Moving of critters for competition entries

[stewsmith 14]

Ok so here's the deal. Various people have been constructive in promoting the awareness of critters being manipulated into better photographic positions to acquire a more dynamic image. For sure these images look very nice and to the lay person that does not enter into the underwater world, without doubt would seem genuine.

 

From what started off as a concern regarding critter manipulation in photographs being entered into competitions, the topic soon changed course and then went into the ethics of touching, herding, feeding, using flash lights and more in general and not specifically for competition entries.

 

My personal opinion is that if the critters are touched, moved by experienced guides and then returned to their exact original habitat after a few photographs then I don't think too much, if any harm will be done to the critters. I often use the analogy of taking a child to a rock pool with a net and catching crabs and shrimps. I'm sure more harm will be done to critters by the use of a net than by being moved by an experienced guide underwater. I know myself that had my father not taken me to rock pools in the West Country when I was a child then my passion for the ocean might never have started.

 

What I am concerned about, is what the manipulation debate was born out of. It was regarding competition entries so I would like the topic to head back there and stay there. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions on the subject and nobody needs to be dragged across hot coals for having a different opinion than someone else. So please keep the discussion civil.

 

For some reason judges are allowing what appear to be critter manipulated entries into competitions. Do you think that they are doing their job as a judge properly by allowing such images to be entered?

 

A few people that have judged in competitions have come forward to argue that if they have no evidence that manipulation has happened then they can't disqualify the entry.

 

Shark feed dives are also being discussed and again there are good points raised by both sides of the argument. Please don't bring this subject up as this will move away from the purpose of the post. Please just discuss critter re positioning for entries into competitions and whether you think that they should be allowed.

[bvanant 189]

I think the judges are encouraging moving of critters. And most of these judges have vast experience underwater and know what the typical habits of the critters are. Saying that without definite proof of moving they can't make a ruling is hogwash. Maybe the 1 in 10 million shot of the free swimming pygmy in the sunball gets rejected but those kind of images should not win competitions in my opinion.

Bill

[adamhanlon 0]

 

 

A few people that have judged in competitions have come forward to argue that if they have no evidence that manipulation has happened then they can't disqualify the entry.

 

 

 

Saying that without definite proof of moving they can't make a ruling is hogwash.

 

I very much doubt that any judge would accept a rule that says that they cannot disqualify. Every competition I have either judged in or administered has disqualified images that were thought to have been unnaturally moved.

 

In my experience, there is no burden of evidence on the judges to account for why they disqualify images.

 

However, what is sometimes not definitive are opinions or rulings about whether movement has taken place or not.

[NWDiver 42]

Wish more judges would disqualify more photos where they feel creatures have been manipulated by the diver or guides.

[bvanant 189]

I guess I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that they couldn't disqualify but that they needed more proof. When LAUPS ran a competition there was evidence of manipulation (ultimately confirmed) but the judges told me that they didn't feel they should disqualify an image without definite evidence of manipulation. It got quite messy but there still seems to be lots of photos in competition that are suspicious.

Bill

[adamhanlon 0]

I can only speak from my own experience of course. I am not aware of the issues around the LAUPS contest.

 

If a judge suspects that manipulation has occurred the organisers would accept his/her opinion and would disqualify the image.

 

As I mentioned above, there is no burden on the judges to prove in an evidentiary way that manipulation took place before disqualication. A benthic animal in the water column would simply be disqualified for example.

 

What is more complex is when there is disagreement about an image and how it was captured by third parties after the contest's results have been announced. The fact that the image has not been disqualified means that the judges must think that the image is within the contest's rules. If this is to be challenged then the third party must bring definitive proof in order to do so.

 

If such proof is forthcoming, then the results should be reversed. If not, the results should stand.

[stewsmith 14]

Interesting comments Adam.

 

You wrote

 

" Every competition I have either judged in or administered has disqualified images that were thought to have been unnaturally moved. "

 

So based on "thought" and not " evidence " images have been disqualified in every competition that you have judged in.

 

Stew

Edited April 22, 2016 by stewsmith

[adamhanlon 0]

Yes, I think that is true. Thought is based on experience and judgement. Creatures being in places or doing things that they would not normally (naturally) do have been disqualified.

 

Equally, so have images that have watermarks on them, that have been post-capture modified, that have been entered into the wrong category etc.

 

Unless you are physically with a photographer when an image is captured, someone else was that will state that the subject was/was not manipulated or they were videoed doing so (don't even go into the resulting video being edited ) there is unlikely to be definitive evidence of how the image was captured.

[NWDiver 42]

I am totally ok with it based on "experience and judgment".