Landscape Photographer of the Year - Winning Entries

amcinroy

The winning entries from the UK 2009 Landscape Photographer of the Year competition have been announced.

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

Some stunning and original images made the shortlist. However, I was slightly disappointed to see that many of the overall winning images were the same viewpoints that we tend to see over and over again in this competition (Glencoe, Rannoch Moor, Old Man of Storr). It's also interesting to see more and more of the winning entries being created by HDR processing.

Any comments based on this limited online viewing?

CabanSail

The winning shot just screams "Too Much HDR" to me. It does not look natural. I prefer thr shot by John Parminter.

Calina

I don't get any soul from those photographs; some of them don't even look like photographs.

Preferred Food for Thought but still thought it was a bit dead.

peter1892

The shopping trolley one is quite good & I really like the BW shot of the fell-runners.

The other ones are perfectly good but they are the same UK scenes that are shot over & over again (and I preferred them shot on large format slide film by the likes of Joe Cornish!).

dudara

I like the shopping trolley one, as well as the winning phone photo (sun clearing over Westminister).

Must admit though that I am not entirely mad about the HDR entries. They look too much like the cover of a fantasy novel, rather than a real landscape.

HDR can be amazing sometimes, but I just don't think that these photos were one of those times.

These photos were avaible yesterday in the middle of the Sunday Times Magazine if anyone wants to see them in print.

PaulieC

I'm thinking they are all a bit so-so, kind of ''I could do that!" but I guess you have to be in the right place at the right time and many landscape photographers will tell you that that is seldom a matter of luck.

They do look a bit HDR (not that it's necessarily a bad thing), but at least the winning shot is pretty mild compared to some of them, however there is a very unnatural looking patch of blue in the foreground that looks completely out of place.

My preferences would be food for thought (given my current penchant for long exposure water shots ) or the last one, with the snow

RCNPhotos

I really like a lot of them but that may be down to the fact that landscape isn't quite my thing and I don't tend to look at a lot of it really. Really like the food for thought shot and the winner along with that phone one.

amcinroy

Interesting comments so far,

I like the fact that the competition tests the boundaries of what a 'landscape' is. To me the landscape is less about the 'land' and more to do with outdoor space. For instance, it's nice to see urban images included in the competition. It breaks down this idea of 'landscape' as a category that we see on so many web forums. I know some forums for instance where you will be lambasted for posting an urban or seascape in the landscape section.

I would personally reserve judgement on many of the HDR images until I see them published in the book. In the last two years books I have seen some very nicely processed HDR winners which look great in print. I personally find it very interesting to see the medium of landscape photography develop beyond the 'Velvia' dead end that I felt it was becoming.

I just think that the judges need to consider whether the competition is a celebration of the landscape or a celebration of the photographers post-processing skills. I think it should be the former, first and foremost.

potlatch

Those kinds of landscapes aren't interesting to me, though no doubt they are to others. They're certainly overwrought with hefty processing and little emotional impact. The only one that chimed with me was the old Yorkshire industrial town, but it's so sickly sweet with wanton naive sentimentality that I'd classify it in the 'Sunday watercolourist' category. Something with a harder edge, reminiscent of Elliott Erwitt's photos of Wales would have been interesting.

I'm sort of miffed that no one representing the new objective style were chosen (assuming some entered).

CabanSail

I too like the one of the Fell Runners .... but is it a Landscape?

amcinroy

I think it is Canbansail, see my post above.

It is time we rethought our ideas of what a landscape is.
It is more about space, environment and how we use it than just about rivers and hills.

There were one or two from previous years that really tested the definition.

For instance in the first year there was a photograph taken of the side of a factory. No sky was visible. It was just a brick wall with an emergency ladder running in a diagonal up the side along with the factory logo. Even I had to question that one. However I think that one of the fell runners has a very strong landscape theme.

CabanSail

I think we were posting at the same time.

I can see your point, but I think that the Landscape still has to be the subject of the photograph. In the shot with the Fell Runners the subject is clearly the runners themselves, the landscape is very much secondary to them. If they were removed then you do not have a very interesting photograph. That is why I would not call that a landscape shot.

amcinroy

I would have to strongly disagree with that Canbansail.

The fellrunners are here because of the landscape. For that short period of time, the runners are part of the landscape and are enjoying the landscape. The idea of subject has to rethought here. The same way that a group of boulders in the foreground can be a subject, so too can a group of runners. The fact that one group is animal and another is mineral really doesn't matter. The setting can define the genre.

The category in this contest is 'living the view'. The suggestion here is that the people in the shot are intergal to the landscape photograph. You are correct that without them the landscape photograph would be ordinary. However I like the idea that a landscape doesn't necessarily need to be an untouched wilderness that, more often than not, is a white lie, e.g those shots of Buachille Etive Mor that don't show the busy road to Fort William directly behind camera. In many ways shots like this are much more honest to the landscape theme.

elven

This is quite similar to what was being discussed on one of my favourite photography blogs recently:

http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=2608

Potlatch - I love elliott erwitt but had no idea he'd done anything in wales. Is there somewher eonline i can get a taste of those?

Covey

I'm not really qualified to comment on landscape, but I'm enjoying the debate on stretching the boundaries. Very interesting!

I find most of the shots though over processed pap, if I'm being honest :P

Dodgykeeper

I have only ever taken one landscape photograph ever and I didnt like it, but I do like these images, I am leaning to Andy's pov that the fell runners one is a landscape and for a brief moment in time the fell runners were a part of the landscape!

elven

heh, come off the fence why don't you covey

I think the winners say more about the judges than anything else really.

amcinroy

elven wrote: »

I think the winners say more about the judges than anything else really.

Yes Eleven, I think this is a very good point. The judging panel is quite small and is heavily biased towards the photo industry (e.g magazine editors, stock selectors) rather than naturalists, conservationists or people involved in the outdoors.

elven

or indeed, curators of modern galleries/museums or editors of modern art photography magazines...

potlatch

elven wrote: »

This is quite similar to what was being discussed on one of my favourite photography blogs recently:

http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=2608

Potlatch - I love elliott erwitt but had no idea he'd done anything in wales. Is there somewher eonline i can get a taste of those?

Sorry, I meant W. Eugene Smith. Oops.

elven

ah. No difference at all, then

elven

Here's the thing, though. The most interesting landscape shots I ever saw were a series that dealt with scenes of previous battles, that by now have no clues to their bloody past. But if they were entered into a competition like that, without the story behind them, they'd mean nothing and because they were actually very unassuming landscapes (and pictures too, which is kind of the whole point of the idea) they'd have been completely overlooked. That's what gets to me about this stuff. Everyone knows hwo beautiful mountains and valleys look. Everyone's already seen breathtaking vistas, so these guys are going further and further to induce that visual awe, instead of looking for something to actually say about the landscape that makes you think a bit more, and appreciate it for what it is, not for the imaginary oversaturated colours you see in all these.

Is subtlety dead?

amcinroy

Eleven, yes I agree.

There are those that will say that a photo should stand alone and shouldn't need a narrative or caption to explain it. It's either a good photo or it's not.

I would disagree with that philosophy. Stories of what happened in the landscape (battles, legends etc.) can add a great deal to the story and add a subtlety that these competition winners lack. These photos then become sterile and storyless as a result. I considered entering one of my cave photos to this competition. However, I know that I would be unlikely to get extra marks just because I was the first person to photograph it or because they have fascinating histories. This is lost on judges who simply see a view and have no idea if another photo exists of a scene or not or what historical significance the location has.

There is another photo on my own webpage of lacada point. It's quite an ordinary view of a slender talon of rock which juts out into the sea. This may illustrate Elven's point.
http://www.andymcinroy.com/ir387.htm

If I now tell you that this is the exact point where 1300 Spanish Solider's perished in a freezing winter sea, does this change your view of the photo? If I also tell you that the path to get here fell into the sea in 1984 and I had to use climbing hardwear to access it. Does that change your view?

The great John Szarkowski once said that the photographer should resist the temptation to think that they will get extra credit for attempting a difficult problem. It is one of the few things he has said that I disagree with. I think you do get extra credit, particularly if nobody else has attempted the problem. However, the photo has to be shared in such a way that the story is told.

humberklog

elven wrote: »

Is subtlety dead?

No, just unfashionable at the present. It'll swing back again.



Runners by a mile. Great photo (and deffo landscape). As for the rest? I could easily get by if the photographers had never taken their first breath. Oh with the exception of the young winner's wheat field. Nice curvey angle to the crops and he's only young too.


The shopping trolley one is okish but has that awful milk water thing going on...I don't know what it is therefore fear it.

Morrisseeee

As a lover of landscapes I must say I was surprised to see that most of them look un-natural/HDR'ey !! While bringing out the dynamic range is great, it does tend to overdo the color saturation. I think these photos would 'stand-out' to the ordinary observer (in the street), but will not pass our stringent eye test !! I think we all know that it takes a good deal of post-processing to achieve results like that !
I also think CabanSail is right, the runners up the hill is not a landscape, the runners are clearly the subject, and take your eye completely !

Ghost Train

I like the winning shot, do agree that the shots look a bit over processed, maybe viewing them at a larger size might help, all seem slightly dark, maybe that the hdr

potlatch

No, just unfashionable at the present. It'll swing back again.

I disagree. Perhaps at this level of landscape photography it isn't dominant. Equally, a 'boring' landscape photo would get no reaction on this forum (or flickr).

But for a great many landscape (and art) photographers, subtlety is the name of the game. Certainly for me, I get excited when I see a photographer balance subtlety and sensitivity with a strong concept and visual disipline and coherence within the shot. Something which envelops a whole philosophy, a vision of the world.

amcinroy

Good postpotlatch, I completely agree,

Web forums are not the best place to showcase those quiet and contemplative landscapes. They often get lost amongst the 'wows' that the more dominant 'golden hour' shots get. I think that the 'golden hour' is the biggest myth in landscape photography today and the photography magazines have a lot to answer for here. Those 'Top10 Tips for landscapes' always include that little nugget of blinkered wisdom.

To be fair to this competition though, I have seen many quieter and more subtle lanscapes shortlisted and in the published book. However, they don't often make the final cut which is a shame.

CabanSail

The more I look at that winning entry the more I dislike it.

That overly blue lake draws my eye & I had to study it to realise it wasn't a piece of plastic. Then there was something about the Rays from the sun that was annoying. I then realised that they don't line up with the reflections on the water as they were taken at different times. Now I have used HDR myself, but the result I try to achieve is so that nobody would realise it has been done. I think the day is soon when we will look back at images like these and say "What were we thinking?" much the same way that we look at early Photoshop images where people would just drop things in with no subilty at all.

I can really see the point about the Runners being a Landscape & am all for things being less stringent. I have heard where images were not allowed as they had people in them. This image, in my opinion, is too far the other way. The People are far too prominent & so it's now a photo about them and they are dominating the landscape in this image.

The Lacada Point Photo is quite fine in it's own right without any commentary. It is an exercise in simplicity & I really like it as an image itself. Knowing more about it adds something but is not necessary.

amcinroy

Thanks Canbansail. Photographically I don't rate that Lacada Point shot and I know it would never win a competition. However, I decided to include it in my portfolio because it is such an unusal view of an interesting place.

I would agree with you regarding the winning shot. Perhaps I should reserve judgement until seeing it printed, but the lighting does look un-natural. I also find the curvature of the mountains towards the right hand side quite off-putting. However, my biggest gripe is the originality of the view. There are at least 3 similar shots of the Storr every year. I haven't seen any Irish images yet but you can bet that there will be those standard shots of the Giant's Causeway and the Dark Hedges.

DaireQuinlan

They are a wee bit overcooked. The weird thing is there are three there (the winning entry, the rannoch moor one, and the cumbrian one) that all look kind of identical. They've all been HDR'd and sharpened and tweaked in almost the same way. They're sort of homogenous. It reminds me of the landscape shots that pop up on flickrs explore all the time. Much more so even than the previous year and the year before that. Maybe its just a phase they're going through :rolleyes:

There are what look like some nice pieces in the shortlist though (assuming that's what you get when you click through into the site) judging by the thumbnails at least. I'd prefer a little less of everything in my landscapes though. Michael Kenna springs to mind but he -does- take it to extremes.

humberklog

potlatch wrote: »

I disagree. Perhaps at this level of landscape photography it isn't dominant. Equally, a 'boring' landscape photo would get no reaction on this forum (or flickr).

But for a great many landscape (and art) photographers, subtlety is the name of the game. Certainly for me, I get excited when I see a photographer balance subtlety and sensitivity with a strong concept and visual disipline and coherence within the shot. Something which envelops a whole philosophy, a vision of the world.

My opening gambit was really only meant flippantly and only about the competition entrants on the OP.

Yeah, I go with your 2nd paragraph's intent to an extent.

Dodgykeeper

There is an exhibition on in Dublin of a collection of pictures of the Bog of Allen they are some of the blandest landscapes I have ever seen yet they work in a strange way, anybody else seen them?

Covey

Yep. Was quite impressed with some of them, the portraits less so. It's called "Under a Grey Sky" / Simon Burch.

Borderfox

I quite like some of the landscape shots, the shopping trolley caught my eye. I dont really mind the HDR elements to them as I dont really have a lot of patience to wait for the perfect moment and like the effect and extra dynamic range offered by HDR. My two cents anyway..:)

Eirebear

I like them, although i dont think the winner would be my favourite. Food for thought is very much the most striking image of the lot.

I would love to be able to really devote time to landscape photography, rather than simply doing it "when i get the chance". Theres something amazingly relaxing about finding the right spot, setting up and waiting for the right moment to strike like a hunter stalking his prey. Sadly most of us (including myself) tend to have a short window of opportunity when we happen to be in the area.

sineadw

I don't seem to *do* landscapes - the only one that jumped out for me was the wheat field one. I rarely feel anything from even the acknowledged greats though. Maybe I need to look at more to activate that part of my brain or something..

On the subject of subtlety though, had a parallel discussion on animation and hyper-realism yesterday, the jist of it being whether animation is losing its edge and creativity as CGI films constantly strive for the most realistic human forms or the most amazing special effects. That the aesthetic is lost to the spectacular. It would be the politically correct thing to think, just as not liking HDR appears to be in photography (for something so popular it really seems to rattle peoples cages). The opposing point though was, in very condensed form, what's wrong with the spectacle? If something has a wow factor then that can be a valid end too. Can something not be enjoyed on a purely superficial, holy-god-would-you-look-at-that! level?

I'm not saying I'd agree (personally I don't like HDR either ) but there's an interesting discussion in there on what we view as high art and consumerist banality.

Morrisseeee

Interesting points raised here..............maybe there should be 2 cathegories: 1. Natural Landscapes. 2. Digital Art landscapes. :eek:

Theres something amazingly relaxing about finding the right spot, setting up and waiting for the right moment to strike like a hunter stalking his prey.

+1. I think that about sums it up!

amcinroy

Moriseeee,

This is a difficult distinction to make. It is actually very difficult to define what a natural landscape photo is. It is also very hard to define what a 'non-processed' photo is. By definition, every photo is processed to some degree.

For example, many of my RAW files look frankly dull and bear no reseblance to the scene as I perceived it with my own vision. Indeed, I think it is a mistake to equate photography with vision at all. The camera works in fundamentally different ways to the eye.

Most of the time, RAW files will need adjustment to more closely match the photographers perception. The problem here is, it may be many hours, or perhaps many days, between when the shot was taken and when it is processed. This can play tricks on us and our memory of the natural scene.

I personally try to take the approach that I want to be honest with myself. It gives me no enjoyment at all to create a photograph that bears no resemblence to the memory I have of it. I accept that other landscape photographers may have a completely different attitude and will want to be more creative. However, there is so much grey area between these two views. The situatio becomes even more complex where another viewer is brought in who has no memory of the scene at all. Assumptions are then made and it's all to easy for them to suspect deception.

Consider for instance a landscape photographer who has stood on a clifftop for a year to catch a lightning bolt in a particular shot. To the casual observer this is a lucky, once in a million shot. Now consider the expert post-processor who has digitally cloned the lightning bolt in, talking all but 1 hour over the same task. Now assume that these two photos are identical. If the photographers keep these photos to themselves then they can both be happy with what they have created. However, the moment they share them, the viewers will start to make assumptions. Some will look at the photo and say that the dedicated landscaper has cloned the bolt in. Some will look at it and assume the manipulated bolt is real. The world of digital photography has brought these issues to the forefront.

DaireQuinlan

amcinroy wrote: »

The world of digital photography has brought these issues to the forefront.

I have a copy of a book, printed in 1900, called (funnily enough) "photography in a nutshell". It has a short peice about collecting dramatic skys on film, so that the discerning landscape photographer, when making a print, can superimpose the dramatic sky onto a nice looking landscape that might have an otherwise boring sky. Admittedly this probably has more to do with the ortho films of the time which meant that skies were often washed out and dull looking so I guess its probably also a sort of proto-HDR.

Rb

I like them all bar the winning one and the sunset in cumbria shots.

Calina

amcinroy wrote: »

.... The world of digital photography has brought these issues to the forefront.

I wouldn't not necessarily agree with this. What it has done is democratised the process. Bear in mind that there were plenty of darkroom tricks allowing people to manipulate film images as well. The fact is computers have made it easier for more people to do things like this but the possibilities existed beforehand.

amcinroy

I totally agree with those thoughts.

Digital photography has only opened peoples eyes to the deception that has always taken place, albeit hidden behind the darkroom door. Before digital photography, the layman would had no idea that this went on and would have believed everything they saw. After all, what was it they said, 'the camera never lies'.

DaireQuinlan

amcinroy wrote: »

Digital photography has only opened peoples eyes to the deception that has always taken place, albeit hidden behind the darkroom door.

No need to make it sound so sinister though

CabanSail

None of us have seen "Milky Water" flowing from a waterfall like you get with long exposures. This simple process of photographing moving water produces something which is not "true" to what can be seen in the real world. Photographs have been manipulated since the process began. Photography can be simply a record or it can be an interpretation.

magicbastarder

Calina wrote: »

I wouldn't not necessarily agree with this. What it has done is democratised the process.

one thing which seems to be overlooked in the democratisation of photography is broadband - 15 years ago, the average punter had very little way to share his or her photos beyond their social circle, or in the media. now, the needle has swung completely the opposite way, and there's a glut of photos.

Pacha

Yeah, they're rubbish.


Just kidding.
I agree with most of the posts that they look overdone and the shopping trolley and runners were the most interesting.

Morrisseeee

Jeepers the more I think about it, the harder it is to 'draw that line', ie. where is the boundary between a 'photograph' and a 'work of art' ?
It could be debated from here to eternity me thinks !!
But (for me, and I'm only a rookie!) I think the major difference in when something (bird, sky, object etc) is added into a photograph that wasn't there when the shutter clicked and hense it then becomes a 'work of art', or digital art (if its done digitally).
Interesting topic and it has left me >
BTW, really like your work andy & have been following your adventures.

Covey

Morrisseeee wrote: »

But (for me, and I'm only a rookie!) I think the major difference in when something (bird, sky, object etc) is added into a photograph that wasn't there when the shutter clicked and hense it then becomes a 'work of art', or digital art (if its done digitally).
[/SIZE]

Am I picking you up right that that is your definition of a work of art or the at least the pre-requisite to a work of art.

Morrisseeee

Well I'm still trying to get my head around my new found definition, (as a result of this thread), but yeah, a photograph is a photograph when the camera records the scene, it is then processed to get your desired 'look', but not processed to the extent that you ADD things in. You've now gone from a photograph to a 'work of art' (or something) !
Are you following my (simple) train of thought Covey ? :eek::pac:







........or are you gonna attack me ? I feel an attack coming on !!!

elven

i sense a reverse-truth argument coming on. If you think that it only becomes 'a work of art' when something is added to it to make it different from what was in front of the lens, does that then mean that a work of art cannot be something that *was* there in front of the lens, as is? Is there no credit to be taken for doing that?