Nature photography is about getting the shot, any way you can. Films are made using hidden dung cams and variations, time lapse, massively telephoto lenses (see snow Leopard sequence in Planet Earth series), tiny cameras attached to birds in flight. This snobbery about triggered cams is proposterous given that Nature Photography and filmography is about innovation and creating new ways of getting shots that have never seen before.
Discounting a still image cos of the way its shot is ridiculous, especially when getting within normal operating distance of a snow leopard is not only nigh on impossible but they are so rare you could go a lifetime without actually being able to capture one on film.
This is from a photographer who doesn't do Nature photography and is able to step back and see the bigger picture.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
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.
Technically superb?
Since you're an Aussie, PP, I dont know if you know who Wayne Gretzky is (was, in the context I will use here). You can Google him, if you don't.
Arguably the greatest hockey player ever. Technically, he was a horrible skater. Technically, he wasnt a great shooter either. Yet he managed to have one of the (if not, THE) most accomplished careers of all-time. Hell, I would even say he was an artist with the way he did some things, as would others. Why does something have to be technically sound to be great?
I understand the argument of "he wasn't even there to push the shutter", etc., etc., but seriously, look how much time and prep (even getting to the location!) were involved.
I dont care if he took the shot with a supermarket disposable camera - he got the shot. When you factor in everything involved in getting the photo, including the rarity of the subject, I think it's pretty amazing.
What's even more amazing to me are the shots from the "Under 10 yrs old" category. If those arent proof photography mostly involves the vision of the person operating the camera, I don't know what is...
It's totally ridiculous to criticise this photographer because he was "in bed" when the shot was taken. He spent a long time meticulously planning and setting up, and the final image was far from being a lucky fluke.
It's almost like valuing one image higher than another because the photographer was barefoot and wearing nipple clamps when he took it.
PetKal wrote:
Working on it, Colin old bean, working on it.
Need to do just a wee bit more of fine-tuning of the IR Auto Trigger.....the lead time and such. However, I feel I am almost there.
What, not even a shadow of it flying over the water Pete?
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
I would have to disagree with this comment about the shot being "luck." As Ansel Adams said, "chance favors the prepared mind." This photographer did not merely set up a camera and hope for something. Just as so much of any photograph is in the approach and all of the steps that remain invisible yet crucial- the steps that precede even touching the camera. I'd like to hear you claim that Ansel Adam's famous shot of the moon over half dome was mere luck. "All he did was set up the camera and the moon happened to be there- lucky shot." Way to take the credit out of the foresight, the strategy, the approach. You may look at his shot and say, "that didn't take much skill in actual timing, because it was triggered my motion." But maybe I could say the same about someone who took a slew of bird shots at 8.5fps- 5 sets of them with only 1% of them being usable.
I understand this photo presents us with dilemmas, and I appreciate the ideas it has sparked. One must see beyond the equipment and realize that all photographs are made of many decisions, one of those being equipment, and here is a prime example of... The declaration of luck implies a discrediting of the invisible techniques behind a photograph and that is where I rebel. And as far as him not being present at the time of the shot- the camera is an extension of him. Its like saying a man who places a mine
isn't at all responsible for the death of the man who steps on it... I guess its an odd metaphor but I hope my main point makes sense.
Napalm wrote:
Nature photography is about getting the shot, any way you can. Films are made using hidden dung cams and variations, time lapse, massively telephoto lenses (see snow Leopard sequence in Planet Earth series), tiny cameras attached to birds in flight. This snobbery about triggered cams is proposterous given that Nature Photography and filmography is about innovation and creating new ways of getting shots that have never seen before.
Discounting a still image cos of the way its shot is ridiculous, especially when getting within normal operating distance of a snow leopard is not only nigh on impossible but they are so rare you could go a lifetime without actually being able to capture one on film.
This is from a photographer who doesn't do Nature photography and is able to step back and see the bigger picture....Show more →
+100
Having read the vitriol here and elsewhere saying the photo was pure luck I have left my camera out and switched on in my back room. Weeks later I am sad to report that not a single Snow Leopard has taken a self portrait... so far. Maybe one day I'll get lucky.
The more I hear people slagging off the winning photo, the more I like it.
sirimiri wrote:
There are no rules to photography.
But, definitions of what is "photography" can vary...
+1
For me this method of photography is no different from accepting gross digital manipulation to achieve a desired effect. I have my personal preferences for what is pleasing & acceptable to me. They are on occasions at odds with what is acceptable to others.
I don't see anything special in this image. I have no idea what kind of leopard it is, where it was shot, and thus no connection built, not a bit of emotion stirred. However, the fact that it is a very rare Snow Leopard on a very high mountain in a very cold weather, has changed all the criteria. I enjoy reading the story behind the image, instead of focusing on the beautiful surface.
An image shot by an innocent child, by a non wild life photographer, by a non-pro snap shooter, by 10-second continuous shooting, by luck, by a mis-click, by an incorrect exposure/aperture setting, by an automated camera hung around the neck of a cat or a goose, is an image, and a meaningful image if it tells a story or a concept, particularly a different one.
Another irrelevant point to add, even though the definition of photography may vary, but photography without manipulation is not art. Art is what isn't naturally there. Art needs manipulating.
keithreeder wrote:
Read post 12, Nathan - there was no photographer involved in the capture of the winning shot, just a bloke who set up some motion sensing gear and went to bed.
That's Sweet F.A. to do with photography - and it's exactly like awarding a bloke who installed a speed camera an award for car photography, or crediting the guy who sets up a company's security cameras for his crime photojournalism skills...
+1
Well there you go Keith. How true. My thoughts exactly. Never thought the day would come where I would agree with you.
I was actually blown away by the two shots by Koos van der Lende taken with a Fuji pano camera. His use of reflectors on the ancient plant one was fantastic use of light, and as for the little swedish lass who won the 10 years and under with her Nikon D2x plus 70-200 with that close up shot of the flying gull..... She must have pretty terrific abs for a ten yr old or younger to swing an outfit that big.
joykafka wrote:
I don't see anything special in this image. I have no idea what kind of leopard it is, where it was shot, and thus no connection built, not a bit of emotion stirred. However, the fact that it is a very rare Snow Leopard on a very high mountain in a very cold weather, has changed all the criteria. I enjoy reading the story behind the image, instead of focusing on the beautiful surface.
I'm not a massive fan of the photo, but this highlights a lot of what I really dislike about 'art'. You can make anything you like, solong as it has a suitably long backstory! I personally try to view and form opinions on photographs without the story.. They should stir me without the need for words.. A photograph is worth a 1000 words, and people need MORE?!
Colin Key wrote:
Fully agree with you - too many "sour grapes" in this thread.
It's sweet FA to do with "sour grapes", and you know it - a cheap shot, if ever there was one.
The problem with this snapshot is completely obvious: there are better - better by any standard you might care to apply - wildlife images in the competition that did not win.
Photos that truly demonstrated photographic skill, fieldcraft, knowledge of the subject, inspiration, creativtity - in other words proper wildlife photography.
Despite the nonsensical bleating to the contrary, these are what great wildlife photography is about - it is certainly not about getting any old shot by any means necessary: if this was simply a purely documentary record shot to confirm the presence of a species in a given area, then fair enough: but then to present it as the pinnacle of the wildlife photographer's craft?
Bullsh*t. Wildlife photography is about massively more than "just" documentary.
Nobody who is defending the legitimacy of this shot has yet to explain to me how it is different in any way to what comes out of a speed camera.
This nonsense about "ooh, but think how cold it was, and how hard it must have been to set the shot up in the conditions..." says more about the "photographer's" choice of warm clothing than it does about his wildlife photography skills.
This picture devalues the whole genre of wildlife photography by turning it into a by-the-numbers technical exercise.
Some of the folks posting here need to pick up a few of the National Geographic "Best XYZ Photography" books. You may be shocked by what NGS thinks are the best/most important images in its history; the images probably wouldn't make much of a splash on the image boards here. But, of course, that's like saying that a room full of Michael Crichtons wouldn't be thrilled by the work of Turgenev or Joseph Mitchell or John Dos Passos (talk about creative use of forms).
Look, we are the bourgeois of photography: that large group of advanced amateurs and commodity pros who spend thousands of dollars on gear, spend hours online debating our gear, worry about bokeh and lens transmission vs. optical aperture, and aiming at producing the umpteenth technically splendid image that's been photographed a million times already in a million variations.
From the 1800s, photography has been intimately linked to technological advance, creative thinking, and clever use of space, time, and tools. The winning shot is no different.
AdrianRogers wrote:
I'm not a massive fan of the photo, but this highlights a lot of what I really dislike about 'art'. You can make anything you like, solong as it has a suitably long backstory! I personally try to view and form opinions on photographs without the story.. They should stir me without the need for words.. A photograph is worth a 1000 words, and people need MORE?!
The fact for me is that I very often lack the knowledge to be able to feel with my soul. If I don't know enough about war, history, or animals, I have less connection and it would be difficult for me to understand the story behind an image about these themes. But for the others who know, an image indifferent to me may mean a lot to them.
And now I just learnt how rare the Snow Leopards are and how difficult to get a nice picture of them. This is the contribution of all the efforts devoted to getting this image. This is also how we are guided or motivated to look into a world remotely beyond our boundary. There are countless beautiful pictures, but they are beautiful in a sense of picture itself, in terms of colour and composition or in terms of lights and shadows. There are too many outstanding photographic masterpiece to be remembered. I know I am too unqualified to comment on this kind of great photographic works. But, to have a meaningful story behind that can enrich us, is different from photographic beauty.
Sometimes I am speechless about something, that is just because my ability in language or other forms of communication can't well express my feeling. Those who can say something become a poet, a philosopher, or an artist.
If I set up all the necessary lights, fans, background, camera and lens, let the model walk in to the right place, and click. Ten models take their turns walking in there. Ten clicks. Ten fantastic beauty shots. One day I install a smile or posture sensor to trigger the shutter release. Ten thousands of the same great work can still be reduplicated. Is this photography?
I am also wondering if photography is only about skills and techniques, and that photographers are just well trained technicians, I suspect this job will soon be replaced by a robot. There is nothing to be so proud of to be a well trained technician to the extent that we have to exclude others from the circle of well trained technician and to deny a work just because it is not produced in a way acknowledged by the circle of patriciate.
,