3 ms·

The photo stops fast motion during the night, so enough lighting was used to get a shutter speed of at least 1/100th. From the lighting/shadowing, we can see t

The photo stops fast motion during the night, so enough lighting was used to get a shutter speed of at least 1/100th. From the lighting/shadowing, we can see that at least a couple of artificial light sources are present. What is the likelihood that a wildlife photographer would set up for such a shot in anticipation of any animal, much less a wild wolf, jumping over the gate. Given that the exposure seems just about perfect, we have to assume that lighting levels were set for about three feet above the gate -- this rules out animals not able/likely to jump it. How likely is a wild animal to venture near such a set-up (with its associated human smells) when it could just as easily have jumped the stone wall? So, without identifying the wolf in the photo, we can determine that the shot is almost certainly staged with a compliant animal. Edit: It's a really, really good shot though.

pwmanagerdied 17y ago
Actually, in the original story about the photo the photographer claimed to have set up everything in advance, and used some sort of sensor to have it automatically fire when the wolf jumped over it; he may have said that he'd previously seen them doing so.
jmatt 17y ago
I agree it's a great shot. I can't really speak to whether it is fake or not. You make some good points about the perfect and complete lighting. I've been lucky enough to spend time with wildlife photographers in the field. As far as I can tell they spend almost all their time creating and waiting for perfect opportunities. We spent time scouting out locations and doing test shoots to figure out what would work in that location. Looking at different angles so the background and lighting at that time of day was ideal. It also quickly became my understanding that professional wildlife photographers have a crazy knack for choosing appropriate settings (exposures lighting etc). Since opportunities are so rare and perfect moments fleeting... I guess that makes sense. All of that being said I don't remember any actual photos being taken at night. At dawn and sunset, almost always. I have also been in the field with a guy who took his own photographs for a national geographic article. It was a wildlife and nature article not human interest. For his one article he took 50000+ shots. Then national geographic would use approximately 10-20 shots. This was back when digital was still gimmicky and professionals were using slide film. So they were developing 1500 rolls of slide film... this all seems so crazy now-a-days. I'd be interested in how many photos people take now. Having to remove the film and put in new roll cold kill a wildlife shot. So you were often limited to 36 shots. The cameras used to create a horrid sound loading new film - the nicer the camera the louder and more obnoxious the sound. (not really but it seemed like it) EDIT: Grammar and rolls of slide film ~ Added a bit.
- jmatt 17y ago
  As a follow up, I didn't explicitly state one of my points. When you are taking 50000 shots per project you only need one to come out perfect. So when you look at award winning shots like this it could be a 1 / 1000000 shot. It's seems possible he takes a similar amount of shots per project all year long, year after year. The interesting part is taking a night shot with a flash of a fox jumping a fence - you probably only get one chance. Or his setup only got one chance. I can't imagine the fox is going to get anywhere near that same spot again.
  - ShabbyDoo 17y ago
    You raise a good point. If we take the sum total of all images shot during the year by all photographers entering the competition, it is probably in the millions. So, events with million-to-one odds are likely represented in the very non-random sampling of entries.
olegk 17y ago
Shutter speed has nothing to do with the flash duration. You can have a shutter speed of 1/10th sec (to get background light) and the flash that's 1/10,000th sec to light the wolf.
- ShabbyDoo 17y ago
  You're right. I was wrong in my thought process about this, and it was probably dark enough out that there wouldn't have been any ghosting from the dragged out shutter. Add-on: If the light source was constant (not strobes), then I think the shutter speed argument stands. However, I can't imagine that this wasn't done with strobes. Furthermore, that the background was exposed at all suggests some shutter drag? I am realizing that I need to spend more time playing with my cheap off-camera flash set-up.
ShabbyDoo 17y ago
I'm re-posting a deleted comment because I found it to be of merit: "Actually, in the original story about the photo the photographer claimed to have set up everything in advance, and used some sort of sensor to have it automatically fire when the wolf jumped over it; he may have said that he'd previously seen them doing so." This is a scenario I had not considered, not having done nature photography before. Perhaps I will set up some strobes and a motion sensor next time I throw rotting food into my backyard to see if it disappears by morning.
- trafficlight 17y ago
  If you've ever looked at hunting magazines this happens a lot. Hunters use light triggered shutters and flashes for scouting purposes. http://www.cabelas.com/trail-cameras-1.shtml http://www.cabelas.com/trail-cameras-1.shtml
  - ShabbyDoo 17y ago
    Interesting. I'll have to see if devices like these can trigger my Canon's shutter.

pwmanagerdied 17y ago

Actually, in the original story about the photo the photographer claimed to have set up everything in advance, and used some sort of sensor to have it automatically fire when the wolf jumped over it; he may have said that he'd previously seen them doing so.

jmatt 17y ago

I agree it's a great shot. I can't really speak to whether it is fake or not. You make some good points about the perfect and complete lighting. I've been lucky enough to spend time with wildlife photographers in the field. As far as I can tell they spend almost all their time creating and waiting for perfect opportunities. We spent time scouting out locations and doing test shoots to figure out what would work in that location. Looking at different angles so the background and lighting at that time of day was ideal. It also quickly became my understanding that professional wildlife photographers have a crazy knack for choosing appropriate settings (exposures lighting etc). Since opportunities are so rare and perfect moments fleeting... I guess that makes sense. All of that being said I don't remember any actual photos being taken at night. At dawn and sunset, almost always. I have also been in the field with a guy who took his own photographs for a national geographic article. It was a wildlife and nature article not human interest. For his one article he took 50000+ shots. Then national geographic would use approximately 10-20 shots. This was back when digital was still gimmicky and professionals were using slide film. So they were developing 1500 rolls of slide film... this all seems so crazy now-a-days. I'd be interested in how many photos people take now. Having to remove the film and put in new roll cold kill a wildlife shot. So you were often limited to 36 shots. The cameras used to create a horrid sound loading new film - the nicer the camera the louder and more obnoxious the sound. (not really but it seemed like it) EDIT: Grammar and rolls of slide film ~ Added a bit.

jmatt 17y ago
As a follow up, I didn't explicitly state one of my points. When you are taking 50000 shots per project you only need one to come out perfect. So when you look at award winning shots like this it could be a 1 / 1000000 shot. It's seems possible he takes a similar amount of shots per project all year long, year after year. The interesting part is taking a night shot with a flash of a fox jumping a fence - you probably only get one chance. Or his setup only got one chance. I can't imagine the fox is going to get anywhere near that same spot again.
- ShabbyDoo 17y ago
  You raise a good point. If we take the sum total of all images shot during the year by all photographers entering the competition, it is probably in the millions. So, events with million-to-one odds are likely represented in the very non-random sampling of entries.

olegk 17y ago

Shutter speed has nothing to do with the flash duration. You can have a shutter speed of 1/10th sec (to get background light) and the flash that's 1/10,000th sec to light the wolf.

ShabbyDoo 17y ago
You're right. I was wrong in my thought process about this, and it was probably dark enough out that there wouldn't have been any ghosting from the dragged out shutter. Add-on: If the light source was constant (not strobes), then I think the shutter speed argument stands. However, I can't imagine that this wasn't done with strobes. Furthermore, that the background was exposed at all suggests some shutter drag? I am realizing that I need to spend more time playing with my cheap off-camera flash set-up.

ShabbyDoo 17y ago

I'm re-posting a deleted comment because I found it to be of merit: "Actually, in the original story about the photo the photographer claimed to have set up everything in advance, and used some sort of sensor to have it automatically fire when the wolf jumped over it; he may have said that he'd previously seen them doing so." This is a scenario I had not considered, not having done nature photography before. Perhaps I will set up some strobes and a motion sensor next time I throw rotting food into my backyard to see if it disappears by morning.

trafficlight 17y ago
If you've ever looked at hunting magazines this happens a lot. Hunters use light triggered shutters and flashes for scouting purposes. http://www.cabelas.com/trail-cameras-1.shtml http://www.cabelas.com/trail-cameras-1.shtml
- ShabbyDoo 17y ago
  Interesting. I'll have to see if devices like these can trigger my Canon's shutter.