LAUPS winners: Subject's manipulation?

We did ask for an explanation, we got one and it was plausible enough to keep the pics in the contest since no one can say with certainty that the seamoth was put where the pic was taken.

Have to say that that explanation sounds good enough for me. I was a little surprised by the anti LAUPS fervor here. LAUPS ran a photo contest. They picked the winners and they determined they had no reason to remove an image from contention because what might have happened. In my mind LAUPS deserves the benefit of the doubt.

These folks have been holding underwater photo competitions and promoting the underwater world since before most of us were in diapers. I don't think they really had any other choice did they? Do you want to be put in the position of somehow proving that the images you enter in any contest was shot "legally"? How are you going to do that?

Do you want your once in a lifetime image thrown out of a competition because you might have manipulated the subject? And the judges are afraid of what might happen if they award your photo?

It's a slippery slope folks,

Steve

I am sad that people are coming out so strongly against LAUPS. Also, sarcasm has no place in this sort of constructive dialogue, and is quite rude.

When I got my shot of the "screaming turtle" and shared it, I got hate mail because people assumed that I was holding it with my non-shooting hand. I've also come across a jawfish out of its hole and photographed it because (at the time) I didn't know what it was.

It's impossible to say whether people took the images in question "naturally," whatever that means (none of what we do is natural) -- and that is the problem. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and where that line is is not going to be the same for everyone. You can't just assume the worst. Remember, you're always on the other side of the line for someone else out there, and everyone should think about that before they start judging.

Bill

I don't want to belabor the point but Clark and Herold's paper doesn't say how high off the seabed. Their observations are in a tank. However, others (I can't find the sources since I read about this in the 90s when I was trying to capture the behavior after reading Eugenie's paper) note that they don't rise more than 3 ft or so. All the observations I remember reading note that they rise up in pairs, vent to vent and release eggs and sperm together. With a D700 attached to a 60mm lens, I'm pretty sure the photographer would have at least a shot of the pair mating, or a whole animal.

That said, I do understand it is difficult for those doing the first cut to be experts in marine biology on all subjects. I don't much understand how the LAUPS competition is run so I won't comment on that too much. I do think the sea moth picture merits more scrutiny and the photographer should provide more evidence to the contrary. For a photographer to shoot the underbelly of a sea moth, and only a partial body shot, to me requires more proof that there wasn't mishandling (or handling) of the animal.

However, for this case, without any other available evidence, I suppose the LAUPS has to take the word of the photographer. If a photographer can't/won't provide proof, then it is a judgement call. Ultimately it's the LAUPS' choice and if you deem the matter closed, then it's closed.

Thank you for taking the time to field the queries.

I do not mean to come across as anti LAUPS. The key for me is what are the Rules for the competition? Yes "once in a lifetime" photos happen but I think it is completely reasonable if you have that shot, enter it in a contest, (that has rules against manipulation) that you understand if others say "prove it". I see no problem with asking contestants for more than just their "word". My hope is this less about who wins or loses and more about getting incredible photos without manipulating the subject

Another point is that judges (and the folks who run organizations) learn over time, and no one is perfect. For example, flying tropical octo shots won contests when they first started showing up, but any judge would be crazy to award a prize to one now.

These folks have been holding underwater photo competitions and promoting the underwater world since before most of us were in diapers. I don't think they really had any other choice did they? Do you want to be put in the position of somehow proving that the images you enter in any contest was shot "legally"? How are you going to do that?

 

Do you want your once in a lifetime image thrown out of a competition because you might have manipulated the subject? And the judges are afraid of what might happen if they award your photo?

Well Steve, the negative tones aside, it is precisely the dissent and questioning that caught out a few people who've cheated like that of "Wolfgate." In this case, assuming certain parameters, the probability of capturing that shot "wild" is very low. Reconstructing how a person gets a shot like that with a 60mm on a D700, the mating behavior and height which the seamoths, I think we can make a case to ask someone to prove how they took that shot and show proof.

The problem for LAUPS is they've already announced the results, so pulling back the prize on what cannot be an absolute certainty that the subject was manipulated, is very difficult. Admittedly the added difficulty of asking someone if they cheated is tough, as is expecting an honest answer if someone has done so, is even more implausible.

Furthermore, this isn't the first time LAUPS results have been questioned:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...st&p=149555

It's always easy to judge in hindsight but that's why organizations like BTS played heavy hand in this decision:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...ost&p=84669

They decided the unnatural background was too much for a category winner, based on the comments by a few people. How did it get past the first cut and judges? It's because the knowledge isn't out there. So while the photographer can say they didn't know it's unnatural, doesn't mean it isn't unnatural and it wasn't put there for their benefit.

I do think there is no need to be rude about questioning LAUPS about their competition. State your opinion politely. If LAUPS' rules for competition and judging doesn't work for you, you are welcome NOT to enter their contests. That said, it'd be nice to know that competitions like LAUPS will become more vigilant in enforcing their own rules.

In terms of proving the authenticity etc of a shot; besides for the individual's word and a RAW image, do photo competitions such as LAUPS have any other way to prove authenticity? Do their rules allow request for sequence of shots before and after for example?

I do not mean to come across as anti LAUPS. The key for me is what are the Rules for the competition? Yes "once in a lifetime" photos happen but I think it is completely reasonable if you have that shot, enter it in a contest, (that has rules against manipulation) that you understand if others say "prove it". I see no problem with asking contestants for more than just their "word". My hope is this less about who wins or loses and more about getting incredible photos without manipulating the subject

We all agree that we don't want manipulation of subjects in photos. That being said, we conducted an investigation into a couple of photographs that seemed suspicious. We are not going to go into the details of how we conducted the investigation but it was not simply

"did you cheat?", No, OK.

Once we finished the investigation, we decided that there was not enough evidence that cheating happened. Will that type of pic ever get included in the judging again? Probably not. It is sad, that folks think they need to cheat to win a prize in a competition, but some do and we will have to be diligent in the future.

Any photo competition must rely on the judgement of not only the organizing committee but also that of the judges. No one at LAUPS (except Leslie) is a marine biologist or expert in fish behavior and while none of us has seen a pegasus swimming, I and a few others have heard anecdotal evidence from folks who have seen them in the water column. In any case, I hope this whole issue is finished and next year we won't have to repeat this process.

I personally want to thank everyone who has read through this thread regardless of whether you think we did the right thing or not. It was not an EASY decision.

Bill

Thanks for the history Drew, the BTS thread was before my time here. Interesting to note that most here thought BTS overreacted when they pulled the winning image.

I think your point about education is key. Thousands of photographers cried foul when the wolf image was published because their background and experience told them something wasn’t quite right. I remember thinking the same thing when I saw it for the first time. There just aren’t a lot of people, even in the dive community who have behavioral experience with the seamoth subject. It begs the question, should high level competitions have esteemed marine biologists on call to answer tough questions?

I’m still concerned about the idea of asking photographers to show proof that a subject wasn’t manipulated. I just don’t know how that could work. Proofing a negative seems tough.

At their heart all photo contests are subjective judgments and in this case I think the folks at LAUPS were doing the best they could. Like you, I hope that all the competitions increase their vigilance but I’m concerned that some will overreact and throw out great images because they could have, maybe, might have been manipulated.

Hey Bill thanks for coming here and explaining your thoughts, Glad I'm not a judge.

Cheers,

Steve

Thanks for the history Drew, the BTS thread was before my time here. Interesting to note that most here thought BTS overreacted when they pulled the winning image.

 

I think your point about education is key. Thousands of photographers cried foul when the wolf image was published because their background and experience told them something wasn’t quite right. I remember thinking the same thing when I saw it for the first time. There just aren’t a lot of people, even in the dive community who have behavioral experience with the seamoth subject. It begs the question, should high level competitions have esteemed marine biologists on call to answer tough questions?

 

I’m still concerned about the idea of asking photographers to show proof that a subject wasn’t manipulated. I just don’t know how that could work. Proofing a negative seems tough.

 

At their heart all photo contests are subjective judgments and in this case I think the folks at LAUPS were doing the best they could. Like you, I hope that all the competitions increase their vigilance but I’m concerned that some will overreact and throw out great images because they could have, maybe, might have been manipulated.

 

Hey Bill thanks for coming here and explaining your thoughts, Glad I'm not a judge.

 

Cheers,

Steve

We're taking volunteers for next year

Bill

Thanks for the history Drew, the BTS thread was before my time here. Interesting to note that most here thought BTS overreacted when they pulled the winning image.

I thought they did the correct thing. They screwed up and let through a photo that contravenes their rules and publicly acknowledged it. Yes it was absolutely demeaning to John but the rules are there. They either enforce it or just remove them altogether. I hope they apologized to John too.

I think your point about education is key. Thousands of photographers cried foul when the wolf image was published because their background and experience told them something wasn’t quite right. I remember thinking the same thing when I saw it for the first time. There just aren’t a lot of people, even in the dive community who have behavioral experience with the seamoth subject. It begs the question, should high level competitions have esteemed marine biologists on call to answer tough questions?

Well actually according to the BBC judge's statements, which included "experts", they were more in awe at the awesomeness of the shot then the actual details. Which is understandable, since it was a pretty neat shot. Still, when shown pics of the tamed wolf, even the wolf expert was only 99% sure it was the same wolf. So there was a judgement call made. Of course José still denies it was a tamed wolf.

I’m still concerned about the idea of asking photographers to show proof that a subject wasn’t manipulated. I just don’t know how that could work. Proofing a negative seems tough.

 

At their heart all photo contests are subjective judgments and in this case I think the folks at LAUPS were doing the best they could. Like you, I hope that all the competitions increase their vigilance but I’m concerned that some will overreact and throw out great images because they could have, maybe, might have been manipulated.

That's life in the fast lane. There's no perfect system and the people making the first cut have hundreds and thousands of entries to sift through. Rules like entry images must not be previous winners:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...ost&p=84671

should not be the responsibility of the organizers to verify but the photographer (not to speak ill of the dead). Sure, the organizers could google all final entries before announcing winners but one doesn't expect (naively so perhaps?) people to cheat. If caught, they should expect to be censured publicly.

Similarly, I think when someone takes a pic of a super rare behavior that can be accused of manipulation, that person has to expect some sort of scrutiny, no matter their reputation or status. Can't stand the heat, stay out of the limelight.

Now after wait for a couple of weeks i have the facts about the iguana image .

The image was taken in Jardines de la Reina,Cuba and the iguana was captured and put it on the water , when it swims back to shore it stops when touch the bottom ( probably exhausted ) and that was when the photograph was taken.

I have been to Jardines several times and know very well the guides there , excellent people that will do the extra mile in order to please their customers ; so if a photographer ask them to capture an iguana and throw it in the water , they will do it without thinking they are doing something wrong .

The person that give me the information was the one that was assisting the photographer ( remembered very well the image and confirmed the photographer's full name , because the guy have been there more than once ). Also confirmed that those iguanas although can swim , don't enter the water by themselves.

Now the case is close but i hope it gave us a lesson and contests in the future became more strict about subjects manipulation . If in doubt about an image , ask for tangible proof and if not provided then don't choose the photo.

Also for us photographers , cheating is not a good thing ; as technology is making our world smaller everyday, is easier to check the facts .

Elbuzo, I'm actually pretty amazed/impressed by the fact you could find where this picture was taken and with whom. Might I suggest you send whatever information you have to the LAUPS. If the source can be verified then I'm sure they'll act.

The mastery in Ansel Adams and others was that they got the shot from the onset. He then had to (as we do) put it through some basic

steps (chemical or digital) to finalize the image.

Adams was primarily a landscape photographer. He picked the angle, the time and the moment to expose sometimes a single Glass plate.

I'm no-one special, I don't have a huge portfolio of award-winning images; I do, however, have a geeky scholar's background and a huge appetite for background study in whatever interests me. Mauricio's comment is a travesty of what Anselm Adams describes in his own writing.

Anselm Adams knew that a perfectly framed and exposed plate was only the beginning of the photographic process that culminated in the print. Taking the data from the negative and using it to create the print was a demanding process in which different parts of the image were exposed at different EV by dodging and burning: far from "basic" steps - artistry, experience and skill. It was precisely his inability to control the development of colour negatives, transparencies and prints in a meticulous way that relegated colour to experimentation and business rather than art in Anselm Adams' work.

I make no bones about image manipulation in this sense: to ignore it is to restrict what underwater photography is about. Both of these images are heavily manipulated, both are absolutely true to what I experienced in the water.

Tim

Tim , great images , i really like them both .

I think that you miss the point a little , this post is about a subject manipulation ( i.e. throwing an iguana in the water and grabbing a sea moth , to take a photo ) and how this going against the rules of a photo contest and the ethics of honest wildlife photography.

regards

Elbuzo, I'm actually pretty amazed/impressed by the fact you could find where this picture was taken and with whom. Might I suggest you send whatever information you have to the LAUPS. If the source can be verified then I'm sure they'll act.

Drew

Not sure about to put the person who give me the info on the spot . That photographer is his customer and people in Cuba really need to keep their business, so don't want to create a problem for him.

FYI. i just asked him if he knows the photographer and a split shot of iguana ( without mention the controversy about it ) and he revert with the facts i previously posted . I just translated his e-mail from spanish.

LAUPS already closed the case and for me they acted with good intentions, but maybe in the future they will pay more attention to any suspicious image ; if this happens then mission accomplished for me.

Regards

Jose Alejandro Alvarez

Jose

I understand and have faced with similar problems with other staff of dive ops who want to keep business and not piss of clients who could ruin their reputation.

The LAUPS closed the case because they couldn't find any evidence of manipulation. The fact that you have already come out on WP, where I'm sure Mattias can read this thread is already "outing" the dive ops. So I'm pretty sure he won't be going back to that particular dive ops.

Tim, as Jose has pointed out, the LAUPS competition rules forbids all those things which you have done in post in their various categories. Mauricio is not saying post is bad, but the rules of the competition is exactly that..rules. I really don't get why quite a few of people are pulling Mauricio's words out of context. It's very clear to me what he means, and it's nothing like what some of your interpretations of his words.

So, the photographer in question flat out lied about their iguana photo (according to the guide, of course)? Terribly sad that he had to be outed this way in an international forum. Let that be a lesson to others who might be tempted to do the same in the future.

While I don't enter many UW photo contests (couldn't be bothered) I would hesitate to enter an image that looked like it COULD have been manipulated, even if it was not. There are other categories where such an image could be entered, I would think.

I dunno Allison. If there's no proof, then the results stand. It's not open and shut like Christopher Lee's photo!

I dunno Allison. If there's no proof, then the results stand. It's not open and shut like Christopher Lee's photo!

Two points here. We now have new information about the iguana picture. We again are asking the photographer to explain Jose's information. I suspect that he will say something like "not me, I never did that". If so, then we have two stories, one from the photographer and one second hand with perfectly orthogonal explanations. If we end up there, it is not clear what we will do, but we will be sure to let this community know what we have found out. My personal belief is that one "once in a lifetime" pic might be real but for there to be two in a single competition stretches my statistical calculation abilities, but I am NOT LAUPS, just a board member.

The second point is that until we get this all sorted out (and I thought we had) we have not sent out prizes. Please rest assured that all prizes will be awarded and sent out; hopefully we will have an answer early next week. It is sad that some people think they have to cheat to win (if that is what happened here) but I also think that for some folks the ability to pull one over on some judging committee is part of the fun.

Finally and off the main topic, Ansel Adams was a master manipulator of images. If you look at the negative for Moonlight over Hernandez, it is incredibly thin. There was a tremendous amount of dodging and burning to get his vision onto the paper. The end result is wonderful but if you made a straight print of the negative it does not resemble the Adams print in any way except the pixels are all in the right place.

I want to say thanks (sort of) to Jose for digging this up. Our decisions have to be made with data, and this new information is important indeed and I will let you know what we finally decide.

Bill