Was award-winning wolf wild or a model?

This is a discussion on Was award-winning wolf wild or a model? within the Photography News and Views forums, part of the PHOTO FORUM category; I think questioning the 'silliness' of a rule in an art competition seems hardly analogous to being anarchist athletes. The weight of the wrestler has ...


Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,512
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    I think questioning the 'silliness' of a rule in an art competition seems hardly analogous to being anarchist athletes.

    The weight of the wrestler has definitive consequence, and is an EASILY provable fact. No?
    -Laura-
    Digital: Olympus E-410- Zuiko 14-42, Zuiko 40-150

    Film:
    Olympus OM-2 (35mm film) -Zuiko 50mm- Zuiko 75-150mm- Soligor 28mm- Sigma 35-70mm Macro


    "People rarely succeed unless they have fun in what they are doing." Dale Carnegie

  2. #12
    Nikon Shooter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Eatontown, NJ
    Posts
    1,006
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    I think you're comparing apples to oranges marionet. And I also said that, within the confines of the contest, if he staged the photo and broke their rules, he should have been disqualified (post #8, second paragraph, first sentence).

    I just don't see the big deal, in general. He was disqualified and banned for life from this competition. Oooo. Big deal. There's only a few thousand wildlife photography competitions per year. And most of them are a crock anyway, requiring the photographer to give up most of his rights to the award winning picture, for life, so the sponsoring organization can get free pictures.

    If it was a great picture when you thought the wolf was wild, why is it any less of a great picture, photographically, if it were not a wild wolf?

    Regards,
    Marlo

    Check out my blog! --- http://marlomontanaro.wordpress.com

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cochranton, Pa.
    Posts
    8,081
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    Quote Originally Posted by WetBottom View Post
    I think questioning the 'silliness' of a rule in an art competition seems hardly analogous to being anarchist athletes.

    The weight of the wrestler has definitive consequence, and is an EASILY provable fact. No?
    A competition's rules are the rules of that competition; questioning those rules could easily be personally heart-warming to the questioner, but it seems to me to be creating a null set. One of the easiest things in the world to do is to disagree, especially with rules.

    Of course the weight is important, just as is, apparently, the wildness or tameness of a wolf is important to whether it jumps over or crawls under a fence.

    Quote Originally Posted by PenguinPhotoWorks View Post
    If it was a great picture when you thought the wolf was wild, why is it any less of a great picture, photographically, if it were not a wild wolf?
    If you truly don't understand why, then I feel certain I don't have the words or ability to put them together (or the patience to try) to explain.

    Please don't take offense, but this and your cow-and moon note somehow lead me to believe you have facility and enthusiasm for begging the question and disputation.

  4. #14
    Proud Nikon Shooter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Francisco's North Bay area
    Posts
    1,547
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    Quote Originally Posted by marionet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PenguinPhotoWorks View Post
    If it was a great picture when you thought the wolf was wild, why is it any less of a great picture, photographically, if it were not a wild wolf?
    If you truly don't understand why, then I feel certain I don't have the words or ability to put them together (or the patience to try) to explain.
    Add me to the list who doesn't understand.

    Separating pros from amateurs is fine, but at some point these competitions will have to accept the fact that NO image can be deemed as 100% real unless the judges are on hand and watch the scene as it is photographed and watch as the photographer post processes the image and finally be on hand as it is printed.

    It is such a crock of garbage that someone can deem what is real and what is not simply based on a photograph.

    More and more pros are walking away from these competitions and you can see the results in the images that are entered.

    These high and mighty need to pull their head out of the rear end and accept the fact of how images are taken and judge the result, not the action.
    Steve

    Never complain, Never explain. Learn it, live it


    Our blog
    Our website
    My gear list

  5. #15
    Proud Nikon Shooter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Francisco's North Bay area
    Posts
    1,547
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    Quote Originally Posted by marionet View Post
    Professionals should be allowed to enter all amateur athletic competitions and smash about as they want.
    So where should the line be drawn?

    What about the amateur who owns a Nikon D3 or Canon 1d.

    What about the years of experience? An amateur can have decades under their belt without working as a pro?

    What is the definition of pro? Is it 25% of your income, 50%, 100%. Years of experience? Equipment? Whether you have ever been published?

    What about what kind of pro? Does a wedding photographer have an advantage? How about commercial photographers?

    What happens if the amateur has the ability to hire an animal trainer?

    What does the term staged mean? Is the wolf really in the wild or a zoo? Was it raised by wolves or humans?

    What if an amateur threw out some food and got a pic? Is that staged?

    How does a judge really know if the shot is real or staged? Anyone remember the experts who thought that the lost negatives were Ansel Adams just a couple of months ago?

    Are the judges absolutely 100% sure that a wolf never jumps a fence?

    What about photoshop? Is CS1 okay? How about CS5? What about photoshop elements? Does using gimp make one an amateur?

    What about if everyone believes the image was a creation of photoshop instead of an actual image?

    How do we know the image was taken from a drawing?

    What if a frog had wings? Would it still bump its butt when it jumped?

    What if you throw a cat out of your window? Is it really considered kitty litter?

    The game of what if can go on forever, and this is why it becomes silly.

    The contest here on this forum is based on the image (as much as it can be) and yet amateurs win quite frequently. Even against us pros who frequent the board.

    If you judge based on the image itself, the what if's no longer matter.
    Steve

    Never complain, Never explain. Learn it, live it


    Our blog
    Our website
    My gear list

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cochranton, Pa.
    Posts
    8,081
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    Tangents are so much fun!

  7. #17
    Proud Nikon Shooter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Francisco's North Bay area
    Posts
    1,547
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    Quote Originally Posted by marionet View Post
    Tangents are so much fun!
    Well that was really disappointing. I threw out the gauntlet and you didn't even throw it back???? Geez, you're no fun tonight
    Steve

    Never complain, Never explain. Learn it, live it


    Our blog
    Our website
    My gear list

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cochranton, Pa.
    Posts
    8,081
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    Quote Originally Posted by Cygnus Studios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marionet View Post
    Tangents are so much fun!
    Well that was really disappointing. I threw out the gauntlet and you didn't even throw it back???? Geez, you're no fun tonight

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Western Ontario Canada
    Posts
    3,142
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    I read something I believe in National Geographic (I forget the source, may have been something else) that some people use tame animals to use as "wild shots." I didn't read much on the article though. But it's truly unfair. Sure, it makes a great shot - but not for something like National Geographic for instance.

    There are SO many people who wait VERY PATIENTLY for so long to get that great shot. He set it up in a day. Just totally unfair. Like I said already, great shot, but at least tell everyone it was set up and don't enter it in a contest of this sort.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,512
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    Who says photography has to be fair?
    -Laura-
    Digital: Olympus E-410- Zuiko 14-42, Zuiko 40-150

    Film:
    Olympus OM-2 (35mm film) -Zuiko 50mm- Zuiko 75-150mm- Soligor 28mm- Sigma 35-70mm Macro


    "People rarely succeed unless they have fun in what they are doing." Dale Carnegie


 
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Remove Ads

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

was award winning wolf wild

Click on a term to search for related topics.