Oops - WPY 2017 winner faked

Byker28i said:
Yup I've used that technique shooting cars against a starry sky. Long exposure for the sky/background and at the end hit the car with a number of flash guns setup and manually triggered with a wireless flash.
Click to expand...
It's just very hard to do with a wild animal in the frame. Maybe a sloth, but a live anteater would be unlikely to ignore a photographer and wander up to a termite mounds. Then the click beetles might be tricky as they might switch off when disturbed. Tough shot, which could be made easier by using composites of several photos, all taken at night of the same scene. One with anteater and one with click beetles. Just the click beetles is a cool shot, but possibly missing that wow factor.
 
jerry12953 said:
Are you not aware that photo-identification is widely used in various different species of birds and mammals to distinguish between different individuals of the same species?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am. And I am also aware of how small the differences can be.
If the image is not manipulated, then where is the large patch of white fur on the front right knee? Where are the more extensive lighter markings along the neck and top of the tail? Flash would only make those things more apparent, not hide them.
If it is supposedly a composite then IMO it is very good; and also a very difficult composite to execute convincingly (if not impossible).

PhilH04 said:
However as you seem to know better than international experts and one of the most pre-eminent research institutes, I will suggest, next time I speak to the Competition manager that you should be invited to join the judging panel.
Click to expand...
I can only judge based upon the limited information/images provided... maybe they had different/additional information that I/we don't.
 
To me it would appear to be a genuine photograph of a stuffed anteater propped against a termite mound.
 
sk66 said:
Yes, I am. And I am also aware of how small the differences can be.
If the image is not manipulated, then where is the large patch of white fur on the front right knee? Where are the more extensive lighter markings along the neck and top of the tail? Flash would only make those things more apparent, not hide them.
If it is supposedly a composite then IMO it is very good; and also a very difficult composite to execute convincingly (if not impossible).


I can only judge based upon the limited information/images provided... maybe they had different/additional information that I/we don't.
Click to expand...
You are basing your opinion on a low res image, the experts involved in the investigation will have access to the original image and the decision will have been based on their informed and skilled expert knowledge, this decision will not have been taken lightly and the evidence will be conclusive.... The experts consulted will be that... experts.

I speak with authority here, My credentials;

I worked as a photographer to the science departments of the Natural History Museum for 35 years.

I was a first round judge.

I was digital consultant to the competition for several years, advising and spending time validating the raw files along with the competition manager.

I wrote the original digital guidelines for the competition.

Oh I have also had the pleasure of attending quite a few award ceremonies.
 
Is it comped or did they just "borrow" the stuffed anteater and bung it in the location?
 
PhilH04 said:
It will be the latter as the 'original' file needed to be supplied so a comp would not have got through...
Click to expand...
But according to the article, he couldn't supply the image with the anteater. Only the shots before and after. Not sure what that means, but it makes you think it may have been both stuffed anteater and a composite
 
Bollygum said:
But according to the article, he couldn't supply the image with the anteater. Only the shots before and after. Not sure what that means, but it makes you think it may have been both stuffed anteater and a composite
Click to expand...
It is not very clear in the article but he did have an 'original' with the Anteater present, had he not, the image would not have made it through to the final judging stage, trust me I do know. What he was unable to provide were images either side of that exposure that included the anteater for further analysis when the investigation was instigated.
 
Last edited:
PhilH04 said:
It is not very clear in the article but he did have an 'original' with the Anteater present, had he not, the image would not have made it through to the final judging stage, trust me I do know. What he was unable to provide were images either side of that exposure that included the anteater for further analysis when the investigation was instigated.
Click to expand...
On rereading I see you are right. Of course, why should he have any other pics of the anteater. If he really had just fluked a pic it is unlikely that he would have fluked another. From my own experience, a wild animal is unlikely to miss a photographer standing a few metres away. Most nocturnal animals have either good eyesight, hearing or sense of smell or all 3. They live with pumas and Jaguars, so they have to be wary and are very unlikely to miss some photographer who is not expecting them. While flukes do happen, this is not a credible fluke.
 
Wasn’t he asked for pictures of the anteater either side of the pic to prove it was a real anteater but said\claimed that he had no others except this one lucky shot.

As I said, can’t quite believe that he’s still protesting his innocence with the suggestion that it was a single lucky fluke photo.
 
According to an updated article, where NHM have corrected them, the photographer did provide a raw file for the image in the question and they are not disputing the processing element of the photo.
 
momoka said:
According to an updated article, where NHM have corrected them, the photographer did provide a raw file for the image in the question and they are not disputing the processing element of the photo.
Click to expand...
This is what I have been saying all along, the original article mentioned did not make things clear...

I can say with certain authority that any attempts to deceive through post processing are discovered before the final judging process, unfortunately in cases such as this and of course the 2009 wolf (which escaped my attention) none of the judging panel or those verifying the 'original' files would have been aware of the circumstances the image was obtained in and it is only when the image becomes public and a third party notices that something is amiss that an investigation (in both instances very thorough) can be launched...

Given that WPoTY has run for 53 years and in those years many, many thousands of images have been through the system I am surprised that there have really only been two instances of 'cheating'.
 
I'm supprised he thought he could get away with it, considering it's the sites own anteater he was using. Bad enough if it's one from the house nobody has seen but thats pushing your luck really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top