The Shell awards - am I the only one underwhelmed?
Discussion
9 replies
Posted by Vandit Kalia on November 1, 2007 at 12:22 PM
It used to be that award-winning pictures in the Shell or BG Wildlife Awards were something that elicited "wows" from me, and both inspired and - I have to admit it - also made me slightly envious of this body of work. These photos, along with NG, were the quality benchmark that I used to aspire towards.
However, this year's awards continue a trend from last year, in the sense that they have left me distinctly underwhelmed. Dont get me wrong - the results are still excellent and I'd be proud to have any of those photos in my portfolio. But are these truly the pinnacle of wildlife photos? I don't think so.
On one hand, it appears that the judges are embracing difference which exists just to be different. There seems to be a tacit pattern emerging that the typical wildlife photo, which is the result of lots of patience and which captures something unique about the subject, is no longer adequate. To an extent, that is understandable... how many sharply-focused shots do we need of lions or flying herons or what-have-you? The frontier needs to be pushed... but methinks it has been pushed too far.
And on the other hand, I see photos which are nothing special in a technical or artistic sense, but which are getting awards because of their exotic locale. Yes, I mean all those penguin shots. Again, dont get me wrong - they are truly artistic images. But replace a penguin with a more common animal and would they still win? I think not.
Honesty compells me to look inwards and see if my gripes are motivated by some feeling on insecurity or some sort of defensive reaction (I still shoot those out-of-fashion classical wildlife shots, after all). However, I think I can with a good conscience say that it isnt so. To me, the trend, as evinced by these awards, is towards some sort of artistry (what I would call faux-artistry but I am a proud iconoclast) but no longer about "wildlife" per se.
I am also open to the idea that perhaps I am simply too blinded by the "classical" approach to wildlife photography, and so am unable to accept change. I do tend to be overly skeptical of radical changes, as I feel too often change is embraced just because it is different and not because it is an improvement. It could be that this bias is preventing me from appreciating a true step forwards.
Be that as it may, I still like these photos, but they are no longer something a benchmark to which I aspire. Am I the only one?
Not speaking to the Shell photos specifically, but more to a quandry you imply-------
What if your benchmarks are changing?
That's my circumstance. As I push myself harder and harder, my expectations have gone up. It simply takes more to inspire me, especially when searching for "ideals." But I have to admit each time I redefine my ideals, I'm moving further and further from points of technical excellence in favor of the intangibles that manage to stir emotional reactions within me.
A Rolls Royce may be a hallmark car, but it's pretty silly to a guy who treasures wilderness walks.
Posted by Cliff Beittel on November 1, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Understand it's hard to judge a JPEG only 340 pixels on the long side, so I may be overlooking other great images. But here are images by Nick Nickols and Norbert Rosing I'd aspire to:
I've seen penguins, but not tigers, in the wild, but both seem pretty exotic from here in the northeastern U.S.
Posted by John W. Wall on November 1, 2007 at 1:28 PM
They still wow me. Excellent stuff.
Posted by Richard Wong on November 1, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Nick Nichols gets some very raw images. That is something I've always aspired to, not as easy as it looks...
Posted by dan elster on November 1, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Nick Nichols is one of my absolute favorites. For the most part, I thought the winners were outstanding, but I do agree that penguins and to a lesser standpoint meerkats are almost kind of a "fad" in wildlife photography right now.
Posted by Kim Kaiser on November 1, 2007 at 3:37 PM
i believe the one with the norwhales, the whles with the unicorn spike, all grouped up on the ice edge, (not the over view shot) is also in the NG year in picutes that is on the book shelves now,,,
Posted by Vandit Kalia on November 1, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Yeah, Nick's tiger photos are amazing (as are the stories of his passionate reunions with his wife at the airport... or so I am told). He's pioneered remote trap photography, and one shot of his, of Charger the tiger jumping a ditch, is absolutely jaw-dropping good. I have seen other photos of his from this series, and they all really do a great job of conveying what wildlife photography is all about. Far more than penguins. I have had it with penguins.
Hank - good point. You are correct that increasing standards may reduce the "wow" factor.
Certainly my standards for constitutes great wildlife photography have risen over time (I just got back from 2 weeks in Kruger and only took around 500 shots total... whereas once I would have taken 10x as much.. I simply didnt waste time on shots I would have taken a couple of years ago). Perhaps I need to re-visit some of the older photos that used to wow me, and see if they still have the same effect. Food for thought, nonetheless - thank you.
Funnily, I too have started shooting to get less "traditional" images - case in point, one of my favorite tiger photos I have taken recently: http://www.photosafariindia.com/galleries/tigers/page006.html - if anything, you'd think this would pre-dispose me to like the "non-traditional" shots. But I still find it hard to accept some of the winners.
I should also clarify at this point that I dont mean to tar all photos with my broad brush (hell, I think each of the shots in there is really, really top-notch, and I would be proud to have any of them in my portfolio), as Cliff's example proves.
Vandit,
I tend to agree with your assessment of the Shell winners. Although, there are some excellent images there, there does seem to be an over emphasis placed on something just being "different" from the mass of entries. Unfortunately, I find many of these images uninspiring. I purchased the first eleven editions of the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year books because I found the images so amazing. I haven't felt any inclination to purchase any in the last few years.
Of course, judging photography is very subjective anyway. I'd be interested in seeing the results of several panels of judges (with diffferent backgrounds) independently selecting winners of a contest. I wonder how many images they would have in common? It would make an interesting study. From personal experience, I have found that the general public judges photographs much differently than I do.
Personally I liked the winner but most of the behaviour pictures showed little behaviour I don't see why there was a picture of captive elephants winning after all this is the 21st century and I'm not sure about the stunt goldfish being used.
I'm generally feed up with straight wildlife pictures but then its hard to move forward still taking good pictures.
Discussion
9 repliesHowever, this year's awards continue a trend from last year, in the sense that they have left me distinctly underwhelmed. Dont get me wrong - the results are still excellent and I'd be proud to have any of those photos in my portfolio. But are these truly the pinnacle of wildlife photos? I don't think so.
On one hand, it appears that the judges are embracing difference which exists just to be different. There seems to be a tacit pattern emerging that the typical wildlife photo, which is the result of lots of patience and which captures something unique about the subject, is no longer adequate. To an extent, that is understandable... how many sharply-focused shots do we need of lions or flying herons or what-have-you? The frontier needs to be pushed... but methinks it has been pushed too far.
And on the other hand, I see photos which are nothing special in a technical or artistic sense, but which are getting awards because of their exotic locale. Yes, I mean all those penguin shots. Again, dont get me wrong - they are truly artistic images. But replace a penguin with a more common animal and would they still win? I think not.
Honesty compells me to look inwards and see if my gripes are motivated by some feeling on insecurity or some sort of defensive reaction (I still shoot those out-of-fashion classical wildlife shots, after all). However, I think I can with a good conscience say that it isnt so. To me, the trend, as evinced by these awards, is towards some sort of artistry (what I would call faux-artistry but I am a proud iconoclast) but no longer about "wildlife" per se.
I am also open to the idea that perhaps I am simply too blinded by the "classical" approach to wildlife photography, and so am unable to accept change. I do tend to be overly skeptical of radical changes, as I feel too often change is embraced just because it is different and not because it is an improvement. It could be that this bias is preventing me from appreciating a true step forwards.
Be that as it may, I still like these photos, but they are no longer something a benchmark to which I aspire. Am I the only one?
Vandit
What if your benchmarks are changing?
That's my circumstance. As I push myself harder and harder, my expectations have gone up. It simply takes more to inspire me, especially when searching for "ideals." But I have to admit each time I redefine my ideals, I'm moving further and further from points of technical excellence in favor of the intangibles that manage to stir emotional reactions within me.
A Rolls Royce may be a hallmark car, but it's pretty silly to a guy who treasures wilderness walks.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/photo.do?photo=2270&category=48&group=1
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/photo.do?photo=2274&category=48&group=1
I've seen penguins, but not tigers, in the wild, but both seem pretty exotic from here in the northeastern U.S.
Hank - good point. You are correct that increasing standards may reduce the "wow" factor.
Certainly my standards for constitutes great wildlife photography have risen over time (I just got back from 2 weeks in Kruger and only took around 500 shots total... whereas once I would have taken 10x as much.. I simply didnt waste time on shots I would have taken a couple of years ago). Perhaps I need to re-visit some of the older photos that used to wow me, and see if they still have the same effect. Food for thought, nonetheless - thank you.
Funnily, I too have started shooting to get less "traditional" images - case in point, one of my favorite tiger photos I have taken recently: http://www.photosafariindia.com/galleries/tigers/page006.html - if anything, you'd think this would pre-dispose me to like the "non-traditional" shots. But I still find it hard to accept some of the winners.
I should also clarify at this point that I dont mean to tar all photos with my broad brush (hell, I think each of the shots in there is really, really top-notch, and I would be proud to have any of them in my portfolio), as Cliff's example proves.
Vandit
I tend to agree with your assessment of the Shell winners. Although, there are some excellent images there, there does seem to be an over emphasis placed on something just being "different" from the mass of entries. Unfortunately, I find many of these images uninspiring. I purchased the first eleven editions of the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year books because I found the images so amazing. I haven't felt any inclination to purchase any in the last few years.
Of course, judging photography is very subjective anyway. I'd be interested in seeing the results of several panels of judges (with diffferent backgrounds) independently selecting winners of a contest. I wonder how many images they would have in common? It would make an interesting study. From personal experience, I have found that the general public judges photographs much differently than I do.
I'm generally feed up with straight wildlife pictures but then its hard to move forward still taking good pictures.