- Messages
- 3,194
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
Full story here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43912583
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43912583
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.ROTFL .... I really can't understand how people can actually be proud of winning something they had to cheat at.
Au contraire. They're natural and (being dead) they're history.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.
wasn't it WPY 2 or 3 years ago with the wolf trained to jump the gate?
The 'Original' for this image will have been available and would have been checked as part of the judging process.I liked his "I have the RAW for the shots either side of this one, but mysteriously not this actual shot" excuse.
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.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...e-photographer-of-the-year-2012-lpoty.444304/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.....)?
wasn't it WPY 2 or 3 years ago with the wolf trained to jump the gate?
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 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.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 establishmentI 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.
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....I actually disagree with their conclusion from the given evidence.
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 ?
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.Not forgetting he couldn't provide an original raw image with the animal in...
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).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?
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.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.
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....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.
Ah yes, I'm going to have to try and resist going through that thread again........
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.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?
It was a great thread.
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'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....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.
hehe Steven, really? perhaps you should visit this establishment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9tSN0178Us
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.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 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.Didn’t he have it on a long exposure, so did the anteater stop moving for the exposure?
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.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.