Wildlife photographer of the year - FAIL

[old.user4556]

BBC News - Wildlife photographer stripped of award

I see a lot of epic photos on Flickr and around the web, and whilst some deserve praise for being brilliant, I do see some shots that make me think "hmmmMMMMM" but I wouldn't dare voice my opinion. It's like old school Quakeworld where someone on an FFA server would be so excellent with the lightning gun that it would make you scream "hax!", but I reckon a fair chunk of them actually were at it .

 

[SilverHood]

Kinda lame. Well spotted by the judges though:
http://www.suomenluonto.fi/susivertailu-pienempi.jpg/image

 

[old.user4556]

I thought it was a tremendous picture, almost too well done to be true but who was I to question the efforts of a pr0 .

 

[TdC]

I've seen National Geographic pics like it, with tigers. In fact, iirc we discussed doing it like that in an unrelated context.

Anyway, it's a strong message, and once again makes true that if something looks too good to be true it usually is :/

 

[mooSe_]

Why can't they just pick another winner from the ones that they 'shortlisted' or whatever rather than saying that there will be no winner at all? I'd be well pissed off if my photo would've won if this guy hadn't entered.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

I don't understand the issue here really. It's still a great photograph, whether it's a trained animal or not?

 

[ECA]

I don't understand the issue here really. It's still a great photograph, whether it's a trained animal or not?

wildlife

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Do the competition rules state that it must be wild and unaffected by man? Couldn't see anything in that article.

Would also open a bag of worms - since when have we (humans) not had an effect on nature - we drastically shape it, change it, and in order to be in a position to take wildlife photograps, we often alter behaviours of animals.

Therefore selecting which are truly natural and which aren't isn't as clear cut as it would need to be for something like this. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Calaen]

Do the competition rules state that it must be wild and unaffected by man? Couldn't see anything in that article.

Would also open a bag of worms - since when have we (humans) not had an effect on nature - we drastically shape it, change it, and in order to be in a position to take wildlife photograps, we often alter behaviours of animals.

Therefore selecting which are truly natural and which aren't isn't as clear cut as it would need to be for something like this. Where do you draw the line?

It's not a very hard line to see really, the guy by the looks of it got a trained animal to jump over the gate for him.

 

[Rubber Bullets]

From the rules for the 2010 competition:

8. Subjects and Ethics Only pictures of wild animals and plants and landscapes are eligible subjects. Images of domestic animals (cats, dogs, farm animals, etc) and cultivated plants (species or hybrids grown in a cultivated setting) do not count as wildlife. Pictures of captive animals (animals that do not live a free and wild existence) or involving baiting using live bait are not eligible, and any other baiting must be declared. Pictures of animal models or any other animals being exploited for profit may not be entered. Images of animals being restrained in any way are only accepted in the One Earth and Wildlife Photojournalism categories when illustrating an issue. The competition asks photographers to put the welfare of animals first and to safeguard their environment and that they do not do anything to injure or distress animals or destroy the environment in their attempt to get the shot. If the Owners or the Judges suspect that a picture was taken using cruel or unethical practices, the entry will be disqualified.

Assuming they haven't changed them I guess it makes it pretty clear.

RB

 

[yaruar]

It's not a very hard line to see really, the guy by the looks of it got a trained animal to jump over the gate for him.

And he probably spent a night taking 100's of photographs of it rather than a single shot. I was always a bit dubious abou this picture, it's just a bit too good to be not staged.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

From the rules for the 2010 competition:



Assuming they haven't changed them I guess it makes it pretty clear.

RB

That's exactly what I was looking for, clears it up, cheers.

And he probably spent a night taking 100's of photographs of it rather than a single shot. I was always a bit dubious abou this picture, it's just a bit too good to be not staged.

You'll find that pretty much every good photographer will take numerous versions of the same shot, this is absolutely no reason to discount it. For example, if you go and take some landscape shots you will take a LOT of shots of the same subject to see which is best. Ask milou or Big G or anyone else that does it.

 

[Sparx]

very true Wazz ive taken many shots of the same image to make sure i get the best shit, but the shot that won is a one time only shot (yes i know burst shoot) if the wolf was wild you couldnt go ask it to go round again

 

[rynnor]

I still cant tell how you could decide it was staged and not just a very good/lucky pic?

He could have learned its movements and been well prepared - how would you tell the difference?

 

[Ch3tan]

I still cant tell how you could decide it was staged and not just a very good/lucky pic?

He could have learned its movements and been well prepared - how would you tell the difference?

Heh neither you or Wazz read the article did you?

Mr Carwardine explained that he and his fellow judges had gathered evidence and sought the opinions of wolf experts in order to reach their decision.
The experts compared the winning picture to pictures of Ossian, a tame wolf that lives at a zoological park near Madrid called Canada Real.
"You can see several very distinctive markings and the experts all agreed that, yes, it's the same wolf," said Mr Carwardine.



http://www.suomenluonto.fi/susivertailu-pienempi.jpg/image

 

[old.user4556]

Not to mention the complete and utter BS that he spouted in his blurb that went along with the picture.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Heh neither you or Wazz read the article did you?

Mr Carwardine explained that he and his fellow judges had gathered evidence and sought the opinions of wolf experts in order to reach their decision.
The experts compared the winning picture to pictures of Ossian, a tame wolf that lives at a zoological park near Madrid called Canada Real.
"You can see several very distinctive markings and the experts all agreed that, yes, it's the same wolf," said Mr Carwardine.



http://www.suomenluonto.fi/susivertailu-pienempi.jpg/image

Point me to where the information I was after was in the article then? Regarding rules for entry and disqualification? I'd fully read all the stuff about the Wolf markings, I never doubted it wasn't a trained wolf?

 

[Calaen]

Point me to where the information I was after was in the article then? Regarding rules for entry and disqualification? I'd fully read all the stuff about the Wolf markings, I never doubted it wasn't a trained wolf?

Well you asked why he was disqualified and the answer was because it was meant to be a wildlife photograph, not a trained dog jumping over a fence competition.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

*slaps forehead*

 

[caLLous]

Lol, if it HAD been a "trained dog jumping over a fence competition" though he would've aced it.