fake Wildlife photography

Dpreview has a story of a contest won by a stuffed animal.  I think all manipulations should be included with submitted photos.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/914424648 ... fed-animal

Are you saying he should have said "I planted a dead stuffed anteater in my picture"? I am being only slightly facetious, someone who is trying to perpetuate fraud is not going to admit to their manipulations. Even now the photographer is denying that the animal is a plant.

It is a shame a photographer feels he needs to cheat to win.

ricardo00 wrote:Are you saying he should have said "I planted a dead stuffed anteater in my picture"?  I am being only slightly facetious, someone who is trying to perpetuate fraud is not going to admit to their manipulations.  Even now the photographer is denying that the animal is a plant.

I think this should be more broad based than your narrow view.  Many bird photographers use Gaussian blur to mimic Art Morris's bird on a stick style of wildlife photography (should be in the description).

The image was the winner in several other European contests, too. It's not the first time that honest photographers had been cheated. Another proof for me not to trust into competitions anymore. Sad.

Wolfgang

WJaekel wrote:The image was the winner in several other European contests, too. It's not the first time that honest photographers had been cheated. Another proof for me not to trust into competitions anymore. Sad.

Wolfgang

I don't know about this particular photo and if true it is indeed a sad commentary on the ethics of 'high end' photography. I doubt an ordinary photographer would go to this extent, more likely such frauds are perpetrated by those who know how these contests work.

I have often felt that it is really a crapshoot, these 'award' contests. The photo that wins is more likely to be due to the interesting back story or an unusual technique than the actual photograph itself. Luck plays a huge part too, I am sure. Some of the images if shown to a layman bereft of any other information may not merit a second glance. Some are stunning and awe-inspiring, true, but as I grow more jaded about this whole thing I feel it has become a desperate bid for recognition. If you are an 'international award winning' photographer you are more likely to attract amateurs like me who want to do tours with you. Am I being too cynical here?

Consider this photograph for example:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... crowd.html

Or this one:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... iders.html

Another one: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... swans.html

One More: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -tail.html

This one I like, but is it really that remarkable? http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -dawn.html

One where the technique and story again is what makes the image: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... imacy.html

I have been to all these places or similar ones myself (including Khichan in Rajasthan where the demoiselle crane photo was taken) and have pictures like these that I would not have thought are capable of winning international photo contests. However, they did either win or made it to the finals or were commended. 

IMHO a photograph should be capable of standing on its own merit. I can well understand images of the human condition which become more poignant and meaningful with a story (suffering in war-torn areas for example), but for nature photography it should simply be the beauty of the animal and its surroundings that evokes strong emotions in the viewer. One should not need to 'explain' what the image is about or the context in which it was taken. 

To my mind, photography, even nature related, is progressing towards a form of 'modernism' because it has become so easy to take the usual 'realist' images, now that every phone is a camera. People pay to go and see stuff like this and if you are fortunate enough to own something like this you've 'arrived'.  Further proof of this would be the well-known Gursky photo that though taken in 1999 sold in 2011 for $4.3 million - and it was heavily manipulated digitally as we know. 

I guess I am just a philistine.....

Pradeep

Primus wrote: I don't know about this particular photo and if true it is indeed a sad commentary on the ethics of 'high end' photography. I doubt an ordinary photographer would go to this extent, more likely such frauds are perpetrated by those who know how these contests work.

I have often felt that it is really a crapshoot, these 'award' contests. The photo that wins is more likely to be due to the interesting back story or an unusual technique than the actual photograph itself. Luck plays a huge part too, I am sure. Some of the images if shown to a layman bereft of any other information may not merit a second glance. Some are stunning and awe-inspiring, true, but as I grow more jaded about this whole thing I feel it has become a desperate bid for recognition. If you are an 'international award winning' photographer you are more likely to attract amateurs like me who want to do tours with you. Am I being too cynical here?

Consider this photograph for example:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... crowd.html

Or this one:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... iders.html

Another one: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... swans.html

One More: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -tail.html

This one I like, but is it really that remarkable? http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -dawn.html

One where the technique and story again is what makes the image: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... imacy.html

I have been to all these places or similar ones myself (including Khichan in Rajasthan where the demoiselle crane photo was taken) and have pictures like these that I would not have thought are capable of winning international photo contests. However, they did either win or made it to the finals or were commended. 

IMHO a photograph should be capable of standing on its own merit. I can well understand images of the human condition which become more poignant and meaningful with a story (suffering in war-torn areas for example), but for nature photography it should simply be the beauty of the animal and its surroundings that evokes strong emotions in the viewer. One should not need to 'explain' what the image is about or the context in which it was taken. 

To my mind, photography, even nature related, is progressing towards a form of 'modernism' because it has become so easy to take the usual 'realist' images, now that every phone is a camera. People pay to go and see stuff like this and if you are fortunate enough to own something like this you've 'arrived'.  Further proof of this would be the well-known Gursky photo that though taken in 1999 sold in 2011 for $4.3 million - and it was heavily manipulated digitally as we know. 

I guess I am just a philistine.....

Pradeep

I fully agree. I personally would not have even thought about entering one of the images you linked and you can only wonder which criteria had made these images exceptionel in the eyes of the judges. Of course, judgement is subjective and you have to accept it once you participate in a competition. But the rewards at least should be comprehensible in the view of the majority even though they don't necessarily need to meet the personal taste, of course. As you said, luck plays an important role, too, given the fact that they judge ten thousands of images. It's virtually impossible to review all the enterings carefully within just 2 or 3 days of judgement. I once talked to one of the judges of the BBC contest and he said that they just quickly browse through the enterings within a few seconds. So it seems to me that you rarely can succeed anymore in sending images that just show the beauty of the animal and its surroundings since the modern world is flooded with images of polar bears, tigers, northern lights or whatever everybody can take, the more that the number of trips that take people to all the edges of the world has increased dramatically. That doesn't mean that there are no stunning enterings, of course. But from time to time you also can see obvious tendencies of photographs that were successfull in the competitions. For example, some years ago, motion blurred images of trees, flowers or animals had been seen all over the place and rewarded in several contests so that people tried to imitate that technique for their entries. Anyway, the effort to stand out from the crowd can lead unethical photographers to cheat as it obviously happened with the "Night Raider" image now again. That leads to even more doubts about the value of these contests. Just to clarify: I don't write this because I'm frustrated by not having been rewarded. I have been successful in several important contests in the past but in consequence of what I said above I nowadays seldom take part in competitions anymore. Of course it may be nice for the ego and the reputation if you win the BBC contest especially if you earn your living with photography. I'm glad that I don't need to and my photographs have to meet my personal imaginations and please myself in the first place. I will not change my approach and bend myself for any modern or absurd tendency just to increase my chances in a contest.

Wolfgang

Primus wrote:[snip]

Consider this photograph for example:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... crowd.html

Or this one:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... iders.html

Another one: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... swans.html

One More: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -tail.html

This one I like, but is it really that remarkable? http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -dawn.html

One where the technique and story again is what makes the image: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... imacy.html

[snip]
IMHO a photograph should be capable of standing on its own merit...[snip] for nature photography it should simply be the beauty of the animal and its surroundings that evokes strong emotions in the viewer. One should not need to 'explain' what the image is about or the context in which it was taken. 

[snip]

Just so we can understand you better, perhaps you could elaborate on why the photos you linked to above do not meet the criteria you stated ??

DChan wrote:

Primus wrote:[snip]

Consider this photograph for example:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... crowd.html

Or this one:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... iders.html

Another one: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... swans.html

One More: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -tail.html

This one I like, but is it really that remarkable? http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -dawn.html

One where the technique and story again is what makes the image: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... imacy.html

[snip]
IMHO a photograph should be capable of standing on its own merit...[snip] for nature photography it should simply be the beauty of the animal and its surroundings that evokes strong emotions in the viewer. One should not need to 'explain' what the image is about or the context in which it was taken. 

[snip]

Just so we can understand you better, perhaps you could elaborate on why the photos you linked to above do not meet the criteria you stated ??

Missing the point.  Pradeep was staying "consider this photograph for example".  He didn't state they do, or do not meet the criteria you refer to.  Argument for the sake of argument which is drifting from the original topic.   

As for that "Gursky photo"   that has to be the biggest steal of the century.  What a crap shot... and for $4.3 million.  Ever read the fable about the Emperors clothes.   LOL... OMG.  

david fletcher wrote:

DChan wrote:

Primus wrote:[snip]

Consider this photograph for example:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... crowd.html

Or this one:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... iders.html

Another one: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... swans.html

One More: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -tail.html

This one I like, but is it really that remarkable? http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -dawn.html

One where the technique and story again is what makes the image: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... imacy.html

[snip]
IMHO a photograph should be capable of standing on its own merit...[snip] for nature photography it should simply be the beauty of the animal and its surroundings that evokes strong emotions in the viewer. One should not need to 'explain' what the image is about or the context in which it was taken. 

[snip]

Just so we can understand you better, perhaps you could elaborate on why the photos you linked to above do not meet the criteria you stated ??

Missing the point.  Pradeep was staying "consider this photograph for example". [snip]

Whatever point you thought I'd missed is irrelevant. He described those photos as crap photos. Then he stated his idea of what a nature photo should be. He brought in additional materials to this thread. I am simply asking him to elaborate on his thoughts - which may or may not have anything to do with if a photo is fake or not since a fake photo could still meet his criteria - to help us understand them better. IMO he strayed into a new topic and I simply wanted to know more about it.

As for that "Gursky photo"   that has to be the biggest steal of the century.  What a crap shot... and for $4.3 million.

The way I see it is: you guys look at it and believe it's a photograph and applies your understanding of a photograph to it.  Perhaps the person who bought it for some other reasons??

I think somebody has posted a video about the selling of that photo some time ago on NSN. It's quite interesting. 

"Pradeep said:
The photo that wins is more likely to be due to the interesting back story or an unusual technique than the actual photograph itself.IMHO a photograph should be capable of standing on its own merit.....One should not need to 'explain' what the image is about or the context in which it was taken. 

To my mind, photography, even nature related, is progressing towards a form of 'modernism' because it has become so easy to take the usual 'realist' images, now that every phone is a camera. People pay to go and see stuff like this and if you are fortunate enough to own something like this you've 'arrived'.  Further proof of this would be the well-known Gursky photo that though taken in 1999 sold in 2011 for $4.3 million - and it was heavily manipulated digitally as we know. 

Pradeep

Regarding your first point, I completely agree. I once came out second in a “one roll shootout” using film. My image was of a Gila Woodpecker on a branch. The winner was of a colorful sunrise with saguaros. The reason given in the awards presentation for the saguaro image winning was that the other photographer had only 45 seconds to set up and take the shot. Nobody seemed to give any thought to the fact that the woodpecker only gave me possibly six seconds to frame, compose and shoot. The other photographers backstory made an impression on the judges. Maybe sour grapes, but the reasoning should be applied across the board, IMO. Contests are very arbitrary in the judging and an entrant must be able to accept the final judgement, even if you don’t agree with the results.

Regarding the second part, I found this interesting perspective on high-dollar images. The comments following the article are very interesting, as well.

http://davidduchemin.com/2016/01/whats-your-potato/

And this one is re: contests:

http://davidduchemin.com/2018/02/the-one-about-photo-competitions/

I like the comments below this last article, as well. They reaffirm my belief that “Moonrise Over Hernandez” was not that special! I thought I was alone in thinking that way!

Joe

DChan wrote:

david fletcher wrote:

DChan wrote:

Primus wrote:[snip]

Consider this photograph for example:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... crowd.html

Or this one:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... iders.html

Another one: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... swans.html

One More: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -tail.html

This one I like, but is it really that remarkable? http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -dawn.html

One where the technique and story again is what makes the image: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... imacy.html

[snip]
IMHO a photograph should be capable of standing on its own merit...[snip] for nature photography it should simply be the beauty of the animal and its surroundings that evokes strong emotions in the viewer. One should not need to 'explain' what the image is about or the context in which it was taken. 

[snip]

Just so we can understand you better, perhaps you could elaborate on why the photos you linked to above do not meet the criteria you stated ??

Missing the point.  Pradeep was staying "consider this photograph for example". [snip]

Whatever point you thought I'd missed is irrelevant. He described those photos as crap photos. Then he stated his idea of what a nature photo should be. He brought in additional materials to this thread. I am simply asking him to elaborate on his thoughts - which may or may not have anything to do with if a photo is fake or not since a fake photo could still meet his criteria - to help us understand them better. IMO he strayed into a new topic and I simply wanted to know more about it.

As for that "Gursky photo"   that has to be the biggest steal of the century.  What a crap shot... and for $4.3 million.

The way I see it is: you guys look at it and believe it's a photograph and applies your understanding of a photograph to it.  Perhaps the person who bought it for some other reasons??

I think somebody has posted a video about the selling of that photo some time ago on NSN. It's quite interesting. 

DC, with respect, I do not wish to get into an argument on semantics with you. Just wish to clarify  a few things:

1. I never said or described these photos as 'crap'. I said award contests appear to me to be a 'crap-shoot', meaning a game of chance. 

2. I actually liked some of the photos as I mentioned, but to me they do not represent the best the world of photography has to offer, I did not think they were capable of winning an international nature photography competition, but they either did or were commended. 

3. Regarding whether they meet 'my criteria' of excellence is not the point here at all. It is just an opinion. Explanation of the same becomes tautology. And I certainly do not wish to indulge in word play. Of course you may have your own opinion on these images  and that's absolutely fine with me.

4. Yes, the title of the thread is 'fake wildlife photography' and strictly speaking I did stray from the topic, but thread drift to other related issues is the norm in all forums and in any case it is about 'award photography'.

FWIW, it is not about sour grapes, I've never submitted a photo for a competition, not even to my local camera club, forget about international contests. My take on all this is that it is surprising what wins an award and what does not. I know many professionals whose work is absolutely stunning and I can only hope one day to be able to get close to their standard. Yes, many award winning entries are superb, but many are, again, IMHO not capable of standing up without an interesting back story or special technique. 

The examples I posted were to illustrate this very point. 

Pradeep

Here’s a link to an article containing a photo of the taxidermy image:

Anteater

Joe

Primus wrote:

DChan wrote:

david fletcher wrote:

DChan wrote:

Primus wrote:[snip]

Consider this photograph for example:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... crowd.html

Or this one:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... iders.html

Another one: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... swans.html

One More: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -tail.html

This one I like, but is it really that remarkable? http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... -dawn.html

One where the technique and story again is what makes the image: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/ ... imacy.html

[snip]
IMHO a photograph should be capable of standing on its own merit...[snip] for nature photography it should simply be the beauty of the animal and its surroundings that evokes strong emotions in the viewer. One should not need to 'explain' what the image is about or the context in which it was taken. 

[snip]

Just so we can understand you better, perhaps you could elaborate on why the photos you linked to above do not meet the criteria you stated ??

Missing the point.  Pradeep was staying "consider this photograph for example". [snip]

Whatever point you thought I'd missed is irrelevant. He described those photos as crap photos. Then he stated his idea of what a nature photo should be. He brought in additional materials to this thread. I am simply asking him to elaborate on his thoughts - which may or may not have anything to do with if a photo is fake or not since a fake photo could still meet his criteria - to help us understand them better. IMO he strayed into a new topic and I simply wanted to know more about it.

As for that "Gursky photo"   that has to be the biggest steal of the century.  What a crap shot... and for $4.3 million.

The way I see it is: you guys look at it and believe it's a photograph and applies your understanding of a photograph to it.  Perhaps the person who bought it for some other reasons??

I think somebody has posted a video about the selling of that photo some time ago on NSN. It's quite interesting. 

DC, with respect, I do not wish to get into an argument on semantics with you. Just wish to clarify  a few things:

1. I never said or described these photos as 'crap'. I said award contests appear to me to be a 'crap-shoot', meaning a game of chance. 

2. I actually liked some of the photos as I mentioned, but to me they do not represent the best the world of photography has to offer, I did not think they were capable of winning an international nature photography competition, but they either did or were commended. 

3. Regarding whether they meet 'my criteria' of excellence is not the point here at all. It is just an opinion. Explanation of the same becomes tautology. And I certainly do not wish to indulge in word play. Of course you may have your own opinion on these images  and that's absolutely fine with me.

4. Yes, the title of the thread is 'fake wildlife photography' and strictly speaking I did stray from the topic, but thread drift to other related issues is the norm in all forums and in any case it is about 'award photography'.

FWIW, it is not about sour grapes, I've never submitted a photo for a competition, not even to my local camera club, forget about international contests. My take on all this is that it is surprising what wins an award and what does not. I know many professionals whose work is absolutely stunning and I can only hope one day to be able to get close to their standard. Yes, many award winning entries are superb, but many are, again, IMHO not capable of standing up without an interesting back story or special technique. 

The examples I posted were to illustrate this very point. 

Pradeep

Haha, I should have known that it would be another long response from you 

I thought I was simply asking for illustrations. Anyhow, thank you for the response !

I personally think the Storm Riders shot is marvelous, but that’s just my opinion of course.

The Guardian newspapers of UK has an article on fake wildlife photo:

'There's a lot of fakery': insiders spill on the dirty tricks behind wildlife photos

WJaekel wrote:
I fully agree. I personally would not have even thought about entering one of the images you linked and you can only wonder which criteria had made these images exceptionel in the eyes of the judges. Of course, judgement is subjective and you have to accept it once you participate in a competition. But the rewards at least should be comprehensible in the view of the majority even though they don't necessarily need to meet the personal taste, of course. As you said, luck plays an important role, too, given the fact that they judge ten thousands of images. It's virtually impossible to review all the enterings carefully within just 2 or 3 days of judgement. I once talked to one of the judges of the BBC contest and he said that they just quickly browse through the enterings within a few seconds. So it seems to me that you rarely can succeed anymore in sending images that just show the beauty of the animal and its surroundings since the modern world is flooded with images of polar bears, tigers, northern lights or whatever everybody can take, the more that the number of trips that take people to all the edges of the world has increased dramatically. That doesn't mean that there are no stunning enterings, of course. But from time to time you also can see obvious tendencies of photographs that were successfull in the competitions. For example, some years ago, motion blurred images of trees, flowers or animals had been seen all over the place and rewarded in several contests so that people tried to imitate that technique for their entries. Anyway, the effort to stand out from the crowd can lead unethical photographers to cheat as it obviously happened with the "Night Raider" image now again. That leads to even more doubts about the value of these contests. Just to clarify: I don't write this because I'm frustrated by not having been rewarded. I have been successful in several important contests in the past but in consequence of what I said above I nowadays seldom take part in competitions anymore. Of course it may be nice for the ego and the reputation if you win the BBC contest especially if you earn your living with photography. I'm glad that I don't need to and my photographs have to meet my personal imaginations and please myself in the first place. I will not change my approach and bend myself for any modern or absurd tendency just to increase my chances in a contest.

Wolfgang

Does not speak very well for such a prestigious event, that may literally make somebody's career. 

Pradeep

MND wrote:I personally think the Storm Riders shot is marvelous, but that’s just my opinion of course.

Sure, I also liked it, but again, I've seen so many images on a similar theme that are more emotive. I also liked the 'In the light of Dawn' as I said, and yet here are such wonderful pictures of lions in the morning light that are better, of course in my own opinion. What is wonderful about photography is that we can all enjoy different aspects of it, like any other art form. 

The 'elegant crowd' and 'arrangement of swans', to my mind are classic examples of the 'modernism' phenomenon that I was talking about. Many would probably have discarded them - I know I would - and yet they are now internationally acclaimed. Again, to each his own I suppose. 

Pradeep

DChan wrote:The Guardian newspapers of UK has an article on fake wildlife photo:

'There's a lot of fakery': insiders spill on the dirty tricks behind wildlife photos

The person quoted in the article is Laura the Afternoon Birder. She used to live in Ottawa.  Her blog on the baiting of Great Gray Owls received a lot of press.

https://theafternoonbirder.com/owl-baiting/