Who's been a naughty boy

[gsgary]

Wildlife photographer of the year stripped of his award | Art and design | guardian.co.uk

 

[Overread]

There's even more in this thread here:
http://www.juzaforum.com/forum-en/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=10793&start=0

including some facts the papers don't have or report on - such as the existance of another shot of the wolf taken by another camera in the same pose

 

[Ccauceg]

What people will do... Its a shame he won with cheating. I don't about everyone else but I would feel so wrong inside that I won a HUGE prize for wildlife photography by using a tamed animal.

 

[itznfb]

Not only a tame animal... but one trained for photography.

 

[Hardrock]

What a meathead! And I agree why would the wolf jump over like that when he could obviously squeeze through.

 

[Derrel]

I followed this controversy for a number of weeks over at dPreview,where it spawned two threads, with over 250 posts. Here is the second thread
BBC Nature Photo Controversy (cont'd) [Page 1]: News Discussion Forum: Digital Photography Review

in which you can find the photographer's very cleverly-worded description of the photo, in which he very carefully never says the wolf is either wild or captive, and he never divulges that it is a game park, but talks about the "land's owner" welcoming him and his camera, and makes a specific reference to wild wolves coming back to that province in Spain, and how the area farmers wanted the wolves killed...all in all, a masterful statement accompanied the entry, with very carefully-worded passages to make the judges THINK ABOUT wild wolves, and referring to the game park not as anything, but instead talking about the "land's owner" welcoming him in his photographic endeavor.

Yet another faked wildlife photo, being passed off as the genuine article. Kind of sad, really.

 

[Ccauceg]

I followed this controversy for a number of weeks over at dPreview,where it spawned two threads, with over 250 posts. Here is the second thread
BBC Nature Photo Controversy (cont'd) [Page 1]: News Discussion Forum: Digital Photography Review

in which you can find the photographer's very cleverly-worded description of the photo, in which he very carefully never says the wolf is either wild or captive, and he never divulges that it is a game park, but talks about the "land's owner" welcoming him and his camera, and makes a specific reference to wild wolves coming back to that province in Spain, and how the area farmers wanted the wolves killed...all in all, a masterful statement accompanied the entry, with very carefully-worded passages to make the judges THINK ABOUT wild wolves, and referring to the game park not as anything, but instead talking about the "land's owner" welcoming him in his photographic endeavor.

Yet another faked wildlife photo, being passed off as the genuine article. Kind of sad, really.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[itznfb]

I followed this controversy for a number of weeks over at dPreview,where it spawned two threads, with over 250 posts. Here is the second thread
BBC Nature Photo Controversy (cont'd) [Page 1]: News Discussion Forum: Digital Photography Review

in which you can find the photographer's very cleverly-worded description of the photo, in which he very carefully never says the wolf is either wild or captive, and he never divulges that it is a game park, but talks about the "land's owner" welcoming him and his camera, and makes a specific reference to wild wolves coming back to that province in Spain, and how the area farmers wanted the wolves killed...all in all, a masterful statement accompanied the entry, with very carefully-worded passages to make the judges THINK ABOUT wild wolves, and referring to the game park not as anything, but instead talking about the "land's owner" welcoming him in his photographic endeavor.

Yet another faked wildlife photo, being passed off as the genuine article. Kind of sad, really.

According to the interview with the head judge the submitted caption specifically stated it was a "wild wolf".
Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2010: “No captive animals allowed" | PhotoRadar

With all the winning images we do ask to hear the captions. So we did hear the wolf one, and we were just impressed because the description said it was a wild Iberian wolf. We thought ‘wow – what an amazing achievement’. At the time, we have to take what the photographers say as the truth.

 

[Derrel]

I read the juror's simple, one-sentence summary that the caption said it was a wild wolf. HOWEVER, I have read the photographer's own,original caption information and that is not quite what it said!!! It did not *unequivocally* say that the wolf was wild--it talked about the reappearance of wild wolves in the province, and of local farmers and their desire to kill the wild wolves of the area, and it basically predisposed the listener(s) to THINK about wild wolves in the area, and then introduced the idea of a "land owner" who had wolves on a certain piece of property--which was NOT named as a wildlife park, but that "land owner" happened be the owner of a nature preserve named Canada Real. The original caption information was very,very cleverly worded, but there was no actual statement that said the wolf in the photo was a wild wolf....that was not stated!

I have read the original caption submitted multiple times,and while this one judge says very quickly that the caption said it was a wild wolf, the actual extended caption is very,very cleverly worded to make the reader/listener jump to the conclusion that it was a wild wolf. The use of the words wild wolves was not actually applied to THIS wolf; the "wild wolves" in that part of Spain are mentioned in the caption, but the fact that THIS wolf was living in a nature preserve was not mentioned. The original caption mentioned wild wolves coming back, local area farmers who wished to kill wild wolves--and then mentioned a "land owner" a few words later, causing the listener or reader of the caption to make the mental leap from wild wolves to wild wolves to the PICTURED WOLF, but the pictured wolf was not described clearly and plainly as a wild wolf; the statement itself was basically a load of bull%&8+,and counted on preconditioning and people's nature to "fill in the blanks" and conclude that this wolf, too, was wild!

If the judges were to have had the caption READ ALOUD to them by another person, as a panel, it is obvious after having read the original caption that they would almost assuredly draw the "wild wolf" inference from the cleverly-worded caption. The caption information contained some true statements, and mentions of wild wolves, and farmers with a desire to kill wild wolves, and then very cleverly segued into the wolf in the entered photograph and how the the photographic process went, but the original caption I read did not call "THIS" wolf a wild animal....that was to be inferred by the reader. Incredibly disingenuous!!!

Anyway, the photographer entered another almost identical frame,shot at the same location,of the same wolf, into another contest,and it can be seen here:

Photo Competition Winners - Nature photography - images from the Wild Wonders of Europe.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

It is sad but it is not surprising. Society has been teaching us for years that it is okay to cheat. "Just don't get caught."

 

[epp_b]

Despite what the photographer said, the competition rules explicitly prohibit the use of animal models, according the The Guardian article.

 

[Natalie]

I wonder if it's considered "cheating" when I catch a wild snake and then pose it for photographs... You can't really take any outstanding photographs of snakes without posing them.

 

[Phranquey]

I wonder if it's considered "cheating" when I catch a wild snake and then pose it for photographs... You can't really take any outstanding photographs of snakes without posing them.

I don't consider that cheating at all. He (or she) was found in the wild, a few poses were requested, and then allowed to go on his merry way.

I found this poor guy crossing a busy road, so I pulled off real quick, grabbed a stick and scooped him to a safe location. After a little modeling, he went on with his day.

 

[epp_b]

It's still wild, it wasn't "hired", so I don't see why not.

 

[ottor]

This is unbelievelably timely !!! I got an invitation from a friend of mine from Salt Lake City, to make a weekend trip to the Triple D Game Farm in Montana to shoot some wildlife... I've never heard of that before, and I told him that I wasn't about to shoot an animal that was raised in a farm with the purpose to kill it.. :blushing: He informed me that it was a farm with dozens of different species, kept there specifically for photographs from patrons that pay to see certain animals and take pictures of them.. Man, that was news to me!

Triple D Game Farm

I told him that it sounded fun, but I couldn't afford those prices, but perhaps at some other time... Then I was curious how many of these 'farms' were out there - did a little research and found this article...

Game farm 'nature' photos misleading - Daily Chronicle

I think it's something that I'd still like to do... It appears you're assigned a professonal photographer to your group and he spends time with you in getting some good shots.. But there is no way that I'd try and pass one of those photos off as one that I tracked down and shot in the wild.. First, there's nobody that I know that would believe I got close enough to a Siberian Tiger just to take his picture ... Second - it's just wrong.

Theres only one thing that is stopping me - besides the cost.. I'm a huge animal rights advocate.. I think it's kinna sad that they keep some of these beautiful species caged up until someone comes up with a thousand bucks, for them to drag them out and have them 'pose' for the camera.. There's just something wrong with that also...

Anyone ever heard of Game Farms (photography) before, and what do you think of the ethics of what they do? = Aside from the creep that would 'pretend' he was the Great White Photographer, would it be something that you'd be interested in?? - The pictures from the Triple D website are really neat, but - does it conflict with your integrity?

Interestng topic...