Less of a compromise and more of a clever solution
The elitists won’t like that one
I agree wholeheartedly though
Cos your not?
No - I shoot regularly at tripod holes. I've not got a lot of qualms shooting where a tripod has been before.The conditions maketh the scene. Originality doesn't rate highly in my list of priorities.
Vestrahorn, Stokksnes, Iceland. linky
This has been an interesting discussion! I like the idea about a panel and would not be too fussed about whether uk based or otherwise. The thing that put me off considering entering one of the previous competitions was that I don't think there was a rule against compositing and, and I apologise if i am wrong, but the first winner from St Monans a great image but, from recollection, was also a composite, which added some waves from a different exposure. I don't think this was an issue to most people but I wondered if there would be any stipulations on composites which would be more of an issue to me personally than where the images come from.
Interesting point, composites are quite common for Milky Way images combining a slightly less dark landscape with the star scape when it’s really dark.
Just to clear it up, this was Dave's response when it was questioned last year
An absolutely spot on assessment imo. As long as liberties aren't taken by importing something that wasn't there, a 'composite' is all good as far as I'm concerned.
Yes and it certainly was not against the rules of the competition at all either so there can't be any complaints about it.
It was and still is a great image, as is pretty much anything I have seen from him on this forum or his website. It is just that I personally am a little uneasy about composites where things are added in that are not there when the exposure was taken compared to exposure blending to balance light / dark, in landscape photographs but that is yet another can of worms as in theory you can then end up getting on along exposures, which I really like when done well and do not have any issue with even though they are not a 'straight' representation of the scene either, but anyway I think I have far enough off topic now. So to get back to the interim competition I think it would be very refreshing to see a panel based approach.
and sftphotograpy reflections of a hill up rannoch moor area
I think the question of whether you ban composites is a tricky one because the lines get blurred in what you consider a composite.
I my mind a composite would be taking something (sky, mountain, tree, etc) from one image from one location and putting it into another image, from another. IE putting in something that obviously wasn't there.
Blending of two exposures, like one of the foreground and one of the sky (ie a milkyway shot) wouldn't be a "composite" as both shots were taken at the same location at the same time.
You can also use blending to combine exposures for focus stacking. I did this for a recent shot on a beach where I wanted to have the close foreground in focus and the middle distance, which would have been tricky to get sharp without focus-stacking. (Thomas Heaton did a good video on it).
So for me a blended exposure shot would be fine, but a composite (adding in things from another location) wouldn't be.
It's a shame because no matter what is decided there will be those that will moan. All I'd say is if you're not happy then don't enter.
Tend to agree, what about a focus stacked image, is that a composite or a blend?
Focus stacking would not be a composite because botb exposures were taken in the same place at the same time just with the focus shifted. You're not adding an element that wasn't there.
Never entered any comps on here before - reading through this thread has been quite amusing though.
FWIW I think any landscape competition which assesses a body of work rather than a one off image will probably get the nod from most landscapers (i.e. Scottish Landscape Photographer Of The Year) which removes the element of luck as it were and more assesses the overall quality of the photographer.
I'd think a reputable person or persons with a background in landscapes to judge it would be a start - not sure how this would be achieved but it might go some way to getting back some of the togs who used to post regularly on the forum to return.
I'd be happy with it being open to outside the UK - locations being more or less 'spectacular' is a bit irrelevant to me to be honest, unless of course judging becomes purely aesthetics-based rather than actually looking at the skill and imagination of the photographer. In which case the competition and it's judging loses credibility for me.
Composites is a sticky area - astro images as someone mentioned are most commonly composites out of necessity to get maximum quality rather than anything else, I've no real issues with composites, like anything else if it's done skillfully and with imagination then great. In an ideal world you'd have something similar to LPOTY which has 'classic view' and 'your view' categories but in this case probably isn't feasible.
The largest Instagram hashtag/account for my area picks a photo of the day and the majority of the time they're one of five buildings in the city centre. It's pretty boring and they've been photographed to such an extent that it's almost impossible to do anything different with them.
I'd rather competitions encouraged people not to be lazy and go out and take something different. If a photographer is good enough to take a great photo of generic location X, they're good enough to take a great photo of somewhere a bit more original.
Trying for a new twist on a commonly shot subject is great, but if the result is a worse shot than you'd have gotten at the 'tripod holes' spot then take it there too; you can always enter the lesser shot just to be different
Pretty much everyone I've ever known go to Iceland for photos has visited that crashed Dakota as it can make for such a cracking subject in its location. If I went, I'd go there too, it'd be daft not to
As a Judge we have to see through the fact that its a commonly shot subject and mark it as is
I'm a bit torn on this. There's no denying there are tripod holes for a reason and shots from those spots with great lighting / weather are going to look amazing. There's also a lot going for finding new compositions and finding the next tripod holes, no?
A couple of months ago I saw a picture that caught my imagination, three snow covered hills one behind another with a single tree on the top of each one, but no clue about the location. I really wanted to capture an image like that and I could remember a place that might be possible. So I studied the map, tried google earth and went to look. It took three trips and on the third morning fresh snow had fallen and the sky was clear - exactly what I was looking for (see here). To begin I thought I'd found something new, however once I compared back to the picture that had caught my eye.....it was exactly the same place. So not a new discovery, nonetheless very happy with the result.
I would hope that if a photographer has talent, they'll be able to make as good a shot at a lesser known location. The best shots for me are those taken by a photographer with a personal connection to the place and/or can tell a story, such as Kenna's Ratcliffe Power Station series or Godwin's Our Forbidden Land. Quite looking forward to Paul Hart's forthcoming Drained book for similar reasons.
For other people, I think there's a Pokemon 'Gotta Catch 'em All' element to Photography, especially in Landscape and Nature. Some people take enjoyment in taking a technically excellent photo of an iconic/well photographed spot. Not for me, but each to their own.
I do like Michael Kenna’s work
An amusing thread. Arguments seem to start very easily on forums, and quickly build up a head of steam.
I very much agree with the above. It is undoubtedly quite easy to trudge around the globe taking photos of all the hot locations, ticking them off and moving onto the next one. It is much more difficult to coax a landscape into telling its stories through your lens, especially if that landscape is a subtle, undramatic one, and to have any chance of doing so, you really need to know that landscape. This is very familiar territory to me, and believe me, it is very hard. Fay Godwin told those quiet stories beautifully, and Paul Hart is an absolute master of the art. Landscapes don't really get quieter or less dramatic than The Fens, but he builds the narrative and holds the viewer incredibly effectively.
He is, incidentally, currently exhibiting in the Print Sales room at The Photographers Gallery, a collection titled 'Poetry of Place'. It includes images from 'Drained', as well as 'Farmed' and 'Truncated'.
Well, that's got the little landscape POTY comp sorted then...
Planning to visit on Saturday, looking forward to it
Edit - Like your Somme series by the way
Thank you Stephen, very much. I am slowly refreshing the Somme portfolio, posting up subtle re-edits of some photos, and removing others that I'm not quite happy with, refining it all down a bit.