Landscape Photoshopper of the Year

[Patrick Dixon]

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'

Is it heavy HDR? I'm not much cop with PS myself, but it just looks like maybe a graduated filter to me. And does Landscape Photography mean no man made objects? It's difficult to think of a landscape that hasn't touched by man in someway, so where exactly do we draw the line? I think the danger is that if we only allow 'natural' splendour we end up with biscuit tin images and the kind of thing that anyone could take if they get lucky with the light. Actually I think what makes a good photographer is that they consistently get lucky with the light, and in that respect I think the Landscape Photographer of the Year would be better judged on a portfolio than a single image.

And FWIW, this is my favourite CW image. If I had five hundred quid I might even put it on my wall.

[timparkin]

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.

Well - I was of the opinion that a picture can say more than a bunch of text..

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.

We could all use this argument and let landscape photography just be a bunch of pretty pictures from the same old locations. Or we could try and expand on the genre, reward people for making the effort to find new locations and to explore new ideas. I prefer the latter and I think you prefer the former, which is fine as we can both have different viewpoints.

If we argue your point, people like Joe Cornish, David Ward, Paul Wakefield, Jan Tove, etc would just be producing some more Dunstaburgh pictures or another Corfe Castle in the mist. I think this would be a shame. Hence I would like to promote an environment where people trying to be the next Ward or Wakefield are rewarded, not ignored.

... 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.

Nope - I was arguing that John Parminter's work required less effort as it is near the road and Emmanuel's required more effort as it is at the top of a bloody great hill. I'm arguing that despite Emmanuel's suffering getting up the hill - this doesn't make it a great picture.

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.

Which is strange as Joe Cornish always get's asked about how the pictures were captured by potential purchasers (who are rarely photographers sadly).

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

The genre of landscape photography of this sort is already well served by postcards around the tourist centres of great britain.

By the selection criteria applied in this years competition, photographers such as Joe, David, Paul, etc would get rejected in the first round. Does this really reflect what is great about British landscape photography then?

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

It is'nt tarnishing anything really. I just wish to raise the point that many photographers don't think that the competition represents the best that landscape photography has to offer. Doing so doesn't imply that I'm losing sleep over it. And I'm not just moaning, I plan to do something about it by ensuring there is an alternative competition next year that reflects what most committed landscape photographers are asking for.

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?

I'm not sure where this has come from as I wasn't arguing this point at all - it sounds like you have a problem with a certain class of photographer or photographic judge (probably club judges) which is fine. But it's irrelevant to what we are talking about.

I'm trying to argue the point that in nearly all forms of professional art or music or food or cooking, the general population of the country are very rarely the arbiters of 'talent' or 'quality'. If so, the best chef would be McDonalds, the best music: Westlife, etc... As it is, the best chef of the year was voted as Heston Blumenthal, the best musician was voted as Yo-Yo Ma. I just want the best photographer of the year to tend towards the latter, not the former.

Tim

p.s.

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.

Surprisingly quite a few - you should read about art appreciation and the history of colour. As for people saying that about photography? No - I've never heard anyone talk about how the green is so beautiful. I obviously have different photographer friends than you - most of them are more interested in composition and beauty and will talk about the textures of the subject, the way the conditions and light accentuate the shapes of things etc..

[timparkin]

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'

Is it heavy HDR? I'm not much cop with PS myself, but it just looks like maybe a graduated filter to me.

If it's the one at the bottom of the list of pictures next to my blog post, then it is most definitely HDR or Tone Mapping of some sort.

And does Landscape Photography mean no man made objects? It's difficult to think of a landscape that hasn't touched by man in someway, so where exactly do we draw the line? I think the danger is that if we only allow 'natural' splendour we end up with biscuit tin images and the kind of thing that anyone could take if they get lucky with the light.

Hmm.. definitely not - it would be difficult to get a picture without any as you say. However, a picture of a shopping trolley across a harbour with a city in the background isn't landscape photography in my book..

Actually I think what makes a good photographer is that they consistently get lucky with the light, and in that respect I think the Landscape Photographer of the Year would be better judged on a portfolio than a single image.

So we're talking some sort of divine probabilty avoidance. By this definition, there is no way to become a good photographer at all - you are at the mercy of luck, it's just a roll of the dice? I would hope that it's more about predicting where and when good light will strike, knowing how to use the light quickly when it happens and making sure you have a suitable subject and composition ready that the light can illuminate. An element of luck maybe, not the most significant part though I hope..

And FWIW, this is my favourite CW image. If I had five hundred quid I might even put it on my wall.

Do it!! Save up and buy it! More photographers should buy photographs, it's a real shame that they don't.. How about skipping out on a camera upgrade and buying a picture?
Oh and I agree - it's a stunning picture and wouldn't have stood a chance in hell of getting through LPotY (had it been of the UK).

Tim

[timparkin]

Somebody was saying that the landscape photographer of the year is just like the wildlife photographer of the year.

I would disagree. The wildlife photographer of the year consistently attracts fantastic entrants and the judging is great. For an idea why..

LPotY Judges..

1st Round - four stock photo editors + Charlie
2nd Round - 5 business men + Damien Demolder + Charlie

WPotY Judges

11 photographers, 2 Picture Editors and the editor of the BBC Wildlife magazine..

I think this sums things up for me.. If LPotY had a similar balance we would have seen very different results..

Oh and while I'm at it - why does wildlife photographer of the year have better landscape pictures in it than landscape photographer of the year?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g ... =331055732
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g ... =331055705

[jennym]

Have to agree the impact factor from the images from wildlife photographer of the year is phenomenal....

[Charles Twist]

I am feeling that DJ and Tim are not actually that far from each other and are mainly disagreeing on terminology. The truth is that technique covers quite a few aspects and slipping from compositional aspects (including finding the location) to capture methods blurs the lines of your conversation. Otherwise some interesting points there.

I doubt the Storr would have been that big an effort if the guy shot it with digital - much lighter and smaller than LF.

Tim, you asked me a question:

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?

Popularity and greatness. I am not in any position to say who is a great artist and who isn't. I can say who I like and who I don't but that's about it. You can amplify this up to population level and obtain a degree of popularity. You could equate a high degree to greatness: it would have the disadvantage of losing some of the masters (defined previously as those who use their tools more fully than most), but at least it's measurable. This kind of greatness would also vary with time and geography, so is still not an absolute, but at least we have removed individual subjectivity from the equation. I know you don't like this definition of greatness and I don't care for it or any other definition. I prefer to think of particular works being useful or having an element of meaning in relation to my own work.
Now looking at the matter of time-dependence is interesting: of the three artists you mention, only Beethoven was popular in his day. I suspect that his popularity has waned little since then in the mind of the general public. Bach and Turner were rediscovered - the former in the mid 19th century and the latter in the late 19th-early 20th century. Bach and Turner were disliked in their day by the public who didn't get it and the critics who didn't like seeing all their lovely rules being trounced. In fact, the critics then sound a bit like you now. "Oh I don't like that: the horizon is bent. Next!" Bach and Turner were rediscovered by artists who saw the merit of the work and that it allowed them to go beyond the dogma of their time: it was a stepping-stone which made sense once lined up with the work of the more recent artists. I suspect that the work of Bach and Turner is popular nowadays because so much of our education is couched in what was considered right in the late 19th century.
I am loath to denigrate the work selected by the judges because it might be the future solution. However, it is a long way from what I do and I felt some results strinking and some were nice but middling. That's just my opinion.

Photoshop is useful for critics in that it allows them to analyse an image. Stock library editors apply the most basic analysis by looking at histograms: is there any black or any white? If so, you're out. (Well, those are the rules anyway.) In that respect, reading that the first panel consisted mostly of library editors, I am less surprised at the pictures which made their way through the technical filter of the first round.

Best regards,
Charles

[Patrick Dixon]

Actually I think what makes a good photographer is that they consistently get lucky with the light, and in that respect I think the Landscape Photographer of the Year would be better judged on a portfolio than a single image.

So we're talking some sort of divine probabilty avoidance. By this definition, there is no way to become a good photographer at all - you are at the mercy of luck, it's just a roll of the dice? I would hope that it's more about predicting where and when good light will strike, knowing how to use the light quickly when it happens and making sure you have a suitable subject and composition ready that the light can illuminate. An element of luck maybe, not the most significant part though I hope..

I agree, my 'lucky with the light' was meant in the same way that the golfer Gary Player once said "It's funny, the harder I practice the luckier I get"

Do it!! Save up and buy it! More photographers should buy photographs, it's a real shame that they don't.. How about skipping out on a camera upgrade and buying a picture?
Oh and I agree - it's a stunning picture and wouldn't have stood a chance in hell of getting through LPotY (had it been of the UK).

Hmm, my camera upgrades are obviously a bit less expensive than yours

I do have a couple of Steve Lewis' prints though.

[timparkin]

Firstly - I don't think me and DJ are disagreeing to much apart from our difference of opinion on what can be done about promoting the sort of landscape photography that is 'deserving'. I think DJ jhas the opinion that I'm trying to promote cerebral artistic accomplishment over raw beauty but that couldn't be further from the truth. It is just that my definition of raw beauty also includes an awareness of photography and I would like to have a competition that is awarding

I doubt the Storr would have been that big an effort if the guy shot it with digital - much lighter and smaller than LF.

I'm pretty sure it was a digital - A 1DsIII with a panning clamp to grap the pano..

Tim, you asked me a question:

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?

Popularity and greatness.

I think this is the partly the key *both* popularity *and* greatness - if it had just been popularity, they would have sunk into insignifiance over time. There were many very popular musicians in the period and a lot of 'trendy' artists who only historians know about. However, as you follow up with, it is the later artists who realised the talent of these people who then created their popularity. So just greatness is good enough if enough influential people work hard at helping to make it popular. Which is part of what I want to do, work at making the great photographers popular and which is something I think LPotY generally fails at.

I am not in any position to say who is a great artist and who isn't. I can say who I like and who I don't but that's about it. You can amplify this up to population level and obtain a degree of popularity. You could equate a high degree to greatness: it would have the disadvantage of losing some of the masters (defined previously as those who use their tools more fully than most), but at least it's measurable. This kind of greatness would also vary with time and geography, so is still not an absolute, but at least we have removed individual subjectivity from the equation. I know you don't like this definition of greatness and I don't care for it or any other definition. I prefer to think of particular works being useful or having an element of meaning in relation to my own work.

We have to generalise unfortunately - that is the way the world works.. I'll generalise that most historic artists/musicians are popular because they are great and were recognised as great by other artists and scholars. I do have an issue of equating popularity to greatness, I don't know many people who would say that because something is popular, it must be better. (anybody?)

Now looking at the matter of time-dependence is interesting: of the three artists you mention, only Beethoven was popular in his day. I suspect that his popularity has waned little since then in the mind of the general public. Bach and Turner were rediscovered - the former in the mid 19th century and the latter in the late 19th-early 20th century. Bach and Turner were disliked in their day by the public who didn't get it and the critics who didn't like seeing all their lovely rules being trounced. In fact, the critics then sound a bit like you now. "Oh I don't like that: the horizon is bent. Next!"

Actually I only mentioned the horizon being bent because some people were arguing that it was a 'natural feature of the area'. I'm not keen on the picture for other reasons.

Bach and Turner were rediscovered by artists who saw the merit of the work and that it allowed them to go beyond the dogma of their time: it was a stepping-stone which made sense once lined up with the work of the more recent artists. I suspect that the work of Bach and Turner is popular nowadays because so much of our education is couched in what was considered right in the late 19th century.
I am loath to denigrate the work selected by the judges because it might be the future solution. However, it is a long way from what I do and I felt some results strinking and some were nice but middling. That's just my opinion.

You hit the nail on the head... Bach and Turner were rediscovered (and hence only popular) because of the recognition by other artists. As for choosing by judges - I have no problem with that. As for choosing the 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' through the judging of a bunch of business leaders and a few stock photographers? I don't think so..

I've just seen the new wildlife photographer of the year winners - very nice

Tim

[DJ]

We could all use this argument and let landscape photography just be a bunch of pretty pictures from the same old locations. Or we could try and expand on the genre, reward people for making the effort to find new locations and to explore new ideas. I prefer the latter and I think you prefer the former, which is fine as we can both have different viewpoints.

It's not a case of preferring the former and my preference isn't really irrelevant, I'm merely arguing it's validity, whereas there's a clear trend developing among some photographers for bashing the scenic or classic view. So many times I've seen a beautiful photograph dismissed because the critic has "seen it done before", even though the photograph in question is very well executed and deserves a fair chance, it doesn't get it because it "doesn't do anything new". Why should it have to? Just because it's a classic scenic view instead of some abstract new viewpoint, does not mean it's not valid. This is the path to elitism and I feel very strongly against it. Moreover, it's often backed up by a bunch of imagined "intellectual" twaddle to justify why the critic's own rather dull image is superior. Like I said, mental masturbation. Now to be perfectly clear, I've not seen that from anyone here, so there's no need for ruffled feathers, but it's something I feel very strongly about and am very guarded against. I believe that all images deserve a fair hearing, based upon their own merits, and not whatever may have come before it.

If we argue your point, people like Joe Cornish, David Ward, Paul Wakefield, Jan Tove, etc would just be producing some more Dunstaburgh pictures or another Corfe Castle in the mist. I think this would be a shame. Hence I would like to promote an environment where people trying to be the next Ward or Wakefield are rewarded, not ignored.

Quite the opposite, most ( maybe all? ) of the photographers you mention have done those shots, and had good success with them and contribute to how they honed their craft. Because Joe Cornish and David Ward have taken shots on Dunstanburgh beach, that does not make it off limits to everyone else. By diminishing the value of those shots from up and coming photographers you foster exactly the opposite of the environment you claim to want to promote, because you are ignoring and not rewarding images from up and coming photographers. We have the perfect example in LPotY, in that an up and coming photographer has been rewarded for his efforts, and yet we are hearing from so many how he didn't deserve it. That's just not cricket.

I'm arguing that despite Emmanuel's suffering getting up the hill - this doesn't make it a great picture.

Agreed, and I'm arguing because he took the classic view, and it's a pretty picture, it doesn't make it a bad one either.

Which is strange as Joe Cornish always get's asked about how the pictures were captured by potential purchasers (who are rarely photographers sadly).

Why sadly? Should photography be only accessible or enjoyable to photographers? Can a beautiful image only be truly appreciated by a photographer, who has some grasp of the technical difficulties or mastery of craft that was involved in it's making? We're risking Elitism again there. Before you know it we'll be referring to non-photographers as Muggles!

If most of Joe Cornish's customers are non-photographers, then that's no bad thing, because it's far easier for a photographer to understand how it was made and appreciate it, a non-photographer knows only that they love it, how can that not be enough?

The genre of landscape photography of this sort is already well served by postcards around the tourist centres of great britain.

Oh dear, you really don't like pretty pictures do you.

By the selection criteria applied in this years competition, photographers such as Joe, David, Paul, etc would get rejected in the first round. Does this really reflect what is great about British landscape photography then?

I'm not entirely sure what the selection criteria are, it's difficult to tell by the results. Certainly the competition is not perfect, but none are. It's only the third year it's been running... give them a chance. There was a lot of criticism last year over the winning entry ( the dog on the sea-front ), because it "wasn't landscape", perhaps that's why this year's winner is such a classic view.

And I'm not just moaning, I plan to do something about it by ensuring there is an alternative competition next year that reflects what most committed landscape photographers are asking for.

Committed Landscape Photographers. I worry that you take it all too seriously.

I'm not sure where this has come from as I wasn't arguing this point at all - it sounds like you have a problem with a certain class of photographer or photographic judge (probably club judges) which is fine. But it's irrelevant to what we are talking about.

Not really, because the winning entry has been derided for being too pretty, or not doing anything "new".

I just want the best photographer of the year to tend towards the latter, not the former.

We're back to the title again, which seems to be the main bugbear you have. Certainly it's not ideal nor technically accurate I'd wager, but I don't see it as a cause to criticise the work of the winning entrants, let them enjoy their moment. If you had entered and won, would you have declined first place because you felt you didn't deserve the title? I doubt any of us would.

Surprisingly quite a few - you should read about art appreciation and the history of colour. As for people saying that about photography? No - I've never heard anyone talk about how the green is so beautiful. I obviously have different photographer friends than you - most of them are more interested in composition and beauty and will talk about the textures of the subject, the way the conditions and light accentuate the shapes of things etc..

I was paraphrasing, of course you've heard it, and many times, such criticism was levelled at the winning entry in LPotY, "oversaturated" was the cry by someone or other. Your photographer friends are no different than mine, of course we talk about texture, light and composition, but technique always rears it head as well, you yourself have conducted tests on film emulsions and processing labs, that's the same as mixing paint.

[timparkin]

It's not a case of preferring the former and my preference isn't really irrelevant, I'm merely arguing it's validity, whereas there's a clear trend developing among some photographers for bashing the scenic or classic view. So many times I've seen a beautiful photograph dismissed because the critic has "seen it done before", even though the photograph in question is very well executed and deserves a fair chance, it doesn't get it because it "doesn't do anything new". Why should it have to?

Personally, if I'm looking at a picture of a view I've seen many, many times before I would expect the photographer done something further with it. It's like an adventurer discovering a new island and then someone else takes a holiday there five years later and then win the 'adventurer of the year' award.. (Well - OK, it's nothing like that but you get my drift).

If we argue your point, people like Joe Cornish, David Ward, Paul Wakefield, Jan Tove, etc would just be producing some more Dunstaburgh pictures or another Corfe Castle in the mist. I think this would be a shame. Hence I would like to promote an environment where people trying to be the next Ward or Wakefield are rewarded, not ignored.

Quite the opposite, most ( maybe all? ) of the photographers you mention have done those shots, and had good success with them and contribute to how they honed their craft.

And they were the first people who did it and created works which were outstandingly well crafted in fantastic light and they were the ones who created the idea and composition. Do you really think someone who goes to Dunstaburgh and takes exactly the same picture as Joe deserves equal credit?

We have the perfect example in LPotY, in that an up and coming photographer has been rewarded for his efforts, and yet we are hearing from so many how he didn't deserve it. That's just not cricket.

He deserves rewarding - he doesn't deserve the accolade of 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' received from one of the primary landscape photographers of our time. Judging on the photographs own merits, ignoring previous shots of the Storr, I don't think this picture holds up against all of the other pictures I've seen. My opinion - if you disagree with me we should leave this particular photograph alone from now on..

Which is strange as Joe Cornish always get's asked about how the pictures were captured by potential purchasers (who are rarely photographers sadly).

Why sadly?

I'm not knocking the public buying photographs, I'm knocking photographers NOT buying photographs.

I find it sad that photographers who are so passionate about photography don't buy photographs..

The genre of landscape photography of this sort is already well served by postcards around the tourist centres of great britain.

Oh dear, you really don't like pretty pictures do you.

I prefer the works of David Ward, Paul Wakefield, Dav Thomas, etc to picture postcards... do you disagree?

And I'm not just moaning, I plan to do something about it by ensuring there is an alternative competition next year that reflects what most committed landscape photographers are asking for.

Committed Landscape Photographers. I worry that you take it all too seriously.

And I worry that you don't take it seriously at all... just different viewpoints obviously...

I'm not sure where this has come from as I wasn't arguing this point at all - it sounds like you have a problem with a certain class of photographer or photographic judge (probably club judges) which is fine. But it's irrelevant to what we are talking about.

Not really, because the winning entry has been derided for being too pretty, or not doing anything "new".

I haven't derided it for being too pretty or not doing anything new. I have said that the photographer shouldn't be awarded landscape photographer of the year for a picture that's success lies primarily with the location and the weather and that has photographic shortcomings that many people (photographers and not) can recognise.. I don't have a problem with pretty pictures, I have a problem with the conclusions drawn about the photographers ability from pictures that demonstrate beauty primarily because of location and luck above other pictures that are *equally* beautiful that demonstrate considerable amounts of skill on behalf of the photographer.

By your definition, a webcam mounted on the bridge at Buachaille Etive Mor would end up 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' merely by being at the right place at the right time.

I just want the best photographer of the year to tend towards the latter, not the former.

We're back to the title again, which seems to be the main bugbear you have. Certainly it's not ideal nor technically accurate I'd wager, but I don't see it as a cause to criticise the work of the winning entrants, let them enjoy their moment. If you had entered and won, would you have declined first place because you felt you didn't deserve the title? I doubt any of us would.

Surprisingly quite a few - you should read about art appreciation and the history of colour. As for people saying that about photography? No - I've never heard anyone talk about how the green is so beautiful. I obviously have different photographer friends than you - most of them are more interested in composition and beauty and will talk about the textures of the subject, the way the conditions and light accentuate the shapes of things etc..

I was paraphrasing, of course you've heard it, and many times, such criticism was levelled at the winning entry in LPotY, "oversaturated" was the cry by someone or other. Your photographer friends are no different than mine, of course we talk about texture, light and composition, but technique always rears it head as well, you yourself have conducted tests on film emulsions and processing labs, that's the same as mixing paint.

Not by me.. although I'm not personally a fan of what has happened to the colours in the picture, that is personal opinion of the artist.

When I talk about testing emulsions, I'm not using it as a critical tool with which to assess pictures. It's part of the craft of photography. If I said "that picture is crap because he used tetenal e6 developer" then I would be in the wrong. If the picture was overly pink I might say "I don't like the magenta skies - it looks like it could possibly be a developing problem or some old velvia". I will critique on the pictures merits and then draw some conclusions on what the problems I have with it may have been caused by...

Also, the general public have said things like this..

"My Ged, they mostly look like bad Victorian watercolours, knocked out by inmates of a lunatic asylum."
"Disneyland inspired cartoon colours"
"These photos look very cartoon-like, almost like something out of a computer game or CGI movie."
"It doesn't look real!"

These are all comments about the way the photograph was taken and post processed..


And finally - yes it's nearly all about the title and who awarded it and the gravitas that this brings in the eyes of the general public. If the competition was called 'Take a View - Best Photograph of Britain' then I would take a look at it and go "I don't like the winner but there are some nice pictures in there!" and would have left it at that (although I would still be tempted to try to get a competition together based on different criteria).

[DJ]

I've just seen the new wildlife photographer of the year winners - very nice

I suspect this year's winner will receive the same criticisms of last years, namely that it was remote triggered and as the photographer wasn't "there" the title is undeserved.

Same arguments, different genre.

[timparkin]

I've just seen the new wildlife photographer of the year winners - very nice

I suspect this year's winner will receive the same criticisms of last years, namely that it was remote triggered and as the photographer wasn't "there" the title is undeserved.

Same arguments, different genre.

But I like it because it's beautiful mainly but also because it shows considerable talent and forethought by the photographer. But yes, purists in every field always have there own hobby horses, I'd like to think I am not one of them..

Tim.

p.s. As I said, I'd like to think I'm not one of them but inevitably I am. I also know a little about being a 'professional critic'. One of my previous jobs was as a talent scout for U2's record label (A&R for Mother Records) and as such it was my job to assess new music for commercial viability. I had to suspend my personal tastes in order to be objective about a bands chances of success (in this case both commercially and as a reflection of reputation onto U2 themselves). I found it difficult to do but became quite good at it I think ; although my boss turned down many later successful bands and later signed up Tanita Tikarem for the second time - he was the guy who turned down Radiohead because he thought they looked funny though

As a result of this, I realise that your tastes change over time and can be influenced by your expectations and desires (well duh!) and so it's inevitable that people who learn about photography start to develop more discerning palettes and these palettes are influenced by the general consensus of 'what is good'. So, we can influence the general public and future photographers perceptions by making them realise that there is more to landscape photography than a pretty view and some nice light. We don't have to - but it's something I would like to do..

[DJ]

Personally, if I'm looking at a picture of a view I've seen many, many times before I would expect the photographer done something further with it.

But maybe the photographer hasn't seen it many many times before. Certainly, the fact you've seen it before entitles you to place those expectations upon your own work, but does it warrant them upon his?

And they were the first people who did it

Were they now? If we delve into the realms of prior art then I guarantee you we'll find some image ( of for example, Dunstanburgh beach ) which pre-dates Mr Cornish or Mr Ward's wonderful efforts. Does that invalidate their work?

and created works which were outstandingly well crafted in fantastic light and they were the ones who created the idea and composition. Do you really think someone who goes to Dunstaburgh and takes exactly the same picture as Joe deserves equal credit?

And when an image came to light which pre-dates Joe Cornish's shot and has similar composition and lighting and is well crafted, would you still hold Joe to be good photographer? Of course you would.

The point is, you cannot judge someone's photographic ability or talent based on someone else's work, you must see only what is in front of you.

He deserves rewarding - he doesn't deserve the accolade of 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' received from one of the primary landscape photographers of our time.

I would say that only that primary landscape photographer has the right to say who deserves an accolade from him.

Judging on the photographs own merits, ignoring previous shots of the Storr, I don't think this picture holds up against all of the other pictures I've seen. My opinion - if you disagree with me we should leave this particular photograph alone from now on..

As I've said, it's not the one I would have picked either, but then I wasn't picking, so I'm not going to stand up and say the judges are wrong or the winner is undeserving.

I prefer the works of David Ward, Paul Wakefield, Dav Thomas, etc to picture postcards... do you disagree?

Many of whom have no doubt sold images as postcards in their career, so it's sad to see the term used in such a derogatory fashion.

And I worry that you don't take it seriously at all... just different viewpoints obviously...

I have a simple motivation that's all, I want to create an image that people will enjoy, and that is enough. I will continue to practice, to hone and try to master my craft, both because I enjoy it and because it will allow me to create the image I have envisioned, but don't feel I have anything to prove, I feel no need for my images to display an obvious photographic technical prowess. The craft is a means to an end, just like the equipment. If an image requires some technical tour-de-force to achieve, or was a simple classical view which wasn't very complicated, but is still beautiful, if they give the same enjoyment, they're equally successful.

I haven't derided it for being too pretty or not doing anything new. I have said that the photographer shouldn't be awarded landscape photographer of the year for a picture that's success lies primarily with the location and the weather and that has photographic shortcomings that many people (photographers and not) can recognise..

So because it's a pretty location and the weather was lucky ( which he may have had to come back dozens of times for ), instead of an ugly one which required skill to make a shot with, he is a less competent photographer and doesn't deserve to win? That's an awfully unfair assumption.

I don't have a problem with pretty pictures, I have a problem with the conclusions drawn about the photographers ability from pictures that demonstrate beauty primarily because of location and luck above other pictures that are *equally* beautiful that demonstrate considerable amounts of skill on behalf of the photographer.

But drawing conclusions about the photographer's ability is exactly what you are doing... because it's a pretty picture and doesn't necessarily demonstrate as much "skill", then he has a lesser ability and does not deserve to win?

When I talk about testing emulsions, I'm not using it as a critical tool with which to assess pictures. It's part of the craft of photography.

The Craft Of Photography, there you go. This I think is the big difference between our viewpoint on this competition. I'm viewing it as an art competition, you're viewing it as a craft competition. Admittedly the title supports your theory more than mine. I'm only interested in the results, not how they were made. I think if judging an ability at a craft, it can only accurately be done by observing it being performed, not by the results. Unfortunately this isn't practical for Photography, so we're stuck with looking at the results, it's a flawed system, it always will be. It works one way, but not the other, if someone creates a nice image that required a good aptitude at the craft to produce, one can reasonably assume they have some proficiency, however, if someone creates a nice image that didn't require that same level of aptitude, it isn't fair to assume they don't possess it because they made the simpler image, and that's what I feel has been going on here, and I feel obliged to stick up for the little guy. It may be a poorly titled competition, but slamming the winner just infers he's not good at what he does, which is unfair.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no stranger to the craft ( seriously, who could you be an LF shooter and not[\b]? ) and it's something I enjoy very much, but being technically minded I try very hard to view the craft as just a tool, a means to an end.

I'm also well very acquainted with photographic judges.... being an active member of my local Photographic Society ( which, despite the twee and stuffy perception a lot of people have of them, is a very fulfilling and rewarding experience ), I've sat through countless competitions and judges ramblings... not to mention judging training sessions...

And finally - yes it's nearly all about the title and who awarded it and the gravitas that this brings in the eyes of the general public. If the competition was called 'Take a View - Best Photograph of Britain' then I would take a look at it and go "I don't like the winner but there are some nice pictures in there!" and would have left it at that (although I would still be tempted to try to get a competition together based on different criteria).

As I said, I believe the title was picked to fit in with the similar competitions in other genres, therein benefiting from their publicity as well. Certainly "Best Photograph of Britain" would have been a more accurate title, however, how many of those competitions have come and gone and been forgotten? I suspect the gravitas that the title brings in the eyes of the general public is deliberately why the title was chosen, so it might ensure it's survival. It's all about the marketing folks.

[timparkin]

Many of whom have no doubt sold images as postcards in their career, so it's sad to see the term used in such a derogatory fashion.

Well you knew what I meant even though you pick fault with the language. You are moving the discussion over to a different subject. (a straw man argument really) but I'll concede that the derogatory connotations of 'postcard photography' are sad, however true they are.

And they were the first people who did it

Were they now? If we delve into the realms of prior art then I guarantee you we'll find some image ( of for example, Dunstanburgh beach ) which pre-dates Mr Cornish or Mr Ward's wonderful efforts. Does that invalidate their work?

It would reduce my impression of them as photographers if there was an almost identical previous picture. As it is, I think there are many pictures by Joe of locations that have previously been photographed but in each case the photograph stands on its own, i.e. it is a new take on the location. For the record, I think David Ward photographed Dunstaburgh from that angle previous to Joe but Joe made and image that is a completely different mood and included the rocks in a novel way (have you noticed that in the original picture the central rock is nearly a perfect circle which is one of the main reasons for the composition being as it is). Would you think less of a photographer if you found out a picture that they had taken that you had liked was a complete copy of a previous photographers?

The photograph may still be good but remember that we are talking about 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' not landscape photograph of the year. I've already said if it was just landscape photograph of the year I wouldn't have a problem. Given this 'context' then yes, if a picture has been copied or is totally unoriginal, I would think less of the *photographer*. (so - really this is another straw man argument)

So because it's a pretty location and the weather was lucky ( which he may have had to come back dozens of times for ), instead of an ugly one which required skill to make a shot with, he is a less competent photographer and doesn't deserve to win? That's an awfully unfair assumption.

We're going round in circles as I didn't say that.. Did I mention ugly photographs should win? Another straw man argument..

but slamming the winner just infers he's not good at what he does, which is unfair.

I didn't slam the winner - I said I didn't like the photograph that much and that he didn't really deserve the accolade in comparison with other entries.. (so your argument is an incorrect Ad Hominem argument)

We are going round in circles as you've chosen to ignore the premise of what I was discussing. i.e. the fact that this is 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' and I've already said that if you take this out of the equation then we're not discussing the same thing.

I think you'd made your point that it is possible to judge a photograph merely on its own merits.

I've chosen to disagree, believing that art, artist and history are really inseparable.

Let's get back to a single thread of discussion (even if it's moved away from the initial discussion), how about the following ..

As I learn about an artist and about the process of creating art, my appreciation of art changes - I'm presuming that your appreciation of art remains constant because it shouldn't be affected by context?

Tim

[DJ]

Well you knew what I meant even though you pick fault with the language. You are moving the discussion over to a different subject. (a straw man argument really) but I'll concede that the derogatory connotations of 'postcard photography' are sad, however true they are.

I wasn't being pedantic with the terminology, I think you view "picture postcard" photographs as inferior in some way, that the photographs that you perceive have some evident mastery of craft are somehow above such things, and yet the photographers you admire have likely all done both. Why can they not both be valid?

It would reduce my impression of them as photographers if there was an almost identical previous picture.

But there almost certainly is, this has been going on for 150 years! It's popularity has just exploded, it's only going to get worse, does this mean that there will be no new good photographers in the future because everything has been done before? Will the only way to be recognised as a good photographer in the future be to produce some wacky new view that nobody has used before? Repetition is inevitable, you just have to let it go, the only other option is elitism, the purists and zealots will hide behind the ideal that if it's not something new then it isn't good.

Would you think less of a photographer if you found out a picture that they had taken that you had liked was a complete copy of a previous photographers? The photograph may still be good but remember that we are talking about 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' not landscape photograph of the year. I've already said if it was just landscape photograph of the year I wouldn't have a problem. Given this 'context' then yes, if a picture has been copied or is totally unoriginal, I would think less of the *photographer*. (so - really this is another straw man argument)

But what if the photographer unwittingly copied an image? Just because you have seen it before, doesn't mean they did. If a photographer took an image that was identical to one which you admire, is he then as good a photographer as the one who took what you perceive as the original? Or is he a lesser photographer because you have seen the image before? It's all too much baggage, this is why photographic judges are trained to be impartial and look at only what is in front of them.

You state your opinion of a photographer would be lessened if they presented an image that had been done before; that their vision had been influenced by the work of others. By eschewing what has been done before, you suffer that very same influence, just in the opposite direction.

I didn't slam the winner - I said I didn't like the photograph that much and that he didn't really deserve the accolade in comparison with other entries.. (so your argument is an incorrect Ad Hominem argument)

So this guy, who's worked hard to take good landscape photographs, has just been awarded a prestigious accolade as decided by a team of judges which says he's a good photographer. I'm guessing it's probably one of the finest moments of his life, I can only imagine what must have felt when he heard the news. And here you are publicly stating that he doesn't deserve the accolade, thereby inferring he's not a good photographer. But you're not slamming the guy?

As I've said several times, I agree the competition is not especially accurate in it's construction, perhaps Photograph would be more appropriate than Photographer, but it's over and done with, it wasn't your choice to make, you can't change it, by all means set up your own competition, but let the guy have his moment...

This year's competition is water under the bridge, if you don't agree with the way the competition is run, try to change next year's, leave this year's alone, or it just comes across as sour grapes ( and yes, I know you didn't enter this year, it still comes across as sour grapes ). Buy the book, visit the expo, some you'll enjoy, others less so, but that's going to happen every year whether it's run in a fashion you agree with or not.

We are going round in circles as you've chosen to ignore the premise of what I was discussing. i.e. the fact that this is 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' and I've already said that if you take this out of the equation then we're not discussing the same thing.

On the contrary, I think we circled right in on it.

With all the baggage you carry in your camera bag, I'm surprised you can lift it!

Why not just let it all go? Just take the photos you want to take, and don't worry about whoever might have taken it before. You're not going to become the first landscape photography multi-millionaire, you're unlikely to lauded in the annals of history as a photographic visionary ( those days are gone ), you're not going to save the planet ( yes I know who Peter Dombrovskis is ), but you might make somebody smile. Is that so bad a reward?