The Leaping Wolf may not have been running free

nilhg

Looks as if there is going to be a big kerfuffle over the winner of this years Wildlife Photography competition, it seems that the wolf may not have been wild but in a nature park.

Leaves a bit of a bad taste TBH, if it's true, there were already loads of folk giving out cause it's an IR triggered shot.

democrates

He also laid out meat for it and effectively 'trained' it to come and collect, so in that shot the wolf wasn't hunting but had been domesticated to a small degree.

Still a great shot though, and if by fluke you captured a wild wolf on the hunt I imagine it might look just like that.

Chorcai

Was last years shot IR triggered as well ?

djd80

To be honest it doesn't bother me whether it was an IR triggered shot of a captive wolf or not. Either way as far as I am concerned it's still a great pic..

Still a cool photo either way!

maddogcollins

I agree thats its still a great pic no matter the circumstances.. Only thing is the dishonesty..if the competition even stated you could shoot (in the photography terms) captive animals why would he not disclose it. After all if an image is worthy of winning it will do.

K_user

It may have been an oversight on the guy's part, rather than any real attempt to deceive.

In his original interview he mentioned that it came out just like he had planned and pictured in advance. This led me to believe that he knew the wolf would jump the gate, which points to a level of domestication.

No matter how it was captured its a fantastic shot. Those complaining could be doing so out of bad mindedness. He came up with a great idea, he planned it, he got the shot. And isn't that what photography is all about?

superflyninja

however the shot was taken it is a super shot. An IR triggered shot seems a bit of a cop out but still.great shot.

nilhg

Absolutely it's a fabulous shot, but the thing is the rules explicitly ask if the animals featured are captive, if the photographer is proven to be untruthful in this then I think it's way beyond the pale, very unprofessional.

Captain Flaps

I'd be inclined to agree with the following excerpt from the comments section:

If this image had been made of a wild wolf, it would have been the result of extraordinary luck, and it could by definition not be representative for the work of the photographer. It were a once-in-a-lifetime image.
Hmm ... now that I think of it, this is not funny, this is ridiculous. This kind of contest plays down photographic quality. Those judges don't value photography as art, they merely price its curiosity value. How can one be proud of a prize awarded for pure luck?

Pretty much sums up my initial thoughts when I read the article.

DaireQuinlan

maddogcollins wrote: »

Only thing is the dishonesty..if the competition even stated you could shoot (in the photography terms) captive animals why would he not disclose it. After all if an image is worthy of winning it will do.

because the judges explicitly state that "Images of captive animals must be declared. The judges will take preference to images taken in free and wild conditions." So, while it might have been an oversight, actually declaring it meant that we very probably wouldn't have won. Thats a pretty strong incentive right there.

DaireQuinlan

Captain Flaps wrote: »

I'd be inclined to agree with the following excerpt from the comments section:
Pretty much sums up my initial thoughts when I read the article.

I'd disagree completely with this. Wildlife photographers for years have been getting shots as dramatic. For the most part its down to sheer graft and hard work and incredible amounts of boring waiting around to ensure you're in the right place at the right time. To call that 'luck' is quite patronising I reckon.

Burnt

Personally the I image leaves me cold, it feels like it lacks something...
I can't quite put my finger on it; perhaps a lack of context, but I'm not sure.

WedPhoto

it a great photo and it's a shame that it is now getting this bashing...but i understand some of the people's frustration.

even if there was some small degree of domestication (having sort of trained the wolf to come in for meat) there's still a lot of work involved in getting a shot like this. BUT the fact that you know that the wolf IS going to come will definetly make it a lot easier to capture the image. and setting up IR triggerd cameras around the place will make it even easier. normally, IR triggerd cameras are used in the most remote locations, for very rare sightings of rare or dangerous animals where it would be impossibe to have someone there waiting for something to happen.

the rules of the competition are pretty clear though, and they do ask you weather the image was taken in the wild or not or if the animals photographed are trained or not... they emphasize on images that show the wild animals in their own natural environment, and not on images of pets (i.e. trained animals). it is called the ''wildlife photographer of the year''competition after all...

if anyone spent any amount of time on location, with a camera in their hands (or on a tripod, for that matter) they know how hard it is to capture a great wildlife image...the many hours of waiting, the frustration, the boredom...all these won't matter if you get that one image...but, by god, being a wildlife photographer is a hard job.

outspann

Do I remember reading somewhere where he said that it's a shot he's been trying to get for a number of years near his house... that he'd used this camera set-up and positioning previously, but that this was the first time it worked out?

If the complaints only relate to the use of IR, then personally I wouldn't have an issue. However, if he lied about the wolf being wild when it was not, that's different...

Captain Flaps

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I'd disagree completely with this. Wildlife photographers for years have been getting shots as dramatic. For the most part its down to sheer graft and hard work and incredible amounts of boring waiting around to ensure you're in the right place at the right time. To call that 'luck' is quite patronising I reckon.

That's a totally fair point, but it doesn't matter how long you spend hanging around, it's completely by chance that you'd get a wild animal captured in such a dramatic fashion. If the wolf is totally domesticated, then I guess it does detract from the impact of the image a bit, but from what i've read the photographer here did have to do a lot of waiting around, laying out meat etc. If what I said/quoted seems patronising, I apologise (having spent countless hours trying unsuccessfully to get good fox photos over the last 2 months), but I think that too many people are getting their knickers in a twist over this.

That said, if it was stated in the rules that wild animals would be favoured over captive ones, and the photog didn't state that his fell in the latter category, then of course he didn't deserve to win due to his dishonesty. Out of the context of the competition though, knowing the photo was more rigged than originally declared doesn't do much to diminish it for me personally. It's a cracking photo.

WedPhoto

Captain Flaps wrote: »

... but it doesn't matter how long you spend hanging around, it's completely by chance that you'd get a wild animal captured in such a dramatic fashion.

ofcourse it is not completly by chance you get wildlife images. do you think wildlife photographers will go out and about with no knowledge at all about the animal they are about to photograph? absolutelly not! it takes a lot of preparation. they have to know a lot about their subject, about their habits, about their feeding patterns, times of the day when they are likely to come out and what type of envorinment they preffer, what way they interact with their envirnment, is there a water source in the area? will the animal have to travel extesively to drkn water or to get some food? who are his enemies? what other types of animals is your subject likely to be found near...than you have to survey the area, see if it would be a good waiting point. setting up the shot, hiding yourself so you cannot be seen/sniffed by the animal, what other dangers are you likely to be in while out and about...SO MANY THINGS... so no it is not by chance!!!

Burnt

A good piece on the trials and tribulations of wildlife photography, is the National Geographic's "On Assignment" article following Steve Winter in
India looking for tigers and rhinos.

One of the articles here:
http://blogs.ngm.com/on_assignment/2008/03/patiencepatienc.html

Captain Flaps

WedPhoto wrote: »

ofcourse it is not completly by chance you get wildlife images. do you think wildlife photographers will go out and about with no knowledge at all about the animal they are about to photograph? absolutelly not! it takes a lot of preparation. they have to know a lot about their subject, about their habits, about their feeding patterns, times of the day when they are likely to come out and what type of envorinment they preffer, what way they interact with their envirnment, is there a water source in the area? will the animal have to travel extesively to drkn water or to get some food? who are his enemies? what other types of animals is your subject likely to be found near...than you have to survey the area, see if it would be a good waiting point. setting up the shot, hiding yourself so you cannot be seen/sniffed by the animal, what other dangers are you likely to be in while out and about...SO MANY THINGS... so no it is not by chance!!!

And then after you've done all that you sit and wait and hope that all your planning has paid off and the animals do what you want/expect them to. Which they might not.

32finn

regardless of any opinion shared you have to say that it is a fantastic shot! any shot takin no matter how unexpected is in some way planned, take a sports photographer for instance. he/she sits and waits for "that" action shot, but its not all look! they have already have planned out there camera settings to ensure they capture it. no doubt they have already studied the game to have a fair idea of where and when they are most likely to get "that" shot also.
so for me for the photographer in question to first of all come up with the idea in the first place and then have the ability to capture the image makes it a bit more impressive to me.
a desereved winner for me, regardless of the circumstances, a really good image.

nilhg

Captain Flaps wrote: »

And then after you've done all that you sit and wait and hope that all your planning has paid off and the animals do what you want/expect them to. Which they might not.

Or you wait, and wait, till you get lucky.....

Here's a video on the shoot that produced last years winner.

Chorcai

nilhg wrote: »

Or you wait, and wait, till you get lucky.....

Here's a video on the shoot that produced last years winner.

33 bags of stuff !!! Amazing photos, I seen it on Nat-Geo very interesting stuff.

DaireQuinlan

Little more background on the controversy...

http://www.suomenluonto.fi/bbcs-nature-photo-competition-judge-admits-winner-photo-investigated-due-to-fraud-allegations

I agree with the above, I still think it's a great photo, but if it's the case that it's been deliberately misrepresented to win the competition then I'd be disappointed.

WedPhoto

The Natural History Museum are now investigating the circumstances under which the said photo was taken:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20091222/tod-experts-cry-wolf-over-faked-wildlife-870a197.html

Ricky91t

I saw it like this...It's a wildlife competition and this wolf isn't living in the wild,It's used to human interaction and capturing a "captive" wolf doing this would be a hell of a lot easier than a wild one.

The image is great but If i was a judge hearing it was captive would take a lot out of the shot,People travel all over the world to get such great shots like these of animals in the wild.And for some one to go to a local park and "train" the wolf to do this isn't really capturing an animal in the wild..It's more capturing a tame pet that's been trained.

humberklog

It's a bit like pretending to have a learning disability to enter the special olympics football team. He'd a serious edge on the competition.

Great photo all the same.

Simplicius

of course everyone missed the obvious mistake ... its really a chiwawa on crack cocaine and not a wolf

Merry Christmas all

kjt

I wouldn't really care too much, I think it's a cracking shot. Just a bit peeved it's not a HDR winner

Chorcai

Wolf in sheeps clothing if you ask me (Had to be done!)

Agree on what DaireQ said thou.

K_user

Going by some of the posts here I have to wonder…

If I set up a bird table beside a low hanging tree branch. Then photograph the birds as they land, am I somehow cheating? After all I have organised the situation to my advantage. Does this make my photographs somehow useless?

DaireQuinlan

K_user wrote: »

Going by some of the posts here I have to wonder…

If I set up a bird table beside a low hanging tree branch. Then photograph the birds as they land, am I somehow cheating? After all I have organised the situation to my advantage. Does this make my photographs somehow useless?

They issue here is that in the case of this specific competition, the entrants were required to make it clear if the animal was trained or the shot had been captured in conditions that weren't the animals native habitat or similar. This would result in that particular shot being downgraded and would have resulted in this shot of the wolf (if the allegations are true) not winning the competition.

So ordinarily, in answer to your question, no. If you enter a competition and lie about how your photographs were taken then yes

tororosso

bedlam wrote: »

Jose Luis Rodriguez has been disqualified as a result of the allegations.

I have just read that article and have to say that the whole thing is farcical :rolleyes: He has been disqualified because the judging panel reconvened to make up their minds again!
"Louise Emerson from the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition office explained that the judging panel had been "reconvened" and had concluded that it was likely that the wolf featured in the image was an animal model that could be "hired for photographic purposes"."

All they have to go on is suspicion hence the notion that it was "likely" that it was posed...and there doesnt appear to be any concrete proof that it is a pet wolf either.
The bottom line is that the photograph is great but never in the slightest bit looked natural to me at all. If the Judges felt this was the best "wildlife" shot out of 43,000 submitted they look completely incompetent to go back and basically admit that they now have suspicions.

Oh Yeah, and based on their "suspicions", which he has denied, they have now banned him from the competition for life...big deal about that but the aspect I dont like is that he is now having his reputation sullied by the whole thing as well. Each of these photography competitions gets worse and worse to be honest :mad:

democrates

+1 tororosso, and without proof that it's the tame wolf Ossian aren't they actionable for libel?

Run_to_da_hills

> Moved from Nature and Bird Watching Forum <

Judges say they are convinced José Luis Rodriguez staged prizewinning picture of wolf

The UK's Natural History Museum's wildlife photographer of the year has been stripped of his £10,000 prize, after judges found he was likely to have hired a tame Iberian wolf to stage the image of a species seen rarely in the wild.

It dose look like a clipart or else something stuffed.




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

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It dose look like a clipart or else something stuffed.

If you read your own link you'd see that it's a tame wolf from a zoological park near Madrid. :rolleyes:

Many wildlife photographs, and indeed films, use "models" and trained animals. It doesn't take from the splendour of the animal but it is cheating in a Photographic Competition for sure...

tororosso

democrates wrote: »

+1 tororosso, and without proof that it's the tame wolf Ossian aren't they actionable for libel?

Yeah I guess that is another dimension to it now. I mean it seems that they have jumped the gun with how they have handled the suspicions publicly! I wonder what Rodriguez's response will be now but I wouldnt say the story has ended quite yet :pac:

stevoman

i think this may be more apt for this forum. mods, i hope thats ok with you.

Run_to_da_hills

Grady Sticky Realtor wrote: »

If you read your own link you'd see that it's a tame wolf from a zoological park near Madrid. :rolleyes:

My link said he was likely to have hired a tame Iberian wolf.

and the possible use of photoshop. :rolleyes:

CabanSail

Is that Elvis I see lurking in the Shadows there? It looks like he's talking to Michael Jackson.