A Statement at Last

A few minutes ago my phone rang, suddenly reminding me that there are other things in the world than than the code for my upcoming website. On the other end of the phone was Sam Waldron, rousing me further from my trance-like state of geekery to inform me that Jose Luis Rodrigez has been stripped of the title of BBC wildlife photographer of the year.

A statement on the competition's website states that "it was likely that the wolf featured in the image was an animal model that can be hired for photographic purposes and, as a result, the image had been entered in breach of rule 10 of the 2009 Competition."

The rule in question stated that images taken of captive animals must be declared as such, and that preference would be given to images of wild animals by judges.

These allegations are denied by the photographer, but as the rules equally clearly state "the decision of the judges is final." As such Rodriguez has been stripped of his title, and the £10,000 that would shortly have been headed in his way. Rodriguez will find little comfort in the fact that he is being allowed to keep the £500 he received as a category winner in place of any royalty payments the image has earned the competition thus far.

To me it is completely appalling that someone could enter a competition with an image that does not comply with the rules. Not only this but after winning Rodriguez simply lied about the methodology behind his photograph at events including WildPhotos.

I should imagine that for all those who entered the competition in 2009 the experience has now been severely tainted. I have had many conversations about past winners of the competition where I have fondly remembered "that backlit shot of the polar bear" or "the shot of the starling flock and sparrow hawk". The public will now not remember 2009 fondly as "the year with the jumping wolf shot" but instead as "the year with that fake wolf shot".

Not only this but it is the first year ever where no winner has been declared. The judges rightly decided that they could not fairly award the title to another photographer as the competition are judged blind and after the awards ceremony this would not be possible. Those photographers closest to receiving the reward will undoubtedly feel cheated.

Within an hour of an announcement the news is already being greeted as wildlife photography's biggest ever scandal, taking the crown from the 2003 revelations that photographs in the National Geographic of a kingfisher fishing for mayflies were of a stuffed museum specimen.

As well as being scandalous, to me Rodriguez's actions are tantamount to fraud. This was an attempt to dishonestly receive a converted title as well as £10,000. I believe this to be criminal as well as dishonest.

Scandals such as these unfairly damage the reputation of photographers worldwide. I hope we will be able to move on from this and continue to focus on the undeniably worthwhile conservation causes wildlife photographers throughout the world continue to attempt to highlight and continue to appreciate their art. Just because one photographer was dishonest does not mean all are and does not in any way detract from the beliefs, honesty, or skill of other photographers.

Wildlife Photographer of the Year

I can picture the scene. In the past month thousands of devoted followers will have been frantically googling my blog in search of new and juicy topical articles on the wildlife photography issues of the day, only to be disappointed, trying again a few hours later.

Time to roll out the excuses, fully aware of sounding a little too much like a racing driver. My last post was on the 29th of November, with my term ending on the 11th of December, complete with a flurry of deadlines. This rendered me a little to busy to dwell in the blogosphere

Between the 11th and 24th I was in the States; a trip which included a two day road trip around the beautiful Great Smokey Mountains National Park. Although it was not really the right season to visit, the scenery was stunning, and (some of) the wildlife was out in force.

After arriving back late on Christmas Eve I discovered myself to be not quite as dedicated a blogger as Niall Benvie, so did not publish a Christmas day post before shooting up north for a whirlwind tour of the family. Excuses over and back to the matter in hand.

Those of you following photography forums and other blogs will be aware of a whirlwind of controversy blowing up around this years winner of the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition... again!

The earlier controversy related to Jose Luis Rodriguez's use of a camera trap to take the photograph, a matter I discussed in an earlier post

In this post I stated that I believe "the primary duty of the photographer is to inspire and inform members of the public by showing them images of animals and behaviours they would not normally see". Camera traps allow photographers to do this in a non-intrusive way and my opinion is that if a photographer uses significant field craft and technical ability to produce such an outstanding pre-envisaged camera-trap image, then presenting them with a wildlife photography award is justified.

This commentary was aimed largely at Jose Luis Rodriguez's image of a leaping wolf. At the time, all evidence suggested that this was a pre-envisaged image of a wild wolf that had been baited over the course of many weeks such that it would enter a field by leaping over a gate, triggering a waiting camera trap. This would be a huge technical achievement and is certainly is the story Jose has been telling at events such as WildPhotos. If this is the case then I think Jose definitely deserves the title of Wildlife Photographer of the Year.

However, evidence collected by a group of Spanish photographers, and published in a Finnish photography magazine, suggests that the photograph was taken of a tame, and possibly even trained, wolf in a wildlife park.

This has in no way been confirmed, and neither the competition nor the photographer have released official statements. However, I feel I can still comment on the ethics of this were it the case.

In my earlier post I mentioned that to educate, inspire, and inform members of the public with images of wildlife they would not normally see, a photographer needs to be honest and trusted. This is because many wildlife photographs and wildlife spectacles seem, at first glance, to be simply unbelievable.

If I saw a photograph, and was inspired because it showed an unbelievable spectacle in an unbelievable way, only to find out later that the photograph was unbelievable not because of the spectacle itself nor the techniques used to capture it, but because the spectacle does not exist, or because undeclared pre or post capture techniques were used, I would feel cheated. I am sure the same is true of most other people.

If it turns out that Jose Luis Rodriguez's image does not show a wild wolf displaying unusual behaviour in a new unusual way, then I will feel cheated. This is probably a lot less strong a feeling as would be felt by those who were pipped to the post in the competition by an image of a captive animal that was not declared.

I have nothing against photographers taking images of captive animals assuming it is done with the animal's welfare as a foremost concern and it is immediately obvious that the subject is captive. If the image turns out to be of a trained wolf it is still an unbelievable technical achievement and a stunning image.

The problem is that to fail to present a captive animal's photograph as such is highly misleading to the point of lying, not to mention that in this case £10,000 of prize money is at stake so it would amount to fraud.

I sincerely hope that the image is proven to be of a wild wolf, for the photographer sake, the sake of the competition, and of wildlife photography as a whole. If this is not the case, then the trust of all wildlife photographers will surely take a hit.

The rules of the 2010 competition have been altered in a way relevant to this post. The competition no longer accepts images of captive animals. No reason for this has been given, so it is up to us to judge whether this is a reflex action to this controversy or not. This has been discussed in more detail in this post by Paul Harcourt Davies.

Camera Trap Ethics

I know I promised my next article would be a location report on Donna Nook, Bradgate Park, or Wollaton Park, but I got a little sidetracked by Andy Rouse's blog.

Andy has been asked to write a column in a photography magazine on whether camera traps are "cheating" following the results of this years BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition. The winners of the last two years competitions have been camera trap photographs.

On his blog Andy has asked for opinions on the debate and I thought I would share mine (I also emailed him)

I think the primary duty of the photographer is to inspire and inform members of the public by showing them images of animals and behaviours they would not normally see.

For photographers to be able to do this, the need to be trusted. This obviously impacts on practices such as HDR, excessive use of photoshop, and images of captive animals. I also think it would be extremely dishonest for a photographer to fail to disclose that an image was taken with a camera trap.

As for whether I think it is justified to award a photographer for a camera trap image, this is a more complex issue.

I think it depends upon the intentions the photographer had when setting up the trap. If the photographer set up the trap randomly and a Golden Eagle caught a Reindeer in full view of the camera then I do not think it would be right to give an award.

However, if the photographer placed the camera with the specific intention of capturing this image and used a large amount of field nouse to do so, then I think the award would be justified.

Field craft is as much of a part of wildlife photography as technical ability, and although this scenario would require more field craft than technical ability it still requires both so is in my opinion a true wildlife photograph.

Anyway, as this post has been a large block of text, I have included a seal picture from last year's trip to Donna Nook to wet your appetite for the pictures I will hopefully be getting this weekend.

Edit: Since this post a further unrelated controversy has erupted and been resolved surrounding the now disqualified winner of the 2009 WPOTY competition. To see my discussion of this matter click here and here.