Skullduggery in the Wildlife Photographer Comp

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

Apparently, baiting is allowed so long as the animal is 'WILD.'

I was about to PM you to see how this "magic" of manipulating whale sharks was accomlished...

You should go to Yomitan in Okinawa and watch those whalesharks in captivity. They are almost like dogs in the way they've learnt to respond to divers with bags of krill. I've often wondered how those preconditioned sharks could be used for various shots... IF they weren't in net enclosures.

Is it just me or does the captive wolf look nothing like the wolf in the photo??? (From the original link Alex posted) The captive wolf has a distinguishable ruff and shorter, broader snout. Not to mention its overall coat, which could be its winter coat I guess. I don't get the arrow pointing to the ear, and the mark on the cheek is the only similarity I can see.

Also the background doesn't seem to match to me, I see lots of lichens in the shot and little to none in the comparison view. shouldn't they be able to find that exact rocky area in the captive enclosure/area somewhere??? Or shouldn't the photographer be able to reveal the exact location it was taken.

Did I skim through the thread too fast? Missing a critical piece of evidence against the photographer?

-Wyatt

Apparently, baiting is allowed so long as the animal is 'WILD.'

I expect there are plenty of shooters guilty of putting certain foods out for 'attracting' their subjects ...

You should go to Yomitan in Okinawa and watch those whalesharks in captivity. They are almost like dogs in the way they've learnt to respond to divers with bags of krill. I've often wondered how those preconditioned sharks could be used for various shots... IF they weren't in net enclosures.

You should go to a factory there are humans gathering at feeding (lunch) times in canteens for food ... Similar circumstances ...

Did I skim through the thread too fast? Missing a critical piece of evidence against the photographer?

 

-Wyatt

You must have ...

Dive safe

DeanB

Is it just me or does the captive wolf look nothing like the wolf in the photo??? (From the original link Alex posted) The captive wolf has a distinguishable ruff and shorter, broader snout. Not to mention its overall coat, which could be its winter coat I guess. I don't get the arrow pointing to the ear, and the mark on the cheek is the only similarity I can see.

 

Also the background doesn't seem to match to me, I see lots of lichens in the shot and little to none in the comparison view. shouldn't they be able to find that exact rocky area in the captive enclosure/area somewhere??? Or shouldn't the photographer be able to reveal the exact location it was taken.

 

Did I skim through the thread too fast? Missing a critical piece of evidence against the photographer?

 

-Wyatt

How about the odds of being able to take this same picture twice or having the photographer say he took the picture in one province and then having proof it was taken in a wolf zoo?

Didn't he just have multiple cameras on motion sensors? So same shot, through different cameras, at the same time.

Didn't he just have multiple cameras on motion sensors? So same shot, through different cameras, at the same time.

He said he switched from using his Nikon D2X to a Hasselblad. Anyway, it would be very easy for him to win me over by showing the place where he took the pic in Avila (the province where he said he took it) and not in http://www.opennature.com/

It's pretty obvious that it's the same place. It was pretty obvious months ago

the trees sure look the same. but the rocks is where I have a question. In the wolf photo they are built up as a wall complete with moss, in the other photo they are fallen down and quite clean. David, whats the general conjecture about that in the Spanish forums?

the trees sure look the same. but the rocks is where I have a question. In the wolf photo they are built up as a wall complete with moss, in the other photo they are fallen down and quite clean. David, whats the general conjecture about that in the Spanish forums?

Everybody agree that it is a beautiful picture but its mystery is somehow lost when the wolf is a tamed one and that it breaks the contest rules. Most of the people think that he cheated and, worst of all, that he lied. A few other are attacking the photographers who accused Rodriguez.

Is very hard to become a renowned photographer but very easy to lose that recognition. I think Rodriguez is surely having a very bad time by himself and the best way to to start to settle things would be to come clean with an statement. He made a mistake and with all this exposure (it has been in all of the tv news...) he has probably paid enough for it.

On a funnier tone, his name and last name is exactly the same as the president of the country Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and people are using it as a political joke; can you imagine that this would happen to photographer called Barack Obama?

I doubt he will come clean now. It's sorta late and his credibility is shot. IF he had come clean and said oh I didn't read that part of the entry, he could've gotten away with it. With his text and subsequent denials, it's obvious he intentionally lied. There's no coming back from that. Jose e el lobo... cry wild wolf too many times and no one will believe you.

I'm actually glad some one protested. Keeps future contestants honest. If PJs can be fired from their newspaper (Brian Walski of LA Times) for compositing shots, then someone like Jose should have the prize taken back for such deceit. Then again, it'll force those who want to cheat to go to the next level.

I guess he can go to wedding photography... which is sorta like shooting wild animals with strange mating rituals

I guess he can go to wedding photography... which is sorta like shooting wild animals with strange mating rituals

ROFLMAO Yes! All staged and try to make it look natural and spontaneous. Actually, a lot of hard work requiring a lot of talent, and lot of once-in-a-lifetime moments pressure to deliver.

I just question the obvious in the wolf picture. Why would a "wild" wolf take the risk of high-jumping a fence, when he can just walk/crawl through it? What was his motivation?..... (I know.. I'm method-acting here in Hollyweird)

Bo

ROFLMAO Yes! All staged and try to make it look natural and spontaneous. Actually, a lot of hard work requiring a lot of talent, and lot of once-in-a-lifetime moments pressure to deliver.

 

I just question the obvious in the wolf picture. Why would a "wild" wolf take the risk of high-jumping a fence, when he can just walk/crawl through it? What was his motivation?..... (I know.. I'm method-acting here in Hollyweird)

 

Bo

Agree 100%, why indeed? It is a waste of energy compared to going through or climbing the low wall. When they announced the winner's, my companion immediately said it was staged. I was a bit more reserved but I never saw wolves doing this when I was young and lived in the countryside [there were wolves then] and there were plenty of gates and sheep too.

What I find amazing is that it was the Finnish nature magazine that raised the issue, all those professionals and wildlife photographers in the competition jury [who apparently spend most of their days shooting in the wild] had no problem in nominating the picture overall winner!

Wildlife photo competitions should have an expert on species behaviour to ascertain that this and that behaviour are normal and not provoked or induced.

But in the end it was they did the right thing, loss of credibility is far worse than some bad [but deserved] publicity.

Bit more chat from the Chair of the judges here.

Also worth a look!

Alex

Funny image Alex!

And WOW, Jose is banned from ever entering that competition again. I guess the competition made their point.

~abi

Also worth a look!

Looks like soneone did a nice job there capturing a wild animal and no one will convince me that it is a fake

At the risk of stirring up the debate....

i'm sure this is a topic that is as hotly debated among wildlife photographers as is the never ending nikon/canon debate.

Certainly this also falls under the image manipulation catagory too. The question is. how far is too far?

http://gizmodo.com/5466520/diving-kingfish...hy-is-all-about

The clear difference between this and the now discredited WPOTY is the the wolf was trained and jumped over the fence, which is not a natural behaviour, where as this kingfisher is performing a natural act but staged.

would this be allowed in the WPOTY?

At the risk of stirring up the debate....

 

i'm sure this is a topic that is as hotly debated among wildlife photographers as is the never ending nikon/canon debate.

 

Certainly this also falls under the image manipulation catagory too. The question is. how far is too far?

 

http://gizmodo.com/5466520/diving-kingfish...hy-is-all-about

 

The clear difference between this and the now discredited WPOTY is the the wolf was trained and jumped over the fence, which is not a natural behaviour, where as this kingfisher is performing a natural act but staged.

 

would this be allowed in the WPOTY?

No - not allowed to use live bait. Alex

That one is easy to prove that it's set up since the glass is clearly shown. But then again if someone were to use a sardine to get a shot of a shearwater or gannet grabbing a fish in the sea, I'd like to see how they prove it's not live bait I guess the honor system is still the ideal for these competitions. Maybe if they took away the prizes, then people wouldn't be so desperate.

No - not allowed to use live bait. Alex

I guess it's OK to kill the bait first

Just let the live bait suffocate on the deck, then use it. Thats perfectly ok for BBC