Landscape Photographer of the Year
Take a View, the landscape photographer of the year competition. Well, what a pickle. I was (and still am) in two minds about posting anything about this competition as I have a personal relationship with Charlie Waite who is at the heart of it but as I’ve already put my views to him and am talking about the competition on Twitter and in person, I thought it would be hypocritical of me to balk at saying something just because the audience is different.
Firstly a little bit of background, I entered Take a View last year and submitted ten pictures, four of which were accepted to go through to the final round. Out of these four, one picture was highly commended and ended up in the book and at the exhibition in London. At the time I was reticent about entering mainly because it was a competition and I didn’t like the idea of being judged without really knowing what the criteria were. However, with Charlie being at the heart of the competition, I hoped for the best. The picture that was chosen wasn’t my favourite but I was quite pleased with it and I thought I understood why it was chosen above my other pictures. After checking, I realised that the majority of people judging the pictures were not photographers or photography critics and hence the results were being chosen for a variety of reasons, not necessarily because of the quality of the photograph itself.
This year I’ve been excluded from entering the competition because I am working for one of the organisers. This was sort of a releif as it meant that I didn’t have to decide whether to enter or not. Quite a few colleagues of mine entered however, including people I greatly admire such as Dav Thomas, .. However, only one of these photographers got anything through to the last round and that one only got a picture through that, whilst well caught, doesn’t represent the best photograph out of his submissions (It’s a very bold rainbow picture over a long exposure sea horizon by Jason Theaker which, whilst very stunning and deserves recognition, is one which I am sure he will agree is 98% eye candy).
This didn’t surprise me completely as having looked at the entries from last year, I started to realise that this is more about wow! and ooh! than about photography. i.e. it’s beginning to resemble one of the powerpoint slideshows of images that make the rounds of unfortunate inboxes all the world over. And this shouldn’t really be a problem, after all there are competitions all over the place and anybody can start one and choose whatever pictures they like…
.. apart from the fact that the competition is called “Landscape Photographer of the Year” and is run by one of the foremost landscape photographers in Britain.
Let me backtrack a little to one of the reasons I started to take photography so seriously.
In the US, Australia and New Zealand, landscape photography is considered an art form and forms a part of the whole structure of photography. In America Edward Steichen, Alfred Stieglitz, Ansel Adams, Walker Evans, Paul Strand, Timothy O’Sullivan, Edward Weston, Robert Adams, the list goes on.. landscape photography is at the heart of the nation and has been influential in the structure of the country. In Australia Frank Hurley set the scene and Peter Dombrovskis took it to a new level and changed Tasmanian history in the process.
The UK however, landscape photography has some cachet but it is nowhere near the level of respect that it deserves. We have some historic figures such as the historic founders of our photographic tradition and later on Fay Godwin. However, the art establishment has created an environment where you have to create deadpan, unsaturated pictures; an environment where Simon Norfolk, Jem Southam, Stephen Vaughan et al are acceptable but David Ward, Joe Cornish and Charlie Waite aren’t (I mention Jem, Simon and Stephen because I like their work). But it’s even worse than this in that the general public see photography as ‘easy’ and don’t appreciate that there is anything more involved in creating a ‘great’ landscape photograph beyond knowing how to use a camera, getting to a nice place and being lucky with the weather!
So … what does this have to do with Landscape Photographer of the Year? Well … Given that Charlie is one of the best photographers that Britain has had and that he has a competition called ‘Landscape Photographer of the Year’, the winner should be the best landscape photographer from that year? Here are a few of the preview news items for you to browse..
Well – do the results work for me and the people I have talked to? No.. Not really.. Some do show the requisite levels of competence in the craft of photography and also show skill in composition and even creative originality (Particularly Alex Nail, Ian Cameron, John Parminter, Anthony Brawley, Keith Naylor and Jason Theaker). But those are the exceptions..
Try to imagine the pictures that you have seen on the newspapers preview sites sitting alongside the photographs in “World’s Top Landscape Photographers”? No, I can’t either.. Perhaps the four I’ve mentioned (although they have better photographs in their portfolios and I imagine, and in some cases know, that they entered). Lowlights including a picture of a Hermit crab with a photoshop’d reflection and a new sky by the looks of it (see Crabgate on Flickr); more animals (cute or not); a particularly bad HDR that won a category; The Bregagh Road beech trees, Buachaille Etive Mor, Sycamore Gap, Mist at Corfe Castle – these are great locations, not necessarily the result of great photographers;
So.. now I’ve finished sounding like a complete miserable git and slagging off everything in site, what suggestions do I have? Well… for one the competition should probably be called “Landscape Photograph of the Year” or better still “Britain’s Best Views, 2009″. My primary concern is that the ‘Landscape Photographer of the Year’ is judged by a panel with vested interests in things other than photography and is judged on a single picture. The result will very unlikely be taken by the best landscape photographer. Just to get this clear, I have no problems with the competition itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. What is wrong is the public perception that this represents the best that landscape photography has to offer in the UK, a perception that I took to be true when I initially entered.
And what can you do about it? Well.. I’m not going to recommend not entering, that would be wrong. But you should know what you are doing when and if you enter next year. Be aware of what the competition is and what it means and don’t get caught up in the myth that the results mean anything any more than that you have won or lost a competition.
For me, I intend to do my best to ensure that next year there is -
- a competition that is run by British landscape photographers, for British landscape photographers.
- a competition that conforms to a broad but generally accepted definition of what landscape photography is about.
- a competition that is judged by a portfolio of images.
I don’t know how to best achieve this yet but I promise it will happen…
I would like to know what people feel about this. Is my point of view irrelevant?
I’d also like any of your ideas on how you think a competition like this should be judged and what criteria are important.
I would really like to stress that this is not intended as a ‘bash Charlie’ post. Charlie has created a hunger for landscape photography in the country and for that he should be applauded. He’s also a friend with whom I have spoken about these issues previously.
Finally – here are some of the notes I made whilst looking through all of the pictures that we’ve seen so far in the press
The Great
Ian Cameron , Crimson Chill- very nice in many ways, strong composition, good light, original location.. (oh and the family tree is good too)
John Parminter, Buachaille Etive Mor – despite the commonly captured subject taking a lead, the execution, composition and light are excellent.
Anthony Brawley, Loch Dochard – A great find and wonderfully captured. Strong composition, complementary weather.
Keith Naylor, Herringfleet Mist – If you want a picture of a windmill at sunset, this is pretty damn good..
The Very Good
Pete Bridgewood, Great minimal work, very Pete Bridgewood and a nice continuation on a theme.
Jason Theaker, Elemental Metamorphosis. A well captured photograph that simplified the rainbow into something more primal (if over processed slightly by my tastes)
Alex Nail, Burrator plantation – great shot, great composition, great light… very nice indeed and a rare capture..
The OK
Nigel Hiller, Hebden Bridge – wonderful light and a good composition.
Nicky Stewart‘s Lighthouse – Very competent, dramatic photograph. Not sure it’s world class though..
Claire Carter‘s snowdonia. Great light well captured with a reasonable composition.
Mike Hughes, Loch Ossian – Atmospheric but doesn’t keep my attention
Paul Knight – Good black and white composition well toned.
Don Bishop, Hoar Frost – Well taken but not particularly moving
Anthony Burch, Old Bathing Place – A nice scene but not particularly resolved composition
Alan Cameron, boats and reeds – a beautiful picture if a little cliched..
Mark Lakeman, Binary Code – I like this. The idea is strong but it misses slightly in execution – almost great though
The Rest
overall winner, Storr – competently captured but badly processed. Relies on lucky weather and a location based cliche (i.e. The location is more important than the composition and it has also been done better before). What is going on with the horizon and the big lump of rock on the right?
John Parminter’s Your View – a good shot but a cliche perhaps?
National Park Winner – Bad HDR on an average composition but with some nice light
Peter Cox, Dark Hedges – is this going to be a winner every year?
Graham Hobbs, Kingston Lacy – The hulk rides a bike down a cliched location..
A cliched shot of the lit up tent at sunset.. nice but not landscape photographer of the year really..
Horse Pictures, Dog Pictures, Documentary pictures of runners, urban architecture pictures?
Tim Morland, South Downs – it’s a nice picture but it doesn’t do a lot for me.
Dartmoor national park picture by Adam Burton.. nice sky – not really much of a composition (and over polarised IMO)
North Yorks Moor winner – some nice light and a cross .. hmm
Sycamore gap?? Oh please!!! Stock photography? yes! Landscape photographer of the year? No!
Mist at Corfe Castle – another standard that I’ve seen done better. At least it’s a competent photograph with good atmosphere.
The crab – oh dear. Please see my flickr page for details..
The poppies by Bungh Huynh are competent again but far from an inspiring example of the best of british photography..
UPDATE : The topic has also been discussed at the flickr landscape composition group and at the large format photography forum and a non-photographic viewpoint over at The UK Climbing Forums
Tim
Your blog was just highlighted to me today by a good friend and fellow LPOTY finalist so apologies for coming to this late.
I feel a genuine sense of achievement at being in print in the book and the forthcoming exhibition. Truly, I do. This is the first competition I have ever entered in my relatively short time at playing at being a photographer (approx 3 years).
I completely forgot about this years competition and was prompted to enter following seeing a Flickr contact make a posting regards his submitted images. Unfortunately this was on the closing day for the competiton and I therefore hurriedly submitted a few images.
I was over the moon when I was given the news that I had two images shortlisted and positively ecstatic when I heard that one had actually made the book. Was it my favourite image of mine ? most likely not, in fact I dont really like any of my images but thats a different story.
But I made the book, in my own head perhaps I should be realising that my images are slightly better than I care to give myself credit for…
Anyway on the Sunday morning the Times ran the pictures I met my friend David to walk our dogs, paper in hand, like kids we eagerly opened the Times magazine and my initial feeling was almost one of disapointment.
Firsly let me say that I dont think the images printed well in the magazine but equally I was shocked at some of the other included images. Let me qualify that by saying that I didnt think any of them were bad images, quite to the contrary but what I did feel was that I couldnt quite believe that a ‘serious’ photography competition would tolerate such clearly heavily processed images.
Let me also qualify that by saying that I have no issue whatsoever with processed images, I believe that processing cant make a bad image good, it’ll always be bad. So if I like a processed image then in my opinion it must have had some underlying merit.
Indeed when the situation arises, I will do what I believe is necesary in post to get the image to look the way I believe it should. Of late however my taste has been for less processed images and barring web sharpening/white balance/contrast adjustments my images are pretty much as they are from camera (at least for today).
Back to my point, I couldn’t believe that ‘serious’ photographers considered these processed images in this competition. My own commended image had little or no processing and I submitted this purposefully as I believed that very natural images was what the judges would want. I actually felt that if these processed images had been included then it someohow demeaned my achievement. Was this competition being judged by people who understood photography, could I really be happy that my image was in the book if it were the case that it was a panel of non-photography enthusiasts (the best word I can think of here) ?
I think I got that somewhat wrong for this year but I’ll put that down to experience and know that perhaps if I am able to have any images worthy of entry for next year that I can push the boundaries just that little bit, if required.
My only concern with your post is that I feel we may be trying to put a little too many rules/boundaries around what constitutes good photography/good landscape photography and with those rules comes the exclusion of certain images. If I consider the winning shot for instance my first instinct as a photographer (can I call myself that ? hahaha) was HDR, surprise ! shock !
I have since looked more closely at the image in the book and I tell you what I’d be damned proud to have that shot in my portfolio irrespective of how the photographer arrived at the final result.
Is it only us photographers who would see the image as unnatural ? I suspect the vast majority of those whom I’d also suspect will be non-photographers, who viewed the winner in the press publications will say ‘wow’ to the winning shot and rightly so. I doubt it will be of any concern to them how the photographer achieved it. Perhaps my opinion on this may change when I read your next blog entry, which I am looking forward to reading and understanding.
That said though perhaps I’m not a purist at heart, photography for me is as much about the experience of taking the image as the final image itself. In fact the day I took my image, I was with my friend and somewhat photographic hero (David), he too has an image in the book of the same scene, albeit a portrait orientation. Anyway, as much as the scene itself I remember the cold from the day, I remember the anticipation of getting to the loch after the fairly long hike across frozen rivers. I remember the laughs we had along the way and the food we had whilst trying to heat up in the old hut at the side of the loch. It was just a magical day shared by two friends and we got to take some nice pictures as part of that day. For me this is what its all about. That may change one day but thats what does it for me right now, obviously it may not have been quite so good had we not been greeted by such a wonderful scene
I want to thank you sincerely for your very kind words regards my image and put that into context just a little. To be singled out into a group headed ‘great’ is truly flattering, massively so. Thank you. To then think that people such as Ian Cameron are also in that group is really quite something. I should note that almost just two years ago I received one to one tuition from Ian on the coast at Moray and I dont think he thought much of me as a photographer, but I have worked hard since then to try to broaden my knowledge and skills and I’ll continue to do this. Ian remains one of my most favourite Scottish photographers so its difficult to compute that I may be mentioned even in the same breath as him.
Lastly, I commend your efforts to bring about your idea for a competiition and if considered suitable for entry I’d certainly like to take part.
Regards and best wishes
Anthony Brawley
Thanks for commenting Anthony! Firstly, congrats on getting in the book – being in print is very rarely completely about skill or talent but in your case your are derving of your place.
Secondly, I’m not one for ring fencing what landscape photography should be – I’m starting to think that people can take what they like – or submit what they like in a competition. If the people who are judging the competition are ‘landscape photographers’ then they should judge by merit. Also, if a competition was judged on a portfolio, then the opportunity to drop in a ‘curveball’ could make things interesting (for instance – as I’ve mentioned elsewhere – David Ward’s car picture or Joe Cornish’s chemical plant)..
Anyway – thanks for contributing and I’ll keep you posted on whatever comes up!
Tim
Thats a good post Tim, I agree with your comments and was surprised by the choice of winner, I would have expected some originiality of viewpoint to be rewarded, yet the winner is a over-produced shot of one of the most popular spots in the UK. Regards, Ben
How about a title for the new competition being something like "Analogue photograph of the year". The reason I enjoy your site is because I am trying out film now too.
I agree that Storr was an odd choice, its been done well in the opening of Joe Cornish’s book already, without the over saturated colours.
In defense of the current competition, it does a lot to inspire new photographers to become better. All the detail at the back of the book about apertures and kit used is useful for a new photographer and makes it acccessible. No doubt some people who go off and buy a 5D eventually get swayed by film and will eventually sit in a darkroom to make enlargements. Then they can enter your competition!
Today I have visited the exhibition on the Southbank,and like last year I found the balance and varirty of landscapes excelent ,and will return for another viewing it amazes me how light can change familiar mundane views into works of art MAGIC
It does seem that the commercial nature of the competition has taken over and it has become committee focused. That said I’m happy my “oversaturated” image is in the book and I would be a hypocrite (and look a bitter twisted old fart) if I really got stuck into the competition, but I have to say my ego has taken a bit of a bashing (see my flickr post)
To be honest I think allot of the shots chosen by judges of the competition and newspaper editors (in the links you posted) fulfil what “they” want the public to see and it doesn’t respect the general public’s ability to be challenged photographically. I personally believe that as a medium photography has a unique ability to suspend reality and push people that bit further into realms of twisted perceptions. This is what I want to be judged on….
And as to a new competition, I suspect that whichever competition is run there will always be somebody who doesn’t agree with the rules of selection (99% to be fair). So if you run one Tim, I’m sure people will enter, but will it be commercially focused? Will it be fine art focused? Will it have clear grading criteria? Paraglider15% dog 25% golden light 5% aspect ratio 5/4 99% (o:
As this competition has developed it has been interesting to see trends in image choices (bridges, Scottish mountains, cutie animals) and they only perpetuate the expected view of landscape photography. Anyway it’s late and I’m working tomorrow so I will have to come back to this debate…
Cheers
Jason
I’m an Australian
I’m so glad you mentioned Hurley — some of his 1900s Antarctic stuff is just incredible & can be found in the flickr commons.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=frank+hurley&s=int
I gather it was not a simple task to take photos in those conditions then.
Alas, I don’t know much more about Aussie landscaper photogs.
I’m also so glad you’re into pushing photography & also blogging about it. I suspect Adams would have had a blog…
Tim,
You are a brave man to commit to paper what many others may privately be thinking. But it shows your passion for landscape photography and your concern for the image of British Landscape photography and photographers. I commend you for speaking out.
I (perhaps naively) thought after last year that there may be a swing back to more ‘traditional’ landscape photography that celebrates the diversity, subtlety, and wonder of the British Landscape with its amazing, ever-changing light, without the need for inclusion of domestic pets or serious post capture manipulation. Whilst there are some lovely images, whatoverall message does the competition send out about the vision, flair, creativity and originality of British photographers? Maybe I misunderstood what the competition stood for, and what the title British Landscape Photographer of the Year would represent. Whilst I am not surprised my own entries did not make it through the first round, I am more than a little suprised, and really quite disappointed with the choice of some of the winning images. Not that my opinion matters, but I was hoping the winning entries in this competition would be stunning images that would give me insight into where I am going wrong and motivation to move my photography onto another level…but with some exceptions I am not left feeling enormously inspired. From your comments it seems I am not alone.
Cheers,
Jenny
PS I’m glad Mr Waite was aware of your views before you posted this blog….
Hi Tim,
You’ll be aware already of my opinions about the LPY, but for the purposes of this forum, I can say I heartily agree with your analysis above. It appears as though the competition has been hijacked by the vested interests of the sponsors and publishers, none of which have any interest in the art of photography, but may well have corporate goals that are actually in contrast to the more high minded expectations of many of those who take part and the viewers. It looks more like the Country File calendar to me, almost missing landscape in some of the images.
So you’ve bitten the bullet and decided there will be a new competition. Good! I wondered when somebody was finally going to do something. As I’m sure you will agree there is not going to be one photography competition that will satisfy every entrant, so you will need to be very thoughtful abut both the title of the competition and it’s terms of reference. I sincerely hope you will find room in there for the original experimenters in both film and digital mediums as I worry they could again be excluded. I know that we can both broadly agree in what constitutes a "good" landscape image, but I also know that you have a personal purity of approach which emphasises how it was achieved as much as the result per se. could you find it in your heart to accept the heavily manipulated work of Peter Scammell? In my opinion he is no less an artist (perhaps more so) than some of the more traditionalist captures.
Anyway you have my full support in the new venture, but I would like to see an open acceptance of the creative as well as of more traditional values as composition or you will be simply creating another sectional event which fails to represent where we are at in image making and more so not figuring in where the future may take us.
Thanks for stopping by my blog and commenting … very nice to read what you have to say here and of course I agree with pretty much everything you say!
By and large landscapes aren’t my thing but I do appreciate subtle ones or those that move away from the cliche … I make no further comment about this competition’s winners!
Interesting point by the way about the "art photography" world’s appreciation of unsaturated colours. Not sure I 100% agree with you but you’re right in that it’s a style that often crops up in galleries and ‘serious’ competitions.
Interesting thoughts. I completely agree that as it is it should be Landscape Photograph rather than photographer. It would be much better if the overall winner was judged on a portfolio of images rather than just one single image. Ian Cameron may have deservedly won several times over by now
It would also be great to see more edgy and arty images getting through.
I have to say I am however much happier with the overall winner this year than last as I know Emanuel is a dedicated, consistent landscape photographer and I congratulate him wholeheartedly.
This year I did not enter but last year I got a good number of my best images into final judging to have every last one rejected. You then see the ‘weakest’ of the images that did get through and that leaves one a little disappointed with the process. That’s the nature of competitions – it all luck of the draw and personal opinion of the judges on the day. At least its not a phone in public vote
(though perhaps it may as well be).
Looking forward to hearing details of a new competition.
Your criteria for the competition you plan sounds ideal. Perhaps even better to make it even more photographic and base judging on prints rather than monitor outputted images. Though logistically this may be a problem – black & white photography magazine insist on prints in their yearly comp, probably the only remaining uk magazine that is about photography.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for raising this subject. Over at Ephotozine the mutual back-slapping has reached nausea-inducing proportions so it’s very refreshing to read a more critical view.
"Try to imagine the pictures that you have seen on the newspapers preview sites sitting alongside the photographs in "World’s Top Landscape Photographers"? No, I can’t either.."
And there’s the heart of the problem. The LPotY promotes a style of photography perpetuated by magazines with advertisers to please. It’s aimed at pushing product. It’s also a style which gets a big response on photo-sharing sites. So, magazines print it, photographers want to try it and, when they do, get a huge pat on the back from their peers. It’s a reinforcement loop.
Often found sharing shelfspace in bookshops with the LPotY books are two collaborative projects from the people behind Light & Land, ‘Working the Light’ and ‘Developing Vision and Style’. These also contain images from amateurs and even some who later became pros. Comparing these two books with the LPotY ‘style’ gives a totally different view of the state of landscape photography in the UK. The amateur images in both WTL and DV&S do not rely on heavy processing or effects – just solid photographic values of good light and a keen eye for composition. Things which sadly do not seem very important in the digital age.
I commend anyone trying to redress things by running a competition that does not pander to commercial interests but competitions are expensive to set up and that means sponsorship. And then we’re back to square one…
A really comprehensive and rational analysis Tim. Concur with both your content and the other posts. I add my voice in commending you on both blogging your feelings and making them known to Charlie in the first instance.
Living in my South Coast bubble, I’ve not had much time for ‘proper’ photography this year, but having made the effort to enter (their persistent email campaign got the better of me after too much wine one night…), was disappointed to have everything rejected. My feeling is that some of my submission were quite strong compared to the shot which was selected last year (when they took the opportunity to ignore the best one!). Clearly my, and seemingly by the consensus shown, I suppose it isn’t to presumptuous to use ‘our’ vision of the UK landscape is not one which does not match the ideals or blueprint of their organisation.
Will I try to second guess how their judges might like me to portray a scene when I am about to make an image. I don’t think so, liberation from ‘club’ judge potential thinking was a huge release and yielded great development. Competitive photography is a funny business, and perhaps it is the latter descriptor which is driving the LPOTY ideals away from a more purist approach. One with which I am happy to continue to pursue – when other commitments permit!!
Good post Tim. What has suprised me this year is the reaction I’ve heard from just about everyone who’s seen the pictures, most of whom aren’t photographers, but aren’t impressed. Most cite something along the lines of ‘unreal’ and ‘digital-looking’.
And strange that whilst LPOTY was obviously modelled on WildlifePOTY, the latter has managed to maintain its appeal and ‘wow factor’ for public and professionals alike throughout the digital revolution (and all whilst satisfying big-money sponsors). Are nature photographers more concerned with reality whilst landscapers chase interpretations? Or is it a question of better judges, better entries, or tighter rules?
I agree with you there has to be scope for a lansdcape competition which could stand alongside WPOTY in quality and content.
Just a quick thanks for all of the comments – I wouldn’t say my blog is a good representation of the landscape photography community but the general impression does seem to be that there is room for an alternative competition. I’ve added links to a couple of other places that this is being discussed at the bottom of the post.. (which includes some information on why I think WPOTY produces better results than LPOTY)
I don’t have an account on lf-photo but agree with the majority of your views there. However you mention the trolley pic doesn’t really class as landscape photography in your view. Could you elaborate more about why not? Where do you draw the line between natural and manmade environments? Tristan
Hi Tristan.. Difficult one to pin down exactly and I can only give a few examples to highlight my personal way of thinking..
If the primary part of the picture is of part of the landscape or of a human element that was intended to become part of the landscape then it’s heading into landscape territory. (This means that Gormley’s statues in the sand are in, trolleys are out). Even if something was intended not to blend in to the landscape but ultimately does, that would be OK (old satanic mills perhaps).
If the primary part of the picture is of commercial, manufactured items that are typically part of an urban environment then I would probably not class it as landscape.
A shot of Hebden bridge in the snow as a close crop wouldn’t be landscape to me. The shot of Hebden bridge in the competition, with the weather and the surrounding hills playing an important part of the shot then it’s probably landscape.
For me, if people are a dominant part of a composition or idea, then the picture isn’t landscape (this is a personal opinion and one which I’m probably out of step with what other people think?)
So I have difficultly with a close up of a farmer on his tractor ploughing a field because it’s right on the borderline.
All of these ‘criteria’ are influenced by what I enjoy and want to see as part of landscape photography and what I have seen in the canon of pictures by other photographers. Good point though – I might have to create a blog entry about it
What constitutes as a landscape will very greatly I guess. For me an abandoned trolley on the edge of a body of water is every much as part of the landscape as the pebbles on the shoreline. Towns and cities are all part of the larger landscape. Perhaps more of an urban landscape than rural landscape but I wouldn’t really say either was a ‘truer’ landscape than the other. After all man and all his creations are a natural by product of this world. Would you class this as a landscape photograph or perhaps social documentry?
Coming from more of a painting background I’m very open to figures in the landscape and I have used them in most of my paintings. I would say it’s much easier to include them in a painting however unless one has a personal model at your disposal – I’d love some figures in my pictures but its not very practical for me. A figure can add much needed scale and masses of emotional context amongst many other things. Perhaps there is a point at which it becomes a portrait (as you say a close up of a farmer on his tractor) but I see no reason why an image cannot be both. I may be completely wrong but to me it seems that eliminating all (or the majority of) man made elements, including figures, is more of a recent trend in art.
Tristan
I think of the urban photography as a category in it’s own right and if a picture falls more in the ‘urban landscape’ then it doesn’t fit in ‘landscape’. However as you say there aren’t any rules about what landscape is..
Your separation of portraits from landscape is interesting. Where does a portrait or group portrait become a landscape? A group shot of some hunters working a field could be either. My judgement would be… is the photograph about the field or the hunters?
I suppose you could use that same question about urban landscapes. Is it about the landscape or is it about the individual parts, the buildings etc. How far back from the building do you have to be for a shot to merge from Architecture to Urban landscape? If the picture is about the building then it’s architecture I suppose (although you would then have to ask the artist!).
What categories of photography do you think merge with landscape? (should we have a special sub category of landscape which matches my definition?)
Surely Urban landscape is a subcategory of landscape. Would your ‘landscape’ picture not be a sub category such as ‘rural landscape’ or ‘untouched landscape’? Landscape itself being a larger, less well defined entity.
Taking your example of a field of hunters. Why does it need to be either/or? Is it not about the field and the hunters? It could be a complex portrait of relationships between the individuals in the group but also tell a story about the field and larger landscape in which they live and work at the same time. They are interlinked as as far as I’m concerned and the borderline is grey rather than black and white.
I tend to eliminate most man made elements myself unless it plays an important role in what I want to capture. However as I said I’d love to include a figure in many of my photographs. I do have a lot of ideas for pictures with urban settings or borderline urban/rurual and I still think of these images as being under the broader landscape category.
Perhaps this has lead too far from the original post – apologies if so.
Finally – is this a landscape?
Firstly – yep thats a landscape (it’s about the landscape and people living in it from my perception).
You are right about my definition should be a sub-genre but we have a problem of ‘accepted usage’. i.e. noone refers to what I recognise as landscape as ‘rural landscape’ or ‘untouched landscape’ but they do refer to the sub-genres as ‘urban landscape’, ‘industrial landscape’. So in many ways landscape photography means both the over-arching category but also refers to the sub-category.
Interestingly the word landscape comes from Dutch and means ‘cultivated land’. The Japanese have an historic definition of ‘Pure Landscape’ which only includes tiny human figures to give scale.
I think people just use the term ‘landscape’ because there is no suitable sub-category name that works..? I can’t think of a name that doesn’t sound contrived in some way.
If Constable’s painting is a landscape then I see no reason why a group of hunters walking through a field cannot be a landscape. Its about the landscape and the people living in it. Perhaps it would help to be able to see this theoretical image
I absolutely see exactly what you are saying on accepted usage and convention … the categories I mention are obviously never going to catch on but you see what I’m getting at.
However I think it is good to push boundaries of convention and to keep an open mind about what might be acceptable as a landscape. To go back to the original topic – despite the discussed issues of LPOTY I am pleased that they do accept such a broad range of ‘landscapes’.
A group of hunters in a field can be landscape but if it becomes more about the hunters than about the field it will eventually become an environmental portrait I think..
I think if/when the new competition takes shape then an additional category for ‘pushing the boundaries’ may make sense. Basically a ‘my god these are great and might be classed as landscape but not in the main part of this competition’ category.
I completely agree that it is good to push boundaries but you still have to define what those boundaries are at some point..
p.s. I do get where you are coming from and I will make a blog post about this as it is quite interesting..
@John Smalldon : It does appear that there is an urge to modify the reality to photography either through excessive saturation or ‘trendy’ desaturated pictures. I wonder if it’s because of the type of saturation that gets applied. I look at velvia and provia and you get a lifting of the saturation without stupidity (although if you use Velvia in peak light then you deserve what you get). Trying to get this subtle lift of colour with digital doesn’t seem to work somehow. .
It’s probably just people pushing the boundaries of what is ‘beleivable’.
As for the trendiness of desaturated views, it does seem that there is a strong trend in the art world to use negative colour film which obviously has limited saturation just because of the dynamic range.
I’ve been reading a book on colour recently, more specifically a book about the art establishments fear and rejection of strong colour. This is obviously a recognised phenomenon.. I’d love to hear your thoughts..
Tim I could not agree more with your comments on Take a View LPY. A competition at a national level in the art of landscape photography would be a great plus in promoting photographers that are dedicated in this field of photography. Only advice I like to give you is to make sure the image that wins is on the talent of the photographer and not its commercial pull as a lot of top photographers seem to be producing work for the markets and not producing fine art in the field of landscape photography.
Just a thank you as you was the only photographer to take time to email me when I was studying for my degree in photographic media.
Tim,
Thank you for saving me £25 as I won’t bother buying the book now. I hadn’t even realised that the winners had been announced until I read your blog; if I was sent an email announcing the results it must have been directed to my "Junk" folder
.
I did enter even though I new I had a better chance of winning the lottery – and I don’t buy a ticket. So I wasn’t surprised not to make the results.
I wonder whether there is a wider problem with competitions. I also entered a regional competition called "Reflect Tyne". I figured that with fewer entrants within the catchment area I might stand a better chance. I was however narked that the prize was just £500 whereas the organisers had clearly spent many tens of thousands on promotion. They laughingly claimed that previous winners had used the prize money to go professional – I seriously doubt that ! If the comp was organised by photographers for photographers then a £5 prize would be fine, but when commercial interests are using the competition to further their ends and place such a low value on the work of the photographer, I object.
In the event, I didn’t get any mentions in the Reflect Tyne comp, but on the day the results were published in the Newcastle Journal, the winning photos were printed really tiny, whereas on another page I had a pic of Dunstanburgh Castle printed almost half a page. The last laugh !
All in all it pays not to take things too seriously. I have no claim to be an artist nor any interest in becoming a professional photographer and keep reminding myself that for me it is "only a hobby"
Thanks for raising this issues, you are brave to do so. As for that crab – what were they thinking of !
Hello Tim,
A well articulated article – nice job!
I have an issue with a later development, where you say:
"I look at velvia and provia and you get a lifting of the saturation without stupidity (although if you use Velvia in peak light then you deserve what you get)."
The lifting of the saturation by Velvia is the same whether you’re in boring or bold (peak) light. I get the feeling you object to strong colours (which are natural) emphasised by the use of Velvia: that is no less unreal or "stupid" than the effect observed with more boring light. Are you advocating against the use of Velvia under extraordinary circumstances? Would you shoot that amazing colour with an other film stock or a sensor to avoid going over the top? What a boring world that would be!
Best regards,
Charles
Hi Charles,
I’ll agree that it was an off hand comment and I should have added some caveats as to what I meant by peak light (I’ve done so now) however…
The reason I use velvia in a lot of situations is that my eye has become attuned to colour over time and I want to represent the colour that I ‘perceive’ to other people. So when I’m in a forest on a drab day, most people won’t think it’s very colourful. I do though! I can ‘perceive’ the range of colours in the woods and want to show people the things that I can see.
However, when I stand in front of a stunning, saturated sunset, the colours are already bloody obvious and don’t need any particular boost to be able to communicate what I’m ‘perceiving’.
Also, film and digital sensors can capture colour but have limits, once those limits are hit (at high red saturations for instance) the colour accuracy of the saturation boost stops working properly (different channels peak out at different rates) hence in order to accurately portray the colour, it’s not a good idea to push it any further.
I’m sure you’ve seen the effect in post-processing where colours change significantly when reaching there saturation points, especially so when you want to change the colour space for printing or web.
My avoidance of Velvia at peak colour times isn’t the avoidance of saturated colours here is an example where I was surprised that Velvia had rendered the colours as I had seen then (as confirmed on the balanced digital file), the same goes here although in this case I desaturated it a little. However, here is an example where the Velvia transparency was just totally incapable of representing the colour accurately and here is an example where the increased colour saturation was just unwanted..
Now I’m sure some people are happy to use Velvia in those conditions but the results don’t work for me… personal opinion but one that seems to be supported by nearly every photographer I know.. e.g. here and here and as for increasing the saturation on digital files, I have my own personal limits on this too here and here. What a boring world it would be without these
Hello Tim,
Some of the examples of other people’s work, especially the digital stuff for some reason, is seriously OTT (and not to my taste). However, your dyke pic is a bit UTT for me. I respect your quest for verisimilitude but prefer something a bit more jumped up if the conditions are up to it. Quot homines, tot sententiae.
I’ll tell you what’s strange as a viewer who doesn’t know what the original scene was like: the Wynding and Saltwick pics look equally realistic. I would be curious to know why you think the latter unrealistic and wonder if your memory of the colours could be tainted by tricks of the mind or limitations of the eye.
Best regards,
Charles
Interesting stuff Tim, but at the end of the day it is a competition and by their very nature must be subjective in outcome. We entered again this year and got nothing through but then again we’ve won and sold stuff in the past with pictures that are decidedly mediocre. It’s all swings and roundabouts really. I quite enjoyed many of the pics that got through – the snowy mountain scenes and also Storr – it may have been a little overcooked but it shows a good view and many people are guilty of overcooking at times.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for choosing your own selection of ‘worthy individuals’ that you feel are fir for ‘the Tim award’. I am sure they are very pleased and will be listing it on their photographic CV immediately.
I take issues with so many of the points in your post but I can only be bothered to reply to a couple.
Firstly, so you don’t like Urban Landscapes, well a significant portion of the population do. In fact I believe approx 10 million people choose to be surrounded by the London ones on a daily basis. Just because you do not, does that mean that the shots should not be excluded? Maybe in your world sir.
In fact as you may know urban landscapes are nothing new, Ansel Adams, Charlie Waite and Joe Cornish have been captuting them for years. Did they get your permission?
How about Seascapes? Some of these do not have any land in at all. Should these be excluded too?
Do we all have to just go back to the same mountains and lakes ad infinitum?
…and while we are on the subject are Dunstanburgh and Bamburgh urban landscapes?
I like JasonT’s shortlisted shots very much but these are more about mood and creativity with the camera than ‘landscape’ per se. Should these be allowed to enter?… or does he get a pass for ‘being on your list’?
Secondly, I can not believe that you were surprised that the panel included non photographers… did you look at the book that you were in last year? and who on earth said you had to be a photographer to appreciate photography? If that is the case let me off the bus now.
As I mentioned I do take issues with many of your points but I can agree with you on one thing. You do sound like a miserable so and so but that is your right just as it is your right to run your own competion. So go for it. However, once you have restricted the entry list to ‘your cool people’, ‘your types of shots’ and ‘images that you have to be a photographer to get’ then I do not fear we will hear too much about it.
Best of luck though.
Adrian
WOW, Tim. This has stirred up a storm! I will add my ‘two pennorth’.
Firstly, very pleased you chatted to Charlie in advance. I do think he will be saddened, even hurt by the response of many. He initiated the competition with the very purist of motives, he loves the landscape and photography as much as anyone and desperatley wants the competiton to improve the quality of landscape photography and to encourgae more people to take it up, especially the young. Like just about all of us, I assume, I see him as a modest, honest, sincere man with pure motives who has produced images of superlative quality throughout his career. He will have only used sponsors in an effort to make the competiton a lasting success. I hope he continues to run the competion.
Secondly, I think you have been very balanced in giving praise where due (and I love some of the winning images) and yet expressed strong feelings against those you feel are less worthy. That is your right and I agree with most of what you express.
I, like many, were suprised when I saw the winning entry (I just can’t get passed the horizon issue). I was dismayed to see one or two winning entries were poorly processed HDR’s. I have tinkered with HDR myself and abandoned it. I do appreciate some HDR images are very fine when processed with care but most do nothing for me. To see poor ones amongst the winners dismayed me.
I, too, have an issue with urban images. I guess it depends on your definition of ‘Landscape’. If we take it as our environment in general then urban fits. However, when it comes to ‘Landscape Photography’ my mind visualises the planet away from mans hand. Like you I accept some man made inclusions – from tracks and trails to dry stone walls and bridges, castles and stone barns. In my mind it just has to ‘fit’. This is where it becomes entirely subjective.
I can’t bring myself to speak about the crab image – it is just to appalling.
I entered 10 images and had one go through to final judging, but this was rejected. Now I understand more what the judges are looking for I can tailor an entry next time, if I decide to enter. I have to confess, had I won something, been commended or even got into the book I am sure I would have been like the cat who got the cream!!
I am 100% behind your goal of a competition based on the photographer rather than the photograph. A small portfolio approach, judged by a respected panel sounds like a great idea.
I would prefer to see a competition where there perhaps wasn’t even a prize of money or products. Rather, a competition that was so respected that simply to win it or get a commendation was considered prize enough due to the kudos and reputation it generated for the photographer.
I continue to follow this thread with interest and look forward to developments.
I thank you too, Tim, for having the guts to speak up forthrightly and articulate what so many of us were evidently thinking.
Hi Adrian,
Firstly – My list of ‘worthy’ individuals is just a list of ‘should be known better’, ‘some more’ and then a big list on delicious of all of the landscape photographers I have seen. ‘Worthyness’ is nothing to do with it and if you want to call it the ‘Tim Award’, then feel free. I won’t be though.
Actually I never said that … I actually do like urban landscapes (Paul Arthur just posted one on flickr) but I wouldn’t want to include such pictures in the main part of a "landscape photography" competition, possibly a sub-section though. It’s worth a quick chat about what ‘landscape photography’ actualy is.
The general meaning of landscape photography is both an umbrella term for all types of landscape – wherein there are sub-genres of ‘industrial landscape’, ‘urban landscape’, ‘microscopic landscape’, etc. however there is no sub-genre that represents the general usage of landscape that is accepted by a huge majority of photographers. Hence ‘landscape photography’ is also used to represent the sub-genre that means, ‘everything but the other sub-genres’.
The term landscape in art terms is fairly well defined and doesn’t generally include urban photography. I’m going to write a blog post about ‘What is Landscape?’ which will talk a bit more about this. Obviously the english language is defined by usage and is totally subjective but there is a general consensus on most things and as part of whatever competition we come up with, we will have to look at the definition of landscape.
As for my personal opinion – after some brief thought I came up with this (which has already been mentioned in the comments above).
"If the primary part of the picture is of part of the natural landscape or of a human element that was intended to become part of the natural landscape then it’s heading into landscape territory. (This means that Gormley’s statues in the sand are in, trolleys are out). Even if something was intended not to blend in to the landscape but ultimately does, that would be OK (old satanic mills perhaps)."
This seems to cover seascapes and some urban photography.
No? Why? Who said anything about permission? I would have been happy to take their call though..
Where did I say landscapes have to have land in them? Although the dictionary definition of landscape doesn’t include seascapes..
I actually said "a competition that conforms to a broad but generally accepted definition of what landscape photography is about."
What part of that would you not agree with?
I can’t remember telling people what they could and couldn’t take pictures of. You seem to be revolving your argument about something I didn’t actually say i.e. Your argument suggests that I am delimiting what is and isn’t acceptable for a photographer to take pictures of, which if I had you would be right in criticising me. I’m happy to hear your criticisms of what I actually said however..
Yes – if you’d read my post you’d know about my definition which, I hasten to add, would not necessarily form a basis for any competition and may be subject to change over the next few hours while I write my blog post about ‘What is Landscape?’. I’d be interested in your answer to a few of the questions I plan on raising.
Just so I know, what list are you talking about?
No I wasn’t surprised. I was just pointing out a difference between WPotY and LPotY.
I think you are falling into the trap of making personal attacks on me and not on my argument. This is called an ‘Ad Hominem’ argument, which you can find out about on wikipedia. It normally means that your real argument isn’t strong enough to make a point.
If you can avoid personal comments, I’d value your input on my next blog post about ‘What is Landscape Photography?’.
Tim
I have just come to this late and was desparately saddened to see a personal tone creeping into what should be a simple exchange of views. Opinion is subjective and should be respected as such. The ony point I would wish to make is that I have just spent 3 days in Glencoe – whilst I was getting predictably wet, I didn’t care a jot about photographic competition and would not consider making images fit for the purposes of any competition. I do have polite views on LPOTY but the only thing I can recall at the moment was what a damn fine trip I just had and am much looking forward to an Argyl trip (and predictable wetness) in a couple of weeks time!
PS. I entered a landscape sheep this year and even that didn’t take the judges’ fancy!
I’ve just had a look through the book which arrived today. I’ve done a bit of a count up and for me there are 39 images that I consider to be good, very good even. Out of those there’s maybe about 10 that I consider to be outstanding. As usual there are photos that baffle me, I can’t for the life of me see how a picture of some pigeons is a landscape photo (pg 191) and a kid jumping off a rock – not a landscape photo (although I understand the photographer was a little baffled that it got in too!). Equally, a grown-up jumping off a rock isn’t a landscape.
A lot of the images look better printed than on screen, this for example looks pretty average on screen but pretty good in the book. Maybe that’s because litho printing doesn’t replicate saturation so well and therefore undoes the damage that’s been done it photoshop!
I’m glad to see one large format photo got in! There seems to be a bit more film this year but maybe that’s because Ian Cameron is on ever other page!
If they’d have chosen me to pick a winner it might be John Parminter’s Divided Glens which did win Classic View so maybe there is some justice.
Hi Tim. Have you seen this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8470962.stm
Quite sad if it’s true.
Hi Richard – unfortunately it looks very true. I applaud the organisers for handling this well though.