1. PaulButler

    PaulButler

    Messages:
    3,364
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
  2. Mike.P

    Mike.P

    Messages:
    4,097
    Edit My Images:
    No
    ROTFL .... I really can't understand how people can actually be proud of winning something they had to cheat at.
     
  3. The W

    The W

    Messages:
    575
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
    peterat likes this.
  4. Pete B

    Pete B

    Messages:
    529
    Name:
    Pete
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  5. StephenM

    StephenM I know a Blithering Idiot

    Messages:
    2,646
    Name:
    Stephen
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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.
     
  6. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    11,495
    Name:
    Stewart with a 'w'
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Au contraire. They're natural and (being dead) they're history.
     
  7. johnnypanic

    johnnypanic

    Messages:
    3,488
    Name:
    John
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Pretty lazy photographer :D Use the stuffed anteater at the park, couldn't have been bothered, to nick one from somewhere else :rolleyes:
     
    gremlin16 likes this.
  8. Byker28i

    Byker28i

    Messages:
    21,314
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Another one? It seems all competitions have this issue...
     
  9. Uneducated_Rick

    Uneducated_Rick

    Messages:
    2,773
    Name:
    Ricky
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    wasn't it WPY 2 or 3 years ago with the wolf trained to jump the gate?
     
    swanseamale47 likes this.
  10. Durbs

    Durbs

    Messages:
    812
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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.
     
    gremlin16 likes this.
  11. PhilH04

    PhilH04

    Messages:
    670
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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....
     
  12. jerry12953

    jerry12953

    Messages:
    8,395
    Name:
    Jeremy Moore
    Edit My Images:
    No

    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.....)?
     
    SFTPhotography likes this.
  13. gramps

    gramps

    Messages:
    32,155
    Edit My Images:
    No
    https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...e-photographer-of-the-year-2012-lpoty.444304/
     
  14. tijuana taxi

    tijuana taxi

    Messages:
    9,925
    Name:
    Rich
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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: Apr 27, 2018
  15. jerry12953

    jerry12953

    Messages:
    8,395
    Name:
    Jeremy Moore
    Edit My Images:
    No
    SFTPhotography likes this.
  16. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,215
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2018
    4wd likes this.
  17. jerry12953

    jerry12953

    Messages:
    8,395
    Name:
    Jeremy Moore
    Edit My Images:
    No

    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 ?
     
  18. PhilH04

    PhilH04

    Messages:
    670
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
  19. PaulButler

    PaulButler

    Messages:
    3,364
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    hehe Steven, really? perhaps you should visit this establishment ;)

    View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9tSN0178Us
     
  20. PhilH04

    PhilH04

    Messages:
    670
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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....
     
  21. Byker28i

    Byker28i

    Messages:
    21,314
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Not forgetting he couldn't provide an original raw image with the animal in...
     
  22. PhilH04

    PhilH04

    Messages:
    670
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
  23. garryknight

    garryknight

    Messages:
    4,823
    Name:
    Garry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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?
     
  24. rob-nikon

    rob-nikon

    Messages:
    4,592
    Name:
    Rob
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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!
     
  25. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,215
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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: Apr 27, 2018
  26. Byker28i

    Byker28i

    Messages:
    21,314
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  27. PhilH04

    PhilH04

    Messages:
    670
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
  28. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    11,495
    Name:
    Stewart with a 'w'
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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?
     
    sk66 likes this.
  29. SFTPhotography

    SFTPhotography Top Cat

    Messages:
    15,990
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It was a great thread.
     
  30. Ed Sutton

    Ed Sutton

    Messages:
    4,094
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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!
     
  31. PhilH04

    PhilH04

    Messages:
    670
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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!!!!
     
  32. jerry12953

    jerry12953

    Messages:
    8,395
    Name:
    Jeremy Moore
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Don't tempt me.....life's too short.........
     
  33. jerry12953

    jerry12953

    Messages:
    8,395
    Name:
    Jeremy Moore
    Edit My Images:
    No

    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?
     
  34. The W

    The W

    Messages:
    575
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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....
     
  35. dcash29

    dcash29

    Messages:
    2,373
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    What an a******e
     
  36. jerry12953

    jerry12953

    Messages:
    8,395
    Name:
    Jeremy Moore
    Edit My Images:
    No
  37. Bollygum

    Bollygum

    Messages:
    440
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
  38. IAmATeaf

    IAmATeaf

    Messages:
    52
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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?
     
    swanseamale47 likes this.
  39. Bollygum

    Bollygum

    Messages:
    440
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
  40. Byker28i

    Byker28i

    Messages:
    21,314
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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.
     
    SFTPhotography likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice