets up the camera? Who figures out the lighting (in the case of this night shot)... it's all still the photographer. If anything, it takes more talent to pull off this kind of shot, as you have to get the animal in exactly the right spot to be perfectly in focus and perfectly in the frame.

You can adjust all those whilst you're there manning the camera.

He didn't just pop along, stick it on a tripod and set up an infra red trap... remember it's an old film camera it was shot on too, so no 10 frames a second etc.

Photography and videography are near enough identical disciplines.

The snow leopard last year was a similar, although in my view, far more demanding - it is the effort of the photographer that is being rewarded rather than just being lucky...ie right pace , right time...

Reading the blurb the guy took a long time to set this up... introducing meat and bits of kit over time... so we have a wolf jumping the fence every night to get food which strikes me as odd ... it would have had to jump out as well of course. Never new wolves were loners - always thought they were pack animals but what do I know...

Whatever it is still a great shot ..

I spent a day shooting these last year and by the end they did remind me of alsatians...:bonk:

 

[purpleclouds]

Wolves will hunt individually as well as in packs

 

[fracster]

Animals will not jump a gate or fence if they can walk around it.It appears that the gate is not attached to much at all.

So why would the wolf jump it rather than walk around it? Different animals I know, but deer don`t jump fences if they don`t have to and foxes sure as hell take the easy route around obstacles, seems very odd to me that the wolf is jumping the gate when there appears no need for it to do so.....:shrug:

 

[Mintyhit]

I still think my shot should have won:

 

[DizMatt]

if it's a tame wolf, then that's a shame

personally I think it looks like a different wolf to the one compared in the smaller photos
different markings...and I wouldn't be surprised if they were different genders if you look at their muzzles.
however, don't know much about the gate, scenery etc.
clever shot either way but the 'wild' side of things...that's an interesting dispute.

 

[Dom]

The only time you'd get that close to a wild wolf is if it was going to eat you!

 

[grumpybadger]

Which is why people use camera traps!

 

[Ste Manns]

The point is, it doesn't matter that a camera trap was used or not, its whether the wolf was actually a wild one or not. I suspect, looking at the "evidence" that it wasn't but I'm no expert. If it is a tame wolf then he shouldn't keep the 1st place award, if it is a wild wolf then he should, whatever equipment he used. The equipment/method is irrelevant. It's a stunning picture but if it doesn't fit the rules then it doesn't deserve the award, and I can understand the sour grapes from the other entrants. If you'd spent months hiding out in all weathers, hours and hours of research, finally captured something worthy and then someone took a shot of their pet and entered it and won, well I'd be annoyed too!

It's like entering a cake competition with something from Mr kipling...

 

[Rockshifter]

Anybody know when the investigation team are announcing their findings / decision on this ?

 

[JimLin1965]

From what I can tell from the pictures in the article, the wolves appear to be completely different. There are so many things that don't match you could use it for a childs spot the difference puzzle like this National Trust spot the difference.

There are a few things that match in the wall picture, but building up a complete stone wall, gate wolf picture seems to be a lot of work to go to just to win a competition, although I guess it would look good on a photographer's CV.

 

[Keith W]

I see this story has made the Guardian