/ NEW ARTICLE: UKC/UKH Mountain Photography Awards 2012

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
UKC Articles - on 18 Mar 2013
Sean Villanueva on a ground up attempt of 'We're All Learning' E7 6c, on Binnian's Jabberwock Tor, Mountains of Mourne., 3 kbWe are pleased to announce the winners of the UKC/UKH Mountain Photography Awards 2013 presented by Berghaus.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=5303
Nicholas Livesey on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to UKC Articles: Well done and congratulations to all the winners, some fantastic shots there :)
nTerence - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to UKC Articles: Surely the very unnatural colours in the photo submitted by Andy Merrick -
Looking up the Ogwen Valley to Tryfan , rule this out for any consideration in a serious competition,
this despite the fact that compositionally its very good .
Robert Durran - on 18 Mar 2013
In reply to nTerence:

Yes, one or two of these just don't look natural. And the black and white one with one coloured piece of clothing is,in my opinion just a silly gimmick. The Trango one is a very average shot. Many brilliant and much better photos than most of these on UKC every week I'm afraid.
Sean Kelly - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to UKC Articles: As someone once famously said , 'It's all in the eye of the beholder'. But at least here the winning photographs have been selected from the highest votes received in the stated catehary over the last 12 months. Personally I have no problems with the selection, and can appreciate the excellent qualities exhibited in each selected entry. Congrats to all the winners! Now, if only it stops raining and the clouds lift....
zlipid - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
That's a little bit harsh (particularly the Trango comment...) but I'd agree about the curse of photoshop - you do wonder what some of the original photos actually looked like. The "B&W plus a bit of colour" thing was a neat trick once upon a time but has been done to death now.
Still, plenty of absolutely stunning pictures among the winnners, and I'd second the comment about the number of brilliant photos on UKC every week.
Robert Durran - on 19 Mar 2013
In reply to zlipid:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> That's a little bit harsh (particularly the Trango comment...)

Sorry, I really don't see what is special about it. If I had got myself into that position, I would have been pretty disappointed not to have got a better shot than that.

> The "B&W plus a bit of colour" thing was a neat trick once upon a time but has been done to death now.

Just an average bum shot really, but people seem to fall for the gimmickry.
ChrisBrooke - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to Robert Durran: It's not really 'falling for it' though is it, as if something has been snuck past their taste sensors against their better judgement? It's seeing it and liking and enjoying it as an image.
MattDTC on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to nTerence:

There are only a couple of shots in there which look natural to me, the rest look like there out of some acid trip!
Over-saturating photos seems to be a bit like adding salt to your food, you need to keep adding more as you get more and more desensitised to it. It makes you wonder if the people creating/judging these shots spend much time in the hills, because they look so unnatural as to be comical.
Sorry to be down on these shots, but one wonders why people feel the need to make the hills look like they're 'on steroids' when they're amazing as they are.
Mr. K - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to UKC Articles: Some lovely photos there, congratulations to all the winners!
Nicholas Livesey on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to MattDTC: I must admit that when it originally appeared I thought that Tom McNally's winning landscape shot was an HDR job!

There's been so many wonderful, professional quality landscapes on UKC/UKH in the past year that display fantastic light and composition but if no one votes for them they won't get a look in when it comes to the awards...
Robert Durran - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) It's not really 'falling for it' though is it, as if something has been snuck past their taste sensors against their better judgement? It's seeing it and liking and enjoying it as an image.

I meant it in the way a shallow man might fall for a woman because of their make-up, overlooking their true nature.

Robert Durran - on 20 Mar 2013
In reply to MattDTC:
> Over-saturating photos ....... they look so unnatural as to be comical.

Yes, to continue my make up analogy: make up only looks good on a woman if you can't tell they are wearing it.

Half these photos are brazen tarts.
Andy Moles - on 21 Mar 2013
In reply to MattDTC:

I would like to defend my photo that's in there, for it is untweaked, saturated or filtered in any way. It was shot in auto mode and thus it remained, because the light that day was awesome. Torridonian acid.

I do agree that some photographers seem to get too absorbed in post production to the point that they lose perspective on what the image was meant to be in the first place.
Robert Durran - on 21 Mar 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:
> (In reply to MattDTC)
>
> I would like to defend my photo that's in there, for it is untweaked, saturated or filtered in any way.

Yes, that one rang true - a worthy winner.
In reply to Andy Moles:
> I would like to defend my photo that's in there, for it is untweaked, saturated or filtered in any way. It was shot in auto mode and thus it remained, because the light that day was awesome. Torridonian acid.

You don't need to defend your photo Andy, it is a great photo as has been shown by the number of people who have voted for it.

They are all great photos in fact. A few (three I think) show some post-production but most are just great photos that earned their place in our annual awards.

There is a slight smell of sour grapes on this thread though.

Alan
Robert Durran - on 21 Mar 2013
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:
> There is a slight smell of sour grapes on this thread though.

Having been quite outspoken about the tarted up photos, can I just say it is not sour grapes at all. There would have been many very worthy winning untampered with photos amongst the thousnds on UKC and none of them would have been mine.
MattDTC on 21 Mar 2013
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

My comment was definitely sour grapes.


...only kidding.



It's always going to be awkward posting an opposing opinion without appearing to piss on someone elseís fire, however thatís the nature of a public forum. So long as nobody is trying to be overtly offensive then why not debate issues?
Tom F Harding on 22 Mar 2013
In reply to UKC Articles:

Disappointing selection... Bit of a shame considering the quality of some of the work that gets uploaded to the site.
Tom F Harding on 22 Mar 2013
Also the number of photos with dates in early 2012 (particularly in popular photo sections)shows the voting system is not really working properly. Wouldn't 'highest average vote', rather then 'number of votes' be a better system?
In reply to The_flying_climber:
> Also the number of photos with dates in early 2012 (particularly in popular photo sections)shows the voting system is not really working properly. Wouldn't 'highest average vote', rather then 'number of votes' be a better system?

It is done on highest average votes with a factor for number of votes being included. It is quite complicated though.

With an average vote system, a photo receiving 1 vote of 5 would rate higher than a photo receiving 99 votes of 5 and 1 vote of 4 which obviously isn't satisfactory. Obviously you could put a threshold in of say 20 votes minimum, but is 20 votes of 5 really an indication of more popularity than 99 of 5 and 1 of 4?

What we actually use is a complex secret algorithm which is only know to the wizard Nick Smith.

Alan

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.