National Geographic - nature photo, or not?

[rebetli_kontr_zva]

NG is silent thus protecting the sinner.

Another American dream has fallen to ashes.

[ligia_dovale]

Here is NG reply to my letter:

 

Dear Ligia Dovale:

 

National Geographic takes very seriously our reputation for accuracy and

veracity. Before we published the Mayfly story, the pictures and text underwent

exhaustive research to ensure their accuracy. After hearing concerns from

naturArt, we asked several prominent ornithologists, entomologists, nature

photographers, and photo editors to review the pictures, especially the

kingfisher picture, and to seriously consider each points they raised. They

informed us that there are legitimate explanations for each of the objections

outlined. Accordingly, they concluded that the coverage shows natural appearance

and behavior, and was photographed in the wild.

 

Because of their reaction, we are confident that this coverage meets our

rigorous journalistic standards.

 

It is the policy of National Geographic magazine not to alter, either by

electronic or conventional photo-engraving techniques, the editorial content of

the photographs it publishes. In two well-publicized instances some years ago

(1982), the Society altered photographs as experiments with the technology. It

was subsequently decided that the integrity of our editorial content was far

more important than the benefits of using this technology to create images. We

have not published an altered photograph since, except in instances where the

legend clearly stated that the photograph was changed and the reason for that

change--such as the"Monkey Business" photograph in our October 1995 article on

the Information Revolution.

 

I hope this helps to clarify our position on photo manipulation.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Joseph M. Blanton

Director

Research Correspondence

National Geographic Society

Washington, DC

(202) 857-7656

[gabor_radvanszki]

Hi all,

I am a Hungarian, amateur photographer. Besides the bilingual website starting the debate, I am fortunate to understand the articles written at www.index.hu about the scandal - following up the story as the ONLY media entity. There were other Hungarian papers involved, but the story died.

Now NaturePhoto Soc. of Hungary contacted NatGEO and the photographer to show the public the original negative/slides of the shots.

The guy (mr. szentpeteri) refused to do so. Let me note that several years ago he was convicted for submitting "fake" or "staged" pictures to a Hungarian nature photo contest.

The latest article can be read at http://index.hu/kultur/media/natgeo0908/ sorry, only in Hungarian.

 

The fisrt Hungarian edition of NatGeo appeared in Hungary in May, with the mentioned picture on its cover.

 

Someone with the necessary contacts should submit the story to New York Times or Washington Post, or Science or something similar.

I am sure NatGeo then would respond accordingly.

 

Gabor Radvanszki

gabor@radvanszki.net

[peter_bedo]

Gabor,

the first Hungarian NatGeo was published in March and not in May!

 

Ligia, thanks for sharing the response you got, but I can't help thinking that they're bullshitting us, as their experts still have no name or, and they're not willing to argue about ANY of the proofs in detail.

It was quite funny to read that their manipulated pyramid photo was an "experiment". Yes, an experiment how gullible their readers are.. Luckily, they could not get away with that, and that time they have drawn the right conclusion, that it's unaccaptable. I can only hope that they will do the same this time, but there seems to be very little hope for that.

[bas_van_den_boogaard]

Dear all,

 

Very interesting topic indeed. Without repeating technical issues again and without stressing once more the picture is fake, there's one thing I've missed so far: anyone who's a bit familiar with this species behavior (Common Kingfisher, Alcedo atthis) will imediatly see this picture is pretty much impossible for the follwing reasons.

 

Common kingfisher is a bird that primarily feeds on small fish in flowing streams. Only in winter they use other (stationary) waterbodies as well. When feeding, they dive in an almost vertical line straight down into the water, primarily from a post such as a overhanging branch. So, hunting for an insect above the watersurface is as far as I know not known in Common Kingfisher (look at the bill, doesn't look like an insecteater!). It's an absolute foodspecialist. Second, when feeding, they plunge down in the water, they certainly don't do any horizontal cases over the watersurface! (as is suggested in the picture).

 

cheers,

Bas van den Boogaard

the Netherlands

[bas_van_den_boogaard]

Hi all again,

 

Guess I didn't completely read the presented article; most of the "biological" arguments I came up in my former email were already dealt with........Anyway, they still stand though.

 

cheers,

Bas van den Boogaard

[anis]

Hmm.. I am pretty sad to know this! I used to consider any information provided by NG as if it is beyond question. The analysis provided is seems so depressingly authentic that I have to concur...

Pretty bleak outlook for the future..

Thanks for the info and bringing up this discussion.

Regards

Anis

[ligia_dovale]

To clarify my position, I just shared the letter that I received from NG as a matter of information, not because I believe in it.

 

After reading the article submitted by nature photo to NG, it is quite convincing to me the way they analyzed the image of the kingfisher. It particularly called my attention the fact that there is no movement in the water whatsoever. I do not need to be a scientist to know that this would be unrealistic in the wild.

 

Perhaps I should write another letter to NG asking about this particular point ...

[mbb]

In this discussion we are all forgetting about maybe even more important issue. Photographer is also a researcher with quite a few publications according to his website. Who is going to check those? If he will be fond guilty of faking the photographs I will not pay 1 penny for his scientific work. To my understanding it was already proven in the past that he is capable to cheat. Why they not stop this guy from spreading the fakery in science and photography?

[zsolt_sovari]

dear Ligia,

 

on 9th of this May, a similar email was posted to me (and to some of my fellows) from Bernard Ohanien (NG) - word by word the same as we have questioned the photo then.

 

On the 28th of August naturArt made a press conference with their facts.

On the 29th of August NatGeo made a press release (see on their web-sit) that is just the same that (i) you have received, (ii) we have received many months before.

 

Who would believe even for a moment that NatGeo took seriously those questions raised by naturArt?

Who would be that "expert" who could give his/her name "in-a-day" research for all the subjects that have been questioned?

 

----

 

Please, keep informed both the NatGeo and other journals about your opinions!

 

----

 

The author now have returned from his trip and starts to take his "nature photographer" course in a Hungarian university.

http://www.ttk.pte.hu/biologia/noveny/szentpeteri.html