UKC

Some good shots here from a BBC competition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm

In reply to jonfun21: Agreed, there are some nice shots but few of them look natural. Is computer enhancement allowed in this competition?

In reply to jonfun21:
some nice shots but most look totally artificial, like something out of a video game... i'm also guessing that there must be a "take photo here" sign by the stream somewhere between the road and Buichaille Etive Mor?

In reply to Dom Whillans:
Dunno if the Beeb's new slideshow software is to blame, but some of them seem a bit vivid and weird on my monitor...one even looks like a watercolour.

In reply to Dom Whillans:

The pedant in me was amused by the photo title "Rannoch Moor" when it was a photo of the Buachille...

In reply to Martin76:

Agreed. I did like the photo of the fell race but it looked very painterly.

In reply to Martin76:

I'm getting that too. They look pretty heavily photoshopped. I've seen far better pictures than any of the ones there.

A friend of mine consistently takes stunning landscapes which, in my opinion, beat the winner of the Beeb's competition hands down.

http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=3192914942&size=large

Surely they had better emtries than that? Mind you beauty is in the eye of the holder an aw that.

In reply to jonfun21: Massive amounts of HDR post processing going on here.
If that's what floats yer boat, they are very good. Personally, I prefer there to be some shadows! Of the lot, I would be proud to have taken the Hebden Bridge in winter image. THAT is really good... The rest are a triumph of PP over image.

In reply to Tim, the Grey:

I liked the Hebden one too - it's just such a pretty place!

In reply to jonfun21:
The one of the Storr is obviously stitched as the horizon suddenly drops off to the right.

In reply to Mike_Watson_99: Eh? Just looks like an ultra wide, cropped top and bottom to me...

Still over processed for my taste.

In reply to Mike_Watson_99:

and the lakes are reflecting a different sky to the sea...

In reply to jonfun21:
Was this one of those competitions where entering would give the BBC the right to do anything they wanted with the photos, for no payment?
If so then that might explain the fairly mediocre quality of the winners.

In reply to jonfun21: I don't think it is a BBC competition. There are some more in the Sunday Times. It is from the "Take a View" landscape photographer of the year 2009.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/article6874899.ece?slideshowPopup=t...

Jono

In reply to Ruahine Tramper:

Image number 9 of that lot might be of interest to one or two folk here.

In reply to Ruahine Tramper:

And the one of Meall nan Eun is nice and not so strange looking as some of them.

In reply to Mike_Watson_99:


I'm amazed that a shot with such an obvious technical flaw got first prize!

In reply to fimm:
As well as being offensively over-processed I don't think very much of them in artistic terms - the composition for most including the winner is poor. Shopping trolley in the foreground of Aberdeen Harbour wins the award for most pathetic shot selection. Hebden bridge one is good but hardly inspiring. Whetever happened to such things as golden rectangle composition and a selective depth of field?

In reply to Mark Bull:

Some of the most famous photographs in the world are very flawed, technically (Robert Capa's incorrectly processed bleached-out D-Day images spring to mind - http://www.scribd.com/doc/186135/The-DDay-Photos-of-Robert-Capa )

In reply to jonfun21: There looks to be more work done on computer than with camera in these shots, they're too artificial. I did like the Hebden Bridge one though for sure.

In reply to Steve Perry: did it make you all nostalgic?

In reply to jonfun21:

Who are you to say that the merits of a photograph are all technical? So many good shots contain technical flaws or faults - photography isn't about ticking boxes on a mental sheet - its artistic interoperation of an event, therefore if you must use HDR to convey your feelings then who am I to say that it is wrong or "overdone". Find me a photo that obeys all of the golden rules.

I have a 16 mm lens (on 35 mm) does this mean that every time I don't have the horizon dead centre that image is flawed? or if just if I crop off centre when the horizon is where the "rules" say it should be.

It is not my style but neither is bouldering which I still respect.

In reply to seaofdreams:
The rules are there to be broken but are you saying you like these photos? I don't

In reply to jonfun21:

Is this what photography has come to, how much you should, or rather shouldn't, slide a little icon to saturate, sharpen, add contrast etc etc on a piece of software....?

The only natural looking one is the one of London.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yeah but come on, you can bet the BBC photographers were not thrown out of a boat into heavy machine-gun fire....

In reply to Jon Hemlock: Some of them should be...

Aren't you all in danger of being snobs?
None of the images are offensively over processed (not compared to what some of the HDR community do) and they're not postcard nicey-nicey high-sun landscapes. I think only two of them have obvious HDRing (skye and cumbria).
Why aren't your winning images in there?

In reply to Jon Read:

Not me!

In reply to seaofdreams:


I'm not saying that: I know it's all in the eye of the beholder, and of course there are wonderful but technically flawed photographs.

Nevertheless, I am surprised that this one won a competition. For me, personally, I find the bent horizon in this photo sufficiently distracting and unappealing that if I were judging the competition, there's no way it would even make the final selection. Clearly those who did judge it had a different point of view. I may be wrong, but I suspect a lot of respected landscape photographers would not publish an image like this.

Do you think it was a worthy winner?

In reply to Mark Bull:

I cant choose between 7 and 10 (times not bbc) most because these are both shots styles that I have attempted to create but can't probably because I don't use photoshop for more that "basic dark room type stuff" (If I cant do it in my dark room I don't on the PC).

I agree that most of the images are heavily manipulated but there are a lot of people (not me) on this site and other that uses post processing as a big advantage of going digital and who now can't accept the fact that it is turning into an art form of its own.

In reply to dan bailey:

It brought back great memories of Heptonstall. I must head south sometime.

In reply to jonfun21:

And the Old Man of Storr one isn't a "Sunrise" as the camera is looking almost due South!

(Sun is E of South in the shot, but not enough to be sunrise)

In reply to jonfun21:

I came on here to post this link, in case no-one else had done. I'm pleased to see that it's not only me who found these shots a little mediocre.

I'll admit that I hadn't noticed that they had been photoshopped and I don't know much about photography. But still, I had imagined that the best landscape photos of the year would be significantly better than these!

And another thing, I've just noticed that it's called "Landscape photographer of the year". How can they choose the best photographer based on one single photo?

In reply to jonfun21: Most of the comments in the BBC blog seem to agree that they're over-processed.

Apart from that, and the curved horizon, I thought the winning photo was just too busy - there are too many subjects competing for attention. Are you supposed to be looking at the sun breaking through or the Old Man? My eye keeps getting drawn to the small lake in the foreground. The picture doesn't seem to be very well composed or balanced.

And how could that shot of the Buachaille get in? Such a cliche.

In reply to jonfun21:

This competition is run by Charlie Waite - so the whole aesthetic is geared towards his style of landscape photography. Lets face it there are very few respected photo awards - its like boxing there are loads of 'Belts' - who said this particular award was the major landscape award in the UK? Ah probably the sponsors press release.

In reply to Henry Iddon:
Was there really a 10K prize for the winner?! I should have made an effort!
The Hebden Bridge in snow, is my favourite.

In reply to seaofdreams:

I think the 'offence' is taken because this isn't photography, it's digitography, which is new. Photo = light, digi = all manner of software tools. When you can add light (one example and the major ingredient in photography) with software then you are no longer a photographer, you're an image maker.

Calling 90% of the BBC images here photography is a misnomer, and possibly an insult to some. It might start as photography but in this case it is not the end result. Excuse my frankness, I'm just against jaggedy sharpness and eye-burning saturation, but as you say it's becoming an art from of its own...

In reply to Jon Hemlock:


Yeah and you're not a proper painter unless you use oils, blah, blah etc, etc, call it what you want. I seem to remember dodging and burning rather a lot of light in my old printing days though, with some fairly outlandish results! Besides 'digitography' is just nasty English.

However, I'm being disingenuous, these are pretty nasty photographs.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

Photography is dead - long live digitalography !

I got bored of this discusion with Al Evans.

So I no longer think of my images as photographs (see my profile - changed that ages ago). Completely removes me from people who 'want' to have that argument/discussion.

Eventually (already!?), digitalography will become known as photography (just as the definition of photography has changed over the years with the evolution of equipment and perception of photography).

Personally, I'd rather not be limited by other peoples rules.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

But do I think they are good images...

Well its very hard to judge based on a 0.75 MB screen version of a multi MP image.

But assuming the screen is a fair representation, then on the whole, no I don't like them, except for the trolley and the runners (which I'd be pleased with if I'd shot).

In reply to trouserburp:


I'm not quite sure of your intended definition of 'pathetic' in that statement, but I personally thought it was a great photo. That and the Hebden Bridge one were my favourites. Beauty, eye, beholder etc...

In reply to Fraser:

Yes they were the only two that I liked.

I thought the one in the Lakes would be an instant reject and would likely score no more than an average 3 vote on the galleries here.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Conceded.

What I'd also add though is that this sort of thing is how I'd imagine the right to bear arms suddenly being introduced. Most people really shouldn't be given the freedom to use the tools in light of a sudden surge in 'accidents' happening.

And in response to Queequeg, you wouldn't give a monkey a set of oils, let him paint you a picture, and then declare his production art. Actually....

This is a really rare thread - people discussing images rather than gear!

In reply to Blue Straggler: Yes BS, spot on mate, its refreshing isnt it?

More of this please, I love seeing what folk have to say about images, its interesting how wildly different peoples opinions can be.

It beats the hell out of the endless 'should I get a prime lens' or 'how many pixels do I need in my camera to be a man' threads....

rock on

In reply to SeanB:

Mmmm but it did very quickly degenerate into a typical chorus of "hideously over-PhotoShopped", with just a few late entries pointing out the folly of such willy-waving (hats off to Jon Read for asking "where are all your winning entries?" ). It's a start though.

In reply to Ruahine Tramper:

Am not convinced by the hermit crab pic at all - looks like the reflection was totally created in PS?

I quite like all the other images. Something of interest in all of them.

In reply to Chris F:
I thought that was one of the more striking images, certainly a very unusual landscape to actually include a crustacean! However, I think you're right: the reflection should show us the crab from a different angle, and I suprised how sharp the reflection is given the rest of the water isn't reflecting. Dare I say the crab wasn't even in that shot to start with?

Doh! I've gone and fallen in with the overphotoshopped-criticismers!

In reply to Jon Read: Whatever has been done, it doesn't look right. Sure something (shell) fishy going on.

In reply to Jon Read:


As I said on another thread

For me, Digital Darkroom does not equal Montage

Trouble is, we all get lumped together with digital creations like this when the anti-photoshop "it ain't photography" brigade get on their soapbox

It is what it is - and I really do like it - but it should be made clear what broad type of digital image/art it is.

But it would be a shame if we ended up in a position where we constantly had to 'justify' ourselves over digital darkroom work. We'd end up with images by committee. What a horrid thought !

In reply to jonfun21:

Some of the "Flickrati" (my colleague's word) aren't impressed either:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/landscape_composition/discuss/7215762260890453...

In reply to ChrisJD:

You are still a photographer Chris (a good one at that), whether its onto a sensor or onto film, you are still 'drawing with light'.
I dont see the need to be classed as a digitalographer or whatever, sensor/film, they are just a recording medium and only one part of the whole process of 'photography' as we know it.
Dont worry about the PS police, I think most folk just have a go for the sake of it, without fully understanding the process behind the image.
Im not sure how those excessively cooked HDR images will fare in 10 years time, will they go the way of the 70s starburst and soft filter and be ridiculed? Or are they here to stay?

Interesting times.

In reply to fimm:

haha

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2598/4022828163_5d0ced04f3_o.jpg

In reply to jonfun21:

A well rounded blog on this years "Landscape Photographer of the Year" - see my personal comments above - my view being its all about popularism and shifting books / getting coverage for the sponsors. Tim Parkin states what I couldn't really be bothered to write - plus he name checks Jem Southam who is the real deal.

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/landscape-photographer-of-the-year

In reply to jonfun21:

Interesting topic here I think.

Photoshop and digital post-processing have created quite a backlash it seems. Some of this clearly stems from, as ChrisJD says, the idea that once an image gets into photoshop anything goes.

Is it also because people have a natural aversion to being fooled? Something about the realism of a photograph which means that our first instinct is to believe what we see, and perhaps be impressed by the an image. Then to discover it is not "real" our sense of fairness is offended? For example the reflected image of the crab deconstructed above: it might not take long for a practiced eye to figure out its not "real" but I think the annoyance at finding that out is what will shape many peoples reactions.

Perhaps its a reaction to not knowing what to believe in a photograph? especially if "anything goes"

In reply to SeanB:

This is a good article on this history of photo fakery:

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/08/23/weekinreview/20090823_FAKE_SS_i...

In reply to chris_s: nice one chris.The Capa one should have sprung to mind.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:


Kind words !

It was a magical morning - I was shaking as I ran across the heather to get a shot before these amazing rays disappeared.

And its certainly how I remembered it and how it 'felt'. Image processed from RAW in Lightroom - never went into PS !


A wider 4 image stitched pan shot here:

http://tinyurl.com/ylfxwwj

In reply to ChrisJD:


Bloody hell, that's even better! The UKC version of this image went down very well when I used it at the workshop a few months ago (did you get my email afterwards, Chris?)

In reply to chris_s:

Yes I did - did I not reply? Apologies !

Glad it went down well.

In reply to ChrisJD:


Where would you draw the line? Will you be happy to use a clone stamp tool to cover up an unwanted lamp post or will you consider this as 'montage'?

In reply to ChrisJD:

No problem

In reply to jamestheyip: I have said all along, if I could do it wet, I can do it PS.
I have done multi printing in a wet darkroom. I have dodged/burned, pushed/pulled, but NEVER have I flattened anything as much as the HDR nuts do.
Mostly I have a small levels tweak, maybe a crop/rotate, and a hint of unsharp mask.

In reply to jamestheyip:
There is "No line" you can obviously do whatever you want with your images.
No doubt you saw the Ansel exhibition in Edinburgh a while ago? Even he stated he did a bit of jiggery pokery, but the final 'Photo' presented was all that counted.
If photographers want to be 'creative' let them get on with it. Photoshop can be breathe new life into old analogue film images, repairing them, fixing colour,duff exposure, prep for print, etc.
Its just 'progress'and as someone above said 'democratic'

In reply to jamestheyip:

My position has evolved (and is evolving).


I dust bust (I have old sensor technology).

Very rarely I might clone out minor stuff. Plus I might have to tidy up poor stitching by software (no much of an issue nowadays).

I would not introduce parts of another image into an image unless I was specifically and openly do a montage. Simon-c has been doing some really cool montage images that I'd be interesting in trying.

Basically:

If its in the image pixels/negative and needs bringing out, then I would use digital darkroom techniques. Current camera sensors cannot reproduce what the eye/brain does - so the image from the crap hardware technology needs help to be able to get a print that goes so way to replicating what the eye/brain 'sees'.

If I took/needed multiple brackets shots or HDR to capture high dynamic range scenes, I would use digital darkroom techniques. If it's not in any of the images captured, then I don't add stuff. I don't replace skies, for example.


With HDR, I get pulled two ways - first towards using the HDR approach to help reproduce with we see and secondly to produce cool looking digital HDR 'art'. These are separate things for me.


It does seem that people are generally more 'forgiving' of digital darkroom techniques in digital B&W than they are in digital colour.

In reply to ChrisJD:


It was that way with trad darkroom aswell, think of all those mega burned in skies on B&W prints and nobody bats an eyelid, but do it in colour and your guilty of black magic.

Maybe its because B&W isnt how we see, so from the outset the viewer maybe appreciates this as 'art' , as opposed to a colour shot which he expects some sort of reality from and is therefore open to some wild dodging burning and other darkroom horseplay with a B&W print..
Just a thought.

In reply to chris_s:

Cheers for that. Something I've always thought, is echoed here:

"“Art is always manipulation, from the moment you point a camera in one direction and not another,” Spain’s culture minister, the film director and screenwriter Ángeles González-Sinde, said"

In reply to ChrisJD:

Very nice. Would make a cracking wall image.

For general interest I have an Canon 40D and use the RAW processing software that came in the box. I think it's a great set of simple tools and 90% of the time it gets me to where I want to be with a photo. Generally I don't open PS (that I got for Christmas one year and haven't learned to use!) unless I want to crop an image. That's about it for tinkering for me.

In reply to SeanB:

I was thinking this just the other day. B&W is a way of presenting a subject that is different to the eye view. Maybe subconsciously we don't mind changes so much because we start our interpretation of it on a 'non-real' level.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

By the same measure, _all_ photography is like this, as it compresses a 3D world into single plane(*)

(FWIW I agree about the b&w thing and I've mentioned it a few times on here over the years when people talk about "unrealistic digital manipulation" and my favourite UKC catchphrase "hideously overPhotoShopped" )

*OK a reflection in a mirror or lake does this too.

In reply to jonfun21:

http://xkcd.com/648/

In reply to ChrisJD:


I think this is the moot point. It's only the photographer who knows what he/she 'sees'. I take you are referring to the physical behaviour of human eyes, e.g. reception of dynamic range comparing to digital sensor etc. However why shouldn't a sky background be mega burnt in a picture if this is what the photographer 'see'? Equally why should an unwanted lamp post appear in a picture if the photographer didn't 'see' it?

I found it quite interesting that given the convenience of digital technology, many people cut and paste elements to create desired compositions, or produce HDR images which doesn't resemble what their eyes received physically. So rather than using the tool to resemble what the eyes 'see' it becomes a media for creating what they want to see. I think the line between 'capturing' and 'creating' images will become even more blurred when both camera and software technology evolve. Perhaps it will be like going back to paint brushes when you can just do whatever you want.

That's why I think film is still a fascinating media because of its physical limitations and the mistranslations it sometimes gives. I agree with dek that you can just do whatever you want with your own images. Digital photography could be a more convenient tool for producing a candid representation of reality. However if that's what the photographer's aiming for why should we apply rules on the processing methods as if we were still limited by film technology?

In reply to jamestheyip:
I know a few photogs who shoot film and dig. But refuse to give up film,preferrring its colour palette in long exposures, and the way certain colours appear, they just cant get on dig.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I love the mouseover text on that one too.

In reply to jamestheyip:

No, I think you are missing my point. The quality of the image cast by the lens onto the two retina is pretty poor (so I believe, might be wrong).

The brain then does this amazing processing feat to produce what we 'see' and perceive (in 3D) and uses lots of short cuts to speed up that processing that can lead to some interest optical illusions and idiosyncrasies that artists have been exploiting for centuries..


In my simplistic view, I think of the digital sensor and the eye as similar crude non-thinking devices, and the brain and the digital darkroom as the processors to render the image into something worthwhile and useful.

In reply to ChrisJD: there's b/w, there's colour and then there's HDR...

In reply to subalpine:

and duotone, tritone (etc) and cross-processing etc.

In reply to Toby S: I love that picture of Inverpolly, for me also, so much better than any of the winners and highly commended images. The reason being, that so many times when I have wild camped on the fells, the light has been like that in the late evening, a gentle glow that is colourful yet subtle. Indeed, I have taken many photos myself on such occasions. It reminds me of great times in my life where I have been close to nature. I have never seen light like in many of the images that do so well in such competitions, and even if it does occur naturally, it simply detracts from the really awe inspiring aspects of the landscape, the mountains themselves. The mountains are the subject, not the light, and anyone who believes this is not the case does not truly understand landscape. The Inverpolly image celebrates the mountains on the horizon, and the foreground leading into them shows the smaller hills which, whilst not as dramatic, are also a significant part of the landscape. Looking at this, you get an idea of how the glaciers carved out the different shaped hills. Too many popular landscape images, and especially those touted as the creme de la creme, are taken with stupidly wide lenses, and have some annoyingly pointless foreground 'interest'; such as an icy stone or a stream. A great example being the popular treatment of Buachaille Etive Mor, a spectacular peak which too often gets consigned to the top 1/3rd of the frame with the rest of the foreground taken up by that river that flows in front of it and that annoying dead tree which I am tempted to go and chop down just to spite the 'transient light' brigade.

There is little originality in landscape photography anymore, it is becoming formulaic and stale. If I see one more portrait orientation picture of the Cuilin Hills from Elgol with those annoying stones and misty water in the foreground, I think I will scream. It is the same kind of people going to the same kind of places at the same times of day.

I am still young, but despite this I have taken photographs for many years. I studied art, and photography, and used to look to portray a message or make the viewer think about each of my landscape images. I looked for things that were different and refreshing. Recently, for one reason or another (possibly a desire to make a career out of photography leading me to try and create commercial work), I have found myself falling into the formulaic landscape trap. Thank God, the results of this competition and the few hours I have spent looking at the work of those considered to be the best landscape photographers in the country has been like a dose of smelling salts. I have woken up, and decided that I will return to my previous philosophy. I will try to understand the landscape, not the light that falls upon it, and I will definitely stop worring about gratifying the masses with corny oversaturated images. And hell, if I never make a living from what I create, well so be it.

Enough ranting for now.....

In reply to cshawty:

I think when the process becomes the main talking point of an image, beyond its intention, then its a lost image. What for me is important about landscape is an engagement with it. Jem Southam is for me probably closest to what I look for in that genre, I have had conversations with not only him but others who have a similar view in that they spend time within it, being part of it and then using that experience to create and produce work that examines that engagement.

I cant personally get excited by these as they dont represent to me what I look for but I'm sure the people who created them and put them forward believed in what they were doing as a creative process and were pleased with being part of that.

In reply to Removed User:

Well said Simon. Thomas Joshua Cooper is another who springs to mind along with Paul Hill
As I understand it Coopers Atlantic series is nearly finished.

In reply to cshawty:

I think what has to be remembered is that comps like this are the photography equivalent of Pop Idol / X Factor etc - its mass appeal middle of the road none challenging banality which fills a role and satisfies some.

In reply to Henry Iddon:

I heard he had bought up all the Forte paper and then run out of film halfway round good to hear, I'm looking forward to seeing that.

Paul lives near me and many many years ago gave me some sage words of advice, after driving him to the local shops as a payment and the use of his building and its contents at the back of the cottages during the winter months, haven't seen him for a long time now though. Must get in contact. It's all a never ending journey I guess

In reply to Removed User: Absolutely agree, I went to see one of Jem's exhibitions in Exeter when I was at Plymouth studying. He talked to us about what his work meant. His Blackgang Chine images showed the progression of time, the movement and change in a specific part of a landscape. I really liked that concept. I imagine few of the photographers involved in this comp could talk about their work in the same way, short of saying 'I wanted to create something pretty'.

In reply to Henry Iddon: I agree Henry, I believe strongly that to be a true artist, photographic or otherwise, you must follow your own agenda, whether or not this is desirable to the masses or indeed profitable. Somewhere along the line I became lost in what other people expected me to be doing, and I have realised that my photography has become far less creative and meaningful than it once was. I feel excited about the prospect of returning to my previous, more experimental work, and will hopefuly create something fresh and new as a result.

In reply to cshawty:

Sounds good, look forward to seeing some of your work, I think its the only way forward personally, to do your own thought process in the work, to keep working through it until it ends up at a place your happy with. For the sake of completeness to my earlier comment, I suspect that the 'film' aspect was misreported back in '04 as having reacquainted myself with the series I doubt its correct, maybe they meant plates, however I do remember the stocks of Forte running out

In reply to jonfun21:
There's a rather less technical discussion about these photos on the FRA forum. One of the contributions points here:
http://www.bofra.co.uk/

taken over 3 years ago...

In reply to Toreador:

Is there an issue? Has anyone stolen a photo? Did the photo have to be taken in 2009 and/or never seen publicly before? (genuine questions - I have not read the FRA forums)

In reply to Blue Straggler:
Just that the competition is called 'photo of the year 2009', which rather suggests that the photo might have been taken this year, or at least since last year's competition if there was one.

In reply to jonfun21:

How do we know said pic was taken 3 years ago?

In reply to jonfun21:

) Entries must have been taken within the five years immediately prior to the closing date. Images that have won an award in a nationally promoted competition (including previous ‘Take a views’), or that have been entered in such a competition where the results are still pending, are not eligible for entry. Images taken at the Youth workshops organised for the prize winners of previous Take a view competitions are not eligible for entry.