digitalbug30d wrote:
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
What does C&C from other people have to do with how a photographer uses Photoshop for post processing? If there's a distracting element in an otherwise great photo, it's in the photographer's best interest to clone it out rather than throwing the whole photo away. You don't always get the chance to reshoot it, specially if it's an outdoor type photography like Wildlife or Landscape.
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.....
I think most of you are missing the point. You are making two incorrect assumptions. One, that Steve Winter was awarded "Photograph" of the Year. Two, that Steve Winter has one photograph to his credit. You really need to look at some of Steve's other work and you will see why he won "Photographer" of the year. And that the system he used for capturing the snow leopard is just one of his tools.
For those of you who feel that Steve does not deserve the accolades, I seriously wonder what you think of Ben Osborne's winning entry in 2007 .
Elephants swimming in water are hardly a rare sight. This winning image is blurry with not a single subject in clear focus. So, does that constitute art (precisely because it is technically flawed...?) ? I am very curious about your input.
Edit: I wonder if the reaction would have been different if the technique and camera used were NOT disclosed. And the only means for judgment is the image itself. Somehow, I have a sneaky suspicion about the outcome...
Personally, I think there's a difference between Wildlife Photographer and Photo of the Year. If they had only said "Photo of the year" then I really don't give a rat's ass how it was taken.
Thing is, the title clearly says "Photographer of the year". That implies all the elements that made the photo great are there at the time of shooting because of the creative decision of the photographer, not because of some fluke shot by a motion sensor.
Any tech geek can set up a motion sensor rig without needing to know the fundamental of photography and wait for something to triggers it. If the subject happens to be very rare and the lighting/composition happens to be great, would you still acknowledge them as photographer of the year?
For those of you who feel that Steve does not deserve the accolades, I seriously wonder what you think of Ben Osborne's winning entry in 2007 .
Elephants swimming in water are hardly a rare sight. This winning image is blurry with not a single subject in clear focus. So, does that constitute art (precisely because it is technically flawed...?) ? I am very curious about your input.
Edit: I wonder if the reaction would have been different if the technique and camera used were NOT disclosed. And the only means for judgment is the image itself. Somehow, I have a sneaky suspicion about the outcome... ...Show more →
I think the that shot won because it was an abstract photo (water and mud pattern adding a bit of sun reflection) with so happened to have an elephant in it taking a mud bath... Sad but truth. Do I care Not really. I have seen shots, in flickr, with off focus subject, blurry shots, and overall bad background. And yet such shots receive tons of awards and comments. Some says most people commenting o flickr are easily impressed. Oh, the technical mastery of those shots are so bad that the author couldn't even upload the 1024 version of it.
I know a lot of people that work with game cams in order to photograph/monitor and consequently hunt trophy animals. Basically the same process that this photographer used. The process of scouting likely intersect sites and getting the shot is not an easy process. Most hunters will use 2, 3 or even 10 of these units to monitor different area's
In fact I KNOW of many a time were the trophy animal never "triggered" the camera unit however was in the area. Any photography in a blind would have simply had to swing his or hers telephoto a few degrees to the right or left for that "easy" shot of a lifetime
Arguably is actually may be easier to obtain a shot if you were on site waiting for the animal . How many times did these animals not get into "remote" distance that could have been picked up and shot from a photographer on site?? Seems to me the rarity and reclusive nature of the subject warranted hedging his bets.
I guess in IMO if you are against the photographer taking the "easy" way out by getting the shot remotely a person must also be against using a 600 mm lenses and getting the shot from 100 yards away instead of doing it the "real" way and getting in close with a 200 MM lenses??
n0b0 wrote:
If the subject happens to be very rare and the lighting/composition happens to be great, would you still acknowledge them as photographer of the year?
Just my 2 cents..
Why not? That's how some 'ordinary' photographers turn into overnight stars because they win some competitions with 'fluke' shots.
I will like to hear from those who bashed the 2008 entry to do likewise to the winning entry in 2007. Mind you, there is a chance someone may accuse you of sour grapes. So, there, you are warned.
I don't think it's the "easy" way per se. It's just that there's more luck than skill involved in that shot. Why else do you think he used a super wide angle? I'd say it's to cover as much of the area with the deepest DOF as possible for cropping later.
thw2 wrote:
Why not? That's how some 'ordinary' photographers turn into overnight stars because they win some competitions with 'fluke' shots.
At least in their cases, the photographer is actually behind the camera pressing the shutter button.
You are missing the point. The fact is that a 21MP 1DsIII or 5DII with a high resolution lens like the 16-35L II or Nikkor 14-24 WILL be able to capture better images than a Rebel + consumer lens.
LCollector wrote:
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.
"Many people assume that wildlife photographers use ultra-telephoto lenses all the time, but this is not the case. Many wildlife pictures are shot on wide or medium focal length lenses – it is all a matter of where you can get the camera in relation to the subject."
bobbytan wrote:
You are missing the point. The fact is that a 21MP 1DsIII or 5DII with a high resolution lens like the 16-35L II or Nikkor 14-24 WILL be able to capture better images than a Rebel + consumer lens.
Yes, technically better. But not necessarily artistically better.
"Many people assume that wildlife photographers use ultra-telephoto lenses all the time, but this is not the case. Many wildlife pictures are shot on wide or medium focal length lenses – it is all a matter of where you can get the camera in relation to the subject."
Yes, technically better. But not necessarily artistically better.
Yep ,
I can get inside 30 yards of much wildlife all day long. Problem is it's time intensive to do so. Scout game trails , get in an hour before sunrise and sit. Question is not if your going to see wildlife but did you do everything right to see it up close enough for a shot
600 mm over 200 mm makes it 3x as likely that you will
Now this gentleman scouted not just ONE location but many and set up close range gear to get the shot. The work continued on and on at multiple locations until he got the shot he wanted.
Just don't see how anybody can use every technological advantage available to take an award winning shot and an IR trigger is the breaking point for some? Frankly I would fing it a HUGE challenge and great success to get an award winning photograph with what I KNOW is a lot of work to get. Don't know if it would feel the same if I got lucky first time in a blind at sunrise with a 600mm in hand
But each his own as long as people are shooting and turning in prints people find value in that's what counts
"Many people assume that wildlife photographers use ultra-telephoto lenses all the time, but this is not the case. Many wildlife pictures are shot on wide or medium focal length lenses – it is all a matter of where you can get the camera in relation to the subject."
Yes, technically better. But not necessarily artistically better.
True .... but surely you are not saying that shooting remotely in the wild i.e. letting the equipment do all the work for you while you are in bed sound asleep can be more artistic?
I recently bought the portfolio book of this years competition. It contains the runners up and highly commended images as well as the category winners and is a really nice book.
I must admit I was surprised that this image won the competition. I certainly don't have a problem with using a remote trigger - after all, probably my favourite wildlife photographer of all is one Stephen Dalton who produced some truly stunning images of birds and insects in flight using infra red beams and high speed flash. Stephen might well have been in bed when taking some of his amazing owl photos, but anyone who thinks those images were just lucky is kidding themselves.
But in this case, the winning shot just isn't that good an image. And more to the point, Steve Winter had 3 other Snow Leopard pictures in the competition that "only" received special commendations - all of which were much better than his winning shot (IMHO). The other 3 images (and the text accompanying them in the book) show that the thought process of composing an image and setting up a remote trigger to detect the animal at the right point in that image is very similar to taking the image while being there - in fact, arguably more difficult and probably involving more forethought and visualisation of the image you're trying to achieve. As opposed to just reacting to a fleeting opportunity.
The problem I have with the winning image is that this process just doesn't seem to have worked as intended. Its almost as if the shot was set up off centre in the hope of getting the leopard walking right to left. Instead the leopard is walking out of the frame leading to a very awkward composition with way too much dead space off to the left. I know rules are made to be broken - but only if it works - and to me this one just doesn't.
But the other three shots are really nice - much better composition, nicer use of the background, better detail and in two cases, great eye contact.
I'd recommend the portfolio book - loads of really good pictures - and decent sized prints rather than viewing tiny jpegs online which really don't do justice to any of the images.
For those of you who feel that Steve does not deserve the accolades, I seriously wonder what you think of Ben Osborne's winning entry in 2007 .
Elephants swimming in water are hardly a rare sight. This winning image is blurry with not a single subject in clear focus. So, does that constitute art (precisely because it is technically flawed...?) ? I am very curious about your input.
Well I've been pretty stupefied by 3 of the last 4 winners including last years. There was one a few ago of a blurry flock of starlings or something that won I couldn't believe. I think the 2008 winner is much better but not remotely in the same league as many of the other shots I've seen. I'm sure behind the scenes it's all getting rather political a bit like the Nobel prize awards which rarely go to those most worthy these days.
I always cringe when these discussions descend into subjective analyses of what makes a good photo. We all see something different. Personally I'm in the camp of "it's the impact of the image that counts, not the technical quality of the shot". That, IMO is how photos should be judged. I couldn't care less if something is not pixel-perfect, as long as the image jumps out and grabs me.
pipspeak wrote:
I always cringe when these discussions descend into subjective analyses of what makes a good photo. We all see something different. Personally I'm in the camp of "it's the impact of the image that counts, not the technical quality of the shot". That, IMO is how photos should be judged. I couldn't care less if something is not pixel-perfect, as long as the image jumps out and grabs me.
Well yes that's a major judging criterion, but IMO neither this or last years winner have done either. They don't jump out at me on any level and make me say wow and they are not technically superb. But that's just me.
Sad but truth. Do I care
Not really. I have seen shots, in flickr, with off focus subject, blurry shots, and overall bad background. And yet such shots receive tons of awards and comments. Some says most people commenting o flickr are easily impressed. Oh, the technical mastery of those shots are so bad that the author couldn't even upload the 1024 version of it.