I was going to do a thread about it but I'm glad someone else saw the piece too.
The photographer in this case had a deficiency in the ethics dept. when he tried to pass off his capture as a "wildlife" capture. If he had been honest and entered it in the right category he probably would have won in that category as it was an amazing image.
The problem is that it harms all wildlife photographers. His actions are similar to the photographers who use bait to get captures. The results may be outstanding but they are not wildlife photography. When they get caught the work of the rest of us is put under a cloud of suspicion. Recently I did a local TV show and before I appeared the show's producer asked me if all of my images were legit or had been staged or manipulated.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I was going to do a thread about it but I'm glad someone else saw the piece too.
The photographer in this case had a deficiency in the ethics dept. when he tried to pass off his capture as a "wildlife" capture. If he had been honest and entered it in the right category he probably would have won in that category as it was an amazing image.
The problem is that it harms all wildlife photographers. His actions are similar to the photographers who use bait to get captures. The results may be outstanding but they are not wildlife photography. When they get caught the work of the rest of us is put under a cloud of suspicion. Recently I did a local TV show and before I appeared the show's producer asked me if all of my images were legit or had been staged or manipulated.
I was stunned when I first seen this entry a few months ago, when the thought of "is this real?" came across my mind I remember my thoughts were "ya I can see this image happening without cheating..." and I read further into the story from the photographer about how he had been feeding a wild wolf and knew about the time it would come and the path it would take.... and then my next thought was WTH! feeding and baiting! thats cheating!... but I was willing to accept the grandness of the photo anyway.
Then this story came out and what a heartbreaker...... even worse is the photographer still denied cheating which makes for confusion and I want to believe the officals have it wrong, but I doubt they have it wrong.
Begins a good discussion of what is cheating though.
If this was not a trained animal is it really any different than photographers that sit on the banks behind dams to get all those amazing shots of eagles catching fish? What about sanctuaries, rescue centers, and wildlife preserves? What about the viewpoints that offer a prime opportunity to get close up shots of bears feeding on salmon.
These 'wildlife' have all been controlled by man to a degree eventhough they are considered to be 'wild'. Pretty gray line if you ask me.
"The Journey of life is as much in oneself as the roads one travels"
Begins a good discussion of what is cheating though.
If this was not a trained animal is it really any different than photographers that sit on the banks behind dams to get all those amazing shots of eagles catching fish? What about sanctuaries, rescue centers, and wildlife preserves? What about the viewpoints that offer a prime opportunity to get close up shots of bears feeding on salmon.
These 'wildlife' have all been controlled by man to a degree eventhough they are considered to be 'wild'. Pretty gray line if you ask me.
The subject was determined to be a captive wolf that was kept in a zoological park in Madrid. It was hardly a "wildlife" capture.
It was an outstanding image but the photographer apparently lied about the nature of the capture.
The line is not all that grey. Subjects that are kept in a zoo, rescue center, etc. where they are fed by humans and their movements are restricted are not wildlife.
I have done a number of shoots at raptor rehab centers and I have always indicated that my subjects were captured in that type of environment. I have never tried to pass them off as wildlife captures.
When I go off on a shoot I try to capture my subjects in a natural setting and not reacting to my presence. I will not bait, use recorded bird calls, etc. Its a matter of respect. I respect my audience and will not attempt to deceive them. Its also a matter of respect for the wildlife. You try not to disrupt their activities because unlike humans all their activities are related to their survival.
If you're lucky you will get the right subect in the right light, with the right background and w/o them reacting to your presence. If you're really lucky someone may view that capture and say "Beautiful, that's something worth protecting". You don't want the viewer saying "hmm, interesting. I wondered how he/she staged that".
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
They make references to things but why not go to the zoo and ask did he hire your wolf? In one story they say the markings on the wolf looked the same and in another it was said that the photographer did not remember the exact spot he made the shot. Like who would forget that ???
This is not the first one last year another one was removed for messing with the shot and he was put down big time by folks that make their living teaching you how to mess with your shots -that was just great BS and again put down by the BS'ers
I see lots of shots that have been PS or are not taken in the area the contest is held. cheating is the way these days -just look at the leaders of this country
if I were the photographer and this was not a model wolf, I would be getting somemore pictures of that wolf in the wild.... and I would bet all my friends would try and help me....
hell just recreate the original story... bait and film the wolf again!!!! how simple.
also, good point about "why not just ask the zoo?" I doubt anyone there would risk their own job lying for a cheat photog!!! and the zoo would NOT want bad press!
Comments
The photographer in this case had a deficiency in the ethics dept. when he tried to pass off his capture as a "wildlife" capture. If he had been honest and entered it in the right category he probably would have won in that category as it was an amazing image.
The problem is that it harms all wildlife photographers. His actions are similar to the photographers who use bait to get captures. The results may be outstanding but they are not wildlife photography. When they get caught the work of the rest of us is put under a cloud of suspicion. Recently I did a local TV show and before I appeared the show's producer asked me if all of my images were legit or had been staged or manipulated.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Exactly!
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
Then this story came out and what a heartbreaker...... even worse is the photographer still denied cheating which makes for confusion and I want to believe the officals have it wrong, but I doubt they have it wrong.
If this was not a trained animal is it really any different than photographers that sit on the banks behind dams to get all those amazing shots of eagles catching fish? What about sanctuaries, rescue centers, and wildlife preserves? What about the viewpoints that offer a prime opportunity to get close up shots of bears feeding on salmon.
These 'wildlife' have all been controlled by man to a degree eventhough they are considered to be 'wild'. Pretty gray line if you ask me.
Aaron Newman
Website:www.CapturingLightandEmotion.com
Facebook: Capturing Light and Emotion
The subject was determined to be a captive wolf that was kept in a zoological park in Madrid. It was hardly a "wildlife" capture.
It was an outstanding image but the photographer apparently lied about the nature of the capture.
The line is not all that grey. Subjects that are kept in a zoo, rescue center, etc. where they are fed by humans and their movements are restricted are not wildlife.
I have done a number of shoots at raptor rehab centers and I have always indicated that my subjects were captured in that type of environment. I have never tried to pass them off as wildlife captures.
When I go off on a shoot I try to capture my subjects in a natural setting and not reacting to my presence. I will not bait, use recorded bird calls, etc. Its a matter of respect. I respect my audience and will not attempt to deceive them. Its also a matter of respect for the wildlife. You try not to disrupt their activities because unlike humans all their activities are related to their survival.
If you're lucky you will get the right subect in the right light, with the right background and w/o them reacting to your presence. If you're really lucky someone may view that capture and say "Beautiful, that's something worth protecting". You don't want the viewer saying "hmm, interesting. I wondered how he/she staged that".
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
This is not the first one last year another one was removed for messing with the shot and he was put down big time by folks that make their living teaching you how to mess with your shots -that was just great BS and again put down by the BS'ers
I see lots of shots that have been PS or are not taken in the area the contest is held. cheating is the way these days -just look at the leaders of this country
“PHOTOGRAPHY IS THE ‘JAZZ’ FOR THE EYES…”
http://jwear.smugmug.com/
hell just recreate the original story... bait and film the wolf again!!!! how simple.
also, good point about "why not just ask the zoo?" I doubt anyone there would risk their own job lying for a cheat photog!!! and the zoo would NOT want bad press!