Wildlife Photographer of the Year Didn’t Photoshop Picture

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
After the internet went crazy with “fake” and “photoshopped” allegations against the winner of the coveted “Wildlife photographer of the year” award, the guy ended up being stripped of his prize anyway. It seems the picture WASN’T photoshopped at all…but the wolf in the winning picture was tame which violated the rules anyhow.

The 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.
Click to expand...
 
I like how they stripped him of his prize, but don't actually have any proof that it is staged. Someone got butt hurt and complained and this is what happened. It's pathetic really.
 
You know the saying, any media attention is good attention, the more coverage the story gets the more people will see his fantastic photo. Contest be damned, whatever photo takes first prize now will not even receive half the exposure the "fake" one did. If I were that guy i'd be happy about the whole mess and tell the judges to stick it.
 
I like how they say they studied photos of the captive wolf and his picture and they both look like the same wolf. Yeah, because no two animals look the same.....lol

And how the hell is ANYONE going to explain why an animal does what it does? Like jumping the fence as opposed to going through/around it.

Someone was definitely a sore loser that deserves a bitch slap.
 
ah the era of subjective "if you whine enough, you automatically win, are right, and are the best ever" has finally come full circle

its only taken 20 years of indoctrinating kids with it

that aside
I don't care if that wolf was tame or not, wolves are not like dogs, and even with a trained (And domesticated) dog, that shot would be fairly hard, great picture, haters just gonna hate
 
obobski said:
haters just gonna hate
Click to expand...

what? no... i dont think anyone hates that picture. its awesome. however, when somone breaks a rule to win a prize, they are cheating. it doesnt matter whether the picture was cool or not. do you not get how rules work?
 
And what does this have to do with photoshop? Didn't he use a tamed wolf?
 
obobski said:
I don't care if that wolf was tame or not, wolves are not like dogs, and even with a trained (And domesticated) dog, that shot would be fairly hard, great picture, haters just gonna hate
Click to expand...

err... yes they are.

Wolves behave in an extremely similar fashion to dogs. There is only tens of thousands of years separation between them compared to tens of millions of years for the overall evolution from small mammal to wolf.

Wolves evolved into dogs specifically because they were so easily domesticated. If that wolf was raised from a cub I promise you their trainer could have them make that jump 100 times in a row with a small handful of food.
 
ekuest said:
what? no... i dont think anyone hates that picture. its awesome. however, when somone breaks a rule to win a prize, they are cheating. it doesnt matter whether the picture was cool or not. do you not get how rules work?
Click to expand...

oh look, a flame
did you not read my entire post?

do you not understand the concept of a technicality? enough whining over this picture claiming it was shopped and people demanding the guy lose, so you find some other technicality (thats equally impossible to prove) and disqualify it "Gracefully" to maintain the notion of authority and control, making the loudmouth whiners happy

if this doesn't make sense to you/you just want to fight about everything, re-read my post until it sinks in, if thats a problem, let me know, so I can add you to my ignore list
 
Nemesis999 said:
err... yes they are.

Wolves behave in an extremely similar fashion to dogs. There is only tens of thousands of years separation between them compared to tens of millions of years for the overall evolution from small mammal to wolf.

Wolves evolved into dogs specifically because they were so easily domesticated. If that wolf was raised from a cub I promise you their trainer could have them make that jump 100 times in a row with a small handful of food.
Click to expand...

have you ever trained dogs or wolves?
I assure you, domesticated and bred show dogs are a dramatically different animal than captive wolves, even zoo animals are still to be respected as wild animals, not domestic puppies you can just toy around with, and not too many people are in the business of breeding or domesticating full-breed wolves

no, it is not impossible to train a wolf to do what that picture demonstrates, but it is not as easy as teaching your new puppy to sit, I really do question the legitimacy of that animal as fully "wild" (such a subjective classification of animals), but its not the same as, for example, showing up at an AKC event and snapping a few pictures
 
obobski said:
have you ever trained dogs or wolves?
I assure you, domesticated and bred show dogs are a dramatically different animal than captive wolves, even zoo animals are still to be respected as wild animals, not domestic puppies you can just toy around with, and not too many people are in the business of breeding or domesticating full-breed wolves
Click to expand...

My uncle had a Gray wolf as a pet a decade ago. He found it as a cub and raised it like a dog, and it behaved much like one. Jumping over a fence was, in fact, one of his tricks and he did it happily on command.

As for zoo animals, what does that have to do with anything? Zoo-raised animals are nothing like trainer-raised animals. Handlers at a zoo do their best to minimize the behavioral changes they induce in their animals.

The fact remains that the picture could have been taken by any amateur photographer with a trained wolf. The photographer didn't train the wolf, so the fact that a wolf is more difficult to train then a dog is moot.
 
Nemesis999 said:
My uncle had a Gray wolf as a pet a decade ago. He found it as a cub and raised it like a dog, and it behaved much like one. Jumping over a fence was, in fact, one of his tricks and he did it happily on command.

As for zoo animals, what does that have to do with anything? Zoo-raised animals are nothing like trainer-raised animals. Handlers at a zoo do their best to minimize the behavioral changes they induce in their animals.

The fact remains that the picture could have been taken by any amateur photographer with a trained wolf. The photographer didn't train the wolf, so the fact that a wolf is more difficult to train then a dog is moot.
Click to expand...

if its as simple as you say, go out and do it, thats all I'm saying
 
obobski said:
oh look, a flame
did you not read my entire post?

do you not understand the concept of a technicality? enough whining over this picture claiming it was shopped and people demanding the guy lose, so you find some other technicality (thats equally impossible to prove) and disqualify it "Gracefully" to maintain the notion of authority and control, making the loudmouth whiners happy

if this doesn't make sense to you/you just want to fight about everything, re-read my post until it sinks in, if thats a problem, let me know, so I can add you to my ignore list
Click to expand...

how is that a flame? i pointed out that he broke a rule, so he got disqualified. thats how rules work. people are so defensive on [H] these days. i apologize for believing that breaking rules is grounds for disqualification. (oh wait no i dont.) :rolleyes:

do you think in the olympics when a sprinter steps over the line 2 inches they say "oh its just a technicality he didnt gain anything by it lets let it go?" no, they actually say "rules are rules and he broke one so hes out."

do you think in football when a player commits a facemask foul the refs go "oh that guy was going down anyway so it doesnt matter he got fouled?" no they say "thats guy broke a rule, he gets penalized."

thats how rules work: you break them, you get penalized. fortunately this guy took an awesome picture so hes getting tons of recognition and will definitely profit more than a measly $10k from the whole thing, but he did not follow the rules so he does not deserve to win.

what you are saying assumes that he did not cheat, and the (im sure many, and qualified) experts are wrong about this being the same wolf. i am assuming they are correct, as just like any other animal, (human, dog, cat, whatever,) different creatures of the same species are differentiable after you get to know them. lmk if you still have a problem with my logic.
 
obobski said:
if its as simple as you say, go out and do it, thats all I'm saying
Click to expand...

ok well i just wasted like 10 mins writing explaining why i disagree with you, but now i see youre just here to create problems. why would this guy want to train a wolf to prove his point to you? lol. zoos do, and his uncle did, but thats not enough for you? HE has to train a wolf for his point to be valid in your eyes? heh. wheres my ignore button? we got a shameless troll on our hands! :D
 
ekuest said:
ok well i just wasted like 10 mins writing explaining why i disagree with you, but now i see youre just here to create problems. why would this guy want to train a wolf to prove his point to you? lol. zoos do, and his uncle did, but thats not enough for you? HE has to train a wolf for his point to be valid in your eyes? heh. wheres my ignore button? we got a shameless troll on our hands! :D
Click to expand...

Heh, after reading your last post I was about to tell you to save your "breath", but it seems you figured that out on your own. ;)

Some people would rather post increasingly useless drivel in an attempt to support their failed arguments rather then just admit they were talking out of their ass. It usually ends with something along the lines of "having proved their point", and informing you that they're not going to respond anymore.
 
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.
Click to expand...

So, no definitive proof and they disqualify him based on suspicion. Ridiculous.
 
ekuest said:
how is that a flame? i pointed out that he broke a rule, so he got disqualified. thats how rules work. people are so defensive on [H] these days. i apologize for believing that breaking rules is grounds for disqualification. (oh wait no i dont.) :rolleyes:

do you think in the olympics when a sprinter steps over the line 2 inches they say "oh its just a technicality he didnt gain anything by it lets let it go?" no, they actually say "rules are rules and he broke one so hes out."

do you think in football when a player commits a facemask foul the refs go "oh that guy was going down anyway so it doesnt matter he got fouled?" no they say "thats guy broke a rule, he gets penalized."

thats how rules work: you break them, you get penalized. fortunately this guy took an awesome picture so hes getting tons of recognition and will definitely profit more than a measly $10k from the whole thing, but he did not follow the rules so he does not deserve to win.

what you are saying assumes that he did not cheat, and the (im sure many, and qualified) experts are wrong about this being the same wolf. i am assuming they are correct, as just like any other animal, (human, dog, cat, whatever,) different creatures of the same species are differentiable after you get to know them. lmk if you still have a problem with my logic.
Click to expand...

actually my point is that theres really not a way to "prove" that its a trained wolf, unless you could lay hands on the specific wolf and somehow discern that its trained (all of which is within the realm of possibility, but highly improbable), and given the attention surrounding the entire ordeal, its not unlikely to assume they were looking for some reason to disqualify him, that exists within the rules

yes, I do understand how rules work, and yes, I would say disqualify if they could prove he cheated, but its fairly hard to do so unless you can analyze the thing *to death*

as far as the "go out and do it yourself" comment, the point is that even if this were a trained animal, the shot requires some skill (and all that really delineates a professional from an amateur photographer is whether or not they make a living at it), I'm sort of sick of reading the constant "oh well its really not that hard its nothing special" dribble, its a skillful shot, trained animal or not (untrained animal it would be ten times so), and nobody can really take that away from the photographer, unless of course, they can do it better, its not impossible, but its not as simple as getting out your camera phone and snapping a pic, and thats more or less what is being insisted "oh its just a trained animal its so easy anyone could do it", so if thats the case, why isn't everyone doing it? see the logical flaw there?
 
Lebowski said:
I like how they stripped him of his prize, but don't actually have any proof that it is staged. Someone got butt hurt and complained and this is what happened. It's pathetic really.
Click to expand...

RTFA, they are pretty sure they know the EXACT tamed wolf he used. It's not 100% proof, but this isn't just someone being "butt hurt".
 
Nemesis999 said:
Heh, after reading your last post I was about to tell you to save your "breath", but it seems you figured that out on your own. ;)

Some people would rather post increasingly useless drivel in an attempt to support their failed arguments rather then just admit they were talking out of their ass. It usually ends with something along the lines of "having proved their point", and informing you that they're not going to respond anymore.
Click to expand...

so prove me wrong mate.

prove, beyond any question of a doubt, that everything you've said is bonafide accurate, that he cheated, that he was disqualified entirely based on that, and not because of the media attention, that its a very easy and simple shot to set-up and take with a "tamed liberian wolf" (not a raised puppy, but a tamed wild animal), dispel ALL doubt surrounding the issue



Actuary said:
So, no definitive proof and they disqualify him based on suspicion. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

which is what I said more or less exactly, a page ago
yet I'm "supporting a failed argument and talking out of my ass with increasingly useless drivel"
 
Actuary said:
So, no definitive proof and they disqualify him based on suspicion. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

i feel like that just means no definitive proof. or ireffutable proof. aka no eyewitnesses etc. they did say it looks like the same wolf, and the fence looks like one in the park where that wolf lives. jane goodall could tell the difference between every one of her gorillas after living with them for a few weeks, while im sure theyd all look the same to any of us. plus, it would be easy enough for him to prove hes innocent by just showing them the fence where he took the picture. if its not in the wildlife park, then its not the same park. the fact is, its impossible to prove him guilty, but it would be easy to prove him innocent.
 
obobski said:
as far as the "go out and do it yourself" comment, the point is that even if this were a trained animal, the shot requires some skill (and all that really delineates a professional from an amateur photographer is whether or not they make a living at it), I'm sort of sick of reading the constant "oh well its really not that hard its nothing special" dribble, its a skillful shot, trained animal or not (untrained animal it would be ten times so), and nobody can really take that away from the photographer, unless of course, they can do it better, its not impossible, but its not as simple as getting out your camera phone and snapping a pic, and thats more or less what is being insisted "oh its just a trained animal its so easy anyone could do it", so if thats the case, why isn't everyone doing it? see the logical flaw there?
Click to expand...

:eek:

So tell me. What part of taking this picture with a trained animal is hard?

Is it setting up the tripod?
Is it setting the focus for a fixed distance?
Is it holding down the continuous-shoot button while the wolf jumps over the fence?
Is it looking through the pile of pictures and picking which one you want?
 
obobski said:
so prove me wrong mate.

prove, beyond any question of a doubt, that everything you've said is bonafide accurate, that he cheated, that he was disqualified entirely based on that, and not because of the media attention, that its a very easy and simple shot to set-up and take with a "tamed liberian wolf" (not a raised puppy, but a tamed wild animal), dispel ALL doubt surrounding the issue

which is what I said more or less exactly, a page ago
yet I'm "supporting a failed argument and talking out of my ass with increasingly useless drivel"
Click to expand...

Nothing says Troll like putting words into someone's mouth then arguing against them. :rolleyes:

Where did I claim he was guilty? Where did I claim the wolf was trained? Where did I claim he should be disqualified? I never did. I pointed out that if the wolf was trained, that would be a very easy shot.

Again, you continue to post useless drivel and challenge me to prove something I never claimed in the first place.

Keep talking out your ass. It's getting you somewhere. Really.
 
ekuest said:
i feel like that just means no definitive proof. or ireffutable proof. aka no eyewitnesses etc. they did say it looks like the same wolf, and the fence looks like one in the park where that wolf lives. jane goodall could tell the difference between every one of her gorillas after living with them for a few weeks, while im sure theyd all look the same to any of us. plus, it would be easy enough for him to prove hes innocent by just showing them the fence where he took the picture. if its not in the wildlife park, then its not the same park. the fact is, its impossible to prove him guilty, but it would be easy to prove him innocent.
Click to expand...

exactly what I've been trying to say...

to play devil's advocate though: they could've just taken the wolf somewhere else :p

but seriously, there is no way to say without an ounce of doubt that he's guilty, especially given the previous media attention he got, just as you've said in your post

and as I said, it would seem likely that based on this suspicion (in other words, looking for something to hit him for), its easy to just pass him over and move along (controversial publicity is good for one side, bad for the other, if the award organization can no longer maintain an image of legitimacy, they lose their authority)

nemesis:
as I said, dispel the doubt by taking the shot yourself or some other bona-fide method, you could win an award ;)
 
So tell me. What part of taking this picture with a trained animal is hard?

Is it setting up the tripod?
Is it setting the focus for a fixed distance?
Is it holding down the continuous-shoot button while the wolf jumps over the fence?
Is it looking through the pile of pictures and picking which one you want?
Click to expand...

Nah, it's having to listen to whiny internet bitches :D deriding that which they cannot do themselves.
 
obobski said:
actually my point is that theres really not a way to "prove" that its a trained wolf, unless you could lay hands on the specific wolf and somehow discern that its trained (all of which is within the realm of possibility, but highly improbable), and given the attention surrounding the entire ordeal, its not unlikely to assume they were looking for some reason to disqualify him, that exists within the rules

yes, I do understand how rules work, and yes, I would say disqualify if they could prove he cheated, but its fairly hard to do so unless you can analyze the thing *to death*

as far as the "go out and do it yourself" comment, the point is that even if this were a trained animal, the shot requires some skill (and all that really delineates a professional from an amateur photographer is whether or not they make a living at it), I'm sort of sick of reading the constant "oh well its really not that hard its nothing special" dribble, its a skillful shot, trained animal or not (untrained animal it would be ten times so), and nobody can really take that away from the photographer, unless of course, they can do it better, its not impossible, but its not as simple as getting out your camera phone and snapping a pic, and thats more or less what is being insisted "oh its just a trained animal its so easy anyone could do it", so if thats the case, why isn't everyone doing it? see the logical flaw there?
Click to expand...

Let me introduce you to Mr. Camrecorder where you can rewind, pause, and even pick and chose a stillshot taken with it. It could be more of an artistic talent knowing which frame to pick than photographic talents.

It's fine playing the devil's advocate, but you're pushing it. We're not COMPLETELY ignorant of everything else besides computers. My grandmother raises show dogs. It's not hard to make them jump a hurdle on command at all.
 
Azhar said:
Let me introduce you to Mr. Camrecorder where you can rewind, pause, and even pick and chose a stillshot taken with it. It could be more of an artistic talent knowing which frame to pick than photographic talents.

It's fine playing the devil's advocate, but you're pushing it. We're not COMPLETELY ignorant of everything else besides computers. My grandmother raises show dogs. It's not hard to make them jump a hurdle on command at all.
Click to expand...

did I say its impossible?
no, I said its hard

show dogs are a different beast entirely, and photographing them (or any fast motion) is still not the same as taking a picture of a static object, nowhere have I disputed that a trained animal can be herded around or pushed through a course, I have however stated that a trained show dog is different than a trained wolf, and that even the best trained show dog doing exactly what you want it to do is not "easy as pie" to photograph, it does require some know-how (which is entirely accessible to anyone with an SLR and some time, most any decent sports photographer could take the shot without a problem, for example); whether or not the animal is trained or not, getting the timing right on the shot you want takes at least some ability, it just ups the ante to have an untrained or wild animal as opposed to a dog that will do anything on command

as far as the camcorder concept, yes that is a possibility, but I'd like to see the set on someone daring enough to take a still frame out of a 720p, 1080p, or even DC4k capture and submit it as a photograph, consider that unless you're spending easily more than that prize would cover, you're dealing with a 24 or 30 fps system, there'd be trails on that motion (so it'd have to be heavily processed to make it look like it does), yeah a 100-1000 FPS camera could do that no problem, thats also a very expensive (and in most cases proprietary) piece of equipment, I guess if you were just rich as hell and had access to it, you could do that, I think it'd be easier to just spend a month or two learning how to work an SLR than shooting the thing in bullet-time though (you'd have to wade through thousands of frames after all was said and done) :cool:

really, theres about a billion different "what-ifs" regarding this whole ordeal, given that there is no evidence that dispels that doubt (which is what good evidence will do), I'm calling some sort of murky doings here, if it weren't possible for us to sit here and go back and forth with "what-if" or "but you could" that would be a different story
 
They not only figured out which wolf he used but where he took it.

They aren't just saying "No thats fluffy!", they are saying "Not thats fluffy! and thats his back yard!"
 
There's more bitching here than in the photo or when they were questioning the picture with the photographer.
 
There's more bitching here than in the photo or when they were questioning the picture with the photographer.
Click to expand...

Nothing worse than a forum of OCD equipped geeks.

"Rebels without a clue".

Ain't it fun though!!:)
 
the-one1 said:
There's more bitching here than in the photo or when they were questioning the picture with the photographer.
Click to expand...

Seriously dude.

If you guys pm me your mailing addresses I will overnight you some tampons...;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top