PDA

View Full Version : Wolf row photographer stripped of award



AcadieLibre
01-21-2010, 11:24 PM
Environment Wildlife Photographer of the Year would be winner Jose Luis Rodriguez was stripped of his award after it was suspected he had hired a trained wolf to do the shoot with. The Photographer denies the allegations and from what the story says it seems to not answer the question, what proof do they have that this is so. I seem to find lately that photographers are always held suspect to the authenticity of their work and it is an issue. I read the story thinking they would put forth the specific evidence they had against him, seems to be one of those internal decisions and we are left to trust them them that they have said evidence. If your going to make such accusations I expect at least the proof why it made the decision it did, right now it appears his word against theirs and they are making him look like a fraud, and if he is a fraud show us the proof or shut up and award him the prize. If there is a reason they cannot show us the evidence specify why, and it had better be a really valid one. It is too bad that photographers once trusted are now all looked upon with suspicion.

Story (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/wolf-row-photographer-stripped-of-award-1873782.html)

Bambi
01-22-2010, 09:04 AM
I agree with this. I read some articles on this and there really is no information and his whole reputation is ruined! I would hope that they would not do that lightly but I want to know the evidence. It's not like national security or anything. If they had a tip or know the 'wolf' then fine. tell us. I will reserve judgment until I hear more evidence.

Marko
01-22-2010, 10:33 AM
I'm on the fence here actually....
I'll almost always give the photographer the benefit of the doubt.

However....

If YOU were the judge, and you felt the image was a cheat based on your experience and you discussed it with the other judges and you all agreed....then you take away the guy's title.

Judges are usually honourable people and make the best decisions they can. Are these judges now obliged to defend their decision to journalists? Or do they simply need to explain it to the photographer...or not even.

At the end of the day some people are honourable and some aren't...this is a photography competition not court. Should the judges now be put on trial or grilled on their decision? Did they have anything to gain by disqualifying the dude? We as the readers have not seen the evidence, we have only heard the snippets. :twocents:

Bambi
01-22-2010, 01:07 PM
I'm on the fence here actually....
I'll almost always give the photographer the benefit of the doubt.

However....

If YOU were the judge, and you felt the image was a cheat based on your experience and you discussed it with the other judges and you all agreed....then you take away the guy's title.

Judges are usually honourable people and make the best decisions they can. Are these judges now obliged to defend their decision to journalists? Or do they simply need to explain it to the photographer...or not even.

At the end of the day some people are honourable and some aren't...this is a photography competition not court. Should the judges now be put on trial or grilled on their decision? Did they have anything to gain by disqualifying the dude? We as the readers have not seen the evidence, we have only heard the snippets. :twocents:

but this is exactly my point: they publically announced that he cheated. As much as I want to give the judges and the photographer the benefit of the doubty, I believe that you had better be darn sure of your facts/evidence before you go about ruining someones reputation. the implications of it are too large to do it lightly. I am curious as to how it made it so far in the process before someone looked at and said 'hmmm'.

kat
01-22-2010, 01:20 PM
What I want to know is why was he picked in the first place? Shouldn't this question have been asked before he was chosen?

Marko
01-22-2010, 01:26 PM
I believe that you had better be darn sure of your facts/evidence before you go about ruining someones reputation. the implications of it are too large to do it lightly.

I would agree, but i think this has 2 levels.
Level 1 is that the judges of a competition thought some dude cheated.

Level 2 - a reporter wrote about it.

Should the reporter NOT have written the story because they did not know exactly why the judges disqualified the pic? THAT may be the bigger picture here.

AcadieLibre
01-22-2010, 01:27 PM
If it was kept quiet and not splashed all over the media yes then they keep it in house but once it becomes a news story of global proportions I think once a mans reputation is on the line then they do need to explain themselves. I think once the national or international media pick it up then yes they do need more then we have proof and you will just have to take your word on it. You are ruining a mans reputation so yes you so need to explain why you made this decision that could ruin the mans career/ reputation. I have my feelings about the wolf, but it is only based on what I know, gut feelings but it doesn't amount to proof. On this one unless they show why he was stripped of first place he should get it or they owe the photographer a full written explanation. It is not some mickey mouse contest, it is a well known and popular global competition and they need to be held to a higher standard if they are going to drag someone's name through the mud.

Marko
01-22-2010, 01:37 PM
It's a tough one to my mind...judging is a hard thing to do and sometimes you have to make tough decisions....sometimes, like in this case there is no middle ground. We all know people who will defend themselves vigorously when they are lying. We also know people that try to make the best decisions possible even when the decision is difficult...

I see your point that these judges should be 'somewhat interrogated' ...I'm just not sure I agree with that point. This would be especially true imo if they were judging the competition voluntarily (for no money).