"Nature photograph of the year" in Finland, what do you think?

[Evangelion]

Link

What do you think?

Oh, the winners of the various categories (the first link was to the overall winner) are here

[Pinkiy]

Environment Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2009 award was given with this photo equally as impressive



people and cameras are forever impressing me atm http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth...00/8318226.stm

[Evangelion]

I think I could post the picture directly as well:

[Chappers]

I understand the message of this but it's still disturbing.

[Kronie]

Originally Posted by Chappers

I understand the message of this but it's still disturbing.

Whats the message? and what does this pic have to do with the two other photos of the year?

[Chappers]

Originally Posted by Kronie

Whats the message? and what does this pic have to do with the two other photos of the year?

It was one of the entries in the competition that the OP posted - maybe you missed it. The message is pretty clear I think - do you need me to explain?

http://www.vuodenluontokuva.fi/defau...?V_DOC_ID=5095

[Kronie]

Originally Posted by Chappers

do you need me to explain?

I got......after I translated the page...

[stagi]

Pretty Sweet image!

[admwright]

There are some very nice pictures in the winners this year. However, I have one niggle in my mind - it has now been two years in a row that the overall winning photograph has not actually been taken by the photographer but by an automated system (infrared trigger to camera). Yes, someone setup the camera system in an appropriate location but this is the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition not the Wildlife Photo of the Year. Am I being too picky?

All the best
Andrew W.

[PortraitProAlex]

Originally Posted by admwright

There are some very nice pictures in the winners this year. However, I have one niggle in my mind - it has now been two years in a row that the overall winning photograph has not actually been taken by the photographer but by an automated system (infrared trigger to camera). Yes, someone setup the camera system in an appropriate location but this is the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition not the Wildlife Photo of the Year. Am I being too picky?

All the best
Andrew W.

Interesting point. Probably there should be more clarity from competition organizers as to what the photographers are allowed to do, or they should set up separate comps for automated and manual shots. Having said that, you could just say that technology progresses and what's the issue - after all, the mainstream switch from film to digital was only very recent. That change reduced the difficulty possibly even more.

[compuwar]

Originally Posted by admwright

There are some very nice pictures in the winners this year. However, I have one niggle in my mind - it has now been two years in a row that the overall winning photograph has not actually been taken by the photographer but by an automated system (infrared trigger to camera). Yes, someone setup the camera system in an appropriate location but this is the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition not the Wildlife Photo of the Year. Am I being too picky?

All the best
Andrew W.

Just as importantly, in most competitions I've been in and seen many of these pictures wouldn't be eligible for the "nature" or "wildlife" category since they show the "hand of man." Fences, bridges, teapots...

[wheelhot]

yeah, you can say that also to images that are photoshopped and non photoshopped and the difficulty in trying to define a touch up photo and a photoshopped photo in print competitions .

[Evangelion]

Originally Posted by compuwar

Just as importantly, in most competitions I've been in and seen many of these pictures wouldn't be eligible for the "nature" or "wildlife" category since they show the "hand of man." Fences, bridges, teapots...

Um, just because it shows something that is man made does not mean that it's not "nature" or "wildlife". We have wild owls living in downtown-Helsinki, those are wildlife, even if they live in a city.

What about the picture of the bird? The bird is obviously a wild bird, and the picture is taken in a middle of forest. It just happens that the photographer was making himself a pot of coffee, and you can see his coffeepot. Does that mean that the picture should be disqualified? Why? Because of some puritan view which says that nature-photography should not contain anything man-made?

It seems to me that some people have way too narrow idea what "nature" is. And if we go down the route that "nature" or "wildlife"-picture should not show anything man-made, where do we draw the line? Should we disqualify pictures if they show birds resting in a reservoir? Reservoir is man-made after all.... How about forests? Many forests are harvested (in other words, altered by man), should pictures taken in those forests be disqualified? Humans have had profound impact on nature, if you want to disqualify everything that show something man-made, you would end up disqualifying huge amount of pictures.

Besides, those man-made things are in many way part of nature. Abandoned car in forest? After few years that car is part of the landscape and nature has adapted to it.

And pictures that show how man has altered nature can be very profound nature-photographs. I mean pictures of clear-cutting and the like. It's quite naive to think that "nature-photography" should only show rolling meadows and ancient forests that are 100% untouched by man.

In fact, they have a category for "nature and man":

http://www.vuodenluontokuva.fi/vuode...sen_luonto.jpg

There are some very nice pictures in the winners this year. However, I have one niggle in my mind - it has now been two years in a row that the overall winning photograph has not actually been taken by the photographer but by an automated system (infrared trigger to camera).

Um, the winning photograph was not taken by an automated system. The photographer was relaxing a bit by making some coffee (you can see his coffeepot and the smoke rising from the remains of his fireplace) when the bird arrived. It was an ad hoc picture. Previous winners were not taken by automated cameras either.

[Padaung]

Originally Posted by Evangelion

Um, the winning photograph was not taken by an automated system. The photographer was relaxing a bit by making some coffee (you can see his coffeepot and the smoke rising from the remains of his fireplace) when the bird arrived. It was an ad hoc picture. Previous winners were not taken by automated cameras either.

I think the other post referred to the Veolia Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition. This years winner (shot of jumping wolf posted above) and last years winning shot of a Snow Leopard were taken with infra red triggers (see attachment).


I don't think it takes anything away from the winning images - the photographer would have still had to monitor the animals' behaviour, learn its patterns, set the camera up to capture these behaviour traits etc. These animals in the last two winning shots are well known to be very wary of humans, so are very rarely seen. If getting a shot using whatever means you have is what it takes then fair enough imo.

As for wildlife photos not containing any effects of man in the image. Interesting criteria, but I feel it would restrict the images to shots of nature in remote places most of the time. A lot of wildlife is found in urban areas too, and as someone else mentioned - wildlife that has adapted something man made into its own environment.

Anyway, I got to the Natural History Museum yesterday to see the exhibition. The standard of images on display was exceptional, and for once I totally agreed with the judges on the winning image (I did last year too, fwiw) which hasn't happened too often in the past. Also, out of all the entries on display I counted only 5 shots that were taken on film - digital is certainly the future!

[compuwar]

Originally Posted by Evangelion

Um, just because it shows something that is man made does not mean that it's not "nature" or "wildlife". We have wild owls living in downtown-Helsinki, those are wildlife, even if they live in a city.

Traditionally, yes it does mean exactly that. It used to be true that you couldn't sell anything to a magazine as a "nature" photograph that showed the "hand of man." You'll still see images from wildlife parks where you can't even see the hand of man labeled as such because shooting a wolf who's just about to be fed in his artificial habitat is significantly easier than shooting one in the wild on its hunt. That doesn't make it not a pretty wolf picture, but it does make it not a natural picture and ineligible for many competitions and magazines.

Originally Posted by Evangelion

What about the picture of the bird? The bird is obviously a wild bird, and the picture is taken in a middle of forest. It just happens that the photographer was making himself a pot of coffee, and you can see his coffeepot. Does that mean that the picture should be disqualified? Why? Because of some puritan view which says that nature-photography should not contain anything man-made?

Once again, yes- for competitions I've entered and for most competitions I've followed the criteria specify that to be a nature image nothing man-made should be in view.

Originally Posted by Evangelion

It seems to me that some people have way too narrow idea what "nature" is. And if we go down the route that "nature" or "wildlife"-picture should not show anything man-made, where do we draw the line? Should we disqualify pictures if they show birds resting in a reservoir? Reservoir is man-made after all.... How about forests? Many forests are harvested (in other words, altered by man), should pictures taken in those forests be disqualified? Humans have had profound impact on nature, if you want to disqualify everything that show something man-made, you would end up disqualifying huge amount of pictures.

Competitions must have boundaries if they aren't just a general competition. Is a picture of a car a nature image because it's made of metal, sand and chemicals from the environment? Of course not. We can and do often measure quality based upon the skill required to do something. After all, it's not that challenging to find a stuffed owl and snap its picture- but that doesn't make it a natural image- it's much more difficult to find an owl, get close and snap its picture while it's alive and moving.

Originally Posted by Evangelion

Besides, those man-made things are in many way part of nature. Abandoned car in forest? After few years that car is part of the landscape and nature has adapted to it.

But in the field of nature photography that doesn't make it a "natural" image.

Originally Posted by Evangelion

And pictures that show how man has altered nature can be very profound nature-photographs. I mean pictures of clear-cutting and the like. It's quite naive to think that "nature-photography" should only show rolling meadows and ancient forests that are 100% untouched by man.

In fact, they have a category for "nature and man":

http://www.vuodenluontokuva.fi/vuode...sen_luonto.jpg

But if all the pictures were qualified as "nature" they wouldn't need a separate category for "nature and man," now would they? Once again, for the traditional category of "nature photography" for the purposes of contests and even editorial photography, a clear-cut wouldn't be a "nature photograph" because it shows the hand of man. That doesn't detract from their status, it just disqualifies them from these venues...

To illustrate the point:

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articl...otography.html

Some photographers believe that “the hand of man” must not be visible in a nature photograph—indeed this appears in the rules of many nature photography competitions. A nature photograph should thus depict nature alone, without any trace of human intervention. This definition can make life difficult for the nature photographer, because it is hard to go anywhere in this world without seeing some sign of Homo sapiens —whether it is a power pole, or the vapor trails of an airliner over the sheep-manicured fells of the English Lake District.

Note the specific reference to competitions, which was and continues to be my point- most of these photographs wouldn't be acceptable submissions to most nature photography competitions I'm familiar with- you may not like that fact, but it still remains true.

[Evangelion]

Originally Posted by compuwar

Competitions must have boundaries if they aren't just a general competition.

Of course. I wouldn't try to claim that picture of me sitting by my computer is a nature-photography. But just because picture contains something man-made does not mean that it should not be considered a nature-photograph. Like the picture with the bird and the teapot. I find it absurd that someone thinks that it's not "nature-photograph" just because it shows a teapot. I think that just shows how alienated some people are from nature.

But in the field of nature photography that doesn't make it a "natural" image.

The abandoned car would be part of nature by that point. And like I said, you would be hard-pressed to find "natural" pictures these days. Many animals are domesticated, landscapes have been altered....

But if all the pictures were qualified as "nature" they wouldn't need a separate category for "nature and man," now would they?

The different categories have different criteria. The winner of the overall competition was not competing in the "nature and man"-category just because it happened to have a teapot in the picture. It was competing in the "birds"-category. The "nature and man"-catergory is meant to show interaction between nature and man. Nature growing around abandoned car (for example) would be such a picture. Or ducks minding their business among discarded bicycles is another good example.

Once again, for the traditional category of "nature photography" for the purposes of contests and even editorial photography, a clear-cut wouldn't be a "nature photograph" because it shows the hand of man. That doesn't detract from their status, it just disqualifies them from these venues...

I for one find such division to be absurd. We are part of nature, and so are the things we create. To consider "nature" to be something separate from us is weird. Of course this doesn't mean that pictures of cars or buildings should be passed as "nature-photographs". But pictures or animals, plants, landscapes etc. would be such oictures, even if they show something man-made.

Note the specific reference to competitions, which was and continues to be my point- most of these photographs wouldn't be acceptable submissions to most nature photography competitions I'm familiar with- you may not like that fact, but it still remains true.

Whilke that might be true, such exclusion is quite dumb IMO. Nature-photograqphy should be a statement about nature. having something "artificial" in the picture might just underline that statement.

Luckily there are competitions without such absurd limitations.

[admwright]

Originally Posted by PortraitProAlex

Interesting point. Probably there should be more clarity from competition organizers as to what the photographers are allowed to do, or they should set up separate comps for automated and manual shots. Having said that, you could just say that technology progresses and what's the issue - after all, the mainstream switch from film to digital was only very recent. That change reduced the difficulty possibly even more.

Turns out there is much more to this photograph (the wolf pictrute shown above).

"Jumping wolf photographer loses wildlife prize" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8470962.stm

Andrew W.