As a devoted photographer of nature myself, especially in its minute details, I can only stand in awe at those works of art displayed in that Guardian competition gallery.
There may be a---small---element of good luck at times, but "being in the right place at the right time" is not a matter of luck, it's a lot of hard work, patience, observation, abnegation.
In those days where the impending disappearing of Nature as we know it is making the news it is both re-assuring and uplifting to see such images.
Those photographs are like many on Countryfile calendar and use too much special effects for my liking, I prefer something more natural for nature photographs.
Actually with most of the big nature photography competitions, there are very strict editing rules. Nothing can be added or removed, shots blended together etc. All those shots on the link could be achieved in camera, there will of course be tweaking of exposure and colours to a degree, but that is a necessity when shooting with digital. As as indication, you can usually only do the same things you would be able to do when printing a film image in a darkroom. Fantastic photography skills on show there, nothing else
Surely a lot of what is featured great editing skills (filters, re-balancing etc).
I think there should be a requirement in competitions like this for people to provide the 'pre-photoshop' photograph as well. I don't have a problem with photographers using Photoshop to create art shots like some of these or even just to improve the photos a little but I'm always curious as to what the real scene looked like.
The technical setups behind some of the photos are mind blowing though. Laser shutter release triggers, multiple strobe flashes, focus stacked macro shots, multiple thousand pound camera traps.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
I think there should be a requirement in competitions like this for people to provide the 'pre-photoshop' photograph as well.
There is, with any major competition like this, particularly the wildlife ones, you have to supply the raw image if you are in the running for a placing
With most of the big nature photography competitions, there are very
strict editing rules. Nothing can be added or removed, shots blended
together etc.
I was a TV News cameraman for 45 years. I used to love going to the movies and can still remember my excitement at the photography in Lawrence of Arabia when I was a young man. Then CGI came along and completely blew my interest in movies as I no longer knew what I was looking at. Was it the skill of a cameraman or the skill of a computer operator? I use Photoshop a lot for friends and family and it's powers are quite incredible. When I look at these pics. I don't know what I'm looking at so lose interest. I'd be very surprised if any of these pictures were "clean" out of the camera and not enhanced electronically to a more or less degree. I wish I could look at an image now and get the same excitement I did at watching a David Lean shot.
I think there should be a requirement in competitions like this for people to provide the 'pre-photoshop' photograph as well.
There is, with any major competition like this, particularly the wildlife ones, you have to supply the raw image if you are in the running for a placing
We don't get to see them though sadly. A lot of the awards publications list the equipment used but never say more than 'levels adjusted in Photoshop/Lightroom' or similar.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
Posts
Good to know. Reassuring.