Wildlife Photographer of the Year Disqualification

General discussion and anything that isn't covered by the other categories.
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Wildlife Photographer of the Year Disqualification

Postby Mike Farley » Tue 01 May 2018, 08:34

One of the sadder stories recently was the disqualification of Brazilian photographer Marcio Cabral from his first place in the "Animals In Their Environment" category of the 2017 Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition. He was accused of using a stuffed specimen which is on display at the entrance to the park where the shot was taken but has protested his innocence. At first glance, the anteater in the winning image does look very similar to the shot of the taxidermy one, but is all as it seems? An article on PetaPixel throws considerable doubt on the competition organiser's conclusion. In particular, an animation which switches between Cabral's shot and one of the stuffed animal appears to show differences in the front legs of the two. I am not sure that I share the opinion of the five independent experts who examined both images.

https://petapixel.com/2018/04/30/a-clos ... t-scandal/
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
Iggy
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2015, 09:48

Re: Wildlife Photographer of the Year Disqualification

Postby Iggy » Tue 01 May 2018, 11:53

I would not expect to get a sharp image of an anteater foraging for termites with a long exposure of 30 seconds and ISO 5000 that Cabral says that he used!
Iggy
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Wildlife Photographer of the Year Disqualification

Postby Mike Farley » Tue 01 May 2018, 12:59

Iggy wrote:I would not expect to get a sharp image of an anteater foraging for termites with a long exposure of 30 seconds and ISO 5000 that Cabral says that he used!
Iggy

He also used flash for the exposure and that would have rendered the anteater sharp, regardless of whther it was moving or not as the duration is around 1/20,000 sec.
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
Sarahrs
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue 27 Sep 2016, 21:05

Re: Wildlife Photographer of the Year Disqualification

Postby Sarahrs » Tue 01 May 2018, 17:20

I have to say I have my doubts as well.
Essentially the working hypothesis is that the fella stole the stuffed animal, carried it to the spot, took one photo of it and then returned the stuffed animal.
Aspects that have not been explained publically
1. How easy is it for someone to walk off with said stuffed animal. Is it heavy? Is it practical to carry that thing, with all your camera equipment? (I've yet to meet a bloke photographer that does lightweight kit carrying). What was the distance from the stuffed animal location to the photographic location?
2. Was it reported stolen, or did staff the next day notice it moved?
3. Are hair tufts, and markings also genetic? And can ant-eaters of the same genetic heritage have similar markings etc.
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Wildlife Photographer of the Year Disqualification

Postby Mike Farley » Tue 01 May 2018, 18:09

Mike Farley wrote:
Iggy wrote:I would not expect to get a sharp image of an anteater foraging for termites with a long exposure of 30 seconds and ISO 5000 that Cabral says that he used!
Iggy

He also used flash for the exposure and that would have rendered the anteater sharp, regardless of whether it was moving or not as the duration is around 1/20,000 sec.
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
Iggy
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2015, 09:48

Re: Wildlife Photographer of the Year Disqualification

Postby Iggy » Mon 07 May 2018, 11:12

Thanks Mike.
I should have realised that.
That has given me some ideas for some experimental photography to try out when conditions are right.
Regards,
Iggy.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests