Landscape Photographer of the Year - Winning Entries

amcinroy

CabanSail wrote: »

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.

I don't think we should be equating long exposures with 'manipulation'. These are fundamentally different concepts.

Long exposures do not capture how water 'looks'. They capture how water 'is'. In other words, long exposures capture a history of the water as a volume in space-time. That is as true as the view or intepretation as that we see with our eyes. It's just a different abstraction of that view. Both are equally valid and honest.

Covey

Morrisseeee wrote: »

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 !!!

No attack coming on :P I think I'm following, just not agreeing with it.

Morrisseeee

Elven, you are messing with my brain !!

does that then mean that a work of art cannot be something that *was* there in front of the lens, as is?

I never said it wasn't a work of art ! but more importantly it is a photograph. Its something the camera caught and recorded.
If I have a 'picture' in front of me, but it has elements added to it, like a sky from a different photo, then that 'thing' cannot be classified as a photograph.
What would ye call it, would ye classify it as a photograph ?

I don't think we should be equating long exposures with 'manipulation'. These are fundamentally different concepts.

That would be my thinking also.

magicbastarder

the same can be said for ultra fast exposures - they capture the world in a way the human eye cannot, too.

elven

Morrisseeee wrote: »

If I have a 'picture' in front of me, but it has elements added to it, like a sky from a different photo, then that 'thing' cannot be classified as a photograph.
What would ye call it, would ye classify it as a photograph ?

I suppose the short answer is, I don't really care. I don't see the point myself, but if someone wants to do that, fire away - don't pretend it's as you found it, call it a photograph with extra invented bits if you like, but it really doesn't bother me.

Covey

I have to say, this has been one of the best threads here for a good while. Well, maybe excepting a couple that did make me laugh out loud

As someone, who as good as never, takes a landscape, I might well give it a twirl. Looking at some of the work recently of among others David Farrell and Simon Burch has also hightened that interest.

Morrisseeee

I suppose the short answer is, I don't really care.

Ah elven, I'm disappointed, I expected more from you ! :pac:

elven

I suppose I care why they are doing it, but I don't care whether they call it photography or not...