Cheaters Getting Caught By The Photo Police!

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
I have to say that despite the hours of rhetoric and debate this will ensue, NO Editing means just that. End of. What may seem trivial to one person could be major to another with a different perspective or view. So if editing were allowed, then to what extent? Who could arbitrate? That would become unmanageable and impossible to judge.
So leave it at that. No Editing means NO editing.
 
That was interesting. Rules are there to give everyone an even playing field, even if some were minor things like cloning out trash the rules of a contest should be followed

If not in a contest prohibiting it, I think if it is not obvious then it should be mentioned how the image was formed, except for minor stuff like trash or twigs. I had a recent one where I used long exposure to capture crashing waves and fast exposure to capture some birds flying above the same water a minute later. No way they could be in the same shot, but I mentioned that it was a composite in the caption.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
As much as PhotoShop can be wonderful to clean things up, it can lead to some interesting doctored images. It's also fine to doctor things if it's disclosed. IMHO
Full disclosure, I do not have a pet lion.
vinnylion.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Patrick M said:
I have to say that despite the hours of rhetoric and debate this will ensue, NO Editing means just that. End of. What may seem trivial to one person could be major to another with a different perspective or view. So if editing were allowed, then to what extent? Who could arbitrate? That would become unmanageable and impossible to judge.
So leave it at that. No Editing means NO editing.
Click to expand...
I agree.

If the rules are set out, and they say "no editing", then that's it.
 
The one about no exposure adjustment was strict. How many ettr shooters do that routinely with the expectation they will pull back in post.
 
Member's gallery
I think he may have misread a few rules. I have never heard of a wildlife photo contest that doesnt allow cropping and exposure changes. Below is a list on rules on manipulation for wildlife photographer of the year (the contest he was referring to)

contest rules.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
The elephant was interesting. Flipping the ears and taking out a flaw wasn't necessary in my opinion for it to still be an outstanding shot. Sometimes we get in our own way trying to make something "better". I suspect had he not made those changes he would have still won.
 
Member's gallery
I had seen this video a couple days ago and was already familiar with the two eggregious frauds in Wildlife Photographer of the Year. Both of these have nothing to do with editing but in using non-wild animals (wolf is a trained wildlife model and anteater is stuffed). Really sad that people will stoop to this level. (The wolf image I saw in person at that year's exhibition in London).

Another one not mentioned that I highly suspect involved cheating (but never proved to be) was published in Nature's Best Photography annual competition years ago). It features a mountain lion on the edge of a large bluff in some canyon country (Utah?). Triple D Game Farm runs (or used to run) an annual Utah photo shoot where they would have a trained mountain lion pose on cliffs and even jump across from one rock to another. I suspect this is from one of those sessions, though the photographer states he was at an overlook and saw a mountain lion walking to the edge of a cliff. This is theoretically possible, so I cannot say for sure he is lying, it just seems unlikely. First of all the cliff was so high and steep that there was no way down and I have a hard time believing a secretive mountain lion would walk out in the open on an exposed cliff just to enjoy the view from the edge.
 
Member's gallery
I watched that video a few days ago. Like Thomas, I feel for the guys who cloned out a small piece of trash. I get comps have to have rules , but they have to hand over the RAW file so the judges should be able to assess each photo on its own merits.

The elephant one was stupid, and deserved to get thrown out, if nothing else, for the fact that it was such a pointless thing to do: Its editing for the sake of editing.

Although I don't really enter comps, it's got me thinking more about how I compose and edit my pics, which isn't a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
The thing with the trash is he could have just walked over and picked it up before taking the photo. It's not like it is part of the natural scene, it just blew in there.

Wildlife Photographer of the Year is undeniably the most prestigious nature photo competition there is, but I have a couple issues with them. First, they allow baiting animals (putting out a carcass and waiting in a hide for a carnivore to be lured in). How is this ethical, whereas cloning out one distracting branch on the edge of a frame is unethical? My other complaint is the winning images are often from remote camera traps, where the photographer is not even there. How can you be asleep in bed miles away and a remote camera fires on its own and you are called the Wildlife Photographer of the Year? I do think these images have merit but I think they should be in a separate category and not mixed in with the shots people took in person.
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
The thing with the trash is he could have just walked over and picked it up before taking the photo. It's not like it is part of the natural scene, it just blew in there.

Wildlife Photographer of the Year is undeniably the most prestigious nature photo competition there is, but I have a couple issues with them. First, they allow baiting animals (putting out a carcass and waiting in a hide for a carnivore to be lured in). How is this ethical, whereas cloning out one distracting branch on the edge of a frame is unethical? My other complaint is the winning images are often from remote camera traps, where the photographer is not even there. How can you be asleep in bed miles away and a remote camera fires on its own and you are called the Wildlife Photographer of the Year? I do think these images have merit but I think they should be in a separate category and not mixed in with the shots people took in person.
Click to expand...
It's not always that easy: For a start, that would involve physically interfering with the scene which might disturb it. I'd argue that digitally cloning out a bit of trash is preferable to interfering with the scene. In addition, it might not always be accessible, or might put the photographer in danger.
 
Member's gallery
This discussion outlines why I rarely enter photo contests. I see photography, even nature photography as a form of art. I have been known to clone out a beer can in the water, fishing line and bobbers hanging in trees and even a distracting human or two. In my mind these edits do not detract from the image, they allow me to present the image I saw. When looking at a beautiful scene, we usually do not focus on the little distractions and my images are an effort to reflect what I saw in my mind.

I understand contests have their rules and that is fine. I just don't enter many contests.

Secondly, it seems many of the larger contests' winning photos have to include whatever is the political talking points of the day. In nature, one must, either in the photo or in the description, mention global climate change. In people type photography, it seems the chances of winning are greatly enhanced when the subject(s) contain whatever social, ethnic, religious or gender group is getting the most media attention at the time of the contest.

I don't want to be cynical about it just an observation when seeing winning photos in the bigger contests.

I guess the closing is I don't think any of my photos are worthy of entering in the big contests. I guess someone has to come in last place but I'll allow someone else to occupy that spot. :D

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
Bob D said:
The anteater is not dead. He's pining for the fiords.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't know why people don't believe the guy's story about his three frames. Why wouldn't an anteater walk up to the mound, stand perfectly still just long enough for a multi-second exposure, then ignore all that food and wander off before another frame could be captured. :unsure:
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
ditto. though never in my case.
Click to expand...
I enter a couple a year but those are all local and sponsored by wildlife areas, parks, local nature conservancy etc. All places we frequent and support. I view it as donating a couple photos for them to use in their promotional materials. I had a couple published in a local wildlife preserve's annual report last year.

The "real" photo contests and the national ones I avoid.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
This discussion outlines why I rarely enter photo contests. I see photography, even nature photography as a form of art. I have been known to clone out a beer can in the water, fishing line and bobbers hanging in trees and even a distracting human or two. In my mind these edits do not detract from the image, they allow me to present the image I saw. When looking at a beautiful scene, we usually do not focus on the little distractions and my images are an effort to reflect what I saw in my mind.

I understand contests have their rules and that is fine. I just don't enter many contests.

Secondly, it seems many of the larger contests' winning photos have to include whatever is the political talking points of the day. In nature, one must, either in the photo or in the description, mention global climate change. In people type photography, it seems the chances of winning are greatly enhanced when the subject(s) contain whatever social, ethnic, religious or gender group is getting the most media attention at the time of the contest.

I don't want to be cynical about it just an observation when seeing winning photos in the bigger contests.

I guess the closing is I don't think any of my photos are worthy of entering in the big contests. I guess someone has to come in last place but I'll allow someone else to occupy that spot. :D

Jeff
Click to expand...
The third reason, for me, is that nearly every "contest" includes relinquishing copyright (even for non-winners). I'm sorry but this is a non-negotiable item for me.
 
Member's gallery
Here's an example that I was dealing with this weekend, just for discussion: I was out shooting the Bald Eagles as they gather in large numbers to feast on the salmon. However, the gulls were everywhere, pretty much photo-bombing every shot. Wherever there was an eagle munching on a part of a salmon, there was usually two or three gulls within a meter. The ducks were getting in on the act as well.

It's unlikely I'll ever enter them into a comp, but is it OK to remove a gull or two to put the focus more on the eagle, or do I leave them in as part of the "scene"?

Presumably, deleting a gull or two would prevent me entering the shots into certain comps, if I wanted to.
 
Member's gallery
Doomrider74 said:
Here's an example that I was dealing with this weekend, just for discussion: I was out shooting the Bald Eagles as they gather in large numbers to feast on the salmon. However, the gulls were everywhere, pretty much photo-bombing every shot. Wherever there was an eagle munching on a part of a salmon, there was usually two or three gulls within a meter. The ducks were getting in on the act as well.

It's unlikely I'll ever enter them into a comp, but is it OK to remove a gull or two to put the focus more on the eagle, or do I leave them in as part of the "scene"?

Presumably, deleting a gull or two would prevent me entering the shots into certain comps, if I wanted to.
Click to expand...
If its a photo for your own enjoyment you can do whatever you want with it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top