Well, we can't blame THIS one on Photoshop...

Keith said:
Aside from whether the photo warranted inclusion or not because maybe the photographer failed to get a model release from the subject ... I find it incredibly static.

To me it looks like a stuffed wolf that's been supended over a gate on invisible wires ... there is absoulutely no sense of movement!


I prefer this: :angel:

675963154_bz4WN-M-1.jpg
Click to expand...


I'm with you Keith - I saw it when it won and it seemed devoid of life then

Mike
 
God know I was also surprised when I saw that photo in the magazine. Why the hell wolf jumps over the fence. I am not a wolf expert but it looks odd.

It is photographically very nice photo though...
 
amateriat said:
That is sort of an issue these days: If you manage to pull off an amazing shot where the timing is good, all the setting is right, and the stars are aligned just-so, some people will turn a jaundiced eye and say "So, how long did you have to sweat in front of Photoshop to come up with that?"
Click to expand...

Not when you have a negative...
 
The ironic fact is that almost all televised nature shows, such as what one views on PBS, are "faked", if using the same standards by which this image is being judged. For instance, they'll portray the life of a wild animal, supposedly following it through a season in the wilderness. Bullocks. They just edit together a series of scenes captured at separate times, with a storyline that blends it into a cohesive tale. The same with the sound effects. All foley, done in-studio, and overlaid with stock sound tracks of other similar-sounding animals. The cameras that traditional wildlife cinematographers have used, 16mm and 35mm film, for the most part didn't even have sound capability.

I think that the crux of the issue here is whether this "contest" was supposed to be judging journalistic-oriented imagery. As a piece of journalism, it would obviously fail the standards of any above-board editor. But for the cover of the National Enquirer, it might be okay.

~Joe
 
A picture of a hunting wolf has won the prestigious Veolia Environment Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2009 award.

Jose Luis Rodriguez captured the imaginations of the judges with a picture that he had planned for years, and even sketched out on a piece of paper.

"I wanted to capture a photo in which you would see a wolf in an act of hunting - or predation - but without blood," he told BBC News. "I didn't want a cruel image."

With a great deal of patience and careful observation of the wolves' movements, he succeeded in taking the award-winning photograph.

Mr Rodriguez used a custom-built infrared trap to snap the wolf as it leapt into the air.

The WPY competition, now in its 45th year, is owned by BBC Wildlife Magazine and London's Natural History Museum.

The panel of judges looked through more than 43,000 entries to this year's competition.

This is the fifth year that wildlife photographer Mark Carwardine has been on the judging panel. He said of the winning photo: "It's captured thousands of years of human-wolf interaction in just one moment."
Click to expand...


I found this in one of the links on the page ... obviously written before the pic was outed!
 
"I wanted to capture a photo in which you would see a wolf in an act of hunting - or predation - but without blood," he told BBC News. "I didn't want a cruel image."

Uhmmm, as a predator, a wolf hunts, kills and eats its food. How can this be construed as cruel? It's not like a wolf ever water boarded a rabbit before dinner!
 
John Rountree said:
"I wanted to capture a photo in which you would see a wolf in an act of hunting - or predation - but without blood," he told BBC News. "I didn't want a cruel image."

Uhmmm, as a predator, a wolf hunts, kills and eats its food. How can this be construed as cruel? It's not like a wolf ever water boarded a rabbit before dinner!
Click to expand...

Being ripped apart while still alive (that's how they kill the prey!) is quite cruel from the rabbit's perspective. Natural, yes, but no one wants to be eaten.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Being ripped apart while still alive (that's how they kill the prey!) is quite cruel from the rabbit's perspective. Natural, yes, but no one wants to be eaten.
Click to expand...

Doesn't cruelty have to have an element of malice? Do you really think the wolf is trying to intentionally inflict pain and suffering on the rabbit? Do you really think a rabbit has any concept of cruelty? This is anthropomorphism on a level that would make Walt Disney proud.
 
Most animals that hunt for food kill their prey very quickly ... no point in eating your food while it keeps trying to get away from you!

The Australian Dingo which is actually a descendant of an Asian wolf is fairly common around where I live. I've seen them in action and they definitely aren't into cruelty ... when they get hold of a Bandicoot or similar prey it's over in seconds!
 
That's how people like to act - either 100 cameras or 100 pairs of shoes. There's connection - cameras can make interesting pictures of feet wearing shoes.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Being ripped apart while still alive (that's how they kill the prey!) is quite cruel from the rabbit's perspective. Natural, yes, but no one wants to be eaten.
Click to expand...

It's kind of cruel for the rabbit to run in the first place, given the wolf will starve to death if he doesn't eat that rabbit, don't you think?

But if we are gonna keep pretending animals have human motivations and feelings...

From the rabbit's point of view, it's the last visceral experience in a lifetime of running and hiding, trying to eat without being eaten 24/7. Maybe he prefers it to being killed by a dog and left to rot, or being run over by a car. You know some humans have very strong feelings about how their body is disposed of after death. Perhaps for a rabbit being eaten by a wolf is guaranteed acceptance into rabbit Valhalla. Maybe they have long rabbit discussions at night about how they want to go, and the unaminous winner is "Eaten by Wolf," as it is epic and romantic. Who knows?

But I think it's a bit silly to call a predator "cruel" simply for trying to survive the only way it knows how.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom