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?
do you need me to explain?
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.
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...
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.
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/vuod...uontojaihminen_Jorma_Mylly_Ihmisen_luonto.jpg
Some photographers believe that the hand of man must not be visible in a nature photographindeed 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.
Competitions must have boundaries if they aren't just a general competition.
But in the field of nature photography that doesn't make it a "natural" image.
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...
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.
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.