DSLRUsers.com

Just after the recent call for entries for the 2010 competition, the organisers finally have issued their decision on the controversy with last years winner:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8470962.stm

Sad when this happens. It would have been interesting to read the photographer's side of the story, maybe one day he will post it on his blog.

Plenty of reporting/discussions around the web on the topic.

André

Extreme result and punishment.

I agree that the photographers story would be an interesting read.

surenj wrote:Extreme result and punishment.

I agree that the photographers story would be an interesting read.

Agreed.

Although it sounds like they were very, very sure it was a trained wolf (markings etc). Also interesting they said that the decision was in part based on his answers to their questions.

Would have been interesting being a fly on the wall in that meeting

The article also goes to show how anything today can be scrutinised long after an event.

Maybe the photographer did cheat but to me it also shows the incompetence of the judges.

The problem here is that if the photographer didn't cheat, he would deny that he cheated. But if he did cheat, he would also deny that he cheated. He's been banned for life, and that wouldn't change if he did cheat and now admitted it.

What's worse? The denying that you cheated when you did, or the actual cheating itself? In my opinion the latter.

It's a bit like these athletes that took performance enhancing drugs but denied it at the time (e.g. Marion Jones, Mark McQuire) and then later admitting it and asking for forgiveness.

Note that I'm not suggesting that Mr Rodriguez did use a trained wolf for the photograph, but simply that just because he strongly denies it doesn't mean he didn't.

sirhc55 wrote:The article also goes to show how anything today can be scrutinised long after an event.

Maybe the photographer did cheat but to me it also shows the incompetence of the judges.

I wouldn't have thought 3+ months is that long.

He could have used better lighting if did use a trained wolf..Maybe that would have given it away quicker..

I remember reading this interview with him after he won - there was a little controversy over the fact he used an infrared trigger to activate the shutter at the time:

http://www.photoradar.com/blogs/article ... f-the-year

There's a bit of the "evidence" here:

http://www.suomenluonto.fi/bbcs-nature- ... llegations

Where (sic) you there when the image was taken?

No, I wasn’t, I used an infrared barrier to shoot the image. I went to get some sleep! I don’t know what time the photograph was taken, but judging from the light I think it is early in the night.

 BS! The Exif would have told him exactly when it was taken. (As someone else also pointed out in the comments). What a tangled web we weave....

[quote="muzz"]I remember reading this interview with him after he won - there was a little controversy over the fact he used an infrared trigger to activate the shutter at the time:

http://www.photoradar.com/blogs/article ... f-the-year

Yes, it makes you think whether an image taken automatically, without the photographer actually present at the time, should even be considered for such an award (maybe the judges weren't aware). After all, isn't the skill/art/thrill of capturing the decisive moment about being there and making the image?

ATJ wrote:

I don’t know what time the photograph was taken, but judging from the light I think it is early in the night.

 BS! The Exif would have told him exactly when it was taken.

I didn't know that Hasselblad 503CW bodies recorded EXIF data on the film...

surenj wrote:Extreme result and punishment.

Maybe. But certainly not surprising.


I must admit I was uneasy when I first saw this image, but got over it. I didn't have the background info on the Iberian wolves, and only had the photographer's assertion that it was real to go on. In hindsight it was probably the jumping over the fence that made me uneasy (others have pointed out that it would be natural for these animals to simply go through the gaps in that gate).

This seems to be a clear issue of breaking the rules. But there're lots of factors to police when curating a comp like this. For instance the rules say "Digital adjustments are only acceptable if limited to minor cleaning work (removing dust spots), levels, curves, colour, saturation and contrast work." But when visiting the WPOTY exhibition in London last November I saw at least one image with strikingly-obvious artificial blurring of the background (possibly only obvious because it was badly done). For me this was VERY disappointing. FWIW it was in the Young category, and didn't win anything other than being accepted (although given the number of entries that's significant of itself). But that's on a different level to the issues with this wolf image!

DaveB wrote:I didn't know that Hasselblad 503CW bodies recorded EXIF data on the film...

Where does it say that was what was used?

ATJ wrote:

DaveB wrote:I didn't know that Hasselblad 503CW bodies recorded EXIF data on the film...

Where does it say that was what was used?

Obviously not in the EXIF.

It is a wonderful image.

ATJ wrote:

DaveB wrote:I didn't know that Hasselblad 503CW bodies recorded EXIF data on the film...

Where does it say that was what was used?

In one of the pages displaying the photo and an interview - I did a search on his name, wolf and camera and it came up near the top.

Frankenstein wrote:Yes, it makes you think whether an image taken automatically, without the photographer actually present at the time, should even be considered for such an award (maybe the judges weren't aware). After all, isn't the skill/art/thrill of capturing the decisive moment about being there and making the image?

I also had some concern of using this technique, especially that last years winner with the snow leopard was done in a similar way. However, reading about the complexity of getting the snow leopard photos, the planning, setup, patience, trial and error, gave me a much better appreciation of the effort involved in getting it, so for the snow leopard shots, there was skill/art/thrill involved

As for the wolf, there was some thrill, will I get caught out or not

As Matt said, the wolf photo is a great photo, no question, it is the non-disclosure of the way it was taken that is the big issue.

André

DaveB wrote:But when visiting the WPOTY exhibition in London last November I saw at least one image with strikingly-obvious artificial blurring of the background (possibly only obvious because it was badly done). For me this was VERY disappointing. FWIW it was in the Young category, and didn't win anything other than being accepted (although given the number of entries that's significant of itself). But that's on a different level to the issues with this wolf image!

That is interesting as once an image gets to the finals stage, the photographer has to submit the original, un-processed photo from the camera. Even if the photographer shot jpg and not raw, one would think that judges would be able to detect the manipulation.

André

radar wrote:That is interesting as once an image gets to the finals stage, the photographer has to submit the original, un-processed photo from the camera. Even if the photographer shot jpg and not raw, one would think that judges would be able to detect the manipulation.

I know! Somehow that one slipped through the cracks though.
As much as we want these systems to be foolproof, those fools are damn ingenious.

radar wrote:That is interesting as once an image gets to the finals stage, the photographer has to submit the original, un-processed photo from the camera. Even if the photographer shot jpg and not raw, one would think that judges would be able to detect the manipulation.

Does this mean that the wolf photographer would have had to submit the slide or negative for the image?

If that is the case it seems even more of a set up shot, at least to me.

Given the nature of the stated capture of the shot - camera and lighting set up with an infrared trigger and left overnight - this would have been a single shot - unless we are to believe the wild wolf naturally jumps this particular gate multiple times in a night, or that it does it every night and the photographer set up the gear every night. Being a single shot, he's only got one chance to get it right and he's not even there to make sure it is right. How did he get the shot so well framed? Sure, there could be skill in the lighting, but knowing the exact angle the wolf was going to take jump the gate and have the trigger in exactly the right place is just mind blowing.

Of course, being shot on medium format, he'd have more scope for cropping, which might explain the good framing, but if he has to submit the slide/neg... are they allowed to crop much?

Either way, the shot looks like he knew exactly where and how the wolf would jump the gate. The only way to get that right with a wild animal is trial and error - i.e. shooting a lot of shots until one is perfect. Even with a trained animal it would not be easy, but at least you could send the animal over the jump over and over again until you get the shot you want.

I agree Andrew.

Also, the called in a wild wolf expert who said that it was extremely unlikely a wolf would jump a fence (especially at night). The jump was a very unnatural behaviour. The expert said the wolf would be much more likely to be slinking through the bars in the gate, to stay hidden.

Andrew,

he would have had to submit the slide/neg to the judges, that is correct. Cropping is also allowed in the rules.

As you say Andrew, in the wild, it would have taken a lot of trial and error to get everything right. He could have been practising his setup at home with a trained wolf and when he got it right, taken the setup in the field. Maybe he just submitted the wrong slide