Pierre said:
The newspapers are filled with pseudo-real photos. I saw a ton of them that are obviously fakes including one where you can see Bill Clinton shaking hand with an outer-space alien, an Oklahoma farmer that has shot a 300 pound locus and a human-headed dog. Most of the models look nothing like their publicities shots. Even the famous 1963 “Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey Oswald” indicate the wide usage of fakes.

We all saw the films where people get eaten by dinosaurs even if they have completely disappeared 60 millions of years before man's birth.

Can we really believe any photos?

Around Here Publications like the LA times refuse any edited photos (beyond a tiny raw color adjustment) unless obviously edited and not being passed on as news) They had a huge lawsuit a while back on a tiny photoshop edit and haven't been the same since...

I would kick him out as he didn't go through the physical effort to get the photos which is the hardest part of nature photography. Photoshop takes skill but you can do it in your pajamas on your bed... You cant get even a bad photo of a lynx sitting on your couch with a cup of coffee.

Hi Monty

You posted something similar about a made up wolf picture, this post I believe

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1170

Yes I'm still alive

Pete

vidrazor said:
Did anyone look at any of those shots? They are so obviously post-processed it's amazing this group that awarded this prize did not notice. I place the fault squarely on the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. The judges must have been legally blind.

I saw the same but then again I will make "gag" joke photos of my friends and many of them actually think some of them could be real. Many judges come from outside the arts that allows this to happen. I do believe that all contests need a validation process that selections go through to validate the work.

Did anyone look at any of those shots? They are so obviously post-processed it's amazing this group that awarded this prize did not notice. I place the fault squarely on the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. The judges must have been legally blind.

Hi all,

"The newspapers are filled with pseudo-real photos."

Not real ones, at least not legitimate ones. When I was teaching news at universities and photo manipulation was in its infancy, the debate was how much processing (contrast and color correction in chemistry) would be sufficient before it became 'retouching' and a complete no-no.

I agree with that for news.

The rules of competition are what they are in this case. I wouldn't want to judge, but if he took someone's image and sold for his own, it looks damning.

Lastly, in the world of artist expression, manipulation is freeing and wonderful. Making the image in post production is every bit as artistic as shooting it in the camera, but it isn't reporting what happened. If the distinction isn't obvious, then there are other bigger lessons to learn about truth.

My best,

Mike

jonnyapple said:
I still think that it's not a problem as long as you don't misrepresent a composite as a 'real' image you saw through your lens.

The newspapers are filled with pseudo-real photos. I saw a ton of them that are obviously fakes including one where you can see Bill Clinton shaking hand with an outer-space alien, an Oklahoma farmer that has shot a 300 pound locus and a human-headed dog. Most of the models look nothing like their publicities shots. Even the famous 1963 “Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey Oswald” indicate the wide usage of fakes.

We all saw the films where people get eaten by dinosaurs even if they have completely disappeared 60 millions of years before man's birth.

Can we really believe any photos?

Here is the lead in for those who read the whole article:

"Environmental Protection Agency's top prize for 2010? By capturing so many incredible shots of endangered species! And how'd he miraculously find all of these rare animals? On internet stock photography sites. So busted."

I don't know if monty11 gave this fraud due justice. This wasn't a case of simple photoshop misunderstanding. He just bought or downloaded images and manipulated them and passed them off as photographs.

Basically he entered the contest saying he had shot over 150 perfectly posed lynxs in 9 months and won the contest based on his skill. He had stories made up for all the photos.

Unfortunate, but this is part of the reality we are in, especially with the ease of using photoshop and with the prevalence of cheap stock photos. Still, I'm not sure why the police have to be involved, one would think that the appropriate action would just be to strip him of his prize.

I think it is okay to say it is not photoshopped if it has color adjustment (although controversial, folks did it since the beginning of photography). Even a tad of litter removal isn't really manipulation. Ansel is famous for the photos he manipulated...

Oddly controversial photos have been lampooned for more minor edits like the 2 pyramids on the National Geographic cover.

I have no Idea if they are going to be lenient on the fact that was "edited" or accept it as a part of modern photography...

If I take a landscape, I rarely "see" the litter or the telegraph poles and I remember the sky as blue, not grey

So I remove the litter and the poles and I tweak the sky in photoshop
That said, I don't enter competitions that restrict post production

Isn't that what the ability to put an image authentication stamp on files is for? If you're entering a competition or passing off your photos as photos and not images, I would have thought this would be checked? The problem comes when SOME tweaking is allowed but not others.

sevencrossing said:
I was aware of the Fashion Police

Did not know, the Photoshop Police existed

;-) It was reported to the police as in the criminal justice system. Resources had been used to control/find animals that didn't exist.

I still think that it's not a problem as long as you don't misrepresent a composite as a 'real' image you saw through your lens.

sevencrossing said:
I was aware of the Fashion Police

Did not know, the Photoshop Police existed

it also asks the question of where is the line between documentary and art photography, however it seems that he was trying to pass off art as documentary.

interesting

Yes, I first saw it through Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/5837537/swedish-nature-photographer-exposed-as-giant-photoshopping-fraud

Some of the photos look incredibly odd, especially the green tinted lynx.

casperwb said:
Monty

... it brings up the question of what is legal in post processing....

monty11 said:
.... has been reported to police

I was aware of the Fashion Police

Did not know, the Photoshop Police existed

Monty

very interesting, it brings up the question of what is legal in post processing.

the outcome of this should be of intrest to everyone.

Photographer Terje Hellesö, recipient of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's Nature Photographer of the Year award, has been reported to police after admitting that he manipulated a number of his pictures of predatory animals.

"The controversy arose when wildlife care consultant and blogger for the Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management (Svenska Jägareförbundet), Gunnar Glöersen, received a call from a journalist asking him to examine a suspicious looking picture of a lynx.

Read more here: http://www.thelocal.se/35964/20110905/ and here: http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/terje-helles-behaller-titeln-arets-naturfotograf.htm"

The last one is in Swedish but I used Chrome to translate it and the result was quite legible.