£12k portrait prize winner

The uncropped version of the second picture just made me choke on my Cheerios! :eek:
 
I've never quite got my head around some of the choices for this exhibition. I think the whole idea of the winning shot is just plain immoral. Just promotes the idea of killing wildlife for sport. Didn't see the uncropped version of #2, but the cropped one looked like yer average happy snap. The others seemed to portray a social message and it seems that images for this prize need to have that strong, possibly shocking element to succeed. It seems the farther away you get from well-lit, well thought-out, well-composed and stunning portraits, the more likely you are to be selected. What do I know? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
none of them do anything for me, but then I am sure the judges are these really arty farty types that see bucket loads of hidden meaning when there isn't any!
 
I dont think the dead buck says anything immoral, nothing apart from "dead buck here".
I do think they're rubbish though, I've seen better on here
 
Photodiva said:
I've never quite got my head around some of the choices for this exhibition. I think the whole idea of the winning shot is just plain immoral. Just promotes the idea of killing wildlife for sport. Didn't see the uncropped version of #2, but the cropped one looked like yer average happy snap. The others seemed to portray a social message and it seems that images for this prize need to have that strong, possibly shocking element to succeed. It seems the farther away you get from well-lit, well thought-out, well-composed and stunning portraits, the more likely you are to be selected. What do I know? :thinking:
Click to expand...

Immoral? Say she eats it? What happens then? You do know we kill animals for food, right? You certainly wouldn't have liked what I was doing on Monday then.

As for the photos, all a bit meh to me. Looks like they won because of the back story rather than either artistic or technical merit. In fact the winning shot is the best of those shown in the article.
 
I think the winner is a good photo personally. I'd rather look at that than another blown white background.
 
Many of those images do have a social story, and to me it seems that the image needs to have words with it, as without they're pretty meaningless.

Funny, I always thought that one of our "goals" as a photographer was to capture an image that tells the story... :shrug: :thinking:

Mind you, I could do with 12 grand right now !!

Steve
 
Fourht place is my personal favourite, I can see something in the photo, although it doesn't make me jump up and down with excitment.
 
Photodiva said:
I've never quite got my head around some of the choices for this exhibition. I think the whole idea of the winning shot is just plain immoral. Just promotes the idea of killing wildlife for sport. Didn't see the uncropped version of #2, but the cropped one looked like yer average happy snap. The others seemed to portray a social message and it seems that images for this prize need to have that strong, possibly shocking element to succeed. It seems the farther away you get from well-lit, well thought-out, well-composed and stunning portraits, the more likely you are to be selected. What do I know? :thinking:
Click to expand...

I think the portrait is magnificent. I think you've read too many self help photography books.

David spent two days with that family in South Africa. This just one of many photographs from the series. A lot of award winning photographs are snap happy and so what? If a photograph can tell a story and it takes breaking the 'rules' of photography to get that shot then I don't see what the problem is.

To say that the photograph is immoral is a bit sensationalist. Especially when you consider what some of the best documentary photographers have captured over the decades.
 
Last edited:
I thought the winner was the best of a mediocre bunch. Better than that one of the tramp in south africa which won another prize. Thought that was mince.

I'll enter next year. Just need a volunteer to stand with his bits out on motorcycle handlebars or flopped out in the cucumber section of the nearest tescos :D
 
srichards said:
I thought the winner was the best of a mediocre bunch. Better than that one of the tramp in south africa which won another prize. Thought that was mince.

I'll enter next year. Just need a volunteer to stand with his bits out on motorcycle handlebars or flopped out in the cucumber section of the nearest tescos :D
Click to expand...

I'd volunteer, lol.
 
srichards said:
I thought the winner was the best of a mediocre bunch. Better than that one of the tramp in south africa which won another prize. Thought that was mince.

I'll enter next year. Just need a volunteer to stand with his bits out on motorcycle handlebars or flopped out in the cucumber section of the nearest tescos :D
Click to expand...


:lol:
 
KayJay said:
I think the portrait is magnificent. I think you've read too many self help photography books.

David spent two days with that family in South Africa. This just one of many photographs from the series. A lot of award winning photographs are snap happy and so what? If a photograph can tell a story and it takes breaking the 'rules' of photography to get that shot then I don't see what the problem is.

To say that the photograph is immoral is a bit sensationalist. Especially when you consider what some of the best documentary photographers have captured over the decades.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I disagree. Not sure what you mean by 'self help photography books. I have no problems with 'breaking the rules' but posing with your kill does make a good portrait, but that's how I see it. You may be different. That's your prerogative.
 
I find the winner quite interesting but not amazing. I don't see what's immoral about it, even though am not 'into' hunting.

And where are you seeing this uncropped pic? :)
 
Last edited:
Photodiva said:
Sorry, I disagree. Not sure what you mean by 'self help photography books. I have no problems with 'breaking the rules' but posing with your kill does make a good portrait, but that's how I see it. You may be different. That's your prerogative.
Click to expand...


I get that, but in this pose she is sat on a horse, with a face like a smacked arse, and it just happens that there is the carcass of an antelope on her horse. She makes no reference to it and doesn't look bothered that it is there. I would prefer it not to be there, cos I coudl then see more of the scenery.


Ok she is holding it's antlers, but still I don't think it adds to the shot. And he cropped the backside of the horse.
 
Last edited:
These crops are rediculous, if they don't want the entire photographs to be shown they shouldn't show them at all. The cropped version of 2 for instance is absolutely awful but uncropped it's a powerful portrait. I'd very much like to see what these actually look like, there are vast differences in the look of these depending on what website you're visiting at the time and not just in the way they've been cropped.
 
I think it's cropped too tightly, for my tastes. I have no problem with the subject matter at all, just not keen on the back of the horse missing and losing the lower hoof of the kill.

I'd rather have a slightly larger photo taking in just a little more to 3 sides.

I also don't see it as a stunner in terms of clicking on to a link and going 'Wow'.
 
I have no problem with the winning shot. Nicely taken, reminds me a bit of those portraits you get in stately homes of the poses on the horses from the Lord of the manor. My only issue is the cropping, not that the legs of the horse are missing, but the unbalance of the crop to front and rear of the horse.

The Guardian had an interesting write up about the second place photo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/sep/17/panayiotis-lamprou-portrait-wife-photography

Link to the exhibition:
http://www.npg.org.uk:8080/photoprize/site10/exhibition_winners.php
 
I'm not trying to sound up myself, but thats a pretty poor selection of images, none of those sitting in my lightroom would have made me think "oh yeah, thats a winning shot".

These seemed to have been judged more on the text that goes with them than the actual images themselves. I mean "here's some druggies" or even the *accidental* shot of the fat girl FFS.

The closest one to a good image for me is the Elle Commission shot, although that seems a little too centre orientated composition to me. Definitely its the best of the bunch though.
 
fitzer said:
I rather like John Walsh's comment in the Independent (last comment on this page) HERE
Click to expand...

Really?

The haunting image of a young huntress

What is it about Huntress with Buck, David Chancellor's image of a redheaded girl on a horse holding the horns of the buck she's killed – the picture that won this year's Taylor Wessing Photographic Portrait Prize, and is on show at London's National Portrait Gallery – that so disturbs?

Is it the look of dull neutrality on the face of 14-year-old Jodie Slaughter from Alabama (on her first hunting trip in South Africa), as if she were doing nothing more interesting than taking out the rubbish on her bicycle? Is it the contrast between the little madam's foot, trainered and safe in its stirrup, and the stiffened legs of the dead animal around the horse's neck? Is it the memory of the magnificent stag, the Emperor of Exmoor, that was killed last week by just such another dead-eyed, incurious "hunter"?

Or is it, in fact, the air of fathomless disgust that hangs over the horse, as it bears its double burden – one dead, one loathsome – home to camp?

That's a little harsh isn't it? The look is more one of a teenager who doesn't necessarily want to be photographed.

Looking more at the portrait, is there the trace of a halo around the girl. Contrast masking?
http://www.npg.org.uk:8080/photoprize/site10/media/photos/David_Chancellor_Huntress.jpg
 
how underwhelming.

I was that underwhelmed that when I read that the 2 sisters that sell their bodies to fuel their drug habit had insomnia my first thought wasn't - "how awful, what a powerful image and terrible situation they are in" ... but ... "convenient they have insomnia, given their line of work"

a shot like that should convey emotion, i just found it very bland
 
As for the 'intimate' shot, there's been similar works of art around for quite a while. I thought of L'Origine du monde

Note - probably NSFW although it's an art painting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Origine_du_monde

As a desire to shock, there's been plenty of photographs that do that - even Madonna's book - sex.

As an aside, I often wonder if shots like this are included to publicise the competition or company sponsoring it. Who'd heard of The company (or possibly even the competition) before?
 
I actually loved the winning shot. The contrasts in strenghts and weakness are fascinating. Here is a teenage girl who killed a stronger deer while commanding a much stronger horse. The dichotomy of the situation is what makes it so compelling.

The rest were fairly average though.
 
But is it the photo that says that, or is it the text?

Its supposed to be a photo competition, not a caption competition.
 
Of course it's the photo, and that's the problem with a lot of comments on this thread in my opinion. People are just looking at is purely as a photograph without taking the time to look more closely and show a willingness to read into the image. I still think it's great. It looks even better in print on the front cover of this months BJP magazine.
 
Mr_T said:
These crops are rediculous, if they don't want the entire photographs to be shown they shouldn't show them at all. The cropped version of 2 for instance is absolutely awful but uncropped it's a powerful portrait. I'd very much like to see what these actually look like, there are vast differences in the look of these depending on what website you're visiting at the time and not just in the way they've been cropped.
Click to expand...

uncropped number two is a powerful portrait? The whole crop doesn't add anything to a fairly feeble image
 
I guess there is a lot of "photography as art" that I don't get. I'm not sure I ever will on the basis of that image.

As for the "wife with her bits out photo", if only they'd made the competition more widely known then there are entire websites full of people who could have made entries to that category.
 
danmon_81 said:
google....type in Taylor wessing 2010 winners and search pictures!! :eek::eek:
Click to expand...

Yeeuch! Golly gosh, imagine having that hanging in the National Portrait Gallery and having your mother visit the exhibition. Should've been binned.
 
Yup, the uncropped version of 'My English Wife' nearly made me choke on my kebab..... or was it hers? ;)

All in all, a very underwhelming set of images, but I'm sure we 'don't understand' them like the judges do..... :thinking:
 
I was flicking through the 2006 catalogue which I bought from that Exhibition. There were some that I enjoyed, some that I didn't, some that I can't say I fully 'got'. May be I'll go see the exhibition. Don't think I'll buy the catalogue, though.
 
The money should be donated to the WWF
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top