Wildlife Photographer 2007 - call for entries

The WPOTY 2007 competition has put out its first call for entries. The deadline is 23 March for postal entries and 30 March for online entries.

The top prize is now £10,000 CASH - just under $20,000 USD. Cool!

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/tem...ions/wpy-entry/

Like all competitions you always require a slice of luck to win. But if you don't enter you definitely can't win. I hope we see a strong entry from Wetpixel members this years and plenty of familiar names in the winners circle come October.

Last year's competition showed that underwater wildlife images can compete in more than just the Underwater World category.

Alex

The sponser is Shell, is that the oil company Shell?

The sponser is Shell, is that the oil company Shell?

that would be them. it is a complex world.

Ironic but not that complex. Shell wanted a public image engine showing that they care about the environment they've so wonderfull pillaged over the years, BBC needed a sponsor who has the bucks to support this competition. Very simple really.

Hands off the BBC..

They are a wonderfully considerate company who care about the people..

Especially up and coming filmmakers who need commissions for new and fascinating natural history programmes.

Dive safe

DeanB

Ironic but not that complex. Shell wanted a public image engine showing that they care about the environment they've so wonderfull pillaged over the years, BBC needed a sponsor who has the bucks to support this competition. Very simple really.

I agree; the complex part isn't the sponsorship - but rather whether to choose to be part of a greenwash campaign in order to further a career. If it wasn't the best launching pad nature photographers have it wouldn't be so complex.

I agree; the complex part isn't the sponsorship - but rather whether to choose to be part of a greenwash campaign in order to further a career. If it wasn't the best launching pad nature photographers have it wouldn't be so complex.

The historical practices of Shell, particularly those in Nigeria, have been nothing other than reprehensible and I certainly don't wish to defend those, but I was doing some research the other day and came across this site: Global100.org.

Now I'm still deciding what level of credence to accord to this assessment, but the methodology is interesting nonetheless. According to the 'Global100' folks, Shell have made it into the a group of the 100 'most sustainable' companies in the world. Now granted the assessment is skewed a little more towards economic factors than I would prefer...But frankly, given that environmental/social factors are included in the assessment, I'm astonished that Shell got a guernsey at all.

Interestingly Shell edged out BP in this year's assessment which had previously been an industry sector leader in sustainable practices (yeah, I was as surprised as anyone when an oil company even contemplated such things).

Then again, Friends of the Earth make an assessment of both companies for their greenwash and conclude that investment in renewables is still little more than window dressing.

The FOE suggestion I think is a good one. Submit images that highlight the damage done to wildlife by oil and gas companies, including Shell in the 'World in Our Hands' section.

Unfortunately, the drive for increased profits for shareholders encourages Shell to emit more CO2 than many countries and although both BP and Shell are recognising public concern and investing a little in renewables and WPOTY image enhancers, it makes me think of my own impacts.

How many of us offset our greenhouse emissions for the international flights that take us to the amazing destinations where we get our images. Forget the digital/film environmental impact debate - this one is an order of magnitude more significant.

Now, I can't necessarily endorse these companies - do your own research. But initiatives like Carbon Clear in the UK, Native Energy in the US and GreenFleet in Australia might be a good way for us to practice what we preach...

So as Darren says, it is quite complex, but I reckon - enter images that highlight poor practices (as well as beautiful ones to remind us what we are saving) and then perhaps think about ways of minimising our own impacts.

[/rant]

I like the suggestion about the World in our Hands section.

Some might also argue that by using the prizemoney earned to take new pictures that create environmental awareness that they are ultimately using the sponsor's money for noble purposes.

It is interesting that the Amazon /shark fin debate created a lot of interest; it was an easily identifiable problem, and I suppose amazon and the little mum and dad import business in Hawai'i weren't directly offering us big bucks, so we didn't have to think so hard....

Please don't get me wrong, it is a great competition and never ceases to uncover great talent and showcases work like no other.

...and I'm all for companies working toward sustainability and showing everyone what corporate leadership should be all about, shame they (most of them) have had to wait until it was starting to effect their bottom line, or they are shamed into it... before acting. Great if they all started competing as hard to be better citizens as they do for our $.

...told you it was complex...

darren

Last year (2006) there were quite a few protestors outside the Natural History Museum on the evening of the prizegiving. They were all dressed up in animal costumes.

Personally, I would prefer to see a different sponsor, but I also admit that I buy Shell's products as well as other company's fuel - and while I continue to contribute to their profits and fund the oil industry directly, I do that I don't really think I have the right to complain about them sponsoring the comp!

Alex

Last year (2006) there were quite a few protestors outside the Natural History Museum on the evening of the prizegiving. They were all dressed up in animal costumes.

 

Personally, I would prefer to see a different sponsor, but I also admit that I buy Shell's products as well as other company's fuel - and while I continue to contribute to their profits and fund the oil industry directly, I do that I don't really think I have the right to complain about them sponsoring the comp!

 

Alex

Divers as a whole (I know there are exceptions) probably contribute more than their fair share to CO2 emissions at least. We travel very far distances, mostly by airplane to get on boats fueled mostly by diesel or gasoline so that we can see "nature" at its best. Many divers are quite ecologically aware in spirit, but how many purchase carbon buybacks to cover their flights and how many ride their bicycle to work etc. It is indeed a very complex problem, and how to balance the passion for seeing pygmy seahorses in Lembeh via the environmental costs of getting there and going diving once we get there is even more complex. I for one do indeed use Shell (and almost every other big oil company) products and am happy that they sponsor the competitions that they do. Most big companies ranging from Shell to IBM to the big pharmaceutical companies have relatively mixed bags with respect to good vs. someone's idea of evil. Imagine the economic impact to the very poor folks throughout the world if all of the oil companies practiced perfectly environmentally safe extraction procedures and oil cost $200 per barrel? A plane trip to Fiji cost $15K for coach? As you say, this is very complex, let everyone make their own decisions on whether or not to play.

Bill

let everyone make their own decisions on whether or not to play.

agree totally, and i wouldn't expect anything else.

discussion only offers alternate views, and makes people think a bit.... I know it won't change minds.

Maybe if everyone boycotted one year they might get a new sponsor.

Hey, that might be the year to enter......

darren

off topic maybe, but I recently did the emmissions calculation to compare driving my van Brisbane - Sydney - Brisbane Vs flying the 1000km each way. In pure emmissions terms, driving was considered better. But given that the plane will fly the route whether I am on it or not, while my personal emmissions will be lower, I will have added to the total emmissions as the plane and the car are both contributing if I drive. damned if you do, damned if you don't....

That's why these big guys should be putting more $s into renewables than they are. Hey on a purely selfish level, warming planet/oceans might even mean the Great Barrier Reef is off Brisbane one day so I will emmit less to get there, and 'cause I live on a small hill a km or so from the coast, I might end up with waterfront property... that would be good for me... I guess....

And Alex don't be concerned about publicising your "green" creditials... lots of folks look up to you photographically, so why not ecologically too. I'm sure you could write in a way that encouraged divers to think about the big picture.

cheers

darren

does anyone know where you can see a full gallery of all past winners since it started ('98?) , not just last years?? Cheers,

Chris

does anyone know where you can see a full gallery of all past winners since it started ('98?) , not just last years?? Cheers,

 

Chris

I believe the first BBC WPOTY Awards were in 1984. Sponsors have changed but the format has been basically the same.

Hows this for a rogues gallery: some of the past winners from mid '80's to mid '90s:

Jonathon Scott, Jim Brandenberg, Frans Lanting, Martyn Colbeck, Tom Mangelsen.

Divers as a whole (I know there are exceptions) probably contribute more than their fair share to CO2 emissions at least. We travel very far distances, mostly by airplane to get on boats fueled mostly by diesel or gasoline so that we can see "nature" at its best. Many divers are quite ecologically aware in spirit, but how many purchase carbon buybacks to cover their flights and how many ride their bicycle to work etc. It is indeed a very complex problem, and how to balance the passion for seeing pygmy seahorses in Lembeh via the environmental costs of getting there and going diving once we get there is even more complex. I for one do indeed use Shell (and almost every other big oil company) products and am happy that they sponsor the competitions that they do. Most big companies ranging from Shell to IBM to the big pharmaceutical companies have relatively mixed bags with respect to good vs. someone's idea of evil. Imagine the economic impact to the very poor folks throughout the world if all of the oil companies practiced perfectly environmentally safe extraction procedures and oil cost $200 per barrel? A plane trip to Fiji cost $15K for coach? As you say, this is very complex, let everyone make their own decisions on whether or not to play.

 

Bill

Bill at $60-80 a barrel, oil companies had record profits in the last 2 years. So I doubt increasing safety standards will push costs up to $200. But I'll have to defer to real engineers who know what is going on.

Absolutely, the individual has a lot to play on this part. Unfortunately humans want everything the easy way, hoping technology will make it easy for them to be environmentally friendly.

We have met the enemy - and they is US!

If we're going to point fingers at companies, I think we also ought to blame Walmart for the great decline in shark populations. How so you ask? Quite simple. Walmart has a large proportion of all the good they sell made in China. This has greatly increased the flow of US dollars into China and raised the economic fortunes of a grat many Chinese. Who in turn, following their tradition, love and can now afford to eat shark fin soup much more often.

And of course there will always be fishermen and companies willing to take advantage of a growing and lucrative market.

So if you want to curtail shark fin fishing - boycott Walmart???

divegypsy

In reality, we would have to boycott almost all stores and companies selling any type of manufactured product; including our cameras, shoes, anything made of plastic etc. The only people who can honestly say they have walked away from it all from what I can tell are groups like the Amish. The rest of the world including everyone reading this on a computer screen, are either consumers or wannabee / future consumers. I think there is something to be said for boycotting Chinese goods, but it would involve far more diligence on our part about researching EVERY product we buy, to evaluate whether it is either completely made in China or components are made there; if we want to be honest about it this would make more sense than targeting any specific store. Of course then there is the argument about increasing hardship to the Chinese factory workers that may result; though they are wannabee consumers too....and the world turns around.

Drew said:

"But I'll have to defer to real engineers who know what is going on."

I've got some experience in this area - having worked in the US as well as developing countries like Equatorial Guinea.

What do you want to know ;-)

Cheers

James

Drew said:

 

"But I'll have to defer to real engineers who know what is going on."

 

I've got some experience in this area - having worked in the US as well as developing countries like Equatorial Guinea.

 

What do you want to know ;-)

 

Cheers

James

Long ago a group I was part of tried to calculate what oil extraction would cost if done totally ecologically correctly. (The definition of correct was from the DOE and seemed reasonable at the time). The answer of course depended enormously on where you were drilling and what technologies you had in place like electricity and so on but the costs were considerably higher than $20/barrel which is about 5x the current price I think. What would it cost for the oil industry to become fully green (whatever that means to you)

 

Bill