keithreeder wrote:
Actually, this completely untrue as far as the winning shot is concerned - it was an image captured by camera attached to a remote motion sensor, and the "photographer" was in bed when the camera was activated!
How the hell that won, I'll never know - it had nothing to do with principles of skill and creativity the competition espouses, and would be better as a demonstration of a security camera system than as the supposed epitome of wildlife photography.
In fact, the cat took its own picture!
I agree. Leave cameras at potential hotspots and come back later and see what you've caught - bit like leaving crab pots out, it's not fishing and it's not wildlife photography IMO.
I always enjoy the exhibit, but have vastly different ideas than the judges - many astounding images are much better than class winners often, IMO.
Haven't been to this years exhibit yet, waiting for the holidays to end.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I agree. Leave cameras at potential hotspots and come back later and see what you've caught - bit like leaving crab pots out, it's not fishing and it's not wildlife photography IMO.
I always enjoy the exhibit, but have vastly different ideas than the judges - many astounding images are much better than class winners often, IMO.
Haven't been to this years exhibit yet, waiting for the holidays to end.
That is the beauty of art...everyone has an opinion and their is no right answer.
I actually think that remote capture requires an enormous amount of forethought and planning. Certainly as much skill as someone shooting at 10fps and picking the best frame out of 30 or 40. I wonder whether he could of actually got the shot if he had been there. Probably not, so his actions are justified as far as I am concerned.
Whether the shot is actually good enough to win is another thing but I don't feel it's required any less skill than any other image.
And as for the gear. Get a camera your going to carry and use and go take some pictures. It doesn't matter if you *need" a 1Ds3. It matters whether it inspires you to take photos. That's all. Far more top end camera bodies are never pushed anywhere close to their limits than those that are. Photographers often buy based on the "what if?" principal. "What if it rains? "What if it's dusty?" "What if I end up in a war zone?" Or you may be in the "i don't need a" camp. Or the "this'll do" brigade. But that's OK as well. The only wasted camera is one collecting dust.
Actually, there is a right answer in an art form. Is either the expression of the artist subjectivity transformed into objectivity. Or is mere an expression of technical form mastery..... If a shot falls in neither, it is a snap shot....
chez wrote:
That is the beauty of art...everyone has an opinion and their is no right answer.
Good gear = high ego + bragging rights + awesome stoke factor! Good DSLR = higher resolution + lower noise. Fast glass = nicer background blur = better images. So is good gear important? You bet!
And BTW that winning shot of the snow leopard would have been that much nicer had it been shot with a 1Ds III or 5D II with a 16-35L II or a Nikkor 14-24/2.8 lens!
And BTW that winning shot of the snow leopard would have been that much nicer had it been shot with a 1Ds III or 5D II with a 16-35L II or a Nikkor 14-24/2.8 lens!
Only a very rich guy like you would be able to afford to leave a 1Ds3 out in the snow...with those expensive lenses. ;-) only to come back and see that the snow leopard has chewed the magnesium alloy down to the bone.
well I think more people let Photoshop do the work for them.some have 4k bodies and a 6k lense and cant get the shot without the "crutch" of Photoshop
a person getting honors with minimum equiptment should tell you something,but
you know that weekend amature with the 4k body and 6k lens will always cry foul
no one complains when someone uses photoshop is this not technology to make the shot? no different from a remote trigger but at least its a real image not photoshop which no-matter isnt reality if over done by cloning,layers ect
digitalbug30d wrote:
well I think more people let Photoshop do the work for them.some have 4k bodies and a 6k lense and cant get the shot without the "crutch" of Photoshop
a person getting honors with minimum equiptment should tell you something,but
you know that weekend amature with the 4k body and 6k lens will always cry foul
Glad I shoot a 2K camera and an under 6k lens, not including tax....
he did not even take the picture and was not there at the time of the shot.
it was luck
not a good winner this year imho
wildlife photography is generally part 'being there' and part 'luck' is it not? when you have a subject you have little to no control over, there's always an aspect of 'luck' involved to get the desired shot. why does the photographer have to be there one he has composed the shot?
you could say that the shot of two eagles fighting is luck, because the photographer simply sat and waited for 5 hours for 'something' to happen. he got lucky, didnt he?
Yep - sometimes you just get lucky - I went for a walk with my son to a nearby open space area to see if we could see the red tailed Hawks again - see picture below.
We struck out there ... but ended up watching a Coyote and Dog mix it up ... and I fortunately had my Canon 40D and 55-250 lens ready to fire to capture a dozen frames of the couple second tussle along with a few other images to "tell" the story.
nathanlake wrote:
That is all any photographer does...you set it up and push the button.
Ok, he did half the job then
If we're debating photography in general then the decision as to when to press the shutter is a pretty significant part of the process don't you think?
What this guy did was capture a very elusive animal, for which he deserves some credit. Perhaps he should have won 'Wildlife Photograph' of the year.....
digitalbug30d wrote:
well I think more people let Photoshop do the work for them.some have 4k bodies and a 6k lense and cant get the shot without the "crutch" of Photoshop
a person getting honors with minimum equiptment should tell you something,but
you know that weekend amature with the 4k body and 6k lens will always cry foul
You talk like Photoshop has a Make-Pretty-Picture magic button. You think just about anyone can fire up Photoshop and magically make their shots look good? I don't think so.
Photoshop is not a "crutch", it's not a magic solution to make your photos look good, it's a whole different discipline where the pros can make their already good shot even better. The ones with no skill, well... I've seen images with Photoshop's lens flare filter, oversaturated colours, image composite that looks like cardboard cutout, etc.
n0b0 wrote:
You talk like Photoshop has a Make-Pretty-Picture magic button. You think just about anyone can fire up Photoshop and magically make their shots look good? I don't think so.
Photoshop is not a "crutch", it's not a magic solution to make your photos look good, it's a whole different discipline where the pros can make their already good shot even better. The ones with no skill, well... I've seen images with Photoshop's lens flare filter, oversaturated colours, image composite that looks like cardboard cutout, etc.
on the contrary when someone posts a pic and want c&c on it the 1st things come up..why dont you clone this or that ect instead of taking the pic as-is or as the photographer wanted..just a bee in my bonnet..assuming rule of thirds,exposure is spot on
I still dont see how a picture can win when it was taken by electronic's and the guy was asleep miles away.
looks like we have a 50/50 split on this picture.
not about the "how" its the "Image" thats important in this case a fine line but nether-the-less a real pic of an beautiful hard to photograph in the conditions this photographer"wanted" sure could take an easier route shoot during the day...but this wasnt his point
