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

[tholte]

<p>Why doesn't the photographer just take one of the judges (or representitive) of the competition to the spot where he took the photo? Doesn't the game park have a list somewhere of people who have signed up to photograph their animals? </p>

[Two23]

<p>I looked at the photo Dave R. linked to (<a href="http://www.wild-wonders.com/photo_competition_winners.asp?month=2&year=2009&cat=EWW&age=18+&show=3">http://www.wild-wonders.com/photo_competition_winners.asp?month=2&year=2009&cat=EWW&age=18+&show=3</a> ) and note the little bumps and shapes of the timbers that make up the gate. They match up perfectly with the "winning" shot. Same gate. Also look at the lighting. In the photo Dave linked, it's very crude. There is a hotspot on the wolf's paw, exposure is uneven, and the direction is not very good. Also, not enough light was used. I'm not buying that this shot was from an infrared trap either. The shot by Rodriguez obviously was building on the first shot. He dramatically improved the lighting, but I still refuse that EITHER shots are what they claim to be. Both are staged photos.<br>

Kent in SD </p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>On a different note here is a quote from a photogrpaher I know who was in that category - and whether or not you believe the photo was a fake - the effect on at least one photog is considerable:</p>

<p><strong>Reply posted by Danny Green on 01/20/10 at 11:16 am EST <br /> Registered on 11/27/05, 220 Topics, 1448 Replies

<p>

<table border="0" cellpadding="10" width="100%" bgcolor="#efefef">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>When this story first broke out I was gutted and was hoping this was not going to turn out to be true, I was hoping it was just a mis-understanding and that everything would be how it should be. I was one of those Category winners on the night and was secretly hoping that this was it, this was the year and this was the time that my hard work would be regonised on a world stage, who amongst us wouldn't. There was 12 of us in that room on the night and we must have had all the same thoughts. Then the winner was announced and I was dissappointed but accepted it and just reminded myself of how well I had done in the first place. So to say this has tarred the event is an understatement. It is sad for the Competition, sad for the people that work so hard on it behind the scenes, sad for the judges, sad for all the photographers that entered it and sad for the people who have brought the book, products, etc, etc. The photographer in question has made a huge mistake and will regret this for the rest of his life, but it is only a mistake and I hope he is not hounded to death over this. The competition will bounce back that I am sure and will just get bigger and better as the years go by. If one good thing will come of this, that wolf shot will be very famous for years to come and I sincerely hope that it highlights the plight of the Iberian Wolf and changes this animals fortunes around. <br /> <br /> Danny <img src="http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/smileys/icon_smile.gif" alt="" /></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</p>

</strong></p>

<br />

Here is the original quote: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=51689&CGISESSID=ba6b52a5e7bc2a07ada50337db1951e2&u=22741<br />

[bkpix]

<p>OK, having seen that the photo Dave R. posted is a slightly different take on the same event, I'm ready to concede that the winning photo is almost certainly of a tame animal.<br>

The contest judges, though, handled this poorly. To announce that a nature photographer "probably" faked a photo in today's world is a bit like announcing that someone is "probably" a child molester. You need a high standard of evidence for something like this or you keep your mouth shut. They didn't provide it.<br>

I think the judges had good intentions but are better photographers than investigators.</p>

[bkpix]

<p>Whoops, let me take that back... Go over to The Online Photographer and read the discussion in comments there on this issue.<br>

It seems quite plausible that the two photos are of the same event, taken by two separate cameras triggered at about the same instant from slightly different points of view... Rather more plausible, in fact, than the idea that this is a photo of another leap by the same wolf.<br>

So, again, I question where is the hard evidence of fakery?</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I wonder if the photographer has said whether he had multiple cameras in multiple positions with mutiple triggers. That would explain two almost (but not quite) identical shots. Clearly this event is HIGHLY unlikely to have happened more than once if it was "in the wild", so unless he's claiming mutiple shots with mutiple cameras, he's busted.<br>

If he was using multiple cameras you'd wonder why he had both of them set up in almost an identical position, in fact they must have been side by side.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Why is it any more plausible than another leap by the wolf after rearranging the lighting and the camera to get a better shot? </p>

<p>I'm going to defer to the experts and judges on this since they have a lot of information that I do not... probably including exif information with camera serials, time stamps, communications with the photographer, and experts at wolf identification.</p>

<p>With all this information they likely came to the correct conclusion. </p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>In any case, this captive animal stuff has been going on for too long as it is and I'm glad that the judges are putting their foot down. They could have covered this up and avoided controversy but it is good for the continuing relevance of wildlife photography that this is getting aired out. </p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>Why is it any more plausible than another leap by the wolf after rearranging the lighting and the camera to get a better shot?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because, according to Wolf experts, Wolves don't leap gates like that when they can easily crawl through. If you've seen wolves you'll know that in general they are pretty low key when hunting and are unlikely to go leaping over gates in the dark. I suppose it's not impossible, but I'd say it's pretty close to impossible that it would happen twice, at night, in the same place, with the wolf leaping at exactly the same angle, and that both times the photographer was setup in the same spot to capture this rarest of events.</p>

<p>On the other hand trained, semi-domesticated, wolves could probably be easily induced to jump over a gate over and over again.</p>

<p>I'm not sure you can ever "prove" with 100% certianty it was a fake any more than you can prove with 100% certainty that someone commited a crime unless you have a video tape of them doing it. Even by the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", this looks like a setup shot. It easily passes the "by the preponderence of evidence" test.</p>

 

[greg s]

<p>It does seem like an unlikely place to setup a camera trap (the gate). Probably about an even chance of capturing a saucer-man doing the high hurdles.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Bob--</p>

<p>The lighting in the two shots is RADICALLY different. No way was this done with the wolf jumping once. The first guy to shoot it had no where NEAR the sophistication in use of lighting that Rodriguez had in the second, formerly winning, shot. The lighting in the first shot was very primitive.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>There were several rather protracted (and largely interpersonal sniping threads on Dpreview on this). One contained a link to the Museum contest site. The link appears to have become disabled or the site changed or at best, I can't find it and I'm not going to re-read a couple of 100 plus entry threads to track it down. It included an explanation (the photographer's original story?) of how the photographer worked up to the shot. It discusses that he found the location/wolf and began by providing bait of some sort, then allowing the wolf to become accustomed to the camera noises, then flashes etc, then eventually, the capture was made by a triggered camera trap.</p>

<p>So it's probably not a "fake" in that it was a real wolf, etc., the location and nature of the wolf may have been misrepresented - so one may argue over the wildness of a wolf on game farm, or if it was trained - as opposed to just conditioned, but it seems that the totality of the explanation or story of how the picture came about wasn't sustainable and was bent enough that it's possible the judging might have turned out differently if a more accurate description had been provided.</p>

<p>Here's another link that has some extracts of the story:</p>

<p>http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/dec/21/wolf-picture-rodriguez-wildlife-photographer</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>There is a parallel threads on the News Forum here in photo.net. Bob Atkins posted about some of the rules for the contest. Baiting animals is not allowed: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photography-news-forum/00VYYQ">http://www.photo.net/photography-news-forum/00VYYQ</a></p>

<p>Perhaps hindsight is 20/20, but the image in question certainly does not look very natural to begin with. The judges should have noticed that from the very beginning.</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>The shot is AWESOME! Staged or not, I could care less. If it was staged a whole lot of work went into it to get it right. The shot is perfect and he deserves the prize. Again, I am totally outnumbered here, other than Hal. I guess it is my lack of jealousy? I guess if I had tried for years to capture a shot like that, and failed, I would think different. No I wouldn't.</p>

<p>Does everyone here think the shot is great?</p>

<p>I checked out his other work. He does a lot of night photography. It all looks very good. I guess it is possible to set up a shot with a wolf. Deer are prey animals and very weary of people, even the tame ones. So was his deer shot set up? How about all the other great photos on his site, were they all set up?</p>

<p>So they strip his prize, who wins? The runner up is a Red Fox sticking his nose into the camera lens. I bet this photographer had a piece of bacon right up under the lens. Would that be set up? How about the third place, an underwater shot of a bird catching a minnow. I wonder how many hours went into this set up? Great shot but it too is set up. How about all those great photos of songbirds you see. What you dont see is the feeder right beside them. What a joke. All of you folks who are complaining, how many shots have you set up?</p>

<p>Derek</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Oh, and if I had a dime for every photographer that I have seen at the waterfalls picking up twigs. I saw a man brushing off a rock with one of those mini wisk brooms! However, Mr. Rodriguez cheated so the prize should go to the bacon sniffing fox.</p>

<p>Hey Hal, I did not realize you had used the "jealousy" word until I went back to find Mr Rodriguez name in your first repsonse. Not trying to steal your fight. It surely is the right word to use in this argument.</p>

[stp]

<p>Derek, you may not care, but they have rules, and rules need to be followed. If someone doesn't like the rules, they can 1) not participate, and 2) work to get the rules changed.</p>

[bkpix]

<p><a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2010/01/21/comunicacion/1264065808.html&sl=es&tl=en">Google translation of an El Mundo story</a> today about the affair. The translation is a little rough, but it does look bad for Sr. Rodriguez...</p>

[justinblack]

<p>Those who don't see any problem with the image and disagree with the decision to strip the award are missing the point. It doesn't matter if you like the aesthetics of the shot or not. It's the fact that Mr. Rodriguez is guilty of misrepresentation that is the problem. He claimed the wolf is wild. The evidence indicates that the wolf is not wild, but is a handled captive animal. If he had captioned the image "captive wolf handled by a trainer," then the judges would have been appropriately empowered to make an informed decision. Instead, he hoped that his image would be thought to be of a wild wolf, and that his lie wouldn't be found out.<br /> <br /> The impact and significance of wildlife photography, at least in terms of its editorial relevance, has everything to do with its veracity. Mr. Rodriguez's image would be eligible to compete in a photography competition based solely on aesthetics, but it fails the journalistic ethics test of the BBC competition.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Derek--<br />I've already made several posts to this thread and I think I praised the guy's ability to set up great lighting in each. I've also said I think the guy has great talent. What he does NOT have is great judgement or integrity. I do a lot of outdoor night flash photography too, and have had cover shots from it. (Not nature subjects.) I'm hardly "jealous." Rather, I'm just thinking of all those other 40,000 contestants who also tried very hard to win. They played by the rules. Rodriguez didn't. If talent trumps integrity in your world view, you and I (and apparently most here) have some major differences in our approach to life in general. Rodriguez's intent was to deceive.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>The shot is AWESOME! Staged or not, I could care less. If it was staged a whole lot of work went into it to get it right. The shot is perfect and he deserves the prize.</em></p>

<p>The director of the animal park said Mr. Rodriguez has been photographing virtually all the animals of the park, and that he thinks the animal in the photo is probably Ossian. The surroundings are apparently familiar from the park, and the photographer has photographed several different animals leaping the same fence, including other pictures of the wolf. Since this is obviously against the rules to use a taught animal there is no way the photographer could be let keep the prize. It's a <em>wild</em> life photographer competition, not the animal actors' academy "oscars".</p>

<p>BTW. there is no 2nd prize; there are multiple "runner-ups" in different categories and the wildlife photographer of the year prize is considered with different criteria than category winners. In any case the fame is far more important than the money in this case, and to have no overall winner sends a message to candidates that the rules must be obeyed. Although the books have been sold.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Or, to say it another way, it looks like Rodriguez's intent was to steal money through intentional deception. To do so he needed a good photograph and produced one.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I just read that entering captive animals to the competition according to 2009 rules was allowed if marked clearly as captive. Rodriguez claimed that it was a wild animal. In 2010 rules, only pictures of wild animals can be entered.</p>

[gary_anthes]

<p>I may have missed it, but has the photographer himself had nothing to say? It would seem reasonable for the judges to ring him up and ask for an explanation. Then he'd either have to own up to fraud or offer some explanation for the points brought up here. His apparent silence doesn't prove guilt, but it's certainly not helpful.</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Kent,</p>

<p>I do not believe talent trumps integrity. I also do not believe that the 40,000 other contestants played by the rules. I have only seen two other photos, the runner-ups, and it is easy to see that those shots were set up too. Photographers are so good with photoshop you cant believe half of what you see. If I could do anything other than set white balance and sharpen, I still would not. Today, not many folks have integrity. We all know Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Lance Armstrong are juiced. All athletes cheat, they have to keep up with the others who are also cheating. Photography is not much different. Now that we are in the digital era, maybe we should put an asterisk beside every winner.</p>

<p>If Mr. Rodriguez broke the rules he should be disqualified, without a doubt. First, you have to prove that he did. If they are going to give the prize to someone else than they should prove that the others did not break any rules either. Ilkka stated that there will be no winner. That is good, I am all for that.</p>

<p>I guess I can expect a lot of 3/3's on my pictures. It happens every time I go against the grain here. But, I still love you guys anyway.</p>

<p>Derek</p>

[Rod Sorensen]

<p>First of all, it's hard to imagine that anyone could still trust that this is a legitimate picture of a wild wolf. It didn't look like it from the beginning and there is overwhelming evidence that it was set up. I'd say we are at least 95% sure he cheated. And although it is disappointing if other photographers cheated also, that doesn't give this guy a free pass. Second of all, I don't think this is an awesome image. Technically, it looks wonderful. But it is WEIRD. It doesn't look like a wild wolf. It doesn't show normal wolf behaviors. A good wildlife picture of a generally wild animal should show us the animal in a way that we would possibly see it in the wild. This does a terrible job of that. It's like saying a technically perfect picture of an elephant at the circus could pass as a wildlife picture.</p>