The Hungarian Nature Photographers Society (naturArt) has contacted Dr. Gabor Papp, chief editor of the Hungarian edition of the National Geographic Magazine (NGM), with concerns about the photographs in Jozsef Szentpeteri's article, "Mayfly" that was published in the May issue of the magazine.
ith his assistance, we arranged a meeting with Mr. Kent J. Kobersteen, senior director of NGM when he was on a trip in Budapest with the hope that we could discuss the circumstances of how the pictures in question had been taken. The meeting did not result in a solution to our concerns. Mr. Kobersteen did not take the opportunity to take a look at the illustrated document that we made available to him at that time in English containing all details of our concerns about the photograph that we are now discussing below.
|
|
|
fotó: Szentpéteri L. József
|
|
|
Our Society still has not given up its intention to publicly discuss these concerns. Therefore, we have sent a summary of our expert opinion to the Hungarian publisher, and asked for a correction in the magazine unless acceptable explanation by other experts has been published by the magazine.
Below we have made our illustrated study available to the public for an open discussion in order to create a forum for pro and contra arguments.
The answers that we expect from NGM to our concerns are supposed to reflect the magazine's commitment to publishing authentic reports, to using authentic information sources, and they are supposed to reflect the high standards that the numerous editors and experts followed during the cca. one and a half year while they were preparing the article for publication.
Our hope is that we'll have a chance to get to know those expert opinions that the editors in Washington, DC relied on when they declared Szentpeteri's photograph (cover photo in the Hungarian edition; full page photo in the American edition) being without any doubt an authentic nature photo.
Below are the main contradictions and facts that can be easily understood and that our expert opinion is based on.
The very first National Geographic Magazine (NGM) article that had been written and photographed by a Hungarian author was published in the May, 2003 issue with the title, "Mayflies".
On these pages, we want to share some information with the broad audience of Hungarian and international photo lovers and NGM readers that explains why our happiness cannot be complete. Concerns were raised by ornithologists, entomologists and nature photographers about more photographs in the article, especially about the cover photo in the Hungarian edition. These concerns were supported by other questionable photographs on the author's web site (www.natura-foto.hu) and by the fact that he was disqualified from the 1996 "Nature Photographer of the Year" photo contest.
The reason of why nature photographers (Nature Photographers Society naturArt, naturArt) bring these concerns (and their technical statements that objectively support the scientific concerns) to the attention of the public is that the author defined himself and his activity as a nature photographer.
One of the missions of the Society is guarding the moral of nature photography. Another one is promoting of the Hungarian photographers' works worldwide. Because the circumstances of the current photographs are strongly questionable that may cast a shadow on the international reputation of the Hungarian photography, we cannot leave this case without comment.
Among the experts who analyzed the picture were professional biologists specialized in the appropriate field (e.g. Dr. Bela Gasko, Mora Ferenc Museum; Ferenc Sipos, entomologist, Kiskunsagi State Park), ornithologists (Dr. Zsolt Kalotas, Hungarian Ornithology Institute; Dr. Gabor Magyar and Dr. Tibor Hadarics, Nomenclature Committee; Csaba Barkoczi, biologist-dermoplastologist, Mora Ferenc Museum).
The photo-technical analysis was done by Laszlo Novak and Balazs Karman, nature photographers. The technical reconstruction of the photograph was done by Balazs Karman and Sandor Vadasz (nature photographer, freelance applied photographer).
First of all, we want to make it clear that the photograph(s) in question suggest very sophisticated techniques, and only the most experienced photographers of this field can recognize the immoral details in the circumstances in that they were taken.
This is the reason why NGM, of which high professional standards have always been combined with good faith, could be regarded as a victim of this case.
kérjük írja meg véleményét!