keithreeder wrote:
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.
Well clearly not, as a panel of judges selected it as the best image to meet their criteria and standards. And they judge the most successful wildlife image competition on the planet.
keithreeder wrote:
Photos that truly demonstrated photographic skill, fieldcraft, knowledge of the subject, inspiration, creativtity - in other words proper wildlife photography.
Who is the arbiter of what makes a 'proper' photograph? The winning photographer used photographic skill in setting up his equipment. He employed fieldcraft & knowledge to find the spot that the subject would pass by. And as for inspiration and creativity, he is creative enough to have produced unique photos that give others -- well, at least those who can look at the image without getting hung up on how it was taken -- an insight in to the life of an animal they are unlikely ever to see.
keithreeder wrote:
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?
It is not a record shot to confirm the species' presence. He knew exactly where the animal was going to be: that's why he put his camera there. And as for bleating, isn't that the sound of a person complaining? I'm not hearing complaints from those who like what the photographer has done.
keithreeder wrote: Bullsh*t. Wildlife photography is about massively more than "just" documentary.
For example?
keithreeder wrote:
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.
If a speed camera takes a good photo, it is still a good photo. Like the image of a speeding duck flying above an Amsterdam street. Great wildlife photo from a unique perspective that tells something about the animal's life. Actually, it would be an interesting project to use speed cameras to document wildlife. Might give it a go. Very imaginative.
keithreeder wrote: This picture devalues the whole genre of wildlife photography by turning it into a by-the-numbers technical exercise.
Photography is a technical exercise. Check out the thousands (millions?) of 'bird on a stick' photos that so many people like to take. Technically well-executed images of gorgeous birds, but not exactly expressive or "massively more than 'just' documentary".
Personally I could quite easily so through life without seeing another photo of, say, a Stonechat on a fence post, but that doesn't mean I go around shouting that it's not proper photography or devalues the wildlife genre.
I truly think Keith is right on this. The photo of the lion harassing the giraffe with the Kudu looking on has far more going for than the snow leopard tripping a passive IR detector.
Go and have a look at the them both and in all honesty, ask yourselves which one would you be proud to call your work
Could it be that the judges were overwhelmed by the star quality of the dude who took the snow leopard. would not be the first time
Tim
Tim Ashton wrote:
I truly think Keith is right on this. The photo of the lion harassing the giraffe with the Kudu looking on has far more going for than the snow leopard tripping a passive IR detector.
Go and have a look at the them both and in all honesty, ask yourselves which one would you be proud to call your work
Could it be that the judges were overwhelmed by the star quality of the dude who took the snow leopard. would not be the first time
Tim
The lion one looks like a snapshot from a game drive. The snow leopard shot looks like there was work and a process behind it.
Keith, you sound like an angsty kid venting on his myspace page who has based all his opinions on those he's gleemed from other people.
Tim Ashton wrote:
Go and have a look at the them both and in all honesty, ask yourselves which one would you be proud to call your work. Tim
Tim
The winning image is not my favourite from the competition. Far from it. But I recognise that my opinion is about my taste and what I like. What is alien to me is the accusation of the winning image not only lacking in value but also devaluing the genre. On another forum, people were even appealing to readers to petition the competition to have the winner disqualified. It seems to me that people are seeing a different way of taking a photo and deciding that it is crap just because it is different to how they take their own photos.
The winning image is not my favourite from the competition. Far from it. But I recognise that my opinion is about my taste and what I like. What is alien to me is the accusation of the winning image not only lacking in value but also devaluing the genre. On another forum, people were even appealing to readers to petition the competition to have the winner disqualified. It seems to me that people are seeing a different way of taking a photo and deciding that it is crap just because it is different to how they take their own photos.
Those people petitioning to have the winner disqualified are not photographers, they're rank amateurs with an interest in taking pictures! They're not professional and they're not worthy of any recognition in the photography profession past that of hobbyist!
Those people petitioning to have the winner disqualified are not photographers, they're rank amateurs with an interest in taking pictures! They're not professional and they're not worthy of any recognition in the photography profession past that of hobbyist!
What a load of cr@p - amateur photographers (or "hobbyists" as you Yanks prefer to call them) always have, and always will, taken better photographs than so-called "professionals".
What a load of cr@p - amateur photographers (or "hobbyists" as you Yanks prefer to call them) always have, and always will, taken better photographs than so-called "professionals".
Colin
Yes that's because "professionals" are exactly what I'm talking about; amateurs who have no business holding a camera, calling themselves professionals.
Anyway, you keep thinking that and crack on with your day-to-day business.
Came across this article and video of who else..Steve Winter ! A charging Rhino did not deter the guy...kudos, I see him chewing gum calmly ! Also, his camera and lens fell off the elephant...only canon can survive a rhino stampede . j/k !
Heard a story once about a lady who told her photographer friend he must have some really expensive equipment to make such great photos. At dinner the photographer returned the compliment and told her she must have some really expensive pots and pans to be able to make such great food.
Do people even know what they're arguing about here?
Look at the title, "Wildlife Photographer of the Year". Now, I have no doubt he's a great photographer based on his other work but how could he win it with that photo if he wasn't even there when the photo was taken?
Can a pilot win a Pilot of the Year if he had the autopilot on at the time of the competition? no. Can a weightlifter win if he used a remote controlled forklift? no.
n0b0 wrote:
Do people even know what they're arguing about here?
Look at the title, "Wildlife Photographer of the Year". Now, I have no doubt he's a great photographer based on his other work but how could he win it with that photo if he wasn't even there when the photo was taken?
Can a pilot win a Pilot of the Year if he had the autopilot on at the time of the competition? no. Can a weightlifter win if he used a remote controlled forklift? no.
If a pilot or a car racer loses against auto-pilot or AI controlling, he/she has to improve himself/herself, or he/she will be eliminated from the contest. A wise pilot will know when to take over the controlling power, and when to use the computer. If an auto pilot wins at any rate, the designer should be credited.
On the other hand, cars nowadays are equipped with more and more advanced auto gear shift, ABS, ESC, other Computer-assisted Traction Control or Electronic Stability Control, which not only assist but in fact, also intervene the driver's movement. There is something computer is better than human being, and there is something human being still show a higher value. I don't think that'd purely be the calculation and techniques.
What is pointed out in the pilot's example is concerning the skill/technical level for beginners, for those who haven't had the required skills/techniques, like getting a license for driving or diving, rather than in the pursuit of excellency or outstanding achievements. When it comes to achievement of an unprecedented mission, an ideal or a dream, gears or techniques no more refrain us from advancing.
n0b0 wrote:
Can a pilot win a Pilot of the Year if he had the autopilot on at the time of the competition? no. Can a weightlifter win if he used a remote controlled forklift? no.
Neither of these analogies work in this example. If it was a film only competition and he used digital then you might have a point.
old yorker wrote:
What is alien to me is the accusation of the winning image not only lacking in value but also devaluing the genre.
OK, I'll ask you then: in what way is this different to speed cameras or CCTV security footage?
There's no difference.
If you don't get that, then I truly pity you, as you clearly do not understand what wildlife photography is.
And (to address the pompous, elitist, irrelevant Pro vs Amateur drivel up the page) I say that with absolute confidence as a rank amateur/enthusiast wildlife photographer - but one who fundamentally understands that wildlife photography is about far more than:
simply capturing any old tripe (nobody seems to consider this to actually be a good shot, so there's some hope);
justifying its inadequacy with a backstory about how tough conditions were; and
excusing its lack technical or aesthetic merit by observing that "ooh, setting up remote cameras is sooo hard, y'know...".
I'll say it again: wildlife photography is about knowledge of subject, fieldcraft, the relationship between the photographer and his subject.
To use an outdated but absolutely pertinent analogy: back in the days of big game hunting, this would be like claiming to have tracked and shot the animal, when in fact you'd simply dug a pit that the leopard proceeded to fall into, which you then strolled back to at your leisure to administer the coup de grace.
Of course this image devalues the genre: I don't know how it could be more obviously so.
Napalm wrote:
Neither of these analogies work in this example. If it was a film only competition and he used digital then you might have a point.
My point was that digital or even the car technologies mentioned above weren't designed to completely take the control away from the photographer/driver. They just make things easier.
Again, I'm not disputing the skill of the photographer of that leopard. I'm sure he's an excellent photographer. I just don't see how he could win photographer of the year award with an image that was taken when he was asleep.
It's politics, that's all. He wouldn't have won it with that image if he wasn't a well known photographer to begin with.
Yes that's because "professionals" are exactly what I'm talking about; amateurs who have no business holding a camera, calling themselves professionals.
Anyway, you keep thinking that and crack on with your day-to-day business.
I now do not have a clue what you are talking about - seriously deficient.
keithreeder wrote:
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.
I note Keith, unless I have missed it, that you did not respond to my post above regarding Eric Hosking, one of the pioneers of British bird photography who used the equivalent of speed camera technology to obtain some of the best nocturnal owl photos ever taken (and lost an eye in the process when he was attacked by a Tawny Owl - you should read his book "An Eye for an Owl").
this guy might be winning for the next 5 years in a row lol.
I like the left half of the picture the best and the cat walking out of frame.
or the 16mm f16 settings , like you would use those settings if your were behind the camera !!
top picture :-/
If i took it( i mean if one of my 14 remote SLR's took it) and sent it in to my local magazine in a comp it would get slated.
The story behind it might win a comp but the picture to me does not.
. j/k !