[matthewmacleod]

I think a normal journalistic reaction to "deception"—a clever word choice on your part—might be to say:

These photos from a random source which got spread widely look like they might be doctored, so we asked the photographer and they admitted/denied they were fabricated, this is why we agree/disagree and why genuine photography matters

Instead we get this ratcheting-up of drama, and I can't help but think encouraging a pile-on of death threats is really a healthy approach.

[qnpnp]

This is not a random source, and most importantly it is not a source without context.

If she had just posted these pics on her instagram with no comments I would be much more willing to say she never claimed anything and people just jumped on it. I probably wouldn't need to, however, because this whole thing wouldn't have happened in that case.

What she did is posting these pics on her website together with a whole story and presentation, with plenty of details and explanations, which makes her appear as a nature photographer on a difficult trip to spot a rare animal and who magically manages to find what she's looking for with a perfect setting, allowing her to snap incredible photography. Obviously such impressive photos will then circulate everywhere (and many people will ask to buy it).

Note that, despite the extensive description of her work for these pictures (i) there is not a single mention they are fake (prior to the disclaimer which was added later), (ii) the website is dedicated to those pictures and does not refer to her previous work on digital image (iii) before the deception was exposed she seemed very happy to be featured on newspaper since she included the article of the London Times.

My view is that this is genuine deceit, not just a person who published pictures without giving it much thoughts and simply found out afterwards that people misinterpreted it.

[matthewmacleod]

I find it particularly interesting that this comment continues to focus on the details of the extent to which this individual was dishonest—something that I'm sure is definitely possible, though I suspect a little overblown—rather than the low-quality and inflammatory tone of the response, which is something we can directly observe. But we each have our own concerns, I suppose.