Famous Wildlife Photographer Busted For Using Stock Images

Nobody knows better than Award-winning wildlife photographer Terje Helleso how hard it can be to get that perfect shot in an out-of-the-way location. That's why he used stock photos. The 47-year-old photographer passed off hundreds of stock photos as his own over the course of several years. From the article: "On Wednesday, a deeply regretful Helleso spoke to local radio. He gave economic problems as a reason, but mostly it was about his own unreasonably high demands on himself to be successful, he said. 'I was under pressure, mostly from myself, and I gave in to temptation. Looking back, I’m surprised that I got away with it for so long, and that I managed to keep up appearances to my wife and everyone else,' he said."

Comments

Yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

> He gave economic problems as a reason, but mostly it was about his own unreasonably high demands on himself to be successful, he said.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Re:Yeah.

[uofitorn]

...Helleso, who is famous not only for his art, but also for being a strong advocate of keeping digital photography real and speaking out against manipulation or theft of material...

Ha ha is right..

Re:Yeah.

[Gaygirlie]

...Helleso, who is famous not only for his art, but also for being a strong advocate of keeping digital photography real and speaking out against manipulation or theft of material...

Ha ha is right..

Well, it's easy to preach something you're not following yourself. ...he'd make a fine politician.

An obvious reminder

[hardtofindanick]

On Wednesday, a deeply regretful Helleso spoke to local radio

Regretful because he was caught. If he wasn't caught, probably he would have been quite happy.

Re:An obvious reminder

[MacTO]

I realise that it is trendy to be cynical of anyone who has gained any form of celebrity, but I think that it is also appropriate to remind people that the person behind the spotlight is as human as anyone else that you meet. Just like us, the make mistakes. Just like us, sometimes they are regretful because they were caught. And just like us, sometimes the regret that they express is sincere.

I don't know this photographer, so I don't know how sincere that regret is. On the other hand, I'm not willing to let cynicism overwhelm me by simply assuming that he is insincere.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

What an original comment! I've never heard this cliche'd line used on a person who's remorseful-after-being-caught before. This is very much the first time anyone has said, "That person is only apologetic because they got caught". You are truly a very creative and deep, profound thinker!

Re:An obvious reminder

[NicknamesAreStupid]

Rule One of Life -- Never Get Caught

There is no appeal, no reprieve, no forgiveness, no redemption, and no hope. Once you are caught, you can never be uncaught.

Re:An obvious reminder

[mwvdlee]

Indeed. "Regretful" is when you confess BEFORE anybody finds out the truth.

Re:An obvious reminder

[circletimessquare]

yes, we're human: we get in car accidents, we trip and fall down the stairs, we say things we don't really mean

but we don't betray our own principles over an extended period of time in a calculated conscious manner

that's not being human, that's being a scumbag

"I don't know this photographer, so I don't know how sincere that regret is."

his regret is 100% sincere: he regrets being caught

save your human empathy for people who deserve it. this guy doesn't deserve it

Re:An obvious reminder

[hihihihi]

i don not think it is cynicism in any way to consider him insincere, from TFA:
"In late August, a local official for a hunter’s association accused Helleso of doctoring photos, after being tipped off by Internet users.
a Swedish website and forum, started examining Helleso’s pictures and soon found even more. They have since dedicated an entire website to the photographer’s fakery.
Helleso (...) denied everything initially.
But as evidence mounted, including GIF animations showing exactly how animals from stock photos on the net turned up in his pictures, Helleso admitted to everything on Sept. 3"
Dosn't look like sincere regret at all! more like a forced one...

Re:An obvious reminder

[Hazel Bergeron]

Everyone deserves empathy. That's how empathy works. If you're applying some formula to decide whether someone's worthy then you're not really demonstrating empathy at all.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn right!

I work hard to get my images. I get up at ridiculous times of the night and day, travel very long distances to catch the light. I sit in horrible weather to get that one shot. My wife has the patience of a saint to put with me not always being about, while I'm out "chasing the light" and this person decides he can take the work of some one else who has sacrified their time with their families to secure a shot to make a living?

The sad thing is he knows how hard this game is, not like he's a PR/AD-man doign a desk job and just stealing stock shots, he's a photographer. He did work hard once, he knows the sacrifices you have to make and one day he just lost his faith in his art and decided it was easier to just steal someone else's hard work.

In future no one will trust any of his shots as they won't know whether he took them or not, he's killed his own career as pro shooter.

Re:An obvious reminder

[maxwell demon]

Dosn't look like sincere regret at all! more like a forced one...

No, he sincerely regrets that he thought he could get away with it. He won't do that again. At least not until he has analysed how he got caught, and has found ways to avoid that.

Re:An obvious reminder

[AliasMarlowe]

On Wednesday, a deeply regretful Helleso spoke to local radio

Regretful because he was caught. If he wasn't caught, probably he would have been quite happy.

Exactly. It should have said: "On Wednesday, Helleso guiltily spoke to local radio". The guilty regret being caught. He had been sliding down that slippery slope for a rather long time, and had repeatedly denied any wrongdoing before finally being cornered.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Teancum]

Rule One of Life -- Never Get Caught
There is no appeal, no reprieve, no forgiveness, no redemption, and no hope. Once you are caught, you can never be uncaught.

The problem here is the concept that anything is ethical and proper until you are caught. The real "truth" is that he shouldn't have been doing this in the first place, regardless of if he was caught or not.

Yes, I know human nature is that you act impulsively and ignore ethics and principles. That is why we try to pound them into kids at an early age with the remote hope that eventually some of that is going to sink into their skulls that unethical and immoral behavior eventually leads to ruin and it is better for everybody including yourself if you don't even start down that path.

Sadly, some adults either never learned those lessons or have deliberately chosen to ignore them.

BTW, I do think you can have "forgiveness" after a fashion. Those who you've wronged can have restitution, you can admit what you did was wrong, and you can "do the time" if you have broken criminal law. Somebody who can fess up, admit they have done something wrong, try to make things right and not do it again is to me somebody much more worthy of my sympathy and mercy than somebody who acts like a jerk and pretends like it never happened in spite of being caught red handed. You might not be able to be "uncaught", but you can be forgiven for what is human weakness if you try to be better next time. That is for me what is hope that humanity can become better in the future, however you define "better".

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

Very eloquently put. I'm considering copying and using it as my own. But ehh......

Re:An obvious reminder

[Captain Hook]

he got caught the same way everyone who builds up large fabricated stories get caught; by a small detail, which lead to another detail and so on.

In this case, the small detail was that the lynx was meant to have been photographed in mid summer, but still have a full winter coat on. A small matter that you wouldn't think would be the issue that catches someone out, you would have thought that since the photos were being submitted to photographic awards and agencies one of those experts might have picked up on the photoshopping (after all you can tell by some of the pixels and I've seen a few shops in my time).

All together, the big picture looks believable, it's only when someone notice the tiniest detail out of place that everything comes apart.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

True. The correct word would naturally be "sympathy".

You can empathise without sympathising. Not everyone deserves sympathy.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Kjella]

Empathy and sympathy does tend to get mixed up a bit. I can understand that it's embarrassing and humiliating to be exposed as a fraud, that is empathy. But I don't have any sympathy for him, because he dug that hole for himself. After all those lies he has very little credibility when he claims to regret it, that's not me starting out as a cynic but a direct result of his actions. Besides there's nothing inherent to empathy that means I should believe in the good of all people, only that I am able to put myself in their shoes. And putting myself in his shoes I see a self-serving prick who is now seeking sympathy from the gullible. Perhaps in time he will be able to prove that he truly wants to make amends, but it'll take more than getting caught with the hand in the cookie jar and saying "I'm sorry" to do it. At least with me.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Teancum]

That is why we try to pound them into kids at an early age

Well, children are easy to brainwash. So I guess that is a good time to do it. Make sure to include the fact that your morals are absolute universal fact.

I take it that you don't have kids of your own. Good luck with that.

BTW, why the restriction of making "sure to include the fact that your morals are [an] absolute universal fact"? I don't think that is necessarily required to pass on ethics and moral values. Even a belief or lack thereof of some higher power or divine influence is not necessarily a prerequisite. I personally think that having an open mind to better philosophies is always a good thing, but some sort of standard of behavior is always needed at some point, at least if you want a functioning society where people can at least interact with one another.

It sounds like you are a bit closed minded on this point, so I won't belabor this issue too much.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

I think somehow both he and you deserve a little empathy.

Re:An obvious reminder

[cheekyjohnson]

I take it that you don't have kids of your own.

Did you reach that conclusion just from reading that one comment?

I don't think that is necessarily required to pass on ethics and moral values.

I didn't say that it was.

better philosophies

Depending on who you ask, isn't that subjective?

It sounds like you are a bit closed minded on this point

How did you reach that conclusion? How much do you know about me?

Re:An obvious reminder

[professionalfurryele]

Cynicism is the word people who don't live in the real world misappropriate to describe people who do.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

Get some grip of reality, you idiot.

Nature knows no "good" and "bad". We life-forms individually assign those values to things. "Bad" becomes "hurts us" and "good" become "helps us". Regarding resources.
So obviously following from that is the fact that one individual's "good" can be the other one's "bad".
That's why modern criminology has abandoned those concepts.

Now think about what reasons people have for their actions, and you will notice that people never ever think that they themselves are bad. (OK, except for "emos". ;)
They either say "I think it is the right thing to do." or "I have no choice but to do it.".

How much do you wanna bet that he thought he had no choice but do do this?
It doesn't matter if he did. What matters is that in his perceived reality (yes, an unbiased view is physically impossible for everyone of us), it looked like that.
Maybe he knew other choices, but those were even worse. In which case there still really was just that one choice.
So he chose it.
And if you had been in his situation, with his memories, you would have acted exactly like this.

That's why it's just human.

Out of the perspective of the one paying him for those fake pictures, it may have hurt them, which would make it bad. (It definitely didn't hurt the stock photo maker, since information is not a physical object or product, and hence can't be sold, owned or stolen. Only the actual work is worth something. And you can hardly steal that.)

But it didn't hurt anyone of us, now did it?
Avoid him if you plan to pay someone for making pictures if you want., but quit being a dick despite it having absolutely no relationship to your life whatsoever. Go be angry about your government instead. They at least fuck up your life.

Or in other words: Get yourself a brain and seriously think about things for a couple of years or so, before commenting again. You look like a 13 year old who thinks he's wise, but really is the biggest fool.

(Of course most people here on /. aren't grown-up enough to comprehend all this, and will mod it down out of a knee-jerk reaction to a few key words/phrases that are negatively associated or don't fit into their simple model of reality. Which is also just human, I guess...)

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that is necessarily required to pass on ethics and moral values.

I didn't say that it was.

The statement "Make sure to include the fact that your morals are absolute universal fact" certainly suggests it.

better philosophies

Depending on who you ask, isn't that subjective?

Possibly, but at least a bunch of them that most of humanity agrees about have been bundled in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since several of those rights come into conflict with each other at some point, it's obviously not a holy book of dogmas that you can blindly follow. However, knowing about them and realizing that such conflicts exist and that hence there are no simple rules you can blindly follow or apply, seems like a pretty good start to me. And there are of course also a bunch of rules of thumb, such as Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

It sounds like you are a bit closed minded on this point

How did you reach that conclusion? How much do you know about me?

First you go on the offensive by comparing one person arguing about teaching children about cultivating a moral compass with brainwashing and trying to make their world view identical to his own. Then when that person rebukes those statements, you suddenly start playing the victim of false accusations based on some off the cuff comments? Maybe you should look up the definition of hypocrisy and watch a little less Calimero.

Re:An obvious reminder

[mangu]

There are many people who don't get empathy from me and this is one of them. How could he expect not to be caught? This is so stupid that I cannot imagine the mental process that led to it.

Stock photos are available for everyone to see, the human eye is very efficient at recognizing patterns. Especially in the world of photographers, people who would admire him for getting awarded that prize would certainly have seen the stock images he used and these people were professionals who would examine his photos carefully, even if only to try to learn something from his technique.

Maybe his downfall came only because he didn't expect to win that prize, but I cannot imagine how he could think he would never be caught. Dishonest people don't realize how many witnesses there are looking at what they do.

Re:An obvious reminder

[cheekyjohnson]

The statement "Make sure to include the fact that your morals are absolute universal fact" certainly suggests it.

It does? I thought it was just me implying that I disagree with toting the existence of absolute morals as a fact.

Possibly, but at least a bunch of them that most of humanity agrees about have been bundled in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Alright.

First you go on the offensive

Despite being sarcastic, I was not trying to be offensive. Really, the way he worded that just made me think of brainwashing for some reason. That probably wasn't his intention, but I just thought it was amusing how some people probably really would do that and decided to voice my disagreement with that behavior.

you suddenly start playing the victim

I asked him to clarify things. I don't understand what he is thinking. I merely wanted to know how he reached the conclusion that I was closed-minded. The fact that I started off on the "offensive" has little to do with that, I think.

Maybe you should look up the definition of hypocrisy

Why? How is that hypocrisy? Do you think that calling someone a hypocrite is an argument in and of itself?

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, such a sophomoric attitude.

How much do you wanna bet that he thought he had no choice but do do this?

What evil thing are you doing 'without choice'?

But it didn't hurt anyone of us, now did it?

When people shoplift, they say the same thing, sometime in court. It shouldn't shock you that it's no defense.

Re:An obvious reminder

[DrXym]

Empathy is not the same as sympathy. I might understand that a man raped and strangled killed children because he was abused as a child. I might emphasize with him putting myself in his place and wonder what abuse might have done to me. It wouldn't mean I have the slightest bit of sympathy if he danced on the end of a rope for his crimes.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Dhalka226]

unethical and immoral behavior eventually leads to ruin and it is better for everybody including yourself if you don't even start down that path.

It's more complicated than that. You yourself, in an attempt to illustrate that things are unethical even if you aren't caught, brought the reasoning back to how bad it is if you get caught. Had he not been caught, there would have been no ruin.

Now, I agree with you. What he did was wrong and he shouldn't have done it; that is according to my own particular set of ethics (though that particular one is shared by many people, I wager). At the same time, I could make an argument that he caused no harm. The original photographers released their photos to a stock photo company; they were paid for the work (probably when he downloaded a copy of it) in the same way they would have been otherwise. There is little to suggest that the original photographs would have even been up for the awards they won, much less still won them, so that's a specious or hypothetical argument at best. And though much harm has come to him--for being caught (yes, we're back here full circle)--a lot of good came as well, and only he can judge if it outweighed the bad.

Ethics are complicated things, particularly to explain. How wrong is something, really, that hurt nobody but (possibly) the one who did it, and who did it with full understanding of the possibility? And likewise, if the only real harm is in getting caught, then aren't we right back to the question of whether or not it is unethical or improper if you don't get caught?

As I said, I don't actually think so; I'm not defending him. My personal interpretation says it's wrong. But it is, at best, very complicated -- and that's probably why so many people never "learn" it. They've learned it, just not accepted it as truth. Philosophically I find that hard to fault even as I disagree.

Re:An obvious reminder

[hey!]

Aside from any question of another human being *deserving* our empathy, our empathy doesn't perform any useful function for *us* unless we're willing to extend it to people who are unsympathetic. For example, consider the following part of the article summary:

He gave economic problems as a reason, but mostly it was about his own unreasonably high demands on himself to be successful,

The reason that this man is a fit object for *empathy* is that unreasonable demands on ourselves to be successful is something we all feel now and then. The reason he is not a fit object for *sympathy* is we don't necessarily do something foolish or unethical because of it. Unrestrained ambition for undeserved position is what did Macbeth in. Combine that with a little hubris and you have the most common formula for stupid, self-destructive behavior there is.

Empathy guides are sympathy to those who deserve it, and enables us to learn from the examples of those who don't.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

The human eye can't recognize patterns at all. The human brain on the other hand... well anyway I'll just type in my captcha and get this thing posted.

Re:An obvious reminder

[hey!]

This guy would be an example of misplaced priorities, even if he didn't get caught. Why perpetuate this *particular* fraud? Surely as frauds go it's not the most financially rewarding.

I think it's because once he got started in the field and got a little taste of respect from other people, he got hooked. Everybody likes getting external validation, but he set the respect of others over his own respect for himself. This man's offense combines hubris (that he wouldn't get caught at such an obvious fraud) and insecurity in a manner that's worth thinking about.

Ironically this man wasn't egotistical enough; at least not in the right way. He didn't value his own artistic integrity over the approval of others. That's an artistic virtue that isn't always attractive or likeable (Picasso springs to mind), but it is an honest attitude that sustains an artist in hard times and doubles the rewards in good times. There's even a kind of pig-headed magnificence to it.

“When I was a child, my mother said to me, 'If you become a soldier, you'll be a general. If you become a monk you'll end up as the pope.' Instead I became a painter and wound up as Picasso.”

-- Picasso

Yeah, that Picasso was an egomaniac who thought he was a creative genius, but he was right, and he could back it up any time he cared to. If anyone claimed he painted the way he did because he didn't have the technical ability of his nineteenth century predecessors he could prove them wrong if he felt like it, which he seldom did because he was secure in his ego. Picasso knew he deserved his success in the way few of us ever do.

When you read a novel with a character who is successful because of plagiarism and gets away with it, that character is always pathetic. In movies or stories with a sympathetic con-man protagonist (e.g. Terry Pratchett's *Going Postal*), they guy is sympathetic because the art of the con is more important than the financial payoff. Plus, he's usually shown plundering rich, undeserving people.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

First you go on the offensive

Despite being sarcastic, I was not trying to be offensive. Really, the way he worded that just made me think of brainwashing for some reason. That probably wasn't his intention, but I just thought it was amusing how some people probably really would do that and decided to voice my disagreement with that behavior.

I'm not sure how you expect anyone reading your reply to make that up from what you wrote. Since you directly replied to a statement of his, the (imho) logical conclusion is that you did claim that his argument equalled arguing in favour of brainwashing children and imposing your own world view on them.

It's just like this reply of mine to your post suggests that I am convinced that you believe you stand behind what you wrote above, rather than that I am making stuff up based on associations evoked by what your wrote and then am arguing against my own thoughts in a reply to you.

Maybe you should look up the definition of hypocrisy

Why? How is that hypocrisy?

1) you draw a completely nonsense conclusions from what the OP wrote based on one comment of his (turning teaching children about ethics into brainwashing them into copies of yourself).
2) he says that interpretation is nonsense and that you are closed minded if you interpret what he said as suggesting that children should be brainwashed
3) you complain that he judges you as being closed minded based on that comment of yours

The hypocrisy: it appeared that you judged his world view based on one comment, and then complained he did the same to you.

Do you think that calling someone a hypocrite is an argument in and of itself?

No, but it's hard to discuss with someone who needs a very extensive explanation for every point you try to make. In fact, it sort of corroborates the argument that you are in fact fairly closed minded (or a crafty troll).

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

yes! let' s all forget that our entire society is organized around the concept of appropriation of other people's work and crucify this scumbag!

what a hypocrite, typical self-righteous circle stuck in a loop....

Re:An obvious reminder

[ricosalomar]

That's not really what empathy is. Think of empathy as an automatic response, like when you wince when you see someone get a paper cut, or get kicked it the nuts.
Sympathy is more intellectual, you consider the circumstances, and cognitively place yourself in the situation.
Then you weigh whether the person deserves your sympathy. This is where your ethical beliefs may come in to play.
Or you could think of it this way: A person without sympathy is a hard-ass, while a person without empathy is a sociopath.

Re:An obvious reminder

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm not sure how you expect anyone reading your reply to make that up from what you wrote.

What I will say is that I think I should have clarified what I meant. It happened sometimes.

1) you draw a completely nonsense conclusions from what the OP wrote based on one comment of his (turning teaching children about ethics into brainwashing them into copies of yourself).

I already said that that wasn't the case.

2) he says that interpretation is nonsense and that you are closed minded if you interpret what he said as suggesting that children should be brainwashed

Well, even if I did interpret his post that way, I don't see how interpreting text differently from someone else makes someone closed-minded. I think someone is closed-minded when they believe that they are 100% correct and cannot be wrong (when they do not doubt themselves) and not when they merely disagree with someone else.

No, but it's hard to discuss with someone who needs a very extensive explanation for every point you try to make.

So my alleged hypocrisy had nothing to do with it, then? Would you rather I assume I know what you're thinking and then create an argument based on that assumption?

In fact, it sort of corroborates the argument that you are in fact fairly closed minded

What is your definition of "closed-minded"?

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

1) you draw a completely nonsense conclusions from what the OP wrote based on one comment of his (turning teaching children about ethics into brainwashing them into copies of yourself).

I already said that that wasn't the case.

This is really getting really silly. Yes, you already said that. In reply to the post where I accused of being a hypocrite. However, I was explaining why I accused you of being a hypocrite, which happened *before* you said that. Hence, my explanation did not take that fact into account, since my fut-o-visor is currently broken.

2) he says that interpretation is nonsense and that you are closed minded if you interpret what he said as suggesting that children should be brainwashed

Well, even if I did interpret his post that way, I don't see how interpreting text differently from someone else makes someone closed-minded. I think someone is closed-minded when they believe that they are 100% correct and cannot be wrong (when they do not doubt themselves) and not when they merely disagree with someone else.

The problem was not you disagreeing with him, since you didn't. As you explained before, you were only disagreeing with a straw man argument you made up yourself. The original closed-mindedness argument stems from the fact that it seemed (note: before you explained otherwise later on) that you immediately misconstrued his perfectly reasonable statement as him arguing in favour of brainwashing children.

And regarding how this relates to being closed-minded: if you are closed-minded, you are very likely to immediately project everything other people say into black&white statements that either match or disagree with your worldview, rather than taking a step back and thinking about what they may really mean. It also reduces the ability in general to think about stuff, and introduces the requirement for very extensive, detailed explanations.

Which finally is why it's often hard to distinguish between trolls and closed-minded people.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you can make a movie about scumbag zombies. That would be great.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

The word you're looking for is empathize.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

SkyOne's Going Postal TV movie was awesome, BTW.

Sorta trailer here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f42iED5-yX0

Re:An obvious reminder

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes, you already said that.

Just re-clarifying it.

The problem was not you disagreeing with him

Well, I was just telling you how I define closed-mindedness.

if you are closed-minded, you are very likely to immediately project everything other people say into black&white statements that either match or disagree with your worldview

I don't know. I don't think someone is truly closed-minded as long as they admit that there is at least a possibility that they are wrong.

Re:An obvious reminder

[nedlohs]

There's making a mistake or making a bad decision.

And there's doing something "over the course of several years".

They are vastly different things.

He consciously decided to do the same thing over and over again. If he was really regretful he would have stopped doing it long ago. If this was digging up a few photos from years ago and nothing since then then yes it might be something he could genuinly be regretful for - but it isn't.

He's had time to stop doing it and either be better at taking photos, submit crappier photos, or change careers.

The speaking out against the very thing he was doing is a good indication he was regretful in the sense that he felt guilty about it. But not regretful enough to simply stop doing it - which is what the those who say he's only regretful of being caught mean.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Scrameustache]

I don't know this photographer, so I don't know how sincere that regret is.

You know he got caught and you know he didn't reimbursed those he defrauded, so you know for a fact that his claims of regret are mere attempts at lessening the severity of his punishment, and nothing more.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Blue Stone]

>but we don't betray our own principles over an extended period of time in a calculated conscious manner[.] [T]hat's not being human, that's being a scumbag[.]

It *is* human; you just need to expand your understanding of the breadth of humanity and the human condition a bit.

Also, labels don't help you do that, in fact they do the opposite. You can't sum up any human being with a label and only increase your ignorance by taking that label to be true.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Will.Woodhull]

You can empathise without sympathising. Not everyone deserves sympathy.

Not everyone deserves empathy, either.

I think if you could take an honest poll, everyone over 50 could recall at least one instance where they acted similar to any one instance of this photographer's theft of another's work. But this guy has made such thefts a pattern within his life. I really cannot empathize with that. As far as empathy goes, he seems right out there with the serial killers, and very far away from the average blokes that deserve empathy, and sometimes sympathy.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto"

Re:An obvious reminder

[Teancum]

I'll admit there isn't an absolute here, but I should note that harm is still happening in spite of the claim this was a "victimless crime". At the very least, this particular individual (the wildlife photographer in this case) was perpetrating a fraud that he was creating these photographs as something original when in fact he was merely mining photographic databases and taking credit of that work for himself.

As the son of a professional photographer (I'll admit I'm not one myself), I can tell you some of the incredible difficulty it can take to obtain some of these photos as I've seen my father in action getting the genuine article. And the photographs he got was not blind luck as he not only worked hard but had the trained eye and the proper equipment (knowing what equipment even to bring) to make what would have been a poorly done snapshot into a true masterpiece of art. The true victims here is that these efforts were done in vain by several skilled photographers just so this particular guy could claim for himself credit and wealth based upon the work of others.

In other words, this guy is a leech on society and is not contributing to our culture but rather sucking life from it.

This relates to my original post so far as there are victims involved here, even if they may not be so apparent or immediate. It is a more diffuse sort of "crime" so far as individually he really didn't hurt any particular person to a large degree (I don't think he is being accused of claiming the work of a specific photographer as his own, like claiming the creation of photographs by Ansel Adams as his own), but in this sense he has hurt a great many people. It is also misrepresentation of this work to his editors, and apparently even to his own family and spouse.

I can't even imagine what he must have been thinking when claiming to be off on a shoot when all he was doing was sitting at a Starbucks rummaging through a stock photo catalog on his laptop. Apparently there was guilt in there too, where he knew what he was doing was wrong.... especially because he kept this whole thing from his wife. The lengths he had to go in order to keep this lie going must have gone to an extreme, as shoots like this would keep you away from your family for days or even weeks at a time. I really wonder how he justified the "travel" to different places when in fact he never really took the photos or what he really accomplished when he went to those places.

Ultimately, immoral behavior has its own penalties imposed upon you, and creeps into your life in a great many other ways if you try to hide that immorality. He knew what he was doing was wrong, yet he persisted to do it. If he were merely a clueless individual thinking that what he was doing was perfectly fine and following his own moral code, that is one thing, but he even violated his own moral code and misrepresented himself to others claiming one thing and doing another. Had he merely been up from and honest to everybody in terms of telling everybody involved what he was doing, it wouldn't have been nearly so bad.

He also would likely not have made so much money, but the act of selecting spectacular images from a photo dump isn't an easy and does take skill on its own. He also would have been spending more nights in bed with his wife instead of trying to justify his actions.

BTW, one photographer that not only made a name for himself but even became even a legend in the field of photography for his use of stock photography is Sergei Eisenstein. He shot some original footage, but much of his work was unabashedly the work of others only presented in a new way. The only difference here is that Mr. Eisenstein acknowledged the fact that he was using stock footage and gave proper credit when it was known. He didn't have to be "caught" because there was nothing to "catch" himself with.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

but we don't betray our own principles over an extended period of time in a calculated conscious manner

that's not being human, that's being a scumbag

Except that you end up digging yourself into a hole. You do it once or twice perhaps to get by in a tight situation, and then people expect the same results going forward. So you're stuck between disappointing people by admitting your mistake or disappointing yourself by not sticking your ideals.

This is actually how a lot of intelligence agencies get people to spy on their countries: a little mistake/trist/event gets leveraged/blackmailed into a medium-sized issue, and that gets leveraged into a large security leak. The "victim" (?) either has to keep doing it, or come clean (and perhaps become a double-agent).

A lot of people express relief when they're found out, as they're able to stop hiding their secret/s. They don't like the fact that they were being dishonest, but were always afraid of the possible consequences.

Re:An obvious reminder

[lee1]

Just when Slashdot seems to be devolving into a stagnant pool of mediocrity, along comes an eloquent comment like this. That's a wonderful quote; it reminds me of an interview with Nabokov, where he was asked for his assessment of his position in the world of letters. He replied that the "view is pretty good from up here." Like Picasso, whom I think he admired, he was fully aware of the timeless value of his own work.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Gilmoure]

Yeah, but I don't go around telling people they shouldn't look at porn or drink or stuff. 'Cause that's all stuff that I do. Why would I tell someone to not do something that I do? Doesn't make sense.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

but we don't betray our own principles over an extended period of time in a calculated conscious manner

I don't know about you, but I have a corporate job. I take that income and do good things with it, but the company uses me to make a lot more, some of it in ways I detest.

I think your quote exactly describes many of us in this way.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a rather negative way to look at it. As an avowed cynic, I prefer to think of of cynicism as a way to be constantly pleasantly surprised by the real world.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're applying some formula to decide whether someone's worthy then you're not really demonstrating empathy at all.

Right. In such a situation, you're not demonstrating empathy, you're suppressing it. Demonstrations are for posers. If you're going to demonstrate something, demonstrate reason.

Here's the error:

Everyone deserves empathy.

No, everyone gets empathy, whether they deserve it or not, and we learn when to hide it for those who don't deserve.

My natural tendencies are to treat my dog like a person. This results in very badly-behaving dog. So I suck it up, speak to her harshly when she needs a correction, stop letting her sleep in the bed, and try to remember that she's only allowed in my lap when invited rather than whenever she wants warm furniture. Result: a better dog.

It's ok to feel sorry for assholes, but for fuck's sake, don't ever admit it. In public or to their faces, call them assholes. Why? Because they are assholes, and the last thing an asshole needs, is someone telling them it's ok to be an asshole. We're all assholes, but if you don't like that fact, then this is the thing to do to get a slightly less assholy world.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Udo Schmitz]

we don't betray our own principles over an extended period of time in a calculated conscious manner

Say what? If that were even remotely what the world is like, all our problems would be solved.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Medievalist]

Wow, man, you're powertrolling.

Maybe there ought to be a slashdot "achievement" for that.

Re:An obvious reminder

[steelfood]

It's not so much deserves as gets empathy. One doesn't have much of a choice with empathy. You either can or can't be empathetic, and it depends on both the person and the situation to be empathetic about.

Some people can be more empathetic in that they can better understand anothers' feelings over a wide range of situations, while others are less empathetic because they're only able to do so where they themselves have been in the same situation.

And empathy has nothing to do with how one acts towards another. One can be empathetic, but still act negatively towards that person, sometimes because of the empathy.

Farther down, there's a good comment on the back story of this affair. Having read that (I'm not active in the photography community myself), in my opinion, this person does not deserve anything but antipathy and even contempt. But then again, the same could be said of myself if you ask the right person.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Hatta]

Deliberate fraud is not a mistake.

Re:An obvious reminder

[JamieKitson]

I was going to agree with you but then I read a couple of comments below from people who know more about it who say that he was highly critical of others who touched up pictures or dared use his without permission.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Hatta]

What world do you live in? My cynicism has never failed to be confirmed. I'd love to wake up to a pleasant suprise one of these days.

Re:An obvious reminder

[tragedy]

Regarding _Going Postal_, I would have to argue that the protagonist isn't shown plundering rich, undeserving people. He had thought of himself that way, but he was rather starkly confronted with the fact that his cons hurt plenty of others. For example, Mr. Pump calculates for him that he's effectively killed 2.338 people based on all the direct and indirect suffering he's caused. Not to mention discovering that his love interest used to work as a bank teller and that he'd passed off counterfeit bonds to her, resulting in her firing.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Oligonicella]

"Everyone deserves empathy."

Why exactly?, Lack of descerning is not really part of empathy.

"the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

Why do you feel everyone deserves to have others identify with their feelings, thoughts or attitude?

Re:An obvious reminder

[Oligonicella]

Nice and sciency, but wrong.

There are these little cells embedded in the retina you apparently don't know about. They detect edges in the light pattern. Oddly, they're joined by neuron nets and send compacted information to the brain (patterns).

What you meant to write was that the eye can't determine what the patterns mean, the brain does.

Next time you want to display pomposity, be correct.

Re:An obvious reminder

[ktappe]

I realise that it is trendy to be cynical of anyone who has gained any form of celebrity, but I think that it is also appropriate to remind people that the person behind the spotlight is as human as anyone else that you meet. Just like us, they make mistakes.

A mistake is transposing two letters in a word. A mistake is throwing a pitch a few inches too high and letting the batter hit a home run. In other words, a mistake is when you are trying to do the right thing but through a brain or muscle slip-up, you fail to achieve your goal.

What this guy did was not a mistake. He willfully, knowingly, and with intent stole the work of others and lied about owning them. Please use the correct terminology and also acknowledge that there is a significant difference when one examines the intent of the offender.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Oligonicella]

empathy:
1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
2. the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

Neither definition implies automatic. Can be, but not always.

I would say that a person sans sympathy or empathy is a sociopath. But I would also say that someone who runs either on automatic is someone without any discerning of fellow man. For instance: I have zero sympathy or empathy for a serial killer.

Re:An obvious reminder

[ktappe]

Everyone deserves empathy. That's how empathy works. If you're applying some formula to decide whether someone's worthy then you're not really demonstrating empathy at all.

I would agree with you if empathy were an infinite resource. However, due to our human limitations, each of us is only able to empathize a finite amount. Thus it makes sense to empathize with those who have truly done nothing to deserve punishment they are receiving vs. those who knowingly and willfully put themselves in a place where punishment results. As for your "formula" claim, I propose that every single thing in the entire universe is formula-driven. Any claim empathy is somehow immune to that fact lies somewhere between erroneous and disingenuous.

Re:An obvious reminder

[wickedskaman]

With serial killers? Really? ... You must be fun at parties. :-|

Re:An obvious reminder

[Oligonicella]

I parse out my empathy. It's mine to parse.

While I can empathize with him feeling self-pressure, I have no idea or wish to understand why he stole the work of others and used it. *That's* the part I have no empathy for.

I would empathize with a hiatus, with a great slowing down of production, with burn-out or with giving it all up and becoming a fry-cook. *Those* I can identify with, *those* I can imagine myself doing.

Ripping someone else off to keep up appearances I cannot empathize with. I cannot understand why he did it and I don't wish to. No empathy.

I also will shed no tear if his entire career is shot and he is sued to oblivion. No sympathy.

Re:An obvious reminder

[ktappe]

Aside from any question of another human being *deserving* our empathy, our empathy doesn't perform any useful function for *us* unless we're willing to extend it to people who are unsympathetic. For example, consider the following part of the article summary:

He gave economic problems as a reason, but mostly it was about his own unreasonably high demands on himself to be successful,

You are assuming his claim is factual. We not only do not have a way of proving he is telling the truth with this explanation, but it's by nature a self-serving statement.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Oligonicella]

"(Of course most people here on /. aren't grown-up enough to comprehend all this, and will mod it down out of a knee-jerk reaction to a few key words/phrases that are negatively associated or don't fit into their simple model of reality. Which is also just human, I guess...)"

As opposed to writing an overly-long manifesto disguised as the opinion of an Anonymous Coward?
Nice attempt to deflect any criticism with pre-staged ad hominem though.

That AC rant, folks, is the end result of communist indoctrination.

Just so you can identify.


(Jesus fucking Christ, spellcheck had Eminem, but not hominem)

Re:An obvious reminder

[Oligonicella]

What is your definition of "closed-minded"?

Well, one of mine is someone who provides ever smaller argument points without saying "You know, you're right, I didn't write that worth a shit and I apologize to the guy I didn't mean to besmirch."

Just a thought.

Re:An obvious reminder

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm not sure I agree with that definition, then. As long as someone acknowledges that they could be wrong, I don't think they're closed-minded.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Oligonicella]

You need to identify when you post from Russia.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Yamioni]

I realise that it is trendy to be cynical of anyone who has gained any form of celebrity, but I think that it is also appropriate to remind people that the person behind the spotlight is as human as anyone else that you meet. Just like us, the make mistakes. Just like us, sometimes they are regretful because they were caught. And just like us, sometimes the regret that they express is sincere.

This idea is laughable for 95% of the people with celebrity status (this guy might be in the other 5%, I don't honestly know.) When they're on their high horse they expect to be treated as better than everyone else, but when they make mistakes we're reminded how 'they are human too and make mistakes'. Bullshit. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If you want to live your life on a high horse be my guest. Just don't come looking for sympathy when you fall off.

Re:An obvious reminder

[NicknamesAreStupid]

OMG, this is one cynical crowd, and self-righteous, too. The best way to never get caught is to never do anything that you would not want to be caught doing. If that moral lesson isn't obvious, then I think I caught you. The lesson still holds. Even if you are forgiven and acquitted and saved and redeemed, you still were caught. That indelible mark is a great reason to confess once you have made the mistake of doing something that you regret. If you are caught instead of revealing yourself, you always have the doubt hanging over you that your contrition was forced and possibly insincere by being caught. If I caught some of you missing those obvious points, then I forgive you. Before you rail against me, I must confess that I thought my first message was obvious. Naive me.

Re:An obvious reminder

[ricosalomar]

I shouldn't have used the word automatic; I meant reflexive or involuntary.
These are some quasi-clincal definitions that seem to agree with what I learned back when I studied psych:

Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.

AND

emotional awareness and understanding of another person's thoughts, feelings, and behavior, even those that are distressing and disturbing. Empathy emphasizes understanding; sympathy emphasizes sharing of another person's feelings and experiences.

Both of the above are from the medical section here. Note that the one you cited and the first of these both use the word vicarious, which seems (to me, anyway) to imply an emotional, rather than cognitive response. But perhaps you see it differently.

Clinically speaking, sociopathy is related to ASPD (antisocial personality disorder), and is defined in both the DSM-IV and the ICD-10, the latter of which lists the first criterion as:

Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.

Sympathy is not included in either manuals' definition.

Lack of empathy is also specifically associated with Psychopathy and Narcissistic personality disorder.

See WIKI

I might have empathy for a serial killer, in that I may wince if he were to get stuck with a pin (a reflexive response), but I may not have sympathy for him, because I cognitively determine that he deserves it.

More importantly, who remembers the awesome Star Trek (tos) episode, The Empath ? I think that clears it up perfectly.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Lucidus]

Or as they say, no matter how cynical I become, I can never keep up.

Re:An obvious reminder

[retchdog]

you got the quote right, but even better: they weren't asking about his position; they were asking about the literary world in general.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

Empathy and sympathy does tend to get mixed up a bit. I can understand that it's embarrassing and humiliating to be exposed as a fraud, that is empathy. But I don't have any sympathy for him, because he dug that hole for himself. After all those lies he has very little credibility when he claims to regret it, that's not me starting out as a cynic but a direct result of his actions. Besides there's nothing inherent to empathy that means I should believe in the good of all people, only that I am able to put myself in their shoes. And putting myself in his shoes I see a self-serving prick who is now seeking sympathy from the gullible. Perhaps in time he will be able to prove that he truly wants to make amends, but it'll take more than getting caught with the hand in the cookie jar and saying "I'm sorry" to do it. At least with me.

You're not quite getting what empathy is. You're not expressing empathy unless this photographer was himself thinking "I'm a self-serving prick who is now seeking...." Empathy is imagining what someone else is feeling, sympathy is remembering having felt what someone else is feeling.

Re:An obvious reminder

[MrMatto]

His behavior is that of a sociopath, (characterized by "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others", to borrow from Wikipedia) not unlike a serial killer. An extreme example, yes, but appropriate.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

He was actually caught because he confessed. Before that there were only suspicions and allegations, but nothing that could have been proved.

Re:An obvious reminder

[Kjella]

You're not quite getting what empathy is. You're not expressing empathy unless this photographer was himself thinking "I'm a self-serving prick who is now seeking...." Empathy is imagining what someone else is feeling, sympathy is remembering having felt what someone else is feeling.

I don't think that's quite right, you can feel sympathy for someone else's situation without having been in it yourself. But you're right, it's not empathy if I see someone else acting like a prick unless that person himself realizes he's acting like a prick. It's more like I've tried empathy and I've tried seeing it from your side, but I've made a moral judgement that you're wrong and I'm right. Then I suppose you could argue the basis of that judgement....

Re:An obvious reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

If we closely look at your post, we notice that it doesn't even try to make any logical connections between its statements or build them on anything. You could just as well have written "That AC rant, folks, is the end result of manbearpig candy". It's so nonsensical and not following anything that there is no need to say anything in return. So I'll just let it stand there, as an example of how not to reply in any discussion. ;)

Oh, and the best part: Your comment is the best proof anyone could have made for the very argument of mine that you quote.

Just epic. ^^
Thank you. I tip my hat!

Just another...

[Anonymous Coward]

FAIL!

Meh

[walkerp1]

Deep down where there should be outrage, there's just nothing.

It's not the first time this has happened.

[techno-vampire]

It's not like this type of fraud hasn't happened before. Does anybody else remember Milli Vanilli? No? Good! In ten years, probably less, Terje Hellesco will be just as forgotten, for the same reasons.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[Anonymous Coward]

man, _everyone_ knows milli vanilli. they have a catchy name and the documentaries re-run every now and then and are so ridiculous they've been featured on many popular commentary style cartoons, they're a running joke.

but faking pictures of lynxes.. meeeeeeeeeeeeeeh

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[Paradise Pete]

Does anybody else remember Milli Vanilli?

The thing I remember most was the burning of their recordings. Did the music somehow sound different now because it was two fat guys singing? To me it was more of a display of the shallowness of the people who bought the music more than an exposure of of the front men.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[aztracker1]

That was pretty much my thought on that situation... And, that the actual singers should have had any appropriate awards turned over to them. Then it happened a few years later with Ashlee Simpson.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[Pesticidal]

A better analog is the indie PC game Limbo of the Lost that stole all its backgrounds from numerous other commercial games. And the developers would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids...

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[jebaneer34]

Big smile on that one!

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[geekmux]

It's not like this type of fraud hasn't happened before. Does anybody else remember Milli Vanilli? No? Good! In ten years, probably less, Terje Hellesco will be just as forgotten, for the same reasons.

Yeah, now let me show you the clear difference between being caught red-handed, and the slow deliberate creep of audio manipulation that can tarnish an industry using the weapon of time, with one simple word.

Autotune

Tell me how in the hell this legal(and now practically encouraged) vocal butchering is really all that different than the crimes of yesterday. In either case, it sure as hell doesn't sound like what's coming out of the source. Worse yet, now it doesn't even sound natural.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[Overzeetop]

I wonder if - 20 years of technology later - we had found out that they couldn't sing well, but were using digital pitch and tone correction (autotune/melodyne style) to make them sound awesome there would be any fallout at all. It's basically what every cute boy/girl pop star is doing, to varying degrees, but now it's mainstream so it must be okay.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, I remember them. For me they are the byword for the cynical music industry and the syncrophatic entertainment "news" corps that allows it to thrive. It would have been impossible for Milli Vanilli to be successful without the protection of those making money off of them.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever heard of Boney M? Fraud? No, not really...just showmanship.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[iknowcss]

Yeah! Those damn kids and their rock and roll! Who do they think they are calling that garbage music! It doesn't take any talent or thought, it's just noise!

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Moth" podcast recently featured Fab Morvan of Milli Vanilli talking about his rise to fame and infamy. While not really trying to justify what they did, it gives an interesting insight in to the conditions under which it occurred.

You should be able to access the podcast with this URL:
http://cdn.themoth.prx.org/moth-podcast-185-fab-morvan.mp3

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[techno-vampire]

It may well be. However, Milli Vanilli is what came to mind for me, so that's what I wrote about.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened.

[Dabido]

Except in the case of Milli Vanilli the record producer who put the act together wasn't trying to hide the fact that they weren't the real singers. He'd done the same thing with Boney M and other acts and thought people were Okay with 'bands' where some or all of the people out front are lip syncing. After all, it's how he made his name. So from his perspective, why would people suddenly think he put a band together where the people out front were actually singing for once? It was really the media hype that made out it was a secret scam, when in fact it wasn't.

Propaganda photog

[Anonymous Coward]

Government funded celebrity enviro photog revealed as the fraud he is. Swedish EPA not sure whether they'll keep him on staff.
http://www.ifbushdidit.com/tag/terje-helleso/

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is a non-edited image considered better than an edited image?
In the end it's still a nice image of a wild animal. If it matters how it was created then your are probably enjoying the image for the wrong reasons anyway.

Re:So?

[techno-vampire]

The point isn't that he edited the image, it's that he claimed credit for having taken the picture in the first place.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter unless you claim it's non-edited. By entering a photography contest with edited image he claims it's non-edited. It's the same as winning a marathon by riding a motorcycle. What does it matter if you rode a motorcycle, you finished before all the runners, right?

Part of photography is capturing the perfect moment. If you edit reality too much it's not photography anymore. It may still be a magnificent work of art, just not photography.

Re:So?

[mwvdlee]

Depends on the type of photography. Art photography? Go ahead and edit it all you want. Journalistic photography? Anything else than mild color correction (and I do mean "correction") is wrong. Nature photography is probably somewhere in the middle depending on the context. (in this case, the photographer claimed documentary intent, not artistic).

Re:So?

[Mike Mentalist]

It can depend how the photo is presented or 'sold' and how much editing has been done.

If the person is saying "I sat for 15 hours in the freezing cold/boiling desert and took this rare photo", if it is edited then, well, what they are showing you isn't the photo they took.

Re:So?

[bugnuts]

To expand your comments a bit...
Nature photos are usually considered "journalistic" when published in a magazine, even a hunting mag. Pretty much the definitive nature photography magazine, National Geographic made a policy back in 1982 that they would not do manipulation of objects, after using a "Scitex" device to digitize and move a pyramid. They issued a statement:

At the beginning of our access to Scitex, I think we were seduced by the dictum, 'If it can be done, it must be done.'
But there's a danger there. When a photograph becomes synthesis, fantasy, rather than reportage, then the whole purpose of the photograph dies. A photographer is a reporter — a photon thief, if you will. He goes and takes, with a delicate instrument, an extremely thin slice of life. When we changed that slice of life, no matter in what small way, we diluted our credibility. If images are altered to suit the editorial purposes of anyone, if soda cans or clutter or blacks or people of ethnic backgrounds are taken out, suddenly you've got a world that's not only unreal but surreal.
At National Geographic, the Scitex will never be used again to shift any one of the Seven Wonders of the World, or to delete anything that's unpleasant or add anything that's left out.

Most non-journalistic venues allow plenty of manipulation, especially contests (except for NG which allows only exposure and color adjustment, including burn/dodging).

I do find NG's comment about removing people from images particularly interesting, after Hillary Clinton was removed from a white house picture in a newspaper earlier this year. If that paper ever had credibility before, it no longer does.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, at least part of the point IS that he edited the image, because (FTA): "Norwegian-born Helleso, who is famous not only for his art, but also for being a strong advocate of keeping digital photography real and speaking out against manipulation or theft of material"

Irony

[bky1701]

Norwegian-born Helleso, who is famous not only for his art, but also for being a strong advocate of keeping digital photography real and speaking out against manipulation or theft of material, denied everything initially.

Seems to be a pattern of those who most want to control information actually being the ones to plagiarize it from others, all while lying about it. Somehow, this isn't really shocking, though.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like when RIAA infringes copyright (for profit), it's $3 per song and when a black single mother does it, it's $126,314 per song. Also known as American justice.

I do find the results rather shocking. Then again, IANAP (I am not a psychologist/psychopath).

Some aspirations...

[Alex Belits]

So he was "under pressure from himself" to become rich and famous, but not to be honest or even a decent human being. I hope, he will die in a fire. Or move to US.

Re:Some aspirations...

[ArsenneLupin]

I hope, he will die in a fire.

Indeed, he deserves no better!

Or move to US.

No, that would be cruel! Faking doesn't deserve that harsh of a punishment!

Discussion on flashback

[klui]

It redirects to https so Google translate won't work.

http://www.flashback.org/t1641161

Re:Discussion on flashback

[HopefulIntern]

Är aktiv jägare och läste på jägareförbundets blogg om naturfotografen Terje Hellesøs bilder och huruvida dom var äkta eller inte. Själv blev jag mycket skeptisk när jag kollade in hans sida, men jag är helt okunnig vad gäller fotografering så jag frågar expertisen här vad ni anser. Jag är inte okunnig vad gäller djur och natur och Terjes berättelser om hur han "blir vän" med lodjur etc. låter väldigt tvivelaktiga. Terjes sida där han även försvarar sina bilder:

"Am active hunter, and read on the Hunter's [organisation] blog about the nature photographer Terje Helleso's pictures and whether they are real or not. Personally I got very sceptical when I looked at his page, but I am completely ignorant with regard to photography so I am asking the experts here what you reckon. I am not ignorant with regards to animals and nature, and Terje's explanations of how he "makes friends" with deer etc. sounds very suspicious. Terje's page where he even defends his pictures:"

Re:Discussion on flashback

[snugge]

lodjur = lynx, not deer

Re:Discussion on flashback

[HopefulIntern]

Sorry, I am just Norwegian :s

A reminder from the MAFIAA

[Compaqt]

Won't anybody think of the poor photo models who got cheated out of any money due to this guy's copyright violations?

Re:A reminder from the MAFIAA

[chrismcb]

I'm sure the wildlife he cheated out of money are hurting right now.

And crappy at Photoshop too. No suprise here.

[Qbertino]

In my opinion a good Photoshopped picture that looks awesome is worth just as much as a good snapshot someone took. A friend of mine is a Photographer and a fairly decent semi-professional PS guy too, and his Photoshops are at least as neat as his originals. They sometimes take days of hard work to composite. Photoshopping is a skill at least as high up as photographing, and if the guy managed to make some neat wildlife composites - stock material or not - I couldn't care less. I might even hang one up on my wall if it looks cool and I like it.

However, the example they show is a typical, über-shitty I-have-no-clue-what-I'm-doing PS job that takes about 1,5 seconds to be recognised as a bad PS job by a digital imaging expert. Old school photographers who can't handle digital imaging at aren't willing to go back to school to learn it but still think they can reap the benefits of digital imaging deserve all the flak they get. Like this guy. Still to many of those around. I have no pitty for him. That is one crappily PSed image on the level of an intern and people should demand their money back from him. ... Then again, if they didn't notice, maybe it's their own fault? ...

My 2 cents.

Re:And crappy at Photoshop too. No suprise here.

[Kalewa]

I agree with you on pretty much every point.

Good Photoshopping is worth at least as much as good photography. Look at any high quality professional photography these days, and a large portion of the quality and look comes from post-processing. The only people who would disagree with that are either delusional about the current state of photography, or desperately clinging to the last vestiges of the analog age. Obviously journalistic photos aren't edited to the degree in the article, but most things not explicitly documentarian in nature are.

It's also true that a lot of analog-age artists have trouble making the switch to Photoshop. It's a completely different skillset that allows people without traditional artistic ability to make art, and challenges traditional artists who have to develop entirely new technical skills. Makes me wonder how many other photographers out there are doing this, but are competent enough at Photoshop to get away with it. I certainly know how to clone things out without leaving telltale clone marks or other amateur mistakes. And I'm not even that good with Photoshop.

I think photographers keep getting away with this because people are gullible, and tend to believe what they see without listening to the quiet, nagging voice in the back of their mind telling them that something looks wrong. I'm a little surprised they caught him by spotting that the Lynx had the wrong season coat. When I looked at the pictures it was glaringly obvious that they were poorly-edited fakes, regardless of their content.

Emphasis of parent post:

[Qbertino]

Yepp. Those sure are some bad composites. Apparently a few professionals actually did notice and rose the stink. His reward is up for review, his site is offline and he's probably out hiding somewhere. This guy is toast.

Flawed analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

The studio musicians on Milli Vanilli's album not only knew what was up, but willingly did it. And it's not like MV went and grabbed tracks from existing albums or audio libraries, everything was recorded fresh, And no matter who the actual artist was, the album stands on its own as a finished product. Maybe the correct lead singers were not credited properly, but the actual musical and creative content of the album itself is nothing fraudulent. The artist still is Milli Vanilli, except MV consists of the actual musicians on the album, and not Pilatus and Morvan.

This photog simply picked already taken photos from a library, and then passed them off as his. MUCH DIFFERENT from MV.

Re:Flawed analogy.

[RDW]

The studio musicians on Milli Vanilli's album not only knew what was up, but willingly did it. And it's not like MV went and grabbed tracks from existing albums or audio libraries, everything was recorded fresh

Yes, this one sounds closer to the Joyce Hatto case, where (classical piano) recordings by other artists were shamelessly plundered, obviously without consent:

http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/joyce-hatto-the-great-piano-swindle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Hatto

Re:Flawed analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

This photog simply picked already taken photos from a library, and then passed them off as his. MUCH DIFFERENT from MV.

Is it really?

While I'm not into the whole wildlifwe photograph thing I can imagine that there are two possible ways to appreciate the pictures.
You could like how visually stunning the the resulting picture is or you can admire the work behind it.
Now, as I have understood it a large portion of good wildlife photography is luck. Two equally skilled photographers could wait outside for days and only one of them returns with a good photo because he was lucky.

In the first case where you just enjoy the resulting image you are in the same spot as with the MV case. It does not matter if it was photoshopped or not as long as the end result is of high quality.
In the latter case it is a matter of if you are more impressed with the endurance it takes to wait for the right moment or if you are more impressed with mad photoshop skills.

In any case I do not agree that this is very different from the Milli Vanilli case. Those who admired the person instead of the resulting work have been fooled. Those who enjoyed the resulting work can keep enjoying it regardless of how it was made.
Perhaps it is in order to find out who took the stock images that Terje used.

This is pretty old news here in Sweden by now

[bergelin]

This is pretty old news here in Sweden by now. He won the prize of wildlife photographer of the year and has held several courses, so I'm pretty sure he cashed in on this.

When the accusations started, he said that he was completely innocent and a lot of people believed him thanks to his reputation (one of the most - if not the most famous - wildlife photographers in Sweden.) However, he wouldn't show the raw pictures which added on to the suspicions.
A large "investigation" started on internet forums and eventually people found the original pictures of animals that he had pasted onto his pictures. Like http://a.yey.nu/QHL7RE.jpgfor example (mirror reversed). This forced him to admit of course.

The funny thing is that he has been outspoken against editing of photos and said never to use Photoshop on his images: "I'm a photographer, not a pixel artist".

Re:This is pretty old news here in Sweden by now

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that he has been outspoken against editing of photos and said never to use Photoshop on his images: "I'm a photographer, not a pixel artist".

Well, in every lie there's a grain of truth: He's definitely not a pixel artist. I've seen better Photoshops done in MS Paint!

Re:This is pretty old news here in Sweden by now

[Piata]

"I'm a photographer, not a pixel artist"

That much is true. I spend a lot of time in Photoshop and most of his "edits" involve cutting out an animal from stock photography, putting it in another image, flipping it and reducing the opacity by 50%. How people didn't notice this sooner is kind of baffling. It takes maybe 10 minutes at most and the results are painfully obvious. I don't think he even knew how to colour match (or even colour adjust) his photos.

This pains me

[froogger]

Especially because I, just like Hellesö, is a Norwegian photographer living in this part of Sweden (northern Småland). When I saw his book Året (http://www.fotosidan.se/shop/viewproduct.htm?ID=17869) where he took one great shot every day of a full year I was flabbergasted and couldn't believe it was possible. Obviously it wasn't. Everybody manipulates photos, just by adjusting the ISO you're manipulating, but he stole stock photos, passing them off as his own. And yet, I accept his apology as heartfelt, and just wish he had redefined his works instead of passing them off as "real". If you're interested in nature photography, do check out his portfolio still. His style, where presence takes precedence over clarity is novel and refreshing.

Re:This pains me

[Legion303]

"If you're interested in nature photography, do check out his portfolio still."

But how will I differentiate his real work from the stock photos he claimed were his?

Re:This pains me

[Anonymous Coward]

Very creative people often have a mental disorder and think they that rules don't apply to them. We can all be judgmental to someone like that, but should also remember that we have all done things that aren't always appropriate. He may have hurt someone competing with him, but we should help him pick himself up and see how he does now that he has been exposed. He can still use his talents in a constructive way.

Re:This pains me

[black soap]

Maybe he was good at picking stock photos?

Re:This pains me

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't really matter. What the OP is admiring is the compositional sense embodied by the images. I personally do not accept his apology as heartfelt, what he did is an insult to the ethos of wildlife photography, going _far_ beyond any of the typical arguments of what constitutes "manipulation". However, one can still appreciate the images, whether they are his, were taken by someone else or (as seems to be the case in several instances, a combination thereof) and be inspired by them (with the obvious caveat that some of his "photographs" may not be achievable).

In other news, coworkers stole your idea

[bugnuts]

Plagiarism is everywhere, and only gets worse as people are better connected.

Information wants to be free, and people want free information... especially to call their own to make money or higher grades or other personal gain.

Re:In other news, coworkers stole your idea

[bugnuts]

Haha!

Why this slashdot post should be under YRO....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to point out something that in this case all media "forgot" to quote who revealed this. It was on the controversial forum on flashback.se that people dug up the proof of the photos being fake and exposed the fraud. Since (swedish) media have been so eager to write so much dirt on flashback about how much rasism, drug-related-discussions,etc exists on flashback I think that they could give flashback some credit when they do something good if the media want to call themselves well balanced in their news reporting. Also, free speach online maybe isn't that bad if it can expose frauds like this........ but it seems media would rather avoid that discussion, so we can blindly continue to "improve" our monitoring, surveilance and ant-terrorism laws...

Really sad...

[Trracer]

The whole issue was raised when a state wildlife inspector got puzzled when Terje had seen so many lynxes (sp?) in such short time when the inspector, (for 30+ years or so) only had seen a couple.

On a personal note, as a Swedish avid amateur photographer I've personally been a part of the discussions on the Swedish phtography forums where Terje has been posting and he has always sounded snotty and acting like a jerk. So this suits him right. His wife who is a photographer too also has doctored photos of lynx-sightings altho she has also claimed Terjes cheating was news to her. It's unfortunately that this happened since it taints the reputation of other (legit) Swedish nature photographers.

Re:stock photos on the net turned up

[TaoPhoenix]

So whose stock photos are they though?

Why is this "idle" and not a 400Million (YourCurrencyHere) copyright case?

He preached against manipulation

[Anonymous Coward]

That he used stock images is just one small aspect of the story, the whole story is so much larger than that.

It should be mentioned that he preached never to retouch or edit the pictures you take. He claimed himself to pre-visualize the whole image, only to create the image in the camera and carefully take that one shot (in contrast to what many other wildlife photographers say, that they take series of pictures of animals in the wild in hope that one of them will be the one that catches your eye). One of the more outrageous claims was how he framed the composition of two flying dragonflies over a pond. In the description of the image he told us of all the choices he made before pressing the shutter. Today these claims seem more like boasting about his own ability. Not all his images are fake and he is a good photographer, just not as good as he claims and he puts it on a bit thick when talking about his own skills. In his own blog he even critizised Steve Bloom for manipulating images.

Also, he was a fervent advocate of hunting down people using other photographers pictures without permission. In his blog he lashed out at a photo site when they used one of his pictures to illustrate a article about him. The editor apologized for the mistake and offered to pay for the used images. Another time he came down really hard on one of his fans, having used one of his photographs as inspiration for a painting she did. He himself pointed out the differences and how that painting would be impossible as a photo. Then he uses stock photo images in manipulations and claims that they are his own (unedited) works.

Unfortunately he has a big following of fans that still defend him. He has groomed, through various photography forums and his own blog, an almost sect-like cult around him. Any mediocre images he posted was raised to the skies and any critizism was hammered on by the fans with comments like "you don't know how to appreciate his greatness", "he has progressed so much further in the field of photography than you, how dare you criticize him", etc.

At Fotosidan.se (a Swedish photography forum where he was very active for a few years) one member claim that he noticed that several of Hellesøs images got top votes, earning them spotlight positions on the website. Several voters had very typical undistinctive names (the swedish equivalents of "John Smith"), never posted any work themselves, only rated Hellesøs images and only gave top scores. The member brought this to the administrators attention but the practice continued. When Fotosidan started logging the IP-addresses these accounts were deleted according to that member.

Hellesø claims to have asked for forgiveness, but in fact, all he has done is taken down his blog (with the evidence, luckily Google caches it still) and the regret he wants us to think he shows is overshadowed by him victimizing himself. He even went so far as to compare the search for truth about his alleged original work as a witch hunt like he was Khadaffi or Breivik (the norwegian bomber and mass-murderer). So far he has done very little to deserve any forgiveness. He has lied from day one until he was revealed big time. Until the first hard proof came he claimed in radio interviews to be subjected to a plot, even when wildlife experts questioned why pictures of a lynx taken in the summer still had the winter fur, and that he never had seen any traces of the lynx prey, despite him claiming to see 150 lynx sightings in 19 months (much more than skilled wildlife experts and hunters have on record). Also he claimed to have found the racoon dog in a place of Sweden where it should not have be, and the hunt started to find it since it might be a carrier of rabies. He has used his pictures and "expertise" as proof in political debates.

The man is a liar and a hypocrite and should really be treated as one, but I couldn't care less about him and his, IMHO, uninteresting and uninspiring work. But this affair has so many layers to it, ethics, legal, political, et

Re:He preached against manipulation

[Anonymous Coward]

As a photographer who has done photojournalism (never edited the image or manipulated the subjects for spot news), and commercial photography (products, and much more "stylization" and manipulation of all sorts), let me say that this man is no photojournalist. He may try to win Cannes award for advertisement, or some variant of PDN commercial photography award, but never a Pulitzer for his edited photos.

As a former photojournalist, fuck you Helleos. You give PJs everywhere a bad a name and diminish the risk of those who go report in dangerous areas (wars, natural disasters).

As a commercial photographer, you need better photoshop skills. You can't hide bad photoshopping with an "underexposed" image.

Go photograph weddings, and hide your bad photoshopping with "creative" cross-processed look.

Re:He preached against manipulation

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see any repetition in his post. Maybe you need ritalin, or to pass second grade.

Re:He preached against manipulation

[timothy]

This comment made my morning -- thanks. And anonymous, even!

Now: what's the best source for seeing people's parody shots, with animals randomly inserted into other scenes? ;)

timothy

Re:He preached against manipulation

[lidden]

Now: what's the best source for seeing people's parody shots, with animals randomly inserted into other scenes? ;)

This thread has a lot of them -> https://www.flashback.org/t1645832

Some links from that thread:

http://i52.tinypic.com/24uysxt.jpg

http://i51.tinypic.com/rt23k3.jpg

http://data.fuskbugg.se/skalman02/4e6242309dea6_BB03125SVE1.jpg

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6592/lodjuret.jpg

http://i55.tinypic.com/2v9ugdi.jpg

Re:He preached against manipulation

[Oligonicella]

Oh hell, I laughed out loud at the last one. The others had some small semblance of reality, but the last was pure sarcastic genius.

Re:He preached against manipulation

[rsborg]

He even went so far as to compare the search for truth about his alleged original work as a witch hunt like he was Khadaffi or Breivik (the norwegian bomber and mass-murderer).

So he compares himself to a ruthless dictator and fundamentalist terrorist... not exactly bolstering his case, is he?

Re:He preached against manipulation

[rohan972]

Breivik was not a fundamentalist or a christian at all in the commonly used meaning of the words. Breivik's idea of christianity includes "christian atheists" as can be seen by searching for that term in his manifesto.

I'm not sure what a christian atheist would be but I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit with most people's idea of what a fundamentalist is.

Re:stock photos on the net turned up

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he most likely purchased the stock photo CDs, and they come with a rather liberal license.

Note to self

[buckles]

New business idea. Mea.culpa.com.
Stock excuses, rationalizations, and contrition for sale.

Ppc campaigns.

Nonprofit townsquare version. Virtual public stockade dot gov.

m.tarandfeather.net

Good

[zugurudumba]

His career is over, and this is how it should be. Plagiarism is very hard to find and prove, but once there's no more doubt, heads roll. It's the only way to send a clear message to the ones who haven't been caught yet or who simply toy with the idea of doing it.

Caught using stock photography!

[Dogtanian]

People got suspicious he was using stock photographs when they saw his image of a female lynx sitting in front of a computer with two male lynxes behind her, one of them pointing at the screen. One of the lynxes was looking thoughtful while the other two were smiling.

(Er, seriously, apparently one of the giveaways was the fact that the Lynx in the photo supposedly taken in summar had "winter fur". So it wasn't crappy photoshopping or obvious ripping off that initially tipped people off- if he hadn't made that silly mistake, he'd probably have gotten away with it. He was last seen being led away to jail muttering something about "pesky kids").

Stock photo websites quickly updating

[CODiNE]

iStockphoto is the web's original source for user-generated, royalty-free stock photos, illustrations, video, audio and Flash. Whether you're a designer, advertiser, entrepreneur, professional photographer or blogger, we have millions of affordable images, vectors and clips to help you tell your story.

reinforces my belief...

[Lumpy]

If you Photoshop, you're not a photographer but a phony.

Yes Photoshop has it's uses,I use it to do airbrushing or any fancy effects. I then present it as a Photoshopped image and not, "my photograph". But the number of "pro photographers" that cant compose a shot right and have to fix things like color or white balance or composition in PS is appalling.

If you cant take the photo with the camera and print it direct from camera, then you suck. Go learn photography and how to use your camera you hacks.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you cant take the photo with the camera and print it direct from camera, then you suck."

Well, you have just insulted every professional photographer (including documentarians and photojournalists) since the death of the tintype. Photofinishing (post-processing, printing, whatever the hell you wanna call it) is an enormous part of the photographic process, even for so-called "unmanipulated" photos. Even pretentious jackoffs like Cartier-Bresson had significant work done in the darkroom to produce prints--HCB just handed it off to people like Voja Mitrovic (sp?) so he wouldn't have to get his lilly-white and philosophically pure hands dirty.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you Photoshop, you're not a photographer but a phony.

Yes Photoshop has it's uses,I use it to do airbrushing or any fancy effects. I then present it as a Photoshopped image and not, "my photograph". But the number of "pro photographers" that cant compose a shot right and have to fix things like color or white balance or composition in PS is appalling.

If you cant take the photo with the camera and print it direct from camera, then you suck. Go learn photography and how to use your camera you hacks.

Just one question then....do you think Ansel Adams sucked as a photographer? Because he edited his photos fairly extensively.He was one of the photographers pushing the boundaries of what you can do in the darkroom, and had photoshop been available to him, I'm certain he'd have loved it. Much of what you can do in photoshop is not very different from what you can do in a darkroom. Photoshop just makes is easier, faster, and cheaper, but it's still mostly the same thing.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't adapt to changing technology -- you know, like better lenses, color photography, higher speed film, autofocus, autoexposure, vastly more intelligent flash, digital (and everything that implies), etc. -- then you suck and you're just begging to be made obsolete when the entire field of photography cruises past you. Go learn how the world works and how to deal with it, you hack.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[drinkypoo]

Well, you have just insulted every professional photographer (including documentarians and photojournalists) since the death of the tintype.

That's why we draw a distinction between art for pleasure or for art's sake, and commercial art done to fulfill the terms of a contract. It can still be great art, of course. And anyone who claims that photomanipulation isn't art, whether it be dodging and burning during the printing process or extensive digital editing, obviously doesn't have much familiarity with the process. But again, art for art's sake is one thing, and art for money's sake is something else. They overlap considerably, but they still differ whether the untrained eye can tell or not.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[darkstar949]

This might sound a bit rude, but put your words where you mouth is: lets see your portfolio and see what your work looks like. Even better, lets see the original negatives (You are shooting film, right? Digital cameras do some post-processing in the camera itself depending on the model and usually require minor correction on the computer just to compensate for how warm the sensor was when the photograph was taken.) and I want to see one perfect shot for each frame on the film.

Pretty much every professional photographer I have ever met does some sort of dark room manipulation (either with chemicals or in software), cropping, or even just taking a bunch of shots and picking the one prefect one that they show others.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you're using anything newer than a daguerreotype machine, you're a hack! Why bother trying out new tools and moving with the times? The only pure photography is done with a shoebox pinhole camera (or equivalent). Autofocus and zoom lenses are heresy against the photography gods! And if you don't develop and print your own film, you disgust me! Get out of my viewfinder!

So I'm curious, where do you draw the line? Is it okay to use Photoshop for burning and dodging? Or was that a technique only used by hacks in the darkroom? What about compensating for over or underexposure? Cropping?

Photography has evolved. You can now do things on a computer that you could never do with film photography before. HDR (high dynamic range) isn't everybody's cup of tea, and it can be overused, but in the right context it can create stunning images. The photographer still needs to compose the image, bracket the shots, and tweak the software to generate the final image. What makes those skills inherently less valuable than doing everything in-camera?

There will always be purists in any field, but I find it's usually just a question of where you choose to draw the line.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Dogtanian]

Does the same apply to colour-correction at (e.g.) the printing stage using traditional chemical-based photographic processes?

Is there any inherent difference in altering the white balance on the LED before the photo is taken or altering it via Photoshop afterwards? And are you sure that those photographers aren't just doing it in Photoshop because it's *easiest* that way rather than because they *can't* do it any other way?

Is it cheating to add colour-correction filters to the front of your lens?

And was Ansel Adams a "phony" because his famous black and white prints were reliant on extensive dodging and burning, and certainly wouldn't have looked like they did printed "straight"? I wouldn't consider them straight photographs, but simply dismissing them as "phony" would also be rather harsh, if not downright arrogant.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I don't think what you are saying is true. Many photographers do cropping and adjust contrast and white balance. In the old days they used to do this in a darkroom with an enlarger by selecting different papers and adjusting color filters. Ansel Adams burned and dodged (local contrast adjustment) to achieve the look he wanted.

Cutting and pasting another person's work is a completely different thing.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[durdur]

Digital photography differs from film photography and one of the differences is that some adjustments that you used to do in the camera are now commonly done in the computer. White balance is one, so to some extent is exposure. Large sensors can also give you the ability to crop the image if that's desirable. I don't regard this as manipulation of the image in a bad sense of the term. Not that you can't spend the time to do it all in the camera at the moment, but why do you think everyone should do this, all this time? (I'm not a pro but a reasonably competent amateur with a couple of decades of photography experience).

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound just like the fellow under attack here.

Pro film photographers who were worth anything developed their own film AND essentially Photoshopped their images during the process.

And your post causes me to question your knowledge of modern digital cameras. If you shoot RAW, you will have to "fix" color and white balance as the RAW images are fairly dull in appearance because the camera's normal internal "Photoshopping" of these and a few other attributes have been bypassed.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> But the number of "pro photographers" that cant compose a shot right and have to fix things like color or white balance or composition in PS is appalling.

color correction and cropping are fundamental corrections that have been applied to printed photographs in a professional (and ethical) context long before there was digital photography, as was burning, dodging, negative spotting, and compositing with multiple exposures (either in camera or at the enlarger).

Misrepresenting the accuracy of an image is wrong, but your understanding of photography is inaccurate as well.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Geeky]

Lots of other people are mentioning Ansel Adams, but one of his famous quotes is to the effect that the negative is the score, the print is the performance. One of the fascinating things in the "Ansel Adams at 100" exhibition a few years ago was seeing how he changed his interpretation of the negatives over the years - generally making them more dramatic as he got older.

Cameras are limited, most post processing is an attempt to overcome the technical limitations and to choose which tones captured by the camera to emphasise.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Anonymous Coward]

This belief is simply unfounded. I agree with "composition", because that can't be fixed in PS without cropping away a lot of the image, but in this digital world, adjusting color and white balance (same thing?) are a part of life. Do you think that adjusting white balance on the camera is somehow better than doing it in PS? It's the same thing!! I shoot RAW images, and tend to not worry about white balance that much in the field, because it's so much faster to adjust it after the fact, and results to the "final" image are exactly the same.

You may have some better points on why PS is phony, but don't include things like white balance, sharpness, or anything else that the camera has settings for. You can change it on the camera, or you can do it in PS -- it's the same thing.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Geeky]

Even composition to an extent is a post production choice, although you should be visualising it when you take the picture.

What I mean by that is that DSLRs, for example, take pictures with the old 35mm proportions of 3:2. Sometimes I see a square composition, or think 5:4 might look better, or even want to crop for a panoramic image. Some cameras do allow you to do that in camera, but certainly cropping can be necessary for the final result and not something you can always get the way you want in camera.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[ScentCone]

If you cant take the photo with the camera and print it direct from camera, then you suck

So ... other people that suck would be Avedon, Adams, Leibovitz, and all of the others that used substantial darkroom work (and later, digital post work) to finish up their work? Yeah, those people suck.

You're an idiot.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cant take the photo with the camera and print it direct from camera, then you suck. Go learn photography and how to use your camera you hacks.

Wow. Do you realise that the image you get from the camera, if you take a format that is printable, has been extensively edited on the camera? If you take the raw image a pixel will be either red, green or blue. You want all colors in every pixel. Two thirds of the information is missing and has to be reconstructed. The algorithms for that vary in quality, some will give the impression of a much sharper grain than others, some will cause a color cast in dark shadows. I actually designed one myself because I wanted something better than I had availabe. The colors in the raw image look very dark if you don't process them. A contrast curve is applied to compensate for that. The camera's built-in curve or curves have been designed by someone. The interpretation of the colors is another form of editing cameras do. Those are choices made by the camera manufacturer.

There is no such thing as a photograph that hasn't been edited. There wasn't with chemical photography either. Different films had different properties, different papers had different properties, different chemicals had different properties (and temperature, concentration, the time the material spent in the bath...). The photographer would choose between them to get the desired effect. In the darkroom he would decide on the exposure time as well, and with color photography he would use color filters in the enlarger.

It's the default processing built into cameras that sucks. They often have oversaturated colors, but at the same time throw out a lot of the color present in the highlights, because it's easier to mix in white than to deal with colors that border on the edge of being deformed. They often use contrast curves that throw out a lot of the nuances present in photographs. They try to make as many photographs look all right to people who aren't too demanding, which is a very different goal than getting the most out of a specific photograph. And what the most is also depends on the photographers preferences. The photographer will show you how he sees things, not how the camera sees things, and there is much more to that than just the composition and the exposure. A photographer who knows better than what's built into the camera doesn't suck, he sucks less.

Re:reinforces my belief...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the Masters manipulated photos. Take for example, Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother.

Cameras are a tool. Film is a tool. Enlargers and photo paper are tools. Dodge & Burning tools are tools. Photoshop is a fucking tool. Photographers use tools to make interesting photos.

This elitist bullshit of "I don't do any manipulation" you're perpetuating is retarded. Get over yourself.

Lesson learned

[Lillebo]

Stay clear of swedes.

If all he really needs is Photoshop

[Anonymous Coward]

If all he really needs is Photoshop can I have his 600mm f/4?

Where to find sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in the dictionary, between shit and syphilis

"...I managed to keep up appearances to my wife.."

[morgauxo]

Hmmmm... So where was he really all that time he was supposed to be shooting?

Wonderful!

[formfeed]

If you publish stock photos as your own, you of course get caught sooner or later.
But what if you have them printed and just paste them in your family's photo album? This idea could save me thousands of dollars on my next exotic vacation.

It's an emotional trap

[Kamiza Ikioi]

He might regret getting caught, but like criminals, they often regret what they are doing. People sometimes get into something, and then feel trapped. Imagine a man overcome by desire who cheats on his wife. He royally screws up, but if he stops now, the other woman may tell on him. So, the affair lasts for years. And eventually, the woman does tell anyways.

He's regretted that he'd be found out since day 1, not just after he was caught. We often assume regret begins after they are caught, but that fear is always present. It is the emotional cost for the unethical activity, and only a true psychopath could not feel it.

Unless you are suggesting he's clinically psychopathic, then it was about being caught, but not brought about by being caught.

Re:stock photos on the net turned up

[lidden]

Most likely not, since one of the images still has parts of a watermark in it.

I thought ...

[PPH]

.. that jackalope looked familiar.

In other news, coworkers stole your idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Plagiarism is everywhere, and only gets worse as people are better connected.

Information wants to be free, and people want free information... especially to call their own to make money or higher grades or other personal gain.

Lying, cheating, stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that "nobody knows...." Many people know, photographers know, life is sometimes difficult and stealing is not the way to go, usually, does anyone out there have a really good bank robbery plan?

FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

Iwo Jima picture here: http://i55.tinypic.com/2v9ugdi.jpg
Fuckin' A!

If he did this for an extended period of time..

[raymorphic]

If he did this for an extended period of time involving hundreds of photos, then he now has next to zero credibility after all those lies.

Not so good for him consider his profession is a photographer.

I wonder who is going to purchase his photos now.