Landscape Photoshopper of the Year

[Jonathan Perkins]

I've just been looking at the winners of the "Landscape Photographer of the Year" competition on the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm.

Is it me? Did I miss Adobes release of their "Spinal Tap" version of Photoshop where all the sliders go to 11?

There's something just wrong with the winning photo from my view - what might have been a reasonable image has been post processed to shreds. That dayglow water in the foreground, the highly suspicious crepuscular rays... And don't get me started on HDR...

And breath Phew, thats better!

Jonathan

[timparkin]

I've just been looking at the winners of the "Landscape Photographer of the Year" competition on the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm.

Is it me? Did I miss Adobes release of their "Spinal Tap" version of Photoshop where all the sliders go to 11?

There's something just wrong with the winning photo from my view - what might have been a reasonable image has been post processed to shreds. That dayglow water in the foreground, the highly suspicious crepuscular rays... And don't get me started on HDR...

And breath Phew, thats better!

Jonathan

Hmm... yes...

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/landsca ... f-the-year

[dave_whatever]

Is it me or the horizon not even vaguely horizontal on the winning shot?

The photoshopped crab thing is appalling. Is this supposed to be landscape photographer of the year or graphic designer of the year?

[Charles Twist]

Hello Dave,
When I got my own shots back from the Storr, I noticed the horizon seemed curved and I am pretty careful usually. I think it's just the way the bay and the mainland appear.

Charles

[DJ]

I actually like the winning entry, yes it's highly saturated, yes it's idealised, yes it's in perfect light, yes it may have had some post-processing.

So what.

It may not be those things either, he may just have been there at the right place at the right time, with a stack of Velvia 50, and that's exactly how the transparency looks, you simply don't know. I honestly couldn't care less whether he manipulated it or not. It's a beautiful image, I enjoy looking at it, when did that become not enough?

I'm going to have a bit of a rant now, and this is not a criticism of the posts or posters here, but of something that I see more and more of, and it irks me, the modern art argument. Over-complicating something for the sake of it, it's just a get-out clause. It seems nowadays a photograph or any other art form can't just be pleasing to the eye or ear, if it doesn't have a message, make a political statement, save a whale or highlight a breach of human rights, then it's no good. I see it all the time, someone compares a clearly inferior artwork to a superior one by claiming all sorts of fabricated intellectual justifications, and anyone who disagrees "doesn't get it". It reminds me of the fable of The Emperor's New Clothes. When I hear artists or critics droning on about why the juxtaposition of this enhances the subtle nuances of that, they're practicing nothing more than mental masturbation. Perhaps it's my advancing age, but I can simply no longer muster the patience to listen to people trying to convince themselves they're clever.

I doubt anyone would consider the winning photographer to be the best Landscape photographer in the country for that year, and I suspect the winner himself would be the hardest to convince, he is merely the winner of this competition, and the judges thought he deserved the win. You have to take the title with a pinch of salt, it's called what it is to fit in with the other similar competitions, the Wildlife Photographer Of the Year etc., it's an extension of those competitions, and as I understand it, Charlie Waite started this competition because he saw those other genres represented in this manner where Landscapes were not. I believe his purpose was to promote Landscape as a genre, and in that goal I believe he has succeeded beyond all expectations.

I also entered this year for the first time, four images, none of which got into the final round. Having seen some of the winning entries I'm actually pleased to see they're such beautiful images, it means my own were rejected for superior ones, which is as it should be! My personal favourite is the winner of the Classical View, the shot of Rannoch Moor and Buachaille Etive Mor(sp?) by John Parminter, which to my eye is absolutely breathtaking, it could almost be a painting, and something I would love to have on my wall.

I will buy the book and I will visit the exhibition, I will not like all the entries, I will wonder why some of them were included I'm sure, but I was not a judge so it was not my choice to make, but I will enjoy looking at them all, and that I think, is all that's necessary.

[timparkin]

I actually like the winning entry, yes it's highly saturated, yes it's idealised, yes it's in perfect light, yes it may have had some post-processing.

So what.

The so what for me is that people will be calling him 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' because of this image.. is that enough? I'll rant a bit back now...

It may not be those things either, he may just have been there at the right place at the right time, with a stack of Velvia 50, and that's exactly how the transparency looks, you simply don't know. I honestly couldn't care less whether he manipulated it or not. It's a beautiful image, I enjoy looking at it, when did that become not enough?

A stack of velvia 50 and a badly set up panorama merge program?



I'd say that it's a good picture - maybe even 'view of the year' if you like (and I don't particularly). It isn't 'landscape photograph of the year' by any criteria that I know of and it certainly doesn't exhibit 'landscape photographer of the year' potential. I should add that this isn't a criticism of Emmanuelle, many of his other pictures show his skills a lot better and show that he is a competent photographer that has worked hard at his passion; I just believe that there are more deserving recipients of the accolade who were rejected outright at the first round.

I'm going to have a bit of a rant now, and this is not a criticism of the posts or posters here, but of something that I see more and more of, and it irks me, the modern art argument. Over-complicating something for the sake of it, it's just a get-out clause. It seems nowadays a photograph or any other art form can't just be pleasing to the eye or ear, if it doesn't have a message, make a political statement, save a whale or highlight a breach of human rights, then it's no good. I see it all the time, someone compares a clearly inferior artwork to a superior one by claiming all sorts of fabricated intellectual justifications, and anyone who disagrees "doesn't get it". It reminds me of the fable of The Emperor's New Clothes. When I hear artists or critics droning on about why the juxtaposition of this enhances the subtle nuances of that, they're practicing nothing more than mental masturbation. Perhaps it's my advancing age, but I can simply no longer muster the patience to listen to people trying to convince themselves they're clever.

It's nothing to do with modern art at all. It's to do with "What does the photographer bring to the party?". If your answer is a camera and the knowledge of how it works then fine.

My personal desire is that the photographer brings in the skill to compose and arrange a view of some subject or other in a way that creates something more than just a representation of a nice scene.

If you don't beleive that there is any point in a photographer doing anything other than turning up at locations and hoping that the light is right then fair enough. I want to see photographs that make me look at the world anew, to see beauty in things that I wouldn't have expected. John Parminter's Buachaille is an example of a well executed beautiful photograph that shows the Buachaille from a new location and in such a way that my eye moves around the picture, enjoying every moment. Emmanmuels picture is competently captured but what is there of the photographer in it beyond the skill to use a camera, the effort to get to the top of the hill and the luck to get stunning light. If this is all photography is about then I'm dissapointed.

I doubt anyone would consider the winning photographer to be the best Landscape photographer in the country for that year, and I suspect the winner himself would be the hardest to convince, he is merely the winner of this competition, and the judges thought he deserved the win.

But the vast majority of the general public *will* believe that! Emmanuel probably won't as I know he has better pictures and I don't know many people who seriously think that they are the best landscape photographer ... It's more than just a pointless name for a competition, it damages the publics view of what landscape photography is and damages the world's view of what the best landscape photographers in britain are (i.e. the best photographer of britain is actually French - but hey, that was the rules and I'm not going to object to that too much).

I have a passion for landscape photography and care about what people perceive it to be.. perhaps I'm alone in this ..

You have to take the title with a pinch of salt, it's called what it is to fit in with the other similar competitions, the Wildlife Photographer Of the Year etc., it's an extension of those competitions, and as I understand it, Charlie Waite started this competition because he saw those other genres represented in this manner where Landscapes were not. I believe his purpose was to promote Landscape as a genre, and in that goal I believe he has succeeded beyond all expectations.

But the results for landscape photographer of the year are stunning, as you can probably see for yourself..

I will buy the book and I will visit the exhibition, I will not like all the entries, I will wonder why some of them were included I'm sure, but I was not a judge so it was not my choice to make, but I will enjoy looking at them all, and that I think, is all that's necessary.

If you will enjoy looking at all of the pictures in the exhibition then good on you... I personally think only about one in ten are worthy pictures. I didn't enter but I know a lot of people who did and have seen the pictures that were entered. They may not have been better than the winner (although I beleive they were) but they were definitely a *lot* better than the pictures that have got through.

If the competition was called 'British View of the Year', I don't think anyone would have any objection whatsoever..

Anyway - my rant over...

Tim

[Patrick Dixon]

I like the wheat field and the shopping trolley and I think they both meet Tim's criteria -

"My personal desire is that the photographer brings in the skill to compose and arrange a view of some subject or other in a way that creates something more than just a representation of a nice scene."

Rannoch Moor is very nice, but it's a bit biscuit tin to me.

[Charles Twist]

Hello DJ and Tim
Technique and aesthetics. As your discussion sways from one to the other, you could echo the course of art history. I doubt there is a right and a wrong.
Some other comments in no particular order:
1) DJ mentioning the modern art argument is ironic in a way: those insisting on the conceptual abandon the need for technique and aesthetics. DJ argues for an enjoyment of art free of the shackles of technique but with a strong sense of aesthetics. However, it's Tim who insists that an appreciation of art should be both technical and aesthetic. So, in a way, DJ is actually closer to that which annoys him.
2) I think that Tim is right to say that a master-photographer will demonstrate both technical and aesthetic mastery. I would argue s/he also needs a mastery of concepts. Does the critic have to share the same skill-set?
3) On the grounds that every photograph will be flawed in one way or another, depending on what you consider to be good, does it matter whether the horizon is bent (thanks for proving that one) because of software contraints or because of lens distortion or whatever? Being a master means you can do more than most with your tools, but s/he will still be limited by them. Imagine a machine capable of recording what I see. You may consider this the closest to my vision. You'll still be complaining about the faulty optics in my left eye or the strange workings of my brain. The Storr picture shows what can be done with a particular technique. Tim might use a different technique which will exhibit a different set of flaws. Is it fair to criticise a picture obtained with one method on the basis of the other's strong points?
4) The benefits of Photoshop to photographers are well documented and continually expanding. Photoshop is also a tool for critics since it provides a quantitative analysis. Now that you have a measuring tape for technical excellence, nobody can argue with the objective metering (unlike subjective considerations which are unobjectionable). Is it wrong to barricade yourself behind numbers and graphs? Probably so. But there is little else solid enough upon which to build a meaningful conversation. So I am afraid we are set to suffer the tyranny of Photoshop for a while longer.
Best regards,
Charles

[timparkin]

Hello DJ and Tim
Technique and aesthetics. As your discussion sways from one to the other, you could echo the course of art history. I doubt there is a right and a wrong.
Some other comments in no particular order:
1) DJ mentioning the modern art argument is ironic in a way: those insisting on the conceptual abandon the need for technique and aesthetics. DJ argues for an enjoyment of art free of the shackles of technique but with a strong sense of aesthetics. However, it's Tim who insists that an appreciation of art should be both technical and aesthetic. So, in a way, DJ is actually closer to that which annoys him.

Obviously there is no right or wrong, there is only personal opinion. I'm not personally concerned with technique, my only comment was that technique on it's own is not enough.I

The aesthetics of a scene is a combination of what was actually there and what the photographer adds to it. If a picture is only beautiful because of what was actually there then you may get a great picture but I would not say it was an example of great photography (regardless of the craft/technique in which it was captured). If someone takes a picture of something that isn't amazingly aesthetically beautiful but does something through composition, balance of light, etc to increase the aesthetic quality of the final picture (and this includes post processing) then *that* is photography.

I think DJ was saying that you don't need tecnique and the photographer doens't really need to add to the aesthetics of the picture as long as the subject is aesthetically pleasing. i.e. The photographer as a collector of stunning moments rather than my desire which is the photographer as creator of stunning pictures.

2) I think that Tim is right to say that a master-photographer will demonstrate both technical and aesthetic mastery. I would argue s/he also needs a mastery of concepts. Does the critic have to share the same skill-set?

The critic doesn't have to share this mastery to appreciate a great picture; they do have to understand these aspects if they want to appreciate great photography. The same is true in 'art appreciation', 'wine appreciation', etc, etc.

3) On the grounds that every photograph will be flawed in one way or another, depending on what you consider to be good, does it matter whether the horizon is bent (thanks for proving that one) because of software contraints or because of lens distortion or whatever? Being a master means you can do more than most with your tools, but s/he will still be limited by them. Imagine a machine capable of recording what I see. You may consider this the closest to my vision. You'll still be complaining about the faulty optics in my left eye or the strange workings of my brain. The Storr picture shows what can be done with a particular technique. Tim might use a different technique which will exhibit a different set of flaws. Is it fair to criticise a picture obtained with one method on the basis of the other's strong points?

No.. it doesn't matter whether the horizon is bent at all.. I couldn't care less as long as it does not detract from the resulting picture. However, in this case it does detract for me. I'm happy with pictures from Petzval lenses to Lomos to the best Schneider optics. It doesn't matter as long as there is a creative/aesthetic intent by the photographer.

4) The benefits of Photoshop to photographers are well documented and continually expanding. Photoshop is also a tool for critics since it provides a quantitative analysis. Now that you have a measuring tape for technical excellence, nobody can argue with the objective metering (unlike subjective considerations which are unobjectionable). Is it wrong to barricade yourself behind numbers and graphs? Probably so. But there is little else solid enough upon which to build a meaningful conversation. So I am afraid we are set to suffer the tyranny of Photoshop for a while longer.
Best regards,

How is photoshop a tool for critics?

What you are coming back to is 'there is no objective assessment of quality'.

Here is a question for you? How did we come to recognise Bach, Beethoven, Turner, etc. as great artists? Was it populism that did this or was it the art critics?

As someone becomes more passionate about a subject, their tastes change and they develop 'more critical' pallettes. In most literary and artistic fields, the critics are the ones that create careers and acheive a consensus on who is best. Without the critics, Patricia Cornwell would be recognised as the best author, Harry Potter becomes the best cinematic production, The best musician is L'il Wayne.. Do we want this type of consensus for landscape photography?

Tim

[timparkin]

I like the wheat field and the shopping trolley and I think they both meet Tim's criteria -

"My personal desire is that the photographer brings in the skill to compose and arrange a view of some subject or other in a way that creates something more than just a representation of a nice scene."

Rannoch Moor is very nice, but it's a bit biscuit tin to me.

I should have been specific and said that this isn't my own personal criteria for liking pictures but it is (IMO) what it takes to elevate photography from a craft to an art.

I also don't proclaim to know what makes good photography or bad photography. I personally know what I like when I see it... (is it the wheat field with the heavy HDR that you like?) - John Parminter's trolley is good but I'm not sure it really fits into my definition of 'Landscape Photography'

Tim

[DJ]

The so what for me is that people will be calling him 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' because of this image.. is that enough?

Ah but Tim, why should you care what people call him?

I'll rant a bit back now...

back..? it wasn't aimed at you ya know...

A stack of velvia 50 and a badly set up panorama merge program?



I'd say that it's a good picture - maybe even 'view of the year' if you like (and I don't particularly). It isn't 'landscape photograph of the year' by any criteria that I know of and it certainly doesn't exhibit 'landscape photographer of the year' potential. I should add that this isn't a criticism of Emmanuelle, many of his other pictures show his skills a lot better and show that he is a competent photographer that has worked hard at his passion; I just believe that there are more deserving recipients of the accolade who were rejected outright at the first round.

I think if you've reached the point of drawing lines on other people's images to point out why they didn't deserve to win the accolade they just won, it's time to let it go This stuff will eat you up inside and there's no sense in over-analysing it, you'll just wind yourself up. You either like it or you don't, enjoy ( or not ) and move on to the next thing.

It's nothing to do with modern art at all.

Merely how I like to refer to the phenomenon.

It's to do with "What does the photographer bring to the party?"

He brought the image. How he got there isn't really that relevant. Whether he spent years honing his craft with the most technical camera he could find, working out exposures with an abacus and spending weeks in vigil waiting for the right light, or showed up one morning with a point and shoot and got lucky with the weather, he still got the image.

If your answer is a camera and the knowledge of how it works then fine. My personal desire is that the photographer brings in the skill to compose and arrange a view of some subject or other in a way that creates something more than just a representation of a nice scene.

I agree with the notion that it's good for a photographer to have skill and vision, but what irks me is when they use it as a crutch to justify why an inferior image is just as good as something which is clearly more pleasing. Really, what is so wrong with "just a representation of a nice scene" if it's pleasing? This is Landscape Photography, not Olympic Diving, there are no points awarded for technical difficulty, only the result. To my mind, the aim is to produce an image that is pleasing, in whatever way the photographer sees fit, and the whole thing is subjective anyway, what pleases one person will not please another.

I argue that an image is not devalued because it was taken from a viewpoint that has been used by someone before, or was taken with a consumer camera instead of a technical camera, or doesn't evoke concern for the diminishing natural habitat of the lesser spotted canteloupe eating marmoset.

If you don't beleive that there is any point in a photographer doing anything other than turning up at locations and hoping that the light is right then fair enough. I want to see photographs that make me look at the world anew, to see beauty in things that I wouldn't have expected. John Parminter's Buachaille is an example of a well executed beautiful photograph that shows the Buachaille from a new location and in such a way that my eye moves around the picture, enjoying every moment. Emmanmuels picture is competently captured but what is there of the photographer in it beyond the skill to use a camera, the effort to get to the top of the hill and the luck to get stunning light. If this is all photography is about then I'm dissapointed.

The basis of that seems to be that because the photographer didn't suffer for his art, his work is devalued. It's very easy to rely on the notion that because an image was difficult to get, it is a better image. We become very attached to our own images because we know what was endured ( or not ) to capture them, it's human nature. All of this is irrelevant to the viewer, who do not know this story ( or care ), they only see what is on front of them. I learned this some time ago by showing some of my images to a friend who has no interest in photography, he told me that he really enjoyed them, and furthermore told me to "shut up" when I began to explain how I got them.

A drab image perfectly executed with a difficult to use technical camera in poor light, is still a drab image, and all the self-indulgent justifications of the photographer as to why it's an artistic masterpiece won't change it. To my mind, if you're having to look for justifications as to why your image is good, it isn't.

I doubt anyone would consider the winning photographer to be the best Landscape photographer in the country for that year.

But the vast majority of the general public *will* believe that!

The competition is aimed at the public, to raise the profile of the genre of Landscape Photography, it's not aimed at you, you're a Landscape Photographer, you already know

It's more than just a pointless name for a competition, it damages the publics view of what landscape photography is and damages the world's view of what the best landscape photographers in britain are (i.e. the best photographer of britain is actually French - but hey, that was the rules and I'm not going to object to that too much).

I disagree, it damages your view of what Landscape Photography is; to the general public, pretty landscape pictures IS what Landscape Photography is about, so this will merely re-enforce it.

I have a passion for landscape photography and care about what people perceive it to be.. perhaps I'm alone in this ..

I think many of us here have a passion for landscape photography, and really, I do understand, but I think you're taking it too seriously, and perhaps letting something completely out of your control tarnish what you enjoy doing... simply enjoy it, let the other stuff go, life is too short

If you will enjoy looking at all of the pictures in the exhibition then good on you... I personally think only about one in ten are worthy pictures. I didn't enter but I know a lot of people who did and have seen the pictures that were entered. They may not have been better than the winner (although I beleive they were) but they were definitely a *lot* better than the pictures that have got through.

Of course there will be images there which aren't to my taste, I expect nothing less, but then my taste wasn't used to select them I will enjoy the exhibition because it's such a different experience to the book, last year I was captivated by a particular image which I barely gave a second look in the book, the print was quite beautiful.

Seriously, I do understand the whole thing about the "title" that's bestowed, the same criticisms were made last year, but when you really look at the competition, it's aimed at the general public, to promote the genre, and provide the likes of us with a vehicle to present work. But being aimed at the public, the judges will have to choose work for the public, and not for us.

[jennym]

So DJ, just to clarify, are you saying that you think these images do represent the best that British Landscape photography can provide, and you think that this is what the public want to see? Are you saying that this is a competition for the public, and the images chosen by the judges accurately represent what people appreciate as great landscape photography? Or have I misunderstood?

Jenny

[DJ]

1) DJ mentioning the modern art argument is ironic in a way: those insisting on the conceptual abandon the need for technique and aesthetics. DJ argues for an enjoyment of art free of the shackles of technique but with a strong sense of aesthetics. However, it's Tim who insists that an appreciation of art should be both technical and aesthetic. So, in a way, DJ is actually closer to that which annoys him.

Enjoyment should be free of the shackles of technique shouldn't it? Critique? Not so much. What I am doing is advocating enjoyment over critique

I would agree that appreciation of art can be both technical and aesthetic, but suggest that technique is a path to achieve aesthetic or artistic merit, but technique cannot constitute it in it's own right, nor should technique surpass aesthetic.

I think it's especially prevalent in photography, for example, a painter must be adept at the technique of mixing paint, but how many times have you heard someone, upon viewing a truly beautiful painting, say "would you look at the way he's mixed that green..."? Doesn't happen does it? How many times have you heard that of a photograph? More than a few I'll wager. We obsess upon the technique.

For myself, I am and always will be more technical than artistic, so it is the artistic which will always be elusive and for which I must strive, and it would be all too easy to fall back on technique to to support the lack of artistic merit, which is why I try so hard to avoid it, and why it irks me

[DJ]

So DJ, just to clarify, are you saying that you think these images do represent the best that British Landscape photography can provide

No, not at all, and I doubt that they are, for one thing not everyone will have entered and some of the professionals will not have been eligible to. No, merely accept them for what they are, the best British Landscape Photographs submitted to this particular competition as deemed by the appointed judges based upon whatever marking criteria they used!

In short, I have no possible way of knowing, nor have I any influence on it, so I took what enjoyment I could from those images selected, and went about my business. The whys and wherefores of whether this image should have won over that image are not worth worrying about IMHO, the whole thing is subjective.

and you think that this is what the public want to see? Are you saying that this is a competition for the public, and the images chosen by the judges accurately represent what people appreciate as great landscape photography? Or have I misunderstood?

I believe the purpose of the competition it to promote "Landscape" as a subject. When he started the competition Charlie Waite likened it to the other competitions of this ilk with other subjects, such as Wildlife, Travel etc., and said he felt Landscape should be represented. That's just my belief, and without questioning the man to confirm or deny it, that's all it can be.

I also believe the target audience has the "public" as the majority, as opposed to "photographers". Given the prevalence of digital cameras now, a huge proportion of the "public" could arguably be deemed "photographers" but I reserve that title for the more serious enthusiasts who pursue it as a hobby ( or career ), people like us. That "public" majority is going to take a far more simplistic view of the exhibited images, simply those they like, critical focus and depth of field are going to be lesser concerns in that demographic. The judges will have IMO kept that in mind and tried find a balance between aesthetic and technical appraisal when selecting the winning images. Again, just my opinion.

[DJ]

I think DJ was saying that you don't need tecnique and the photographer doens't really need to add to the aesthetics of the picture as long as the subject is aesthetically pleasing. i.e. The photographer as a collector of stunning moments rather than my desire which is the photographer as creator of stunning pictures.

Not at all, I was merely advocating that technique doesn't trump aesthetic. I'm saying that just because you didn't get down on your belly for alternate view, or that you shot the stunning scenic view instead of the little red pebble amongst all the white pebbles, it doesn't mean it's less of a photograph. It doesn't have to be alternative nor have visible signs of "technique" to be good.

There's a habit amongst some photographers ( thankfully nobody here, but I've met a few in clubs, usually judges ) of deriding or dismissing an image for being too pretty or "chocolate boxxy", who then turn around and proffer some poorly executed drab image, perhaps of a seashell and some rope, with a pretentious air of artistic and technical superiority and try to convince you there's something to it that isn't really there. That Classical View bashing bothers me, and I am highly resistant to it. Both types of image have merit, just because one is more classically aesthetic doesn't make it less so. After all, doesn't the LPOTY have a Classic View category?