The winner of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year award has been disqualified after judges ruled that the featured wolf was PROBABLY a "model".
...and had concluded that it was LIKELY that the wolf featured in the image was an animal model that could be "hired for photographic purposes".
nicolas orillard wrote:here is an interview of Mark Carwardine, head of the Wildife Photographer of the Year judging panel :
http://www.photoradar.com/news/story/wi ... ls-allowed
I believe it's quite clear now...
Something else, but it is maybe just me.
I don't like this shot, neither the last year winner.
Those shots were taken with sensors, meaning the photographer wasn't here.
Where is the quality of the photographer? to put a camera at a right place?
For me it isn't wildlife photography, maybe a good lucky shot for documentary, but certainly not deserving a title like this one.
this said, have a nice day guys!
nicolas orillard wrote:I totally agree Chris (Humphreys).
The shot is beautiful and technically good, it is for me a great shot, just not something i can call wildlife photography.
I don't like this shot, neither the last year winner
The shot is beautiful and technically good, it is for me a great shot
chrisssteeven wrote:The photo of the jumping wolf would always make a layman believe that it's real. Its only those who use to have spend 10 to 20 years in the field of Wild-life photography could make it clear to everyone that the photo is unreal. There would be more of the things that would be noted by a photographer rather than common man, the above differences are the perfect technical differences between a real and a fake image which proved to be an eye-opener for us.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests