Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2009

Here is the english version of the article -> http://www.suomenluonto.fi/bbcs-nature- ... llegations

Wow, I have to say, based on the photos in that article it seems pretty likely that the photo *was* taken at the nature center site. Now whether it's the same wolf... I don't know, would a wild wolf stray into a captive animal facility? Maybe to do some easy hunting? I'm curious to follow this story. It's a wonderful bit of photography either way... but I must admit I'd be very disappointed if it also turned out to be a wonderful bit of "storytelling."

Quite disappointing, and I feel bad for Rose, the head of the competition. They appear to be duped, however I would have suspected this from the get go. I am not a fan of baited or manufactured situations, and I am always highly skeptical when I see images such as this. As a side note, I have to say that this is one of the more uninspiring images I have seen, and definitely not a WPY winner. Just my opinion. I do understand that conservation themed images are more likely to win, especially in this current day and age where conservation is extremely important.

Wow, that is pretty sad. I hope they reach a conclusion soon, make it public and get back on track. I am also glad the Spanish Photographers came forward with this.

I gotta say that wasn't my favorite image from this years contest even tough I did think it was very good. Sad if it turns out to be just another "stupid pet trick."

That is a stunning turn of events... I agree that the evidence seems pretty strong that it's a setup, and it would be disappointing to the extreme if that were true.

Keep in mind, "”But until one bit of evidence can be verified I don't think it's possible to accuse the photographer of cheating. It's not 100 percent”, Kidman Cox states."

”I'm just a judge in the competition”, Kidman Cox says. ”But you'll find Mark (Carwardine) is not going to say anything different than me. Because we're just waiting for a piece of evidence”, she continues.

I know it doesn't look good but have seen stranger things happen.

The website of the UK's Daily Mail has an article on the allegations, including a link to a denial by Jose Luis Rodriguez of any wrongdoing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... image.html

Neither the article or the denial mentions the apparent resemblence of the scene in the winning photo to what is alleged to be a similar area in a Spanish zoological park. While the stone wall in the alleged park image is obviously dilapidated compared to the one in the winning photo, I don't see a single stone that's an obvious match.

I am no detective that's for sure and the stone wall could have been knocked down but that tree sure looks the same or very similar.
Time will tell, hope they study the evidence and get to the bottom of it.

I agree, George. Seems way too coincidental from the limited evidence we have seen so far. What would be best is for the photographer to actually take a representative from the contest to the location in question.

abiggs wrote:I agree, George. Seems way too coincidental from the limited evidence we have seen so far. What would be best is for the photographer to actually take a representative from the contest to the location in question.

Agree Andy and maybe meet the Farmer?

"Eventually he discovered a farmer happy to allow a wild wolf on his land, and then left meat by the gate to tempt the creature."

I am sure they are going through all the same questions. What a mess.

To my eyes, it looks like the fence door might have been temporarily put in place in conjunction with some moving of stones. The tree placement in the background also supports the notion that the location wasn't where he said it was. As a former participant (2 times) in the competition, I am very concerned about the trend to trick people to win a competition such as this one.

Cliff Beittel wrote:The website of the UK's Daily Mail has an article on the allegations, including a link to a denial by Jose Luis Rodriguez of any wrongdoing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... image.html

Neither the article or the denial mentions the apparent resemblence of the scene in the winning photo to what is alleged to be a similar area in a Spanish zoological park. While the stone wall in the alleged park image is obviously dilapidated compared to the one in the winning photo, I don't see a single stone that's an obvious match.

Hey Cliff,

I agree, the wall in the winning image is completely different than the one in the park. I make no assumptions, nor can I draw any conclusions at this time.The whole debacle does bring to light the current public digital perception we are all currently facing. BTW-I believe websites and photog's that highly advocate the post-production alteration of images to the point of sterilization send the wrong message to many aspiring editorial photographers.

Best,

Chas

Another nature facker, there is a long history of this, in fact back to the first photon hitting a plate.

When I first saw the winning wolf image I had some concerns about whether it was a truely "in the wild" shot. For me, as someone who has worked with foxes and other wildlife all my professional life, I couldn't understand why the wolf was jumping the gate. This just isn't how I would expect a wild animal to negotiate a wall and a gate.

The most unfortunate thing is that this photgrapher's reputation has been publicly slammed before a final determination has been made to the authenticity of the photograph with respect to the contest rules. Perhaps the contest should of done their due diligence and investigation prior to announcing the winner.

It seems pretty Easy To request for BBC the Photographer take BBC to this So called farmer, so called Land, and so called exact location where this so called wild shoot took place, to see with the utmost certainty the Exact location of this so called wild digital Capture....

This would be irrefutable...

Robert,

I agree with everything else you said, but the image was a 6x6 Fujichrome made with a Hasselblad.

c.w. moynihan wrote:The most unfortunate thing is that this photgrapher's reputation has been publicly slammed before a final determination has been made to the authenticity of the photograph with respect to the contest rules.

Certainly unfortunate

Not one to throw cold water over the competition, but how many times in the past has the ultimate winner been quirky, odd or "interesting' in how it is arrived at. It seems the absolute accolade goes to an image that adds a controversial element: (THE WILDLIFE IMAGE OF THE YEAR.. is this it? I've got better!). How many can really, truly in their heart of hearts say that the winner is the World's most outstanding wildlife image. (I have every single portfolio, and very few ultimate winners take my breath away).

Where I'm driving, is that I believe by policy, the competition sets out to give the final award to an image that may for example, encourage more entries into the next competition. (This is not taking away a dime from award winners, who cannot be faulted if their "number comes up"). But honestly, can anyone here really believe that the august panel of judges couldn't have raised some appropriate queries. many are professional photographers themselves. I personally spent 6 hours climbing the Cairngorms with one last year and resolutely refuse to accept they could be so inept at not flagging up some concerns..... I personally believe a "policy" exists.

This could have been prevented. There would have been no damage to the photographer. (just another rejection slip). No damage to the already shaky integrity of this competition. Instead, by failing to deal with it at the source, they have let out a whole can of worms. (an alternative view, is that their policy decisions has finally caught up with them and bit them in the butt).

My humble view, is that the competition organizers have a lot to feel sheepish about and should be ashamed. (cover up operations no doubt already in place to save face).

The alternative, is that many of the judges, despite many years of field experience, and knowledge of biology, actually routinely see wolves jumping fences. (believable. no zero that one). Regrettably, i feel the competition is rotten to the core and the ticking time bomb has been just a matter of when it'll blow up in their faces. my 2 cents guys.

Hey David,

That was a very thoughtful and honest bit that you wrote there. The part that rings truest with me is the suggestion that queries should have been raised. Sometimes the local camera club calls in 'external' judges such as myself to help with their season-end judging and we get a chuckle every now and then as we attempt to exclude the captive images from the 'nature' submissions. "What do you think, boys, is this a captive arctic wolf or did the photog fly up to Elsmere Island with his G10 to get this one? "

Anyhow, the point is, from a judging standpoint I feel that any wolf shot should be subject to closer inspection ... i am not faulting anyone for letting something slip, but, as you suggest, perhaps 'a slip' is not the case and maybe some policy does rule in the end. Seems simple enough for a pro shooter/judge to be able distinguish standards like: "cheetah: easy, leopard: tougher, wolf: hard, so let's take a closer look than we did with the cheetah shots" . Then again, if you never visited Triple D, for instance, you might not be so inclined to identify their snow leopard with such ease if a shot of it was placed in front of you. And the panel of judges can't be aware or expected to be aware of every captive specimen in the world.

Don't get me wrong, the BBC contest is a feather in anyone's cap and I would love to have such a feather in mine and I will probably give it a shot at some point when I feel I have an image that fits the perceived requirements. I love the wolf shot, too, regardless of how it was done....