Fake Snow Leopard

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Greenbanks 26 Nov 2022

Apparently the photos of the Himalayan snow leopard (reported in an archived file) are fake…according to Alpine Magazine…trying to find a link.

 Rog Wilko 26 Nov 2022
In reply to Greenbanks:

Why am I unsurprised?

 deepsoup 26 Nov 2022
1
In reply to deepsoup:

The name struck me as a bit 'coincidental' for pictures of a big cat: kitty, paw.

 profitofdoom 26 Nov 2022
In reply to Greenbanks:

> Apparently the photos of the Himalayan snow leopard (reported in an archived file) are fake…according to Alpine Magazine…trying to find a link.

Me and one other poster called the original snow leopard photo out as fake in the last thread about it. I did it in a jokey way but the other poster said "photoshopped" quote and got 5 dislikes for doing that

1
 Billhook 26 Nov 2022
In reply to Greenbanks:

No suprise then.   High altitude mountaineers are the only food item at that hight.

Post edited at 19:54
 Maggot 26 Nov 2022
In reply to Billhook:

Mallory and Irvine ... cat food.

1
 Bottom Clinger 26 Nov 2022
In reply to Greenbanks:

I’ve always preferred dogs anyway. And the Himalaya are shit compared to Winter Hill

1
 pneame 27 Nov 2022
In reply to profitofdoom:

Gosh! I’m well chuffed. 

> "photoshopped" quote and got 5 dislikes for doing that

 profitofdoom 27 Nov 2022
In reply to pneame:

> Gosh! I’m well chuffed. 

>

You should be. My post about the leopard was just a silly joke. But your post was right on the money (the only one who was)

 tingle 27 Nov 2022
In reply to Greenbanks:

The Instagram profile was so fake too, and yet I still shared it. Duh

 Rob Parsons 27 Nov 2022
In reply to tingle:

> The Instagram profile was so fake too, and yet I still shared it. Duh

Was it fake? There seems to be more to this: the website of the photographer is still active; it lists many endorsements for previous work; she claims to have never pretended that her images were not manipulated; and she says that he has deleted some of her social media in response to having now received death threats.

What is the truth of the matter here?

 Robert Durran 27 Nov 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> The claims to have never pretended that her images were not manipulated. 

There's manipulation and there's downright fakery. 

 Rob Parsons 27 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> There's manipulation and there's downright fakery. 

I think the important point is what she herself _claimed_ the images were. I'm not clear on that.

 JCurrie 27 Nov 2022
In reply to profitofdoom:

> You should be. My post about the leopard was just a silly joke. But your post was right on the money (the only one who was)

You might even say it was spot on.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Her website has a Disclaimer tonight if not before to read. https://kittiyapawlowski.com/contact .
 

 Jon Read 27 Nov 2022
In reply to Climbing Pieman:

Wow, reading that sounds like it's all got out of hand. 

 profitofdoom 27 Nov 2022
In reply to Jon Read:

> Wow, reading that sounds like it's all got out of hand. 

Wow, reading that sounds like all her photos are fake. To a greater or lesser extent. Good luck to her, but to quote my favourite Seinfeld episode, "Fake-fake-fake-fake"

 mondite 27 Nov 2022
In reply to profitofdoom:

> Wow, reading that sounds like all her photos are fake. To a greater or lesser extent. Good luck to her

Depends if it is being presented/sold as a genuine photo or as art.

 Bulls Crack 27 Nov 2022
In reply to Greenbanks:

Feel justified now for questioning it! 

In reply to profitofdoom:

As the Alpine magazine article says, there is nothing wrong with making art with photoshop or similar. It appears that other people have taken her creations, and passed them off as genuine photo journalism.

2
In reply to Jon Read:

Yeah, reading that disclaimer I felt quite sorry for her. Regardless of the nature of the images, she doesn’t deserve the flak it sounds like she’s getting. 

 Michael Hood 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Stuart Williams:

Although she doesn't deserve the flak that's happening, I keep thinking that if you work in an area of digital image manipulation, then one of the (surely) known risks is that your work may be passed off as not manipulated. Did she do enough pro-actively to protect herself from that?

One of the problems with digital media is the ability for it to be easily manipulated. Apart from the basic "is it real?" question, there's a whole Pandora's box opening up. What is it acceptable to do to an image and it still be considered "genuine"? Is it possible to have a totally 100% genuine image? Even a raw image doesn't avoid the problem, different sensors will "see" colours differently - no different from back in real film days - Kodachrome for warmish tinge, Ektachrome for colder, bluish tinge, Fuijfilm for greener emphasis.

Starts to become physiological (what do we actually see) and philosophical (can anyone experience what another sees) questions.

3
 Rob Parsons 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Although she doesn't deserve the flak that's happening, I keep thinking that if you work in an area of digital image manipulation, then one of the (surely) known risks is that your work may be passed off as not manipulated. Did she do enough pro-actively to protect herself from that?

What do you suggest she should (or could) have done to protect herself from someone passing off her image as completely unmanipulated?

 Michael Hood 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Not sure, depends on how she publicised her creations (whether publicly or privately).

If she always said, "here are some of my images, they've all been constructed to look like real photos" - then there's not much more she could do, but it would at least be out there that her work is "art" rather than photojournalism. But if all she said was "here are some of my images"...

I suspect that any digital type of watermarking (or similar) that might warn "manipulated" could also be digitally removed.

In reply to Michael Hood:

> Although she doesn't deserve the flak that's happening, I keep thinking that if you work in an area of digital image manipulation, then one of the (surely) known risks is that your work may be passed off as not manipulated. Did she do enough pro-actively to protect herself from that?

I think the way she wrote about the images on her website did allow for the assumption that they weren’t photoshopped amalgamations, but I’m inclined to take her at her word that this was unintentional. It sounds like she’s a young hobbyist who’s work has previously been displayed in contexts where it’s clear that the images are manipulated, like specific comps for that sort of thing. If so, it feels plausible that it simply didn’t occur to her that she might need to spell it out on this occasion.

Loads of people display manipulated images on social media and websites without disclaimers and no-one really cares. The difference here is that they got picked up by the press and got massive exposure, and she clearly hasn’t had to consider the implications of that level of exposure before given that no-one seemed to know who she was. 

 Rob Parsons 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Not sure, depends on how she publicised her creations (whether publicly or privately).

> If she always said, "here are some of my images, they've all been constructed to look like real photos" - then there's not much more she could do, but it would at least be out there that her work is "art" rather than photojournalism.

The disclaimer on her website describes her work in that way. So she has done what you are suggesting she should.

What I am not clear about is who was pushing the pictures as 'authentic' a few weeks ago. Where did that publicity come from?

 Michael Hood 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> The disclaimer on her website describes her work in that way. So she has done what you are suggesting she should.

Was that disclaimer always there or is it a recent clarification?

It does however sound more likely that she was a naive innocent who's been badly stung rather than someone out to con everyone.

Maybe she ought to now detail how those particular images were created - probably get sued for using someone else's shot as part of the source material.

Post edited at 21:25
 Rob Parsons 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Was that disclaimer always there or is it a recent clarification?

Just now checking with the Wayback Machine shows that it wasn't there on Nov 1 2022.

> It does however sound more likely that she was a naive innocent who's been badly stung rather than someone out to con everyone.

I currently have no way to form an opinion on that. But I would like to know the truth of the matter.

However, I'm really only posting because I dislike witch-hunts, and uninformed pile-ons.

 Michael Hood 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Because the images are so stunning, the initial reaction is a strong "wow".

When we find that they're "faked" the averse "bastard" reaction is also similarly strong.

I think that "strength" of reaction makes it a more emotional reaction and therefore more likely that we react without ensuring we're properly informed

In reply to Michael Hood:

> Maybe she ought to now detail how those particular images were created - probably get sued for using someone else's shot as part of the source material.

She says all the component images were taken by her in the manner she described. If you agree that she probably wasn’t out to con anyone why not just assume she is telling the truth?

 Michael Hood 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> She says all the component images were taken by her in the manner she described.

In which case why not show these component images; even if it's not a Snow Leopard, where are the source images with the big pussycat?

Personally, I'd find it interesting to see how she's created the final images from whatever component images she started with.

On the suspicious side (with respect to telling the truth) is the fact that she went to the Himalayas and came back with not just one image "look what I've created", but a whole set of images which tend to say, "look what I saw and captured".

2
 Luke90 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

> On the suspicious side (with respect to telling the truth) is the fact that she went to the Himalayas and came back with not just one image "look what I've created", but a whole set of images which tend to say, "look what I saw and captured".

I really don't see why single image implies creation or multiple images implies capture.

 Michael Hood 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Luke90:

Not per se, more did she come back from the Himalayas and say, "I got some stunning photos and from them I've created this stunning image" (or stunning images), or did she come back from the Himalayas and merely present a series of images which tend to tell more of a story than a single image would.

 Brass Nipples 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Greenbanks:

The problem for her now, is that you no longer believe the text with the photos. No longer believe what she did or did not do.  The text is fiction.

In reply to Michael Hood:

> In which case why not show these component images; even if it's not a Snow Leopard, where are the source images with the big pussycat?

I imagine for largely the same reasons landscape photographers don’t routinely publish their unedited RAW files along with the final images, and painters don’t publish draft sketches with every painting. The end product is what is intended for publication, regardless of the nature of the art.

> Personally, I'd find it interesting to see how she's created the final images from whatever component images she started with.

Plenty of people offer photoshop tutorials you could book onto. That’s not what she’s offering.

> On the suspicious side (with respect to telling the truth) is the fact that she went to the Himalayas and came back with not just one image "look what I've created", but a whole set of images which tend to say, "look what I saw and captured".

I don’t see how the number of images reflects the method of creation. If I went on a trip like that for the purpose of creating any sort of art I’d want to get more than a single image out of it. If you’ve got the material, why not make the most of it? And given how elusive snow leopards are, one could make the argument that having multiple such images is less believable, not more. 

 Michael Hood 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> I imagine for largely the same reasons landscape photographers don’t routinely publish their unedited RAW files along with the final images, and painters don’t publish draft sketches with every painting. The end product is what is intended for publication, regardless of the nature of the art.

But with the current controversy, which is now bigger than the end product she intended for publication, showing the component images would IMO defuse the situation significantly.

 David Alcock 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Greenbanks:

This whole story has made me chuckle. The history of photography from beginning to end has by the nature of the medium constantly mocked the concept of the real and the fake. 

The very first sentence on the unfortunate person's site:

"Kittiya Pawlowski is a photographer and artist that uses visual storytelling to capture the beauty of Earth."

"Storytelling."

I don't like her photos though, especially that one of Tryfan. 

 Robert Durran 29 Nov 2022
In reply to David Alcock:

> I don't like her photos though, especially that one of Tryfan. 

I hadn't realised the Tryfan photo was one of hers - really liked it. Saw through the leopard bollocks straight away though.

 Michael Hood 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

I've just had a good look through her Himalaya journey on her website and EVERYTHING in that story would lead you to believe that the images in that story are photos that she took. Nothing in there to indicate composites, manipulation etc.

It's only in her disclaimer (which as you've found is a recent addition) that she goes on about manipulation etc. To present stuff as photos and then say that if you look carefully you'll see that I've always manipulated images is disingenuous at best.

So I'm now of the opinion that she's talking complete b*ll*cks, and did intend those images to be seen as photos that she took on her trip (that doesn't mean she had any malicious intent, maybe just to try and sell more prints and hence donate more to charity).

I believe she's now only backtracking because it all blew up and she got found out.

 JCurrie 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

Those are my thoughts too. I was totally taken in by the packaging. That said, my ego has not been affected, and I do not wish her harm. There are some strange people out there, eh.

 Robert Durran 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

> I've just had a good look through her Himalaya journey on her website and EVERYTHING in that story would lead you to believe that the images in that story are photos that she took. Nothing in there to indicate composites, manipulation etc.

Is it possible that she inhabits a strange world where the assumption, unless told otherwise, is that photos are totally faked and her problem is that she has now rubbed up against a world where people tend to take photos as real on trust?

In reply to Michael Hood:

How would it defuse it? She’s clarified that they are composites. Showing the source material just proves that they are indeed composites, which would do nothing to lessen people’s objection to them being composites. 

 Robert Durran 29 Nov 2022
In reply to JCurrie:

> Those are my thoughts too. I was totally taken in by the packaging. That said, my ego has not been affected, and I do not wish her harm. 

Yes, I just feel a bit disappointed and a bit sad for her in the sense that she feels the need to produce fake photographs like this. Did she actually see any snow leopards even or are they just "drawn" on to the images?

3
 Brass Nipples 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, I just feel a bit disappointed and a bit sad for her in the sense that she feels the need to produce fake photographs like this. Did she actually see any snow leopards even or are they just "drawn" on to the images?

Its now my opinion it’s complete fiction and we can’t believe a word she writes or that any of the photos aren’t  composites.

 Michael Hood 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Did she actually see any snow leopards even or are they just "drawn" on to the images?

If she didn't then somebody's decent close-up photo of a Snow Leopard on a rocky ridge is being used (possibly with permission) but certainly without credit as if it's one of her own.

But maybe that photo's a fake too, empty rocky ridge with suitably enhanced and "re-skinned" photo of a domestic puddy tat. How's one meant to tell - and does it matter - YES it does if we're bothered at all about conservation of the Snow Leopard.

 Michael Hood 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> How would it defuse it? 

I think some would at least see the skill and possibly merit in producing such images and be more able to appreciate her work, whereas at the moment there's a lot of gut reaction "fake" out there.

In reply to Robert Durran:

> Is it possible that she inhabits a strange world where the assumption, unless told otherwise, is that photos are totally faked

Well you’d be a fool to assume that every image you see, unless told otherwise, is totally real.

I think it’s more likely that that, naively or not, she expected her work to be viewed in the context of her being an “artist and visual storyteller” as well as a photographer. In either fine art or visual storytelling exhibitions or competitions you would absolutely expect to see heavy manipulation of images. 

2
 Robert Durran 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> I think it’s more likely that that, naively or not, she expected her work to be viewed in the context of her being an “artist and visual storyteller” as well as a photographer. In either fine art or visual storytelling exhibitions or competitions you would absolutely expect to see heavy manipulation of images. 

That is what I meant by the strange world she inhabits!

In reply to Robert Durran:

We all do things that might seem strange to others, not least climbing! And I'm sure we've all been in situations where we've been misunderstood or misinterpreted because we've assumed our audience shares our understanding of certain terms. You only have to look at mainstream coverage of climbing to see how readily things get misreported and misunderstood once they reach a wider audience than expected, and how unpleasant some of the resulting responses can be.

I think the sad thing about this whole situation isn't the nature of the images, but is that people think death threats and abuse are an acceptable way to respond to finding out they weren't quite what they thought (and I see no reason to doubt her on that, there are far too many other examples of social media reacting in that way to high profile but ultimately trivial "scandals".)

 Alkis 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Saw through the leopard bollocks straight away though.

I didn't know you were a vet!

</runs away>

 David Alcock 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Greenbanks:

An aside regarding demands for source images etc, that was also raised on the Tryfan thread - it's nothing new. There was a time when it was in vogue to print street photographs including the borders of the negative to prove the composition of the 'decisive moment' was indeed true to highlight the bravado and skill under fire of the shooter (battle machismo analogy intended). Of course people found ways to fake that in wet-process. 

And on the other hand you have the artifice of someone like Brandt, who created quite wonderful pictures from tiny crops from his negatives. 

I don't have a problem with creative manipulation nor with a photographer's silence regarding methods; anyone who trusts a photograph to show 'the real' is somewhat naive at best. 

What does annoy me is when it's badly done. 

 artif 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Greenbanks:

Are any published pictures not manipulated these days, my point and shoot camera can make up a lot for my poor camera technique, before I've even got it out of the camera, a bit of tweaking on a computer does wonders, I doubt many pics published are not. 

This guy fakes all of his images using paint 

https://www.jamiemedlin.com/product/autumn-at-kynance/

 McHeath 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Didn't she says something on her (now taken down) website like: I came over the col, and there it was?

Pretty misleading if you ask me.

 Rob Parsons 29 Nov 2022
In reply to McHeath:

> Didn't she says something on her (now taken down) website like: I came over the col, and there it was?

I don't know.

If you want to check, you can find the original version of her site on the Wayback Machine.

 Brass Nipples 29 Nov 2022
In reply to McHeath:

> Didn't she says something on her (now taken down) website like: I came over the col, and there it was?

> Pretty misleading if you ask me.

It is  still there, or my browser still has it cached; in her own words she claims these were photos she’d taken, not fine art, not composite, photos she’d taken…

On a bitterly cold morning, I followed the icy rim of a gaping chasm, scoping out the Khumbu Valley with my Nikkor 500mm f/4 lens. After finding snow leopard tracks outside Gorak Shep (16,942 ft / 5,164 meters), I was confident I would find something.

At 18,000 feet (5486 meters the weather was unpredictable. Within minutes one was alternatively freezing or roasting in the sunshine. This altitude is the limit of where snow leopards roam; however, to get the best view of the valley, I had to climb.

Squinting through my camera’s telephoto lens, I noticed something in the shadow of Mount Pumori. At first I thought it was a rock, but it was exactly what I was looking for.

A snow leopard sits atop a chasm above a field of ice pinnacles called Phantom Alley. 

After backpacking through Earth’s most forbidding terrain, lung-starving altitudes, soaring peaks, and high deserts—this was the most difficult and rewarding set of photos I’ve ever taken.

Special thanks to Dipesh, Amish, Daniel, Dillion, Ace the Himalaya, and everyone who helped me.”

Post edited at 21:53
 McHeath 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Brass Nipples:

Thanks, that was it. 

 Rob Parsons 29 Nov 2022
In reply to McHeath:

> Thanks, that was it. 

I think you question amounts to asking: did the photographer actually take some pictures of the snow leopard in the wild on her trip, or did she not? I don't think we know the answer to that.

3
 McHeath 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

"Squinting through my camera’s telephoto lens, I noticed something in the shadow of Mount Pumori. At first I thought it was a rock, but it was exactly what I was looking for"

This is not misleading? 

(Dislike not from me!)

Post edited at 22:38
 Rob Parsons 29 Nov 2022
In reply to McHeath:

> "Squinting through my camera’s telephoto lens, I noticed something in the shadow of Mount Pumori. At first I thought it was a rock, but it was exactly what I was looking for"

> This is not misleading? 

It's not misleading _if_ she actually saw a snow leopard in that vicinity.

5
 McHeath 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Ok, this time one of the dislikes is from me

 Rob Parsons 29 Nov 2022
In reply to McHeath:

> Ok, this time one of the dislikes is from me

I don't pay any attention to the likes/dislikes. But my point's fair, isn't it? What's your counterargument?

 McHeath 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

She claims, or insinuates, that she saw the snow leopard through her lens. Now we know that the whole landscape has been cobbled together, albeit in a virtuoso fashion,  from various Himalayan regions, with the snow leopard in the middle of it. Pretty damning in my book. 

Post edited at 23:30
1
 Rob Parsons 29 Nov 2022
In reply to McHeath:

> She claims, or insinuates, that she saw the snow leopard through her lens. Now we know that the whole landscape has been cobbled together, albeit in a virtuoso fashion,  from various Himalayan regions, with the snow leopard in the middle of it. Pretty damning in my book. 

I think the general question is whether or not, in the course of the trip she describes, she took all the photographs from which she made the montages. I just don't think we know, one way or the other.

Post edited at 23:43
 McHeath 30 Nov 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

The general question is not whether she took the various photographs. It's whether it's legitimate to write a text suggesting that these photographs are genuine in order to sell 30 prints at 1500$ apiece to people who have been led to believe that they're getting an original example of a legendary and authentic photograph. 

1
 Michael Hood 30 Nov 2022
In reply to McHeath:

Isn't there something along the lines of "I've got a 9-5 job and this is just my little hobby" somewhere on her website?

Not at $1500 a pop it's bl**dy well not!

Depending on how the print was sold to them, I wonder if any of the print purchasers will sue her for fraud/deceit/whatever. If she thinks "but I never said they were actual photos" is sufficient defence, then she's going to get a rude awakening.

Post edited at 08:36
2
 Rob Parsons 30 Nov 2022
In reply to McHeath:

> The general question is not whether she took the various photographs. It's whether it's legitimate to write a text suggesting that these photographs are genuine in order to sell 30 prints at 1500$ apiece to people who have been led to believe that they're getting an original example of a legendary and authentic photograph. 

I'm interested to know whether or not she actually photographed snow leopards.

The question you raise here, of whether or not she duped people into thinking that her photographs were completely genuine unretouched photos in order to make money selling them, is pretty well what this entire thread is about. She claims that she did not do that, and that her previous photographic and artistic record makes the overall situation plain. You claim that she did - but I don't think the passages you have quoted above support your claim.

Incidentally, the Alpine magazine article quoted at the beginning of this thread raises the question of whether or not Kittya Pawlowski even exists as a real person. We don't even really know that!

 Michael Hood 30 Nov 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

I suspect that, like the story about the 8th in line to the throne, we will never find out enough of the truth to be satisfied.

 Rob Parsons 30 Nov 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

> I suspect that, like the story about the 8th in line to the throne, we will never find out enough of the truth to be satisfied.

Very likely!

I am also curious about how this initial story took off. On this site, it was Bottom Clinger who first posted about it, in the thread https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/snow_leopard_near_everest_photo... . How did he find out about it? This story must have been doing the rounds of social media at the time - so who was pushing all that, and what were the initial 'seeds'? Again - I don't suppose we will ever really know.

The domain kittiyapawlowski.com was only initially registered on 2022-07-18 - quite late in the piece for an artist who has apparently been active for several years.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...