Skullduggery in the Wildlife Photographer Comp

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/tem...y/statement.jsp

It's official - in english this time...

To be honest I think its the best move and it wouldn't have been taking lightly... This is a very prestigious comp and the rules really need to be followed ... Maybe they will word them better in the future for all to understand...

Its still a beautiful and powerful image though ...

Dive safe

DeanB

It is a pity that this has happened, but fair play to the judges to stand behind the rules like this.

Alex

Wow, I am surprised. Basically, using words like 'likely' and saying they found gaps in his responses, they took it back. I guess the burden of proof was on Jose, who still denies it. Can't wait for the law suit!

The funny thing is I'm told they now went back to the RAW original rule again. Which is really interesting since I know at least one winner was a JPEG original. I guess they found too many people submitting 'over worked' photos.

Well I'm having to reconsider what was going to be this years entry 'Polly wants a cracker' ... Featuring my friends Parrot Jerry ... Although my buddy still insists he's "Bloody wild"

Dive safe

DeanB

...and for those of us that bought the book - will they be issuing 'Oops, NOT the winner' stickers.

I liked the caption underneath the photo when this was announced on the ABC News website here in Australia, "Where the wild thing wasn't".

No sticker... just a rename of the book... "Jose and the Wolf"

It's when they find a wider shot from one of the other cameras showing Ossian's owner slapping their thighs and waving a Bonio...

Congratulations to the WPOTY organization. I am sad that something like this has to happen, but I think this is the correct way of dealing with this matter and I am proud of reentering the contest this year.

It has been running around spanish photo forums for quite a while with a lot of heat in the discussion (I am even ashamed that someone even suggested that he was even disqualified for being spanish...) and there were pictures of the same gate, wall, tree etc... during the day positioning it in the wolf reserve where Ossian lives. The guardians of that park declined to comment if Rodriguez was there taking the picture etc... I will try to find those pics but even the forum deleted them and banned those who showed them!!!

Rodriguez has not only been disqualified but even banned for life from entering the competition again so the judges must have seen it very clear.

Congratulations to the WPOTY organization. I am sad that something like this has to happen, but I think this is the correct way of dealing with this matter and I am proud of reentering the contest this year.

I agree with you, David.

I don't have any comments about the photographer, but well done to the judges.

I have represented the competition on many occasions (mainly because I only live an hour from the NH Museum) and what the public want to know in this Photoshop age, is that they can believe in the photos.

That the images show wild animals (wildlife!) and there is no photoshop used to change the scene captured by the camera. I really respect the judges for making this difficult move to maintain the integrity of the competition.

Alex

One thing that bothers me a little is that if the judges are so sure, why do they use words like 'likely'. A word like 'likely' infers a lot, like 'but we aren't really sure, so it could have been a wild wolf'. It's like they're covering themselves in case they were wrong. I wish they hadn't used that word because it keeps making me think they could have made a huge mistake.

At first reading this i thought of the whale shark winner from a few years back (Ferrari?) and thought there is no way he manipulated those sharks into that photo but i have had second thoughts.... so now whatever the outcome of all of this regarding the wolfi hope it seriously sheds light on 'wildlife' photography issue...

But can i extend this to underwater photography, i.e what we're here for, if i may?

Discarding aquarium stuff which we all, sorry i, (and i am no pro), should consider 'fake', but what about manipulating wildlife into the perfect position for the contest winning shot?

I am sure people here have done it themselves or seen guides/DM's poke, prod or manipulate subjects into better positions and how is this classed as a wild pose? If that pygmy seahorse, oh so perfectly camoflauged, was hiding in a fan, behind a branch (of be it another living animal) and that branch was moved, the camoflauge removed and the picture taken was a stunner, how good does one feel about that photo? ... an award winner, a contest entry, a good shot, or something u like or even discard? Would contest entries here say, along with the photoshop contrast, levels etc, "subject moved to top of coral to look better" or similar... nope never seen it anywhere... except underwater.

And dont get me started on Shark feeding....

If anyone says it better read Martin Edges' Underwater Photography' book Chapter 7.

Anyone else with me?

Olly

quote myself:

At first reading this i thought of the whale shark winner from a few years back (Ferrari?) and thought there is no way he manipulated those sharks into that photo but i have had second thoughts.... so now whatever the outcome of all of this regarding the wolfi hope it seriously sheds light on 'wildlife' photography issue...

Sorry sounds wrong... what i meant to say was there was no way he manipulated those sharks into that photo, and that u/w photographers are clearly photographing creatures in there natural habitat for instance moving whale sharks to a bait ball, photographing or filming orcas attack grey whales, or forcing sailfins, the oceans fastest fish, to feed on ur baitball (the cover of the quaterly) is impossible, (great photos or video come to mind for all im sure) but with other macro, reef fish or invert shots .... i have had second thoughts...

Sorry if im ranting.

Olly

One thing that bothers me a little is that if the judges are so sure, why do they use words like 'likely'. A word like 'likely' infers a lot, like 'but we aren't really sure, so it could have been a wild wolf'. It's like they're covering themselves in case they were wrong. I wish they hadn't used that word because it keeps making me think they could have made a huge mistake.

Not sure that is totally fair cor, in any 'judgement' surly it has to be left 'open' to some doubt up until the judgement is final and officially released.

It would be pretty wrong to put out statements to the effect that the bloke is as guilty as hell while the investigation was not yet complete.

Just as it would not be correct to fail to fully examine all of the available evidence.

The length of time should suggest that they were pretty careful about the issue, ( rather than just figuring a way through the political fallout - which would be uncharitable to suggest ).

Paul C

Im not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying what we're reading now on the WPOTY site is not final and official and the investigation is not complete?

All I wished for is that they hadn't used the word 'likely' the way they did. In my mind it leaves it open to doubt, but at the same time, the press coverage doesnt leave it open to doubt.

No, you are quite correct cor. My error - I thought you were referring to the previous interim statements made by some members of the judging panel rather than the final statement (which I have now read properly).

The 'likely' is I assume an attempt to head off any lawsuits, which if taken in UK with the libel law the way it is would be messy.

Paul C

Nether the less, it is a great photo. Well excecuted and well planned.Thats what a great shot is about : Planning and excecuting and crossing your fingers. Remote shooting is not very predictable and he's done well.

Should images of sharks be allowed where baiting has taken place?

Well rules are rules and perhaps this image should have circulated in a different competition

 

What has any of these got to do with 'maybe' using a captive wolf in a contest that stipulates non captive subjects ... Although I do agree there's a certain advantage to using rebreathers over open circuit ...

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

Since the ghastly truth is revealed, I was wrong to give the benefit of the doubt to the image in question. My comments were, however, about creating a level playing field, and about how far a competition should go in that direction: I think that the only logical answers would be "anything goes", or an absolute restriction to narrow categories, like "ambient light with a DSLR on open-circuit..." Both are pretty ridiculous, but my preference is for "anything goes". I can't do as many diving trips as I would like, and can't upgrade equipment very often on a European budget: those are some of my excuses (not, of course, a lack of photographic talent!) for dismal failure in POTW etc

The history of photography makes it clear, to me at least, that restricting competition entry to images achieved "in camera" mitigates against its artistic potential.

Tim

At first reading this i thought of the whale shark winner from a few years back (Ferrari?) and thought there is no way he manipulated those sharks into that photo but i have had second thoughts.... so now whatever the outcome of all of this regarding the wolfi hope it seriously sheds light on 'wildlife' photography issue...

 

Sorry sounds wrong... what i meant to say was there was no way he manipulated those sharks into that photo,

Thanks for qualifying your comment, I was about to PM you to see how this "magic" of manipulating whale sharks was accomlished...

cheers!

-MDP