Astrophoto finalist disqualified in 2011 ANZANG nature photography comp!
The organisers of the prestigious 2011 ANZANG nature photography competition held by the South Ausralian Museum have disqualifed a finalist astrophotograph after they found it to be 'manufactured'. The photo shows star trails centred around the SCP with Cradle Mt and rocks in Lake St Clair in the foreground (sorry I don't have the image to show - and maybe I'm not allowed to anyway!). The photo appears in the printed catalogue still however.
After the announcement of the winners and finalists in each category a member of the public questioned the photo in regard to the startrails. The photo was sent to the Dean of Sciences at the University of Adelaide to check, who passed it on to the Physics Department. The Head of Physics (who is an astrophysicist) showed a colleague who agreed that it was fake. He then showed me the photo as he knew I took similar type star trail images. I confirmed with him that it was clearly a fake.
Why is it fake? The image is of NORTHERN hemisphere star trails!!
As the competition acronym implies, and the rules state, all photographs have to be taken in Australia, NZ, PNG or their territories, hence the photographer breached the rules (more than one rule in fact as it was also a composite of two images in different locations - if in fact it is Cradle Mt)
The reasons it is fake are:
1. the 'SCP' is too low to the horizon for Tasmania (it looks about 20deg up);
2. there is a very bright star right next to the celestial pole (Polaris);
3. After looking at the exposure details at the museum I also determined that the image couldn't have been taken with those settings. It was listed as being taken with a Nikon D3x, 18mm Carl Zeiss lens (which is fine), but at f16 and ISO 100!! The star trails are very bright and therefore cannot be taken with those settings. Also the photographer stated he spent over an hour in freezing conditions to take the image, however looking at the arc of star movements he would have needed to be there close to 3 hours!
The photograph has now been removed from display with the following notice in its place:
"The image Vincent (Starry Starry Night) has been removed from the ANZANG exhibition following and independent review.
Experts have advised that the angle of the star trail depicted does not comply with the lattitude of the location, nor is there a relatively bright star near the south celectial pole, such as the one depicted. This indicates that an alternate sky has been inserted into the image, which is in breach of the competition rules.... "
In this digital age and ease of photo manipulation it is good to see that some fake images can still be picked up, although you wonder how many aren't! Last year's World Wildlife Photograph of the Year overall winner (run in the UK and THE most prestigous wildlife competition) was disqualifed as well. It was of a fox jumping a wooden fence at night just like in the Red Riding Hood fairytale, but it was found to be a composite of two images!
The fantastic ANZANG exhibition is currently on display at the SA museum and I highly recommend a vist, or alternatively the major winners are posted on their website: http://anzang.samuseum.sa.gov.au/ind...ategory/4.html
Also, wasn't it a wolf last year? It was a pretty convincing job. Or, was it more the case that it wasn't wild, and, in fact a performing animal, that cost him the prize?
Another photograph won some competition, and made headlines/front page of several American newspapers. I can't remember what competition, but, it was a "photograph" of a firefighter fighting a fire in scrub. You could /clearly/ see that the flames in the foreground had been clone stamped in post, in at least 3 or 4 places! I don't think anything came of it and he was allowed to keep his prize, regardless of the fact that it was supposed to be a "photojournalist" competition. Photojournalists are not allowed to edit their photographs. They must be presented, as is.
Also, wasn't it a wolf last year? It was a pretty convincing job. Or, was it more the case that it wasn't wild, and, in fact a performing animal, that cost him the prize?
Another photograph won some competition, and made headlines/front page of several American newspapers. I can't remember what competition, but, it was a "photograph" of a firefighter fighting a fire in scrub. You could /clearly/ see that the flames in the foreground had been clone stamped in post, in at least 3 or 4 places! I don't think anything came of it and he was allowed to keep his prize, regardless of the fact that it was supposed to be a "photojournalist" competition. Photojournalists are not allowed to edit their photographs. They must be presented, as is.
H
Oops, you're right - it was a wolf! :-) I thought it was doctored, hard to stage unless you have a pet wolf I guess!
Good on them for picking up the multiple errors. Seems obvious when explained, but would be challenging to put it all together.
DT
Yes true. To most people it would seem a normal image, unless you knew what to look for. I wonder how many other images in various competitions have been faked, altered, concocted against the rules in this digital age, although I wouldn't want to scrutinise every photo I see in the same way as I'm sure it would diminish the enjoyment of viewing beautiful and interesting photos...
That is really dishonest.
And he entered it into a prestigious Photo Competition!
What a fool.
My Snake Valley by Night image is 2 images combined but at least I admitted it.
I focussed on the sky and went click for 10 seconds, then refocussed on the Foreground and went click for another 10 seconds (the light on the sign and grass is from my car's parking lights which was parked about 30 metres away!). Then I combined the 'focussed' foreground with the 'focussed' sky.
It even won a local Photo Competition, but I said how it was taken when the organisers asked.
I tried many times to get both the foreground and sky in focus at the same time with no luck, so that's why I combined the two frames.
At least mine is taken at one location, just 2 different focal points.
But geez, to try and pass it off as real!
Here's mine so you can see what I mean. You can tell it's Focus fiddled:
nice pic btw Ken. i looked at your pic before i read your post and (not being a photographer) thought that the foreground was so well lit purely because of the exposure time. i guess that's why they leave the judging to the experts
There was a local photographer who entered a pic in a local photographic competition of the full moon, on the Western horizon, just after sunset.
I objected and stated the reasons why it was impossible for that to occur and that his explanation of how he took the image was a blatant lie, but he is a highly respected photographer........his image won
There was a local photographer who entered a pic in a local photographic competition of the full moon, on the Western horizon, just after sunset.
I objected and stated the reasons why it was impossible for that to occur and that his explanation of how he took the image was a blatant lie, but he is a highly respected photographer........his image won
It was poor form for that photographer to misrepresent how the photo was taken however in most cases it actually doesn't matter and is almost always within the rules if an entry in a photography competition is manipulated or is a combination of several shots. In fact many competitions from club to international level have a "creative" category where manipulation is actively encouraged.
Several years ago I won a section in the inaugural Canon Photo5 competition with a photograph of my grandchildren placing stars on the night sky. You can see it HERE
It was an obvious combination of shots but fell well inside the rules.
Manipulation only becomes an issue in certain categories such as "nature" or "photojournalism" where images are meant to be both documentary and artistic and the rules are very specific.
There was a local photographer who entered a pic in a local photographic competition of the full moon, on the Western horizon, just after sunset.
I objected and stated the reasons why it was impossible for that to occur and that his explanation of how he took the image was a blatant lie, but he is a highly respected photographer........his image won
Yeah, well Martin, strange things happen over there in Africa
Maybe the Moon was being lit by Nibiru on the opposite side of Earth from the sun
That is really dishonest.
And he entered it into a prestigious Photo Competition!
What a fool.
My Snake Valley by Night image is 2 images combined but at least I admitted it.
I focussed on the sky and went click for 10 seconds, then refocussed on the Foreground and went click for another 10 seconds (the light on the sign and grass is from my car's parking lights which was parked about 30 metres away!). Then I combined the 'focussed' foreground with the 'focussed' sky.
It even won a local Photo Competition, but I said how it was taken when the organisers asked.
I tried many times to get both the foreground and sky in focus at the same time with no luck, so that's why I combined the two frames.
At least mine is taken at one location, just 2 different focal points.
But geez, to try and pass it off as real!
Here's mine so you can see what I mean. You can tell it's Focus fiddled:
Great image-well done on the win! I imagine everyone here would have explained how they did something like this before they put it up in a comp.But many people do try to cheat,and its good the image in the NZ comp was removed.
I spoke with some judges after a comp held recently in this district,Its amazing what some people will try and do,He said there was a lady that won a few nature comps with butterflies on shrubs etc,The judges figured what she was doing was putting a butterfly in frezer to slow it down a bit then putting it in a white box,taking photos and then taking another image of plant and blending them-struth! Sounds like so much work to fake it!!
The amount of time and effort it would take to fake something,I really cannot see the point.There will be always someone somewhere that can pick it in an instant-and explain very well why its so.
Its nothing short of visual fraud.well done to the judges of this NZ comp.
serves him right! totally owned 
