Oops - WPY 2017 winner faked

Messages
593
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#3
ROTFL .... I really can't understand how people can actually be proud of winning something they had to cheat at.
However I can understand someone doing it for purely functional reasons; in a photography field where supply vastly outweighs demand, the name recognition from getting a photo in to WPY has real value.
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
2,816
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
Probably not - but it's always (semi) amused me when this topic crops up that the one thing you're sure to find in a "natural history" museum is stuffed animals. Strange that by definition they aren't natural history.
 
Messages
3,506
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
Pretty lazy photographer :D Use the stuffed anteater at the park, couldn't have been bothered, to nick one from somewhere else :rolleyes:
 
Messages
812
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
wasn't it WPY 2 or 3 years ago with the wolf trained to jump the gate?
Yeah - and worse, that was the overall winner, this was just a category winner. I think the wolf shot was even taken within a zoo/park...?

I liked his "I have the RAW for the shots either side of this one, but mysteriously not this actual shot" excuse.
 
Messages
714
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#11
I liked his "I have the RAW for the shots either side of this one, but mysteriously not this actual shot" excuse.
The 'Original' for this image will have been available and would have been checked as part of the judging process.

It is important to remember that no matter how skilled the judges are, as well as others involved with the competition, images will make it through, sometimes warning bells ring and immediate action is taken but at the end of the day they rely on the honesty of the entrant....
 
Messages
8,689
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
#12
However I can understand someone doing it for purely functional reasons; in a photography field where supply vastly outweighs demand, the name recognition from getting a photo in to WPY has real value.

But when/if you get found out I imagine it could be a real disaster for your credibility.

Wasn't there a controversy over the Landscape POTY a few years ago as well? The overall winning entry and a category winner were discovered to have been composites, contrary to the rules. Wasn't the perpetrator a member on here as well? Who remembers his name ( for the right reasons.....)?
 
Messages
32,526
Edit My Images
No
#13
But when/if you get found out I imagine it could be a real disaster for your credibility.

Wasn't there a controversy over the Landscape POTY a few years ago as well? The overall winning entry and a category winner were discovered to have been composites, contrary to the rules. Wasn't the perpetrator a member on here as well? Who remembers his name ( for the right reasons.....)?
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...e-photographer-of-the-year-2012-lpoty.444304/
 
Messages
10,208
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
#14
wasn't it WPY 2 or 3 years ago with the wolf trained to jump the gate?
Oh yes, the show jumping Wolf, I thought it looked dodgy the moment I saw it, think I even mentioned, possibly on here.
Why would it execute that perfectly timed jump when it could just walk between the bars of the gate.
Do dogs or foxes jump gates when they can walk through?

Why do these people do it, money springs to mind
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,475
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
Last edited:
Messages
8,689
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
#17
I actually disagree with their conclusion from the given evidence. The front leg is significantly different, as is the position/angle (tilt/roll) of the head... the head angle (roll) would be particularly hard to edit.

I've seen enough animals of the same species side by side to realize they often look very nearly identical.

Unlike.......

"
These experts, who included the NHM's own taxidermy specialist and South American mammal and anteater researchers, worked independently of each other, but they all came to the same conclusion - that the two animals were one and the same.

The scientists found the markings, the postures, the morphologies and even the positioning of the fur tufts to be just too similar."

Still, who needs detailed experience and knowledge of the species ?
 
Messages
714
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#18
I actually disagree with their conclusion from the given evidence. The front leg is significantly different, as is the position/angle (tilt/roll) of the head... the head angle (roll) would be particularly hard to edit.

I've seen enough animals of the same species side by side to realize they often look very nearly identical.
I can assure you that no action would have been taken if the evidence was inconclusive. The NHM has world class scientists and is able to call on leading experts.
 
OP
OP
PaulButler
Messages
3,364
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#19
I actually disagree with their conclusion from the given evidence. The front leg is significantly different, as is the position/angle (tilt/roll) of the head... the head angle (roll) would be particularly hard to edit.

I've seen enough animals of the same species side by side to realize they often look very nearly identical.
hehe Steven, really? perhaps you should visit this establishment ;)
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9tSN0178Us
 
Messages
714
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#20
I actually disagree with their conclusion from the given evidence.
In fact Steven, if you would care to forward me your counter evidence and credentials in this field I will make sure that the Competition office and the Competition manager are fully aware....
 
Messages
21,752
Edit My Images
Yes
#21
Unlike.......

"
These experts, who included the NHM's own taxidermy specialist and South American mammal and anteater researchers, worked independently of each other, but they all came to the same conclusion - that the two animals were one and the same.

The scientists found the markings, the postures, the morphologies and even the positioning of the fur tufts to be just too similar."

Still, who needs detailed experience and knowledge of the species ?
Not forgetting he couldn't provide an original raw image with the animal in...
 
Messages
714
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#22
Not forgetting he couldn't provide an original raw image with the animal in...
He did, but could only provide a single file with the animal in, all the others each side of that one exposure did not have the Anteater in them. The competition requires that shortlisted entries provide the original file for verification, that used to be the raw file but I now believe an out of camera jpg is accepted. If no 'original is supplied the entry goes no further.
 
Messages
4,942
Name
Garry
Edit My Images
Yes
#23
What gets me about it is this:

"The scientists found the markings, the postures, the morphologies and even the positioning of the fur tufts to be just too similar."

All this careful study of the evidence, yet the photographer claimed that, " it is a long exposure of 30 seconds". An anteater that stands perfectly still for 30 seconds?
 
Messages
4,789
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
#24
What gets me about it is this:

"The scientists found the markings, the postures, the morphologies and even the positioning of the fur tufts to be just too similar."

All this careful study of the evidence, yet the photographer claimed that, " it is a long exposure of 30 seconds". An anteater that stands perfectly still for 30 seconds?
In the BBC article the photographer also mentions use of flashes with the long exposure which would make sense (flash to freeze the anteater and the long exposure for ambient light).

Not that any of that matters if it’s stuffed!
 
Messages
6,475
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#25
He did, but could only provide a single file with the animal in, all the others each side of that one exposure did not have the Anteater in them. The competition requires that shortlisted entries provide the original file for verification, that used to be the raw file but I now believe an out of camera jpg is accepted. If no 'original is supplied the entry goes no further.
What? They are claiming he stole the display animal, used it as a prop, and returned it w/o anyone knowing? Or that he composited the image? You can't supply an OOC composite like this, and the first option is pretty far fetched IMO.
 
Last edited:
Messages
714
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#27
What? They are claiming he stole the display animal, used it as a prop, and returned it w/o anyone knowing? Or that he composited the image? You can't supply an OOC composite like this, and the first option is pretty far fetched IMO.
Steven, I know this competition better than you are aware. Those who will have examined the evidence will know a darn sight more than any commenters here. He will have supplied an 'original' file with the animal, he was unable to provide any others, all of these files are checked and validated at the final judging....

However as you seem to know better than international experts and one of the most pre-eminent research institutes, I will suggest, next time I speak to the Competition manager that you should be invited to join the judging panel.
 

StewartR

Efrem Zimbalist Jr
Advertiser
Messages
11,710
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
#28
I'm still confused as to how the fraudulent image was created.

The photographer has apparently produced RAW files which he says were taken immediately before and immediately after the winning image. So has he produced a RAW file of the weighing image? If so, how has he done that, if the image is composited? Or is he arguing that he decided to switch the camera from RAW to JPEG only, took the "winning" photo, and then switched the camera back to RAW?

Can anyone else make sense of this?
 
Messages
4,190
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
#30
I'm still confused as to how the fraudulent image was created.

The photographer has apparently produced RAW files which he says were taken immediately before and immediately after the winning image. So has he produced a RAW file of the weighing image? If so, how has he done that, if the image is composited? Or is he arguing that he decided to switch the camera from RAW to JPEG only, took the "winning" photo, and then switched the camera back to RAW?

Can anyone else make sense of this?
According to the BBC article:
"Unfortunately, I do not have another image of the animal because it is a long exposure of 30 seconds and ISO 5000," Mr Cabral said.

"After the flashes were fired, the animal left the place, so it was not possible to make another photo with the animal coming out of the place that is totally dark."

It's a 30 second grab shot!
 
Messages
714
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#31
I'm still confused as to how the fraudulent image was created.

The photographer has apparently produced RAW files which he says were taken immediately before and immediately after the winning image. So has he produced a RAW file of the weighing image? If so, how has he done that, if the image is composited? Or is he arguing that he decided to switch the camera from RAW to JPEG only, took the "winning" photo, and then switched the camera back to RAW?

Can anyone else make sense of this?
Yes a raw file will have been produced of the winning image (I believe an OOC jpg is allowed now), I don't think the image will have been composited and the reason he is unable, or unwilling to produce any of the files from either side is simply that they would have compounded the falsification of the image.

In other words raw files from either side of the winning image do exist, they will simply provide further evidence that a taxidermy specimen was used!!!!
 
Messages
8,689
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
#33
I actually disagree with their conclusion from the given evidence. The front leg is significantly different, as is the position/angle (tilt/roll) of the head... the head angle (roll) would be particularly hard to edit.

I've seen enough animals of the same species side by side to realize they often look very nearly identical.

Are you not aware that photo-identification is widely used in various different species of birds and mammals to distinguish between different individuals of the same species?
 
Messages
593
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#34
What? They are claiming he stole the display animal, used it as a prop, and returned it w/o anyone knowing? Or that he composited the image? You can't supply an OOC composite like this, and the first option is pretty far fetched IMO.
I'm pretty sure the implication is he took the taxidermy specimen. Depending on where it's kept it's possible borrowed it when nobody was looking. Or perhaps he had inside help....
 
Messages
442
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
#37
What? They are claiming he stole the display animal, used it as a prop, and returned it w/o anyone knowing? Or that he composited the image? You can't supply an OOC composite like this, and the first option is pretty far fetched IMO.
Why is it far fetched? It was in Brazil where corruption is endemic to the highest levels. I would have thought it would be quite easy to pay someone to allow you to borrow the anteater.
 
Messages
52
Edit My Images
Yes
#38
What is most amusing is that he’s still protesting innocence/ignorance and claims that the pic is real.

Didn’t he have it on a long exposure, so did the anteater stop moving for the exposure?
 
Messages
442
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
#39
Didn’t he have it on a long exposure, so did the anteater stop moving for the exposure?
I would guess that it was a 30 sec exposure to get the stars and click beetles, then a flash to light the termite mounds and (what a lucky surprise) the anteater.
 
Messages
21,752
Edit My Images
Yes
#40
I would guess that it was a 30 sec exposure to get the stars and click beetles, then a flash to light the termite mounds and (what a lucky surprise) the anteater.
Yup I've used that technique shooting cars against a starry sky. Long exposure for the sky/background and at the end hit the car with a number of flash guns setup and manually triggered with a wireless flash.
 
Top