'Wild' Wolf Too Tame! - Wildlife Photographer of the Year Disqualified

<p>Wildlife Photographer of the year Disqualified:<br>

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/bbc-wildlife-photo010.html#cr<br>

Best regards,<br>

/Clay</p>

<p>also posted later at (<a href="../photography-news-forum/00VYYQ?unified_p=1">link</a> )</p>

<p>See also: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8470962.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8470962.stm</a></p>

<P>

And there is a parallel thread in our News Forum:

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photography-news-forum/00VYYQ">

http://www.photo.net/photography-news-forum/00VYYQ</A>

</P>

<p>For alot of people, this one single photograph is the first they've ever heard of the Photographer of the Year competition. This photo is already ten times as famous as any other past winner. For them to bring shame down on Mr Rodriguez like this really brings shame and dishonor on themselves. They're taking their best chance to spotlight wildlife photography to the world in a time when this is a dying art, and flushing it down the toilet in a monumentous feat of arrogance and ill-conceived malice.</p>

<p>I am somewhat confused by Hal B's response, after all this is a 'Wildlife' photography competition, as it is, then to exclude a photograph of an animal that is not wild would seem a natural response. I also understand from this years entry that captive wildlife entries will not be allowed. It may be a dying art, but photography of trained captive animals is not the solution. There is a world of wildlife out there to photographed in its natural habitat and we don't need to stoop to the level of 'trained monkeys'. If they are certain of their case then I say well done BBC and the Natural History Museum. </p>

<p>As a counterpoint to his disqualification, I found a blog entry from back in October in which he describes using an infrared beam to catch the jump. In a way, that's neither here nor there by the "modeling" of the animal. Yet, it may explain part of the catch of the picture. </p>

<p>http://www.photoradar.com/blogs/article/interview-with-jose-luis-rodriguez-winner-of-wildlife-photographer-of-the-year<br>

They had a follow up article on the prize money: http://www.photoradar.com/news/story/wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-winner-disqualified<br>

And an interview with one of the judges of the contest, in a blog entry describing the wolf as one that is captive in a zoological park: http://www.photoradar.com/news/story/wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2010-“no-captive-animals-allowed<br>

The photographer has been noted several times as stating that the wolf is wild.</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I found some more pictures here from him I think<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/cazadoresdeluz/image/88977376">http://www.pbase.com/cazadoresdeluz/image/88977376</a><br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/cazadoresdeluz/image/93415887">http://www.pbase.com/cazadoresdeluz/image/93415887</a><br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/cazadoresdeluz/image/82546912">http://www.pbase.com/cazadoresdeluz/image/82546912</a><br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/cazadoresdeluz/48">http://www.pbase.com/cazadoresdeluz/48</a></p>

 

<p>The contest owners stated that the award money won't be given out because its a blind competition and the other "commended" photographers are identified, thus, spoiling the competition. The rules for this year mention only commended photographers but looking at the 2009 galleries there are runner ups listed. If these runner up photographers were chosen blindly and the rules of 2009 are the same, then any lone runner up in the category where the winner was disqualified should be the winner and paid accordingly. I don't know about contest laws in the UK but, if a single runner up was chosen blindly, the disqualification makes that person the winner. Failing to pay them would seem a classic instance of a breach of contract. In the U.S., it may violate contest type laws as well. I see some categories have more than one runner up which makes little sense as the term usually means second place. The contest rules should be modified. They obviously know this situation may happen again.</p>

<p>Revisiting the site and reconsidering my thoughts, I did not see or missed the actual criteria specifically for photographer of the year category. It discusses votes but not much else. It could be that the the next top vote getter may not have received the most votes if the winning image had been prevented from being in the contest. Still, it seems wrong, if not questionable, that no prize money will be awarded to anyone. There is still a need to make a rule, for future instances, for what happens in the event of winner disqualification.</p>

<p>I don't think that is a trained wolf, and as far as I can tell, I have as much proof as anyone else: none. In absence of any proof that this is a trained wolf, this is an outrageous act on the part of the Competition judges. All they can say is that it is "probably" a trained wolf. From what I can make out of the backlash against this photo, there were alot of sore losers who just hadn't considered the idea of setting up professional lights and an infrared camera to catch the shot of a wild animal in the dark. The shot was "too perfect" and therefore had to be faked.</p>

<p>Yeah, the photo looks good. It looks REALLY good. Probably too good to come from MY collection! I would be skeptical if my neighbor had shot a photo this good, or my brother, or any of my friends. I would be skeptical to see this picture on the wall of any photographer, because it is just SO STUNNING! It transcends boundaries. However, it is in no way impossible. It is well lit, and that is remarkable considering the extreme proximity to the animal. Is there any reason why this can't be a wild animal?</p>

<p>Jealousy is not enough of a reason to strip a contest winner of his prize. Shame on the Museum, and shame on the Competition.</p>

<p>Hal,</p>

<p>You can get on your indignant high horse as much as you like. The Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition is the most prestigious competition of its kind in the world. They demand the utmost honesty (to the extent that you have to send in the RAW file with your entry for authentication reasons) and they have become such an important competition because of their strict rules.</p>

<p>The evidence they have is supposed to show the same wolf in other circumstances and you can rent it, that is not a wild animal. Besides, many many images set up just like the "winner" have been made, it is not a skillful image to make, just find a good tracker or spend some time, set up your gear, sleep for the night, after breakfast check your results, repeat if necessary. Just check the guys website, he has many images like it, I was impressed with the underwater Kingfisher though.</p>

<p>For the competition to maintain any credibility when questions are asked they <strong>have</strong> to respond (remember the National Geographic debacle?) , by acting like they have they have sent a very clear message, we are not interested in consequences, if your images can't be proven to be of immaculate provenance then we will act, even if we are embarrassed. I think they did the right thing.</p>

<p>With regards second place becoming first, well if the scoring structure does not allow for that then it shouldn't, that is just a fact. The short listed images can't be re-voted on, the votes for the first placed image can't be re-assigned. It is not an Olympic 100m race.</p>

<p>Nobody is jealous, that is infantile to suggest, they are in an incredibly difficult position, questions were raised, their competitions reputation is at stake. There is no shame in the way they have reacted, the only shame is that the circumstance was not anticipated and a fallback plan to allow a credible winner to rise from the other entrants. The prize money is a small matter and one I am sure the owners are not too concerned with, but for diplomatic reasons it would seem a good idea to donate it to a wild animal protection charity.</p>

<p>Hal--<br />I have a ton of portable lights (17 in total) and am a very active outdoor night time flash photographer. I go out several nights per week during winter to take shots. (I'm saying I have some experience here.) I also grew up on a farm (still own it) and am very familiar with wildlife, and live on the edge of wolf country myself. The odds of catching something as rare as a wolf at night, being at the right fence, getting perfect exposure in one take--is in my opinion pretty much zero. Lights were set up, flashmeter used to perfect exposure, and wolf was encouraged to jump the fence. Probably several times to get it right. I think the committee was correct in rescinding the award as their rules state subject must be wild. I also think they are incredibly ignorant of how much work it is to get a flash shot like this so perfect, and really question how they could have thought this was a spontaneous shot in the first place. My reaction would have been, "Natural? Yeah, right."<br />Kent in SD</p>

<p>"they concluded that it was likely that the wolf featured in the image was an animal model that can be hired for photographic purposes"<br>

"<em>The judging panel looked at a range of evidence and took specialist advice from panel judges who have extensive experience of photographing wildlife including wolves. They also considered the responses to specific questions put to the photographer </em>"<br>

If that is what they concluded then it would make sense to disqualify the photo. Too bad it was later rather than sooner.</p>

<p>Hal,</p>

<p>One of the many links to this story in addition to all the other evidence has identified the wildlife park that this particular wolf lives at. I read that the first complaints originated from fellow photographers in Spain who recognised this particular animal. It does suggest that the evidence was overwhelming. Whilst of course it would have been better had this been discovered prior to the award being made, which I am sure is the view of both organisors, they do rely on the competitors honest participation.</p>

<p>This is interesting:<br>

http://www.wild-wonders.com/photo_competition_winners.asp?month=2&year=2009&cat=EWW&age=18+&show=3</p>

<p>The interesting thing to me is the utter lack of published evidence. Maybe the photo was of a tame wolf, maybe not: But why are we supposed to take the competition judges' word for it?</p>

Although it's in Finnish, the photos alone tell most of the story:

http://www.suomenluonto.fi/bbc-luontokuvakisassa-epaillaan-huijausta

<p>I think if a question arises, it's the photographer's responsibility to back up his claim. If it were my shot being questioned, I'd be out there the same day, taking pictures of the gate and the surroundings, to prove that it wasn't shot in a zoo or preserve. I'd also send the contact sheet containing the frame that was in question. If the photographer didn't or couldn't back up his claim that the shot was done in the wild, then his claim doesn't have much validity.</p>

<p>With regard to the judging procedure, withdrawing first prize negates any chance that any other entrant had to win the contest. All entry fees ought to be refunded to all the entrants. The judges failed to do their job. The validity of the winning photo should have been determined before the winner was announced.</p>

<p>Why would you not believe them?</p>

<p>They have absolutely nothing to gain from this debacle other than saving a little prize money, they have a huge amount to lose in credibility though. I would expect that given the high profile of this incident and the probable fallout from it that they are pretty certain the image is not as first presented.</p>

<p>Do you not find it strange that he didn't do it once, this "impossible, once in a lifetime, image" but at least twice from different angles in different locations with very similar looking wolves (all bar the white balance!)?</p>

<p>The Finnish article is available in English here - <a href="http://www.suomenluonto.fi/bbcs-nature-photo-competition-judge-admits-winner-photo-investigated-due-to-fraud-allegations">http://www.suomenluonto.fi/bbcs-nature-photo-competition-judge-admits-winner-photo-investigated-due-to-fraud-allegations</a></p>

<p>Thanks Bob,</p>

<p>He is so busted, bitten ear or not.................</p>

<p>Scott--<br />I wouldn't have believed it was a wild wolf even if there was just one shot. The lighting is just too perfect. The shadows fall perfectly behind the wolf, the light fall off is perfect, there is no spill at all, the exposure is spot on and very even. In my own experience this just doesn't happen in one take, at least not in real life. It would take a lot of time to set up lights etc. and meter this. That would have left a lot of human scent around. I would bet he spent two to four hours getting this shot "right." Again, speaking as someone who has some experience doing night flash shots, I'm just not buying this wasn't set up and staged. I truly admire his skill with flash, and his ability to previsualize and create the image. It is a shame that someone with this level of talent felt it necessary to deceive the judges. Lest anyone feel sorry for him, how about feeling sorry for the 1st runner up who did follow the rules and has now been cheated out of the prize that was rightfully his (hers)?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>The kind of evidence I would like to see is, for example, a statement from someone at Canada Real that the photographer actually worked with their wolf Ossian.<br>

The wolf photos might look similar. They might not. Likewise the photo of the gate might be similar and might not. There are a lot of "mights" there.<br>

I don't know about the photographer, but perhaps he's kept out of it because he felt the deck was stacked against him. He has a number of other similar photos on a website and seems to specialize in this kind of image. I don't, myself, find them very compelling, but I also don't think they would be impossible to create with wild animals and plenty of hard work.<br>

Take a look, for example, at the work of <a href="http://www.durmphoto.com">Michael Durham</a>, who sets up exceedingly intricate camera traps and leaves them in place for weeks at a time.</p>

<p> </p>

I'm a little surprised that nobody has commented on the link posted by Dave Reichert that appears to be an almost, but not

quite identical shot on the same wolf jumping over the same fence.

<p>Mark</p>

<p>Sorry, I looked at it but thought it was the same image, silly me!</p>

<p>Bob,</p>

<p>That is a daft approach to take. The "evidence" that we have linked up in a couple of hours is more than damning enough. The competition adjudicators will take a far more serious look at the pictures and consult experts. But were we in a civil court and going for likely probability, the other side would have settled before now, if it were going to beyond reasonable doubt then I'm pretty happy to convict too.</p>

<p>Now you say the photographer has been quiet because he knows the odds are stacked against him, I say piffle, he is quiet because he has been busted. All he had to do was give a fair account of how he took the image when entering the competition, which he almost certainly didn't, then it could have been judged fairly on its merits against the other entries. Were I to be wronged like he has if he is innocent then I'd be making one hell of a noise.</p>