> > You know, the problem I have with it isn't that they decided > it was staged; it's that they didn't decide that until AFTER > they had already awarded it the first prize. > > Every reason cited for rejecting it after the fact should > have been apparent before it won. > > Ok, so he (maybe) didn't follow the contest rules; it sure > looks like that from the image ... but how stupid do the > judges have to be to not notice that BEFORE choosing the guy > as Wildlife Photographer of the Year? >
20:20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. Look at the fake Vermeers that Van Meegeren made and you wonder how the hell all those experts could be fooled by such obvious crap but to a large extent we see what we want to see. If the photographer proves that it was indeed a wild wolf, it will suddenly become a brilliant shot again. If one of Van Meegeren's daub is suddenly revealed to be a genuine Vermeer it will become a masterpiece. I think the wolf photo is brilliant, even if it doesn't comply with the competition rules. The Van Meegerens are all still shit though. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
