Prestigious BBC nature photo contest controversy

I think you are clearly incorrect in stating the evidence is "a joke".

Look at the tree with the bend. Are they not alike - in fact, exactly the same?

And the forked tree behind it. Even more so when you consider that if the photographer of the daylight shot had stood about a metre to his right to take his shot it would be exactly the same - even down to the small triangular stone on the ground in front of the gate. The forked tree behind the bent one only looks in a different relationship to the bent one because of parallax.

The trees are a giveaway - there is no way on Earth you could find such an exact match and especially two separate places where a) a "natural" wolf was photographed and b) a park which also happens to have tame wolves.

So, they dismantled the rocks forming gateposts. Perhaps they should have dug up those trees instead!

I'm not even going to get into the fact that markings on animals are unique.

So for you - "c'mon". They are the same place and ergo: that casts doubt on this being a wild wolf.

godfrog said:

The so called "evidence" is a joke.

The second wolf, Ossian, is vaguely similar because its of the same species.

The place in Madrid is vaguely similar because it has rocks and trees. Note the comment, "the skyline is very similar". Cmon...

--
My Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36164047@N06/

Click to expand...

godfrog said:

The so called "evidence" is a joke.

The second wolf, Ossian, is vaguely similar because its of the same species.

The place in Madrid is vaguely similar because it has rocks and trees. Note the comment, "the skyline is very similar". Cmon...

--
My Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36164047@N06/

Click to expand...

Vaguely similar????

The trees are exactly the same.....so is the ground, and so are the rocks....and the moss on the rocks. Wow....this precludes any future in law enforcement and forensics for you ;-)

Read the text accompanying the photo here. If this is accurate, I imagine the photographer should remember if the subject was wild or captive.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/comments.do?photo=2554&category=56&group=4

Mike_PEAT said:

Rifleman1776 said:

My take is that this is an impossible rule to enforce.
The more regulations that are written, the more complex defining becomes.
The judges of the competition have dug themselves a hole.

Right or wrong, captive or wild, the photograph should speak for itself. Nothing else counts. That's my opinion.

Click to expand...

As a trained photography judge who has participated in nature competitions, it's the nature story that should take precedence and not it's pictorial quality. The competitions I'm involved with have rules that are governed by the PSA (Photographic Society of America) and FIAP (Fédération Internationale de l'Art Photographique).

Based on the article in the OP, it seems their entry form requires you to specify if it ISN'T genuine wildlife...to me this is backwards because if you forget which may have been the situation in this case, you get into trouble. Our own forms are the opposite of that in which we have a checkbox where you can specify if it is genuine wildlife...of course in that case it would definitely be cheating if you check the genuine wildlife box.

The competition itself is at fault here (if they do require the entrant to specify if it's not genuine wildlife). Having been involved in a yearly international salon we've had a lot of language issues with entrants not understanding the entry form and the rules. When running an international competition you have to make things as simple as possible.

Click to expand...

--

I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family

doctor digi said:

Look at the tree with the bend. Are they not alike - in fact, exactly the same?

Click to expand...

Actually not at all. Look at the bent tree in the wolf shot: there is a circular scar where a large branch/trunk fell off. Where is that feature in the other shot?

doctor digi said:

• even down to the small triangular stone on the ground in front of the gate.

Click to expand...

Except one stone is in grass and the other in dirt. There should also be a 2nd stone nearby.

doctor digi said:

The trees are a giveaway - there is no way on Earth you could find such an exact match

Click to expand...

It's not that good a match. The stones of the wall are very different.

doctor digi said:

and especially two separate places where a) a "natural" wolf was photographed and b) a park which also happens to have tame wolves.

Click to expand...

It may or may not be the same wolf and same park but it's more likely not the same gate.

doctor digi said:

So, they dismantled the rocks forming gateposts. Perhaps they should have dug up those trees instead!

Click to expand...

They tore down more than that - the stone walls are different heights. (BTW, it's a lot of work to move stones of that size. What is the time difference between the two pictures? Why would someone tear down these stones? Or pile them up and plant moss on them?)

--
Erik

Dave Luttmann said:

The trees are exactly the same.....so is the ground, and so are the rocks....and the moss on the rocks. Wow....this precludes any future in law enforcement and forensics for you ;-)

Click to expand...

Hmm, if that's your definition of exact I'm glad you are not in forensics!

--
Erik

Justme said:

Mike_PEAT said:

Based on the article in the OP, it seems their entry form requires you to specify if it ISN'T genuine wildlife...to me this is backwards because if you forget which may have been the situation in this case, you get into trouble. Our own forms are the opposite of that in which we have a checkbox where you can specify if it is genuine wildlife...of course in that case it would definitely be cheating if you check the genuine wildlife box.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Justme said:

Read the text accompanying the photo here. If this is accurate, I imagine the photographer should remember if the subject was wild or captive.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/comments.do?photo=2554&category=56&group=4

Click to expand...

The only text on that link that belongs to the photographer is "The storybook wolf" which is the title of the image...the rest are comments from those viewing the image.

Again, my comment which I quoted above still stands, that if the article is true in that the entry form requires you to specify if it isn't genuine wildlife it could have been an oversight.

Also the photographer was from Spain (from that link you posted), and the competition was in Finland...there could have been an issue with language difference.

Click on the About The Image.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/photo.do?photo=2554&category=56&group=4

As a nature photographer myself or any photographer for that matter...I will remember if a photo was of a captive or wild species. Especially an image I would enter in a large and very prestigious competition like the BBC one. And one where I had spent a great deal of time trying to capture. Read the link above. Very few people would buy it if I told them....'duh...now, I don't recall if it was wild or captive'. From the text it sounds like the photog was there a lot before he got the photo he wanted. Now I'm not saying the photo is legit or not. There seems to be an investigation underway and I'll await the results of the finding. Maybe it will come to nothing. Hopefully we'll find out eventually.

Mike_PEAT said:

Mike_PEAT said:

Mike_PEAT said:

Based on the article in the OP, it seems their entry form requires you to specify if it ISN'T genuine wildlife...to me this is backwards because if you forget which may have been the situation in this case, you get into trouble. Our own forms are the opposite of that in which we have a checkbox where you can specify if it is genuine wildlife...of course in that case it would definitely be cheating if you check the genuine wildlife box.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Justme said:

Read the text accompanying the photo here. If this is accurate, I imagine the photographer should remember if the subject was wild or captive.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/comments.do?photo=2554&category=56&group=4

Click to expand...

The only text on that link that belongs to the photographer is "The storybook wolf" which is the title of the image...the rest are comments from those viewing the image.

Again, my comment which I quoted above still stands, that if the article is true in that the entry form requires you to specify if it isn't genuine wildlife it could have been an oversight.

Also the photographer was from Spain (from that link you posted), and the competition was in Finland...there could have been an issue with language difference.

Click to expand...

--

I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family

Erik Magnuson said:

doctor digi said:

Look at the tree with the bend. Are they not alike - in fact, exactly the same?

Click to expand...

Actually not at all. Look at the bent tree in the wolf shot: there is a circular scar where a large branch/trunk fell off. Where is that feature in the other shot?

Member said:

• even down to the small triangular stone on the ground in front of the gate.

Click to expand...

Except one stone is in grass and the other in dirt. There should also be a 2nd stone nearby.

Member said:

The trees are a giveaway - there is no way on Earth you could find such an exact match

Click to expand...

It's not that good a match. The stones of the wall are very different.

Member said:

and especially two separate places where a) a "natural" wolf was photographed and b) a park which also happens to have tame wolves.

Click to expand...

It may or may not be the same wolf and same park but it's more likely not the same gate.

Member said:

So, they dismantled the rocks forming gateposts. Perhaps they should have dug up those trees instead!

Click to expand...

They tore down more than that - the stone walls are different heights. (BTW, it's a lot of work to move stones of that size. What is the time difference between the two pictures?

Click to expand...

I am also wondering about the time difference between the pictures.

There are some similarities in the pictures that are hard to ignore, and appear to go beyond coincidence. Also, can anyone be certain that post processing (the modification of elements in the winning picture) couldn't be a factor?

Member said:

Why would someone tear down these stones? Or pile them up and plant moss on them?)

--
Erik

Click to expand...

Dave Luttmann said:

Vaguely similar????

The trees are exactly the same.....so is the ground, and so are the rocks....and the moss on the rocks. Wow....this precludes any future in law enforcement and forensics for you ;-)

Click to expand...

No, the rocks are not at all similar. Where is the rock holding up the fence in the wolf picture? None of the somewhat identifiable rocks can be found in both pictures.

But I was a bit mistaken in my first post, Im not really qualified to identify similarities between wolves (and the same goes for most posters in this thread), and the trees are indeed very similar. Move the camera to the right and the "crooked tree" and the one behind it (split trunk) will line up in the same way. The rocks are not the same but they could possibly be moved. This in a natural reserve in the photographers home country that has wolves.

It is clearly not evidence, but it is grounds for suspicion, and Im sure further investigation will will find if it is indeed a captive wolf in the picture or not.

--
My Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36164047@N06/

Erik Magnuson said:

Dave Luttmann said:

The trees are exactly the same.....so is the ground, and so are the rocks....and the moss on the rocks. Wow....this precludes any future in law enforcement and forensics for you ;-)

Click to expand...

Hmm, if that's your definition of exact I'm glad you are not in forensics!

--
Erik

Click to expand...

What? The same rocks, trees, moss, grass area are in each photo....and you think they're different places in different countries?

Wait...let me get my bridge

godfrog said:

But I was a bit mistaken in my first post, Im not really qualified to identify > similarities between wolves (and the same goes for most posters in this thread), >

Click to expand...

That's why they quoted an expert on wolves on the Finnish nature website. I suppose he is more qualified than most. What is his opinion? Also, keep in mind they may have much larger images to look at than we see on the Finnish website. It would be easier to see more detail (both for the wolf and habitat, etc.) on a larger image of course.

godfrog said:

--
My Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36164047@N06/

Click to expand...

--

I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family

Dave Luttmann said:

What? The same rocks, trees, moss, grass area are in each photo....

Click to expand...

There are rocks, trees, and grass in each photo (very little moss in the 2nd). There are "striking similarities" but if you think they are an exact match then I repeat my assertion that I hope you never do forensics. I have no opinion on if it's the same wolf or even the same park. It's just not the same gate/gap in the stone wall.

The Davinator said:

and you think they're different places in different countries?

Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about different countries? I see your quoting skills are as good as your photo analysis.

--
Erik

Justme said:

What is his opinion?

Click to expand...

The face markings suggest its the same but the ear suggests it not. To weight these we'd need to also know what the dates of the photos were (e.g. if the bent ear was later, then it could be damage. But it's the earlier photo, then not. Of course the 2nd shot could also just be in mid-twitch and the ear is not damaged at all.)

There are several possibilities:

• It's not the same wolf but his evil twin.
• It's the same wolf but he had roamed outside the park and the photog genuinely thought he was wild.
• It's the same wolf and the photog knew or suspected this and thus lied by omission.

--
Erik

Rat Salad said:

Erik Magnuson said:

They tore down more than that - the stone walls are different heights. (BTW, it's a lot of work to move stones of that size. What is the time difference between the two pictures?

Click to expand...

I am also wondering about the time difference between the pictures.

Click to expand...

I think that this is one of the most important points of the whole debate; ie The Time Line.

Rodriguez's wolf is in its summer coat and Ossain is in its winter one.

From the Exif details quoted in the article the picture of Ossain and the Wildlife Park were taken on 13/09/09.

The 'Wild Wolf' is in full summer coat, so that would mean that the earliest in the year the photograph could have been taken is late April or early May and the latest around September to October.

The final entry date for the competition was 27/03/2009, so therefore there has to be a minimum of 12 months between the Entry photograph and the 'Evidencial' one.

The times of year will explain the difference in foliage and ground cover/condition.

Looking at the scarring on the tame wolf I would guesstimate that the injury was at least 18 if not 24 months old, in that it has not only healed but there is also considerable hair regrowth.

Given a minimum time scale of 18 months it is more than possible for any moss scarring on a broken stone wall to have weathered sufficiently to look untouched.

It would be interesting to see Rodriguez's Exif data; or at least it would have been if he had used a digital backing. Is there any way to technically authenticate the date of the photograph?

A few other points:

The tree in the comp entry seems to be a Silver Birch, or something very similar from the flash bounce. I'm not sure about the daylight shot.

The gate rut appears to be the same in both photos on the left. But the disturbance of it in the daylight photo makes it virtually impossible to identify without a better shot from a different angle.

Leaping a fence is not a natural act for a wolf even when hunting. This wolf supposedly was not hunting, but after bait that had been left out by the photographer on a regular basis. Why would the wolf leap after static food?

Even if it was wild, the wolf was at the very least 'conditioned' by Rodriguez's own admission.

FWIW my thoughts are:

1. that the behaviour is unnatural/very unusual for a truely wild wolf.
2. it is almost impossible to match the gates without a better daylight photograph, but there are similarities.
3. the tree patterns are remarkably similar at first glance.
4. there is a tree missing from the daylight photo; 1/4 distance in from the top right of the shot, in a direct line from the base of the bent 'silver birch' vertically upwards. You need to find a decent Res copy of Rodriguez's shot to see this.

I've got a few other points, but that will do for the moment!

Currently I'm undecided one way or the other, but there is certainly enough doubt to make me want to know more.

Mike_PEAT said:

Also the photographer was from Spain (from that link you posted), and the competition was in Finland...there could have been an issue with language difference.

Click to expand...

Actually the competition is UK based, although one might wonder why this appeared in a Finish newspaper?

A look at the category winners (ie next in line to win the Overall Prize) might shed some light on this.

Out of the eleven categories open, four of the winners are from Baltic States, qv:

Denmark
Russia
Estonia

And errrmmmm

Finland!

I suggest people in general read the article slowly without forming an opinion until it's all read. Also, in the text accompanying the photo, it seems to imply that the photog knew of a particular wolf at a particular location and went back often.

I'm not suggesting anyone has actually done anything wrong here but it would be very simple for a photog to take someone (in this case, person or persons investigating the matter) directly to the location where the photo was taken. The photog seemingly knows the location as it is suggested in the text accompanying the photo that he went back quite a bit. Now, how hard would that be? It should be a simple thing.

According to the Finnish article, the one thing people looking into the matter are trying to confirm or verify is the injury on the captive wolf's ear. I'm sure the owner of the captive wolf will be spoken to if not already. Dated photos of the wolf around a certain time, if any, will be looked at. I'm not sure if the park photo is of a public place...if it is, then other visitors may have taken photos of it at various times over a given time period. So, there are a number of ways to get more info, etc.

In some contests, like the one that pairs up photogs and ranch/landowners in Texas (open only to a limited number of qualified entrants) for conservancy.....a clause in the rules permit contest staff to request a photog submit to a polygraph (aka lie detector test) if a dispute arises and can't be settled in some other manner. The rule may sound tough but it applies to all the contestants. Besides, if you have obeyed all the rules you have nothing to worry about in the first place.

Erik Magnuson said:

Justme said:

What is his opinion?

Click to expand...

The face markings suggest its the same but the ear suggests it not. To weight these we'd need to also know what the dates of the photos were (e.g. if the bent ear was later, then it could be damage. But it's the earlier photo, then not. Of course the 2nd shot could also just be in mid-twitch and the ear is not damaged at all.)

There are several possibilities:

• It's not the same wolf but his evil twin.
• It's the same wolf but he had roamed outside the park and the photog genuinely thought he was wild.
• It's the same wolf and the photog knew or suspected this and thus lied by omission.

--
Erik

Click to expand...

--

I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family

Justme wrote:

.......Also, in the text accompanying the photo, it seems to imply that the photog knew of a particular wolf at a particular location and went back often.

Justme said:

I'm not suggesting anyone has actually done anything wrong here but it would be very simple for a photog to take someone (in this case, person or persons investigating the matter) directly to the location where the photo was taken. The photog seemingly knows the location as it is suggested in the text accompanying the photo that he went back quite a bit. Now, how hard would that be? It should be a simple thing.

Click to expand...

I agree, justme: It seems to me that they don't need to go into whether the gate in the park in Madrid is an exact match, or a possible match, or not a match at all, for the one in the competition photo. The investigators can get around all this by asking the competitor to direct them to the original gate where he claims the photo was taken. If he can't or won't and it was a place he returned to several times to get the phot. then one would have to suspect he's hiding something, and go on trying to prove it. If he can and does direct them to the original gate, and it's not in the park in Madrid, then in my opinion they have to throw the case out, because the accusers have made the implication of a photshot staged in the park in Madrid become an integral part of thier accusation.

For my part, I hope the photo is honest and the award stands - i'm sick of hearing about sleasy wins in competitions.

Andrew

Erik Magnuson said:

Dave Luttmann said:

What? The same rocks, trees, moss, grass area are in each photo....

Click to expand...

There are rocks, trees, and grass in each photo (very little moss in the 2nd). There are "striking similarities" but if you think they are an exact match then I repeat my assertion that I hope you never do forensics. I have no opinion on if it's the same wolf or even the same park. It's just not the same gate/gap in the stone wall.

Click to expand...

If you look at the trees and the rocks, they are the same. Plain and simple. The rock on the front left has been moved as it was holding the temporary gate.

Member said:

Member said:

and you think they're different places in different countries?

Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about different countries? I see your quoting skills are as good as your photo analysis.

Click to expand...

Read the article...then you'll know what I was referring to. If you don't understand....then you didn't read very well.

Let's see how the investigation goes....then we'll see how's correct. I don't think we'll be hearing from you again on this issue after they're done.

Member said:

--
Erik

Click to expand...

godfrog said:

Dave Luttmann said:

Vaguely similar????

The trees are exactly the same.....so is the ground, and so are the rocks....and the moss on the rocks. Wow....this precludes any future in law enforcement and forensics for you ;-)

Click to expand...

No, the rocks are not at all similar. Where is the rock holding up the fence in the wolf picture? None of the somewhat identifiable rocks can be found in both pictures.

Click to expand...

If you can't see the same rocks in each photo...in fact having the same moss paterns as well....then I'm afraid you're blind.

godfrog said:

But I was a bit mistaken in my first post, Im not really qualified to identify similarities between wolves (and the same goes for most posters in this thread), and the trees are indeed very similar. Move the camera to the right and the "crooked tree" and the one behind it (split trunk) will line up in the same way. The rocks are not the same but they could possibly be moved. This in a natural reserve in the photographers home country that has wolves.

It is clearly not evidence, but it is grounds for suspicion, and Im sure further investigation will will find if it is indeed a captive wolf in the picture or not.

--
My Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36164047@N06/

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced. The tree patterns are too much alike (as I said - compare adjusting for parallax).

Yeah, sure, there's a lot of walling removed. But again, find me two places which are so similar in their trees and the walling/stone structure and having wolves (one tame and one claimed to be wild). On balance the evidence at the location alone points heavily to these two shots being of one and the same location.

Anyway, it matters not what any of us say or think.

It is up to the photographer to prove his work is legitimate. i.e.: he will have to show the people investigating where the shot was taken. If he can't produce a location with the same features as shown in his shot then he has not been completely honest about the circumstances under which this winning picture was taken.

And as I recall he spent a lot of time setting up his equipment and getting this shot (using "careful observation" of the wolves movements), so he must have a very good idea of where it was taken - "I can't remember" won't cut the mustard.