Posted by Mia McPherson on September 5, 2011 at 9:05 PM
As a nature photographer it really bothers me to see articles like the one I have linked below where a nature photographer "cheats". Terje Hellesö denied altering his photos and afterwards admitted he had photoshopped the Lynx into his images.
Posted by Ron Dudley on September 5, 2011 at 9:20 PM
Makes me sick. I'm afraid this kind of cheating reflects on all of us. And I can say from experience that it's even more common than many of us might suspect - particularly in prestigious contests.
Posted by Ed Cordes on September 5, 2011 at 9:57 PM
Gives us all a bad name and makes the public mistrust any of our images. He whould be prosecuted fully!
Posted by Peter Cross on September 5, 2011 at 11:11 PM
A year or so ago, there was a highly circulated account of a Spanish photographer who had won the most prestigious award from a British contest, which I believe included the BBC, He was named the "Nature Photographer of the Yrer" from the thousands of world-wide entries. He had entered a photo of a wolf jumping over a fence at night. Turns out it was a staged photo using a captive wolf. The photo gallery from this contest goes on a world-wide tour and a book is published from the best entries. Unfortunately this ruse was discovered too late to have his "winning" photo removed. I'm sure the 2nd place contestant and the actual winner didn't really get his due reward. I'm afraid this reflects badly on all of us as the public may be suspicious of any exceptional image. At least in the film days, it was much harder to do this sort of thing. I think that is one of the reasons that (I'm told) police crime scene photos are taken with Polaroid type film.
Posted by Mia McPherson on September 6, 2011 at 8:45 AM
Richard, in further research about this photographer it appears he may have stolen animal images from stock photography sites (see link below) and then photoshopped them into his own images. So yes if this is true, he should be reported for copyright infringement at the very least. If they had been my Lynx photos I would certainly file charges.
I don't know if any of his manipulated images were "winning" images in contests but his belated admission of manipulating his photos even when earlier he stated they were not manipulated does give anyone reason to ponder.
Posted by Paula Dittrick on September 6, 2011 at 9:04 AM
This is a sad and disgusting story but the headline on the first link was amusing: nature snapper.
As a nature photographer, I have never thought of myself as a nature snapper.
Posted by Luke Ormand on September 6, 2011 at 9:19 AM
Sick all the way around.
As for the police being involved, some further reading shows that he also had reported finding a racoon dog in an area they were not known to be. These animals carry rabies, and as such a lot of effort was put into trying to track these animals down as they posed a threat to human health. A lot of time and money was spent because this guy said he saw an animal when he didn't.
Posted by RL Potts on September 6, 2011 at 6:56 PM
Doing this stuff well is practically impossible. Why would anyone believe they could get away with it? This Swedish magazine reminds me a lot of the National Enquirer.
Posted by Hendrik BOSMAN on September 8, 2011 at 3:46 AM
In my experience photography has lost a lot more of it`s integrity than many photographers will realise. For years we were told that photographs does not lie. However we know that even in thee ages of the real darkroom images were manipulated and even criminally falsified to suit certain purposes. The example cited is gross fraud and must be prosecuted to the full. This person cannot be called a photographer, rather a criminal image manipulator and thief
But then, when does criminality start? Somewhere I read that one cannot be a photographer anymore by just mastering the functions of your camera, understanding light and composition but "you have to be proficient in Photoshop as well". So if I`m proficient in Photoshop I`ll be manipulating (sorry just tweaking) photographs. This may not constitute fraudulent activity in many people`s minds. Thus I repeat "when does photo manipulation start to be criminal?"
For me the practice of "stacking" photo`s to get greater DOF is also a lie. Thus if it is a lie it also is criminal or is it not?
What I`m trying to say is just that many photographers are publishing photo`s that have been manipulated and are lauded as "excellent or great photographers" but then become indignant when something like the above really criminal case comes to light while they, in my mind at least, have been doing the exact same acts but just on a "smaller" scale.
Now please don`t reply and attack me with indignant reasons why some photographers may manipulate and others not. Just look at yourself and make sure that you are not one of those......
Posted by Svein-Frode on September 8, 2011 at 9:55 AM
Photography is manipulation - period. It's not black and white of course, and there are always degrees of manipulation involved. It's just something one has to live with as a photographer.
Posted by David Bostedo on September 8, 2011 at 10:37 AM
For me the practice of "stacking" photo`s to get greater DOF is also a lie. Thus if it is a lie it also is criminal or is it not?
Do you think stacking is equivalent to what the photographer here did by pasting in animals from other shots? Are you actually making that claim? (If not, I apologize as that's how I'm taking it.)
I'd think the reason stacking isn't a lie is because the objects in the image are actually present. Just because your camera can't render the DOF seen in the stacked shot, doesn't mean the actual object didn't exist. If someone invented a lens that could do the equivalent of macro stacking, would that no longer make it a lie?
In this photographer's image he inserted objects that didn't actually exist in real life. He didn't change how they were rendered or shown in the image - he actually added them wholesale. That to me is a massive difference from any other talks of image manipulation and what's allowed. I think it's very black and white in this case.
Posted by Keith Bauer on September 8, 2011 at 1:38 PM
But then, when does criminality start?
In this case it started when the photographer took images that did not belong to him and pasted them in. That is copyright infringement and that is illegal. It has nothing to do with the line of manipulation of images.
According to the first article it seems that the criminality was a result of the fact that some of his fraudulent images caused
“Tons of resources have been used in vain to find wildcats and raccoon dogs that don’t exist.”
and
Because of the time and money they've spent, and the fact that numerous concerned people have called the Administrative Board, Berglund thinks this is an important issue, and certainly a matter for the police.
It's unclear as to whether he stole the stock images, or legitimately paid appropriate license fees for them (at least, I didn't see clear evidence either way in the articles linked on this thread).
So in this case, it seems the criminality started when he effectively started squandering tax payer money because of his fraudulent images. That seems equivalent to knowingly telling the government about a false bomb threat.
Posted by Stan Rose on September 9, 2011 at 4:38 PM
Even if he paid for the stock images, he incorporated them into what he claimed was his original work, then used those images to generate income presumably (he was a prize winner, apparently). That's theft by fraud, if you ask me.
"when does photo manipulation start to be criminal?"
Hendrik, the clear distinction in this case is that the photographer lied about his work. If he had been truthful, there would be no issue. He probably wouldn't have been named 'nature of photographer of the year', but who knows, maybe his work would have found acceptance as photo art.
Unfortunately, there are crooks in every field of life. This should not make us all look bad. Just a fact of life. It was super that this one was exposed.
Discussion
15 replieshttp://www.thelocal.se/35964/20110905/
Peter
I don't know if any of his manipulated images were "winning" images in contests but his belated admission of manipulating his photos even when earlier he stated they were not manipulated does give anyone reason to ponder.
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/09/05/swedish-wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-admits-to-faking-photos/
As a nature photographer, I have never thought of myself as a nature snapper.
As for the police being involved, some further reading shows that he also had reported finding a racoon dog in an area they were not known to be. These animals carry rabies, and as such a lot of effort was put into trying to track these animals down as they posed a threat to human health. A lot of time and money was spent because this guy said he saw an animal when he didn't.
But then, when does criminality start? Somewhere I read that one cannot be a photographer anymore by just mastering the functions of your camera, understanding light and composition but "you have to be proficient in Photoshop as well". So if I`m proficient in Photoshop I`ll be manipulating (sorry just tweaking) photographs. This may not constitute fraudulent activity in many people`s minds. Thus I repeat "when does photo manipulation start to be criminal?"
For me the practice of "stacking" photo`s to get greater DOF is also a lie. Thus if it is a lie it also is criminal or is it not?
What I`m trying to say is just that many photographers are publishing photo`s that have been manipulated and are lauded as "excellent or great photographers" but then become indignant when something like the above really criminal case comes to light while they, in my mind at least, have been doing the exact same acts but just on a "smaller" scale.
Now please don`t reply and attack me with indignant reasons why some photographers may manipulate and others not. Just look at yourself and make sure that you are not one of those......
Do you think stacking is equivalent to what the photographer here did by pasting in animals from other shots? Are you actually making that claim? (If not, I apologize as that's how I'm taking it.)
I'd think the reason stacking isn't a lie is because the objects in the image are actually present. Just because your camera can't render the DOF seen in the stacked shot, doesn't mean the actual object didn't exist. If someone invented a lens that could do the equivalent of macro stacking, would that no longer make it a lie?
In this photographer's image he inserted objects that didn't actually exist in real life. He didn't change how they were rendered or shown in the image - he actually added them wholesale. That to me is a massive difference from any other talks of image manipulation and what's allowed. I think it's very black and white in this case.
In this case it started when the photographer took images that did not belong to him and pasted them in. That is copyright infringement and that is illegal. It has nothing to do with the line of manipulation of images.
and
It's unclear as to whether he stole the stock images, or legitimately paid appropriate license fees for them (at least, I didn't see clear evidence either way in the articles linked on this thread).
So in this case, it seems the criminality started when he effectively started squandering tax payer money because of his fraudulent images. That seems equivalent to knowingly telling the government about a false bomb threat.
Hendrik, the clear distinction in this case is that the photographer lied about his work. If he had been truthful, there would be no issue. He probably wouldn't have been named 'nature of photographer of the year', but who knows, maybe his work would have found acceptance as photo art.