not muchCongratulations on your 1st & 2nd place. What's the chance of you illustrating them?

thank you though for the congratulations.
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).
not muchCongratulations on your 1st & 2nd place. What's the chance of you illustrating them?
Indeed, but as I noted in the photo I posted, I believe the upsizing looked pretty good .... that's the case I find interesting. I know it is a relatively low-res image, but could you tell the Pelican I posted was upsized? Zoomed to 100% on my 5k monitor with the original image one might guess that .. but at normal size it's pretty solid.Even if Gigapixel and such is allowed, the resulting image often has that characteristic creamy smooth look due to too many invented pixels. If you take an extreme example the software would have to take one pixel and turn it into a block of 4 pixels. Doing this straight with no ai looks terrible because you basically gets blocks of 4 of the same to replace the one. But the ai and even some of the non ai like preserve details 2.0 can find edges and contrasts and the algorithm guesses at where variations are needed. The result looks ok but still not fully convincing.
Indeed, but as I noted in the photo I posted, I believe the upsizing looked pretty good .... that's the case I find interesting. I know it is a relatively low-res image, but could you tell the Pelican I posted was upsized? Zoomed to 100% on my 5k monitor with the original image one might guess that .. but at normal size it's pretty solid.
There will be situations where the upsizing is very high quality.
Fair enough. Your eye might be better than mine. Here is the same shot, with a touch of grain added to the bird. Does it still look too creamy to you?What I noticed was the unusual creaminess and smoothness of parts of the image and absence of detail, a clue that it had been manipulated with an ai tool, as they often sacrifice crispness for lack of a better term.
A very personal opinion - I dont think there should be photo competitions. At all. I have judged several, and I am very familiar with how it works, how subjective judging is, and the effect it may have on the contestants, how argumentative they become, or how despondent.
Fair enough. Your eye might be better than mine. Here is the same shot, with a touch of grain added to the bird. Does it still look too creamy to you?
View attachment 75839
you linked to a google search?Another interesting video illustrating photojournalists who got caught cheating. Credibility was destroyed and consequently fired for their actions.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=photographers+that+got+cheating+on+photo+contests&sca_esv=589391910&sxsrf=AM9HkKl7YWsVrkYiJYHd4H7eQT5QXcIqsA:1702134104355&source=hp&ei=WIF0ZZD5Eb_l0PEPooeeiAE&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZXSPaPElwsxZ33G6vy2Ib8ElOy9Wb9Ep&ved=0ahUKEwiQhZbVz4KDAxW_MjQIHaKDBxEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=photographers+that+got+cheating+on+photo+contests&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjFwaG90b2dyYXBoZXJzIHRoYXQgZ290IGNoZWF0aW5nIG9uIHBob3RvIGNvbnRlc3RzMgUQIRigAUjFuwNQ9c8BWPanA3ADeACQAQCYAd8BoAHXJKoBBzM4LjEwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQGoAgrCAgcQIxjqAhgnwgIQEC4YgAQYigUYxwEYrwEYJ8ICBBAjGCfCAgoQIxiABBiKBRgnwgILEC4YgAQYigUYkQLCAhEQABiABBiKBRiRAhixAxiDAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIUEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQABiABBiKBRiRAsICChAAGIAEGIoFGEPCAggQABiABBixA8ICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgITEC4YgAQYigUYQxixAxiDARjJA8ICEBAuGIAEGIoFGEMYsQMYgwHCAg0QABiABBiKBRhDGLEDwgIKEAAYgAQYFBiHAsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJIDwgITEAAYgAQYigUYQxixAxiDARjJA8ICEBAAGIAEGBQYhwIYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBiSA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGMkDwgIFEAAYgATCAg4QABiABBixAxiDARjJA8ICBhAAGBYYHsICCBAAGBYYHhgKwgIIEAAYFhgeGA_CAgoQABgWGB4YDxgKwgILEAAYgAQYigUYhgPCAgoQIRgWGB4YDxgdwgIHECEYoAEYCsICCBAhGBYYHhgdwgIEECEYFQ&sclient=gws-wiz#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:89acd2f2,vid:Hp12oSbU7fI,st:0
Click on it to view the subject matter. Cheers!you linked to a google search?
Good post.I agree with post 158 just above from @Feiertag (though I respect the opinion of those who do not like contests). I have a large collection of the annual awards issues of Natures Best Photography and a large collection of the annual book of 100 winners from Wildlife Photographer of the Year (from Portfolio 13 through the latest Portfolio 32). I have also seen two editions of Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition in person at Natural History Museum in London. I occasionally re-read them and seeing these images is a joy, which would not be possible without the competitions. A few of these are pros who might publish the photos in their own books, but not the majority. Wildlife Photographer of the Year staff also state (and I believe them) that some working nature photographers launched their career by placing in the competition. To these people obviously contests hold a lot of value!
The rules are the rules. Don’t like them don’t enter. Reputable contests require the raw / original image file to verify authenticityInteresting video regarding photographers who won a photo contest and then were stripped of the prize/title.
I've wondered just how many wildlife shots involved a lot of bait over time in many of those circumstances. Like that mountain lion example. How many Nature episodes and whatnot over the years did they just have bait stations nearby.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.
Where I grew up in Maine there used to be hordes of herring gulls and black back gulls. The bald eagles were very rare, then they came back and ate all the gulls on the nesting islands so it's now the opposite. You barely see any seagulls in that area.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.
Here's one. Not baited, coerced.... How many Nature episodes and whatnot over the years did they just have bait stations nearby.
Agree, and well 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.
Where I grew up in Maine there used to be hordes of herring gulls and black back gulls. The bald eagles were very rare, then they came back and ate all the gulls on the nesting islands so it's now the opposite. You barely see any seagulls in that area.
My brothers a commercial fisherman and has one nesting eagle family that he's fed for the past 20 years. It's probably generational now but they come to the boat each time he passes and he feeds them sculpins he sets aside. (some sculpins inflate with air and can't dive so easy for the eagle).
I need to go and take photo's of that eagle sometime.
I grew up on one of the islands, Isle au Haut. There's more eagles the further east you go. I'm actually in the process of moving back having lived all over the country to make enough money for a retirement.Wow, and here I am in Southern New England and finding a bald eagle is all too rare. Time for me to head into Maine! Whereabouts in Maine if you don't mind my asking? Take care
I grew up on one of the islands, Isle au Haut. There's more eagles the further east you go. I'm actually in the process of moving back having lived all over the country to make enough money for a retirement.
There used to be a large Harlequin duck population in the winter which has shrunk a bit but there still there. Kind of a neat looking duck.
Isle au Haut is half Acadia Nat Park and the quietest section. You can easily be alone all day out there on the trail system and if your lucky enough to get a camping spot in one of the 5 lean too's there's nobody but those campers in the park after the ferry leaves and before the next one the following morning. The reservations start in the morning on April 1st and will book entirely that morning for the season.
![]()
It's hard to run a competition or contest without fees. The software to administer a competition adds cost, and some level of prizes is helpful. At a club level or even in a medium sized organization, the fees serve to fund other programs. Another benefit of fees is it lets participants "self regulate" the number of entries. NANPA's fees went to cover the costs of running the contest with modest prizes. The cost of the contest was something like $10-12,000 including administration, judge fees, and prizes to the top 10 winners. Other competitions I'm involved in for gallery entries set prizes so winners can cover the cost of required framing for an exhibit.I have never entered a contest where I have to pay an entry fee. I have always thought that it was simply a cash cow venture for the contest creators.
Having helped run an International Exhibition for 6 years in the past we saw fair share of very dodgy cloning in the Nature sections even though the runs banned it. One springs to mind of a lovely African Safari image with twin Zebras in it.Interesting video regarding photographers who won a photo contest and then were stripped of the prize/title.