Landscape award
Capturing a picture of a treasured view is often the reason many of us buy a camera. The photograph is there to remind us of an event, holiday or just a moment that we hold dear.
Yet I'm sure everyone can relate to the feeling that on viewing the picture it just doesn't capture the emotion, or depth, that the original landscape inspired.
Well, if you need further inspiration to get out there and try again then maybe the winning pictures from the Take a view - Landscape Photographer of the Year award will do just that.
The winner (reproduced above) was taken on the Isle of Skye by Emmanuel Coupe and is titled: Sunrise over the Old Man of Storr, Isle of Skye, Scotland. It's a picture that has both beauty and drama, and you can see why the judges picked it out of the pack.
You can see further images that won in a picture gallery here.
An exhibition of the work can be seen at the Lyttelton Foyer, National Theatre, London from 5 December 2009 until 24 January 2010.
I'm 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Several of the pictures look like they are HDR (High Dynamic Range) processed. Do you know if this is the case?
They do look great.
Complain about this comment
I'd say the majority were HDR to be honest; if not they look like heavy Photoshop use. Nice images all the same.
Andrew Miller
Complain about this comment
I agree with kitbarritt that a couple do look like they are HDR'd. However, each is a worthy winnner and they, like us budding amateurs are exercising the power that digital photography and 'the digital darkroom' give us. HDR is not everyone's cup of tea, but it is just another application that can enhance a picture. Congrats to all and I hope of mine could be shown next year.
Complain about this comment
They all look HDR to me, the Explore pages of Flickr are the same.
Complain about this comment
These images look more like Hollywood computer graphics than anything you would see on this planet. A+ for using photoshop, but F for actually making and inspiring image of the natural world.
Complain about this comment
Kitbarritt: Thanks for the comment, I thought much the same thing. The organisers tell me that: "HDR is allowed within the rules and was seen to both good and bad effect throughout the total entry."
Complain about this comment
These photos look very cartoon-like, almost like something out of a computer game or CGI movie. I'm assuming this is caused by the software on the camera processing the data or by a commerical software product like Photoshop. Colours being enhanced etc. Maybe the prize should be called 'best EDITED photograph'. I recognise that alot of work probably went into post-processing these images and maybe I am old fashioned, but I prefer real photos taken using real film rather than artificially manipulated images that look ummm... fake.
Complain about this comment
Cannot seem to get the pictures to display, which is a shame
Complain about this comment
I have been using digital cameras for a while now and i have to say that they always appear to have a strange plasticy quality which i do quite like in a perverse sort of way, at the same time i look at my pictures and it all looks fake, and it all looks like part of a model train set.
My website is http://marcusbastel.com and i wish i had known about the contest before seeing the results so i could have entered.
Anyhow i think the pics do look great some more though than others.
Complain about this comment
Most of these pictures were probably exposed using ND & ND grad filters and something that no computer program can access;- patience. I bet the Old Man of Storr picture had a window of no more than 20-30 seconds to capture the rays...Phil, can we have an insight into exposure times and apertures, as well as the kit used pleased?
Complain about this comment
These pictures do look nice, but anyone can create something nice with HDR processing. All it takes is three different exposures of the same thing, a quick 10 minutes fiddle with the relevant software, and you've got something that looks a million times better than a normal photo.
The real skill is using the camera and lens to come up with an HDRish shot, but with minimal post-processing. As it stands, the number of photographers is decreasing nowadays, but the number of digital artists is increasing.
Complain about this comment
HDR or not, they're all (with the possible exception of the fell runners) a bit rubbish. There should be more to landscape photography than a pretty hill and a sunrise.
Complain about this comment
It's difficult to tell with these small web images, but HDR almost always have a horrific amount of image noise in them thanks to the heavy processing. HDR can be done to naturalistic style though, if you are light on processing.
Anyway it's totally possible to get images like this displaying good exposure and dynamic range - by using ND grads which block out stops of light on certain bits of the image (i.e. the sky). Which is what landscape photographers up and down the land do...
Complain about this comment
Some great pictures (especially those taken on a relatively cheap phone) but the winning one looks like it was stitched with several wide angle shots and the right hand side has the horizon sloping quite heavily downwards to the right. The light coming through the clouds is captured very well indeed but the Disneyland inspired cartoon colours and poor stitching suggest the entries weren't that good overall. And lastly, this image and the Buachaille Etive Mhor shot in Glencoe are heavily reproduced cliches. Surely the winning shot should be both perfectly executed and original or am I just being too critical?
Complain about this comment
Those who hark back to the days of film seem a little naive, in my view. For competitions at this level, print have always been tweaked to the needs of the shot. Don't think that image manipulation is something new - there are almost no tools in Photoshop that aren't based on traditional darkroom techniques.
Rather than nitpick the technical details, let's judge the images for what they are - and imho these are some very impressive pictures.
Complain about this comment
I'm a photographer who gained three commended entries in this competition, and I have to agree with the criticisms above. Landscape photography should be a moving, if not challenging experience, for the viewer – not simply the completion-to-order of cliché ingredients. Photography like any art form is subjective and this competition has its traditionalist judges, but it does get tiresome to see such formulaic material at the top of the pile year-on-year.
I do think a photo should be technically darn good to get the top prize but what is wrong with a good old fashioned cat among the pigeons?
Complain about this comment
HDR! HDR! that's all I seem to hear lately. Firstly in this context it doesn't matter. These are not claiming to be documentary or journalistic records of what was seen. Landscapes are more artist and free to interpretation.
I find those who scream photoshop know less about photography with film. With film we choose our stock to render different effects like Fuji Velvia for example was bright, vibrant, and rich in colour. You picked a B&W film but do you what a smooth grain or something more gritty. Plus then you had choices on which photo papers you used. You could then tone the image to give Sepia or Selenium result. Or even choice to hand tone parts of a photograph.
Adjusting your exposure in camera manually, under expose or overexpose to get different results. Your meter is only a guide not gospel. A meter only gives an average reading. As mentioned above it is common to use Neutral Density graduation filters to help balance out the light the camera is recording. For example this helps stop you loosing the details in the sky which was brighter than the foreground. Also using a Polarising filter helps bring out the contrast in the sky and give richer blues, its not just useful to reduce reflections.
Finally it also comes down to the light, getting there are the right time of day or even re-visiting time and time again until you get that shot you have held in your head for the past years.
I could go on and on giving examples to some extent I blame the magazines. The change to digital seems to have seen them swap from talking about how to use your camera controls to exercise your creative control to how to fix things on the computer. They are more computer magazines than photography magazines today.
Give me a colour negative and I can give you different results.
"The camera doesn't lie" well if that was true you could line up 10 photographers to capture a scene and get 10 identical results.
Oh and I'm not some old anti computer digital 80 year old. I've learnt the old methods and I know the current methods. Learn how to use your camera before you start on the computer tweaking.
Complain about this comment
HDR - Whatever Guys! Everyone knew they could use it and the judging panel are educated in the ways of photography, so if it's a good shot it's a good shot. If it's so easy to produce a good image using it then go for it. Personally, I don't like 99 out of 100 HDR images so I don't use it.
I got 1 shot commended which did not have HDR but did have some unusual colours so that will probably get the same treatment from people.
Please bear in mind too, that at 600 pix or whatever size you guys have seen this image in it is not likely to do it justice.
I won't comment on the horizon either because I have not stood in this spot but I do know that hills slope and therefore unlike the sea the horizon should not necessarily be hotizontal.
As for the standard of the comp, I have now seen quite a few of the images that made it in to the book and the ones that made it to the shortlist and the standard is on the whole excellent.
Please remember too that this art and therefore competition is always a bit of an illusion after a certain point.
P.S. Of course people use photoshop, have you not heard of RAW? Are you saying in the days of film competitions people had to get their films processed in Boots? I think not. Get real guys.
Complain about this comment
More and more I feel the competitions should be re-titled 'Best Photomatix User [insert year here]'
Complain about this comment
At first glance I noticed the tone mapping, I think HDR should have a separate category in a photo contest just as there should be a category for Color and B&W. I like HDR and many other forms of digital art. B&W is the coolest, it's just hard to put it up against HDR in a contest, it's a shame too because the quality of B&W is getting much better but still not noticed.
Complain about this comment
The b/w phone shot is my favourite of all.
Complain about this comment
I agree with post #21...the black and white shot is breathtaking.
Complain about this comment
What I find so amusing about this is that everyone is assuming that these are HDR. I suspect 2 of them are, but no more. Certainly the winning image is not HDR. I think more credit should be given to the winners, yet I must agree that to my personal taste, some of the shots are slightly overprocessed.
Complain about this comment
The pictures on the BBC website look pretty horrific (so much sharpening??), but they do look better in todays edition of the guardian (centre pages).
I am surprised at the HDR look of so many of the pics, and the lack of imagination in subject matter and compositions. They are very good images, but they are not original in any way.
But generally speaking, this is a poorly devised competition and I am very surprised that it was created by Charlie Waite. to allow one photograph win "travel photographer of the year" is wrong in my opinion. this competition should be renamed "travel photograph of the year".
It seems to me that Mr Waite may be cashing in on his well known name. Portfolios of images should win high profile competitions like this, not individual photos. Portfolios would, however, limit the number of entries as people would need all their good photos to create collections of images....and this would lead to less cash ending up in charlie's till. Tut tut CW.
It will be interesting to see the winners of this years "Travel Photograher Of the year" competition as this is run in a more "professional" way...i.e. portfolios of 4 images - It's far more challenging for the photographers to create portfolios of 4 images. Look at last years winners at the tpoty.com website, and the winning entries seem far superior in content and originality.
Complain about this comment
The winner looks as if it has been digitally enhanced - too perfect. Maybe they should limit these competitions to photographs, rather than letting Lord of the Rings graphic designers to enter.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad to see so many professional photographers commenting. Amateur by name, amateur by nature. Who do you all think you are?
Complain about this comment
All look overwrought....overproduced.......
Complain about this comment
I think they look terrible and the processing is completely inappropriate to the subject - HDR can look fine when used on artificial or man-made subjects but these are supposed to represent the natural world. They look like the sets of a cheap fantasy computer game.
I secretly suspect that the judges were a bunch of oldsters who were trying to make a series of choices that make them look young and "with-it" - instead they just look rubbish!
Complain about this comment
these manipulated pictures of the natural environment are just awful - they belong to a cartoon category and have little to do with seeing photography. Not just the minor darkroom shading and dodging but closer to drawing a (bad) cartoon.
Complain about this comment
Fell runners is the best shot by a long way. All though the images look “nice” Some of the landscapes are unnatural and digitalised beyond reality. They also reflect what is popular in terms of photography and not necessarily original. I am a landscape photographer and use both digital and film. Looking at the comments here it seems obvious that many people view HDR etc as unsatisfactory, and I agree the images do not particularly capture atmosphere of the day, but mainly the technology of the software. Comments criticising the comments have to consider that these are the buying public and I want to sell my pictures! Also, some of the images are nothing new, I have seen them countless times, Rannoch Moor for example looks wild but taken a few yards from a major road, along with the winning shot being a stones throw from a major road, the Cumbria image is probably the most adventurous.
Complain about this comment
I agree with many of the previous comments. They are all post-processed pictures. I don't object that most of the winners look nice, but that is a combination of digital post-processing and HDR compilation. These is not much technique involved honestly. You buy the highest resolution, then buy the necessary software, then va la! I know that some photo competitions do not allow excessive post-processing, I hope BBC will have another category for it. I do not object the use of photoshop or HDR, but it seems a bit unfair after all.
Complain about this comment
As an amateur photographer I go out most days taking photos to capture a moment and what I like to to do is match my eye's view ( and occasionally I get it just right !). To my eye some of these photos do look manufactured rather than captured. The processing does not create attractive images IMO but I understand why people are using all the tools they have available and in their view creating a 'perfect' image.
If that's their style, then fine but I suspect its only horses for courses and I also think the Photographer of the Year should not be about one photograph.
I suggest that next year they call the current competition Adult and Junior section winners the photograph of the year and create a higher level to find the Photographer of the Year. That prize should be won by the Photographer sending in 1 photograph each month for the length of the competition and being judged on those photographs as a portfolio - If it was added that the photo could only be taken in the month of entry then the actual content of the photographs would show the changing seasons and the winning portfolio could turn out to be something extra-special.
I must say the winner especially looked a lot better as the centre spread of the Guardian yesterday than it does on this web site.
Congratulations to all the photographers - my personal favourite would be the fell runners.
Complain about this comment
Firstly I commend the photographers for being in the right place at the right time.However it would seem that photoshop enhancement is to the detriment of mood and subtlety.To my mind the most creative image is the
fell runners but that,in my opinion, does not fit the category of landscape.Good landscapes can still be exhibited without banging up the saturation.
Complain about this comment
As a keen photographer, I think these are mostly gopping. The subject matter has been wasted by heavy handed HDR processing. Surely landscape photography should be about being true to the original scene? These are not!
Complain about this comment
The images shown are stunning, and like many of the other post's I wish I knew about the competition too.
I do agree that HDR is becoming very very popular and yes under certain conditions it makes the image look unreal, but it is the photographer who captures the moment and interprets the results adding their own mark.
I too am a photographer but do not like to over do it with HDR images as I do not like the unrealistic look they produce see if you can spot the HDR image on my website [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Huge mistake to allow HDR. Unfortunate that a picture editor for the BBC website likes these unpleasant and freaky-looking things.
Complain about this comment
is i photography comp or photoshop comp? how can the one of london win, the light bursts are very badly done. they are the wrong side of the lampost? not just doctoring images but changing the laws of physics!
who judged these?
Complain about this comment
Joe Cornish does amazing things without HDR. I know this to be the case because I emailed his office to ask! I didn't believe his images were just light and composition. For a level playing field I think HDR's place in a competition is dubious.
Emmanuel Coupe's shot is fantastic. Congratulations.
Cheers, Mark (Nottingham, UK).
Complain about this comment
I get increasingly annoyed at all these cries of 'photoshop, photoshop' or 'post-processed' or 'HDR, HDR' or 'EDITED, EDITED'
Please, stop being so naive, photo editing techniques have been around for as long as photography has been around.
Please do a search for iconic images from the 80's and 90's, before the digital revolution and you'll see some incredible photos that these days would be branded as 'shopped'. In those days they were just looked upon as great images taken and processed with great skill.
Taking an amazing photo in camera is possible, as has been illustrated by other posters, using filter systems and differing exposure times.
On this whole HDR business also. Remember that film has a much greater dynamic range than digital, so who cares if HDR's are used to emulate what film can do naturally better? Corporations are getting better all the time at reproducing film level dynamic range, I'm sure one day digital will be as good as film at capturing a massive range of highlights and shadows etc
So I suppose what I'm trying to say is, stop all this business about crying foul over editing techniques, enjoy the photographs as an Artist's interpretation and remember FILM editing techniques have been around for centuries before digital ever came along.
Peace out.
Complain about this comment
If only we could return to the days of 'pure documentary' photography, as epitomised by Camille Silvy's famous 'River Scene, France' shot of 1858.
Oh, hang on, that was two negatives combined and then touched up, wasn't it?
Complain about this comment
5. At 3:22pm on 19 Oct 2009, HorsemanSW612 wrote:
These images look more like Hollywood computer graphics than anything you would see on this planet. A+ for using photoshop, but F for actually making and inspiring image of the natural world.
I agree 100%. Limited PP is ok but it should bear some resemblance to what you actually see. We'll soon be at the point where scenes are completely made up by a computer with no need to actually take a photo.
Complain about this comment
Im not so sure about this photo, though Im new to photoshop and actually Im not using photoshop or whatever to enhance my photo after entering the competition. I just sent actually all my photos and this is my first time and Its all taken in part of England and Scotland during my first holiday there and It was fantastic breathtaking and Im planning to visit again UK next year. Maybe next time I know how to use HDR and make my photos more pretty. And one thing is that my english is not so good so Im asking everyone here to understand my comment here.
Thank you all and God bless to all your entry in the competition.
Complain about this comment
Did they take the shopping trolley back?
Complain about this comment
The HDR images are not at all what the eye sees, they are larger than life artificial constructs. The technique does produce striking images but should be confined to a separate HDR catagory.
In a competition for ordinary people who know nothing of HDR, allowing this technique has effectivly excluded entrants with simple photographs.
How is that a fair competition ?
Complain about this comment
The monochrome of Big Ben, in what is described on the web page as the "phone section", stands out because of its total lack of photographic pretension. A great compilation. Wonderful to discover a flickr link on the blog as well.
Complain about this comment
Most of the comments so far I disagree with, you are viewing a small file image which will be compressed to make your judgments, the judges will have viewed the original large file uncompressed to make there selections, may be people should wait till they see the images in print or at the exhibition.
Well done to everyone who managed to gain entry into this year’s book and exhibition.
There will always be those you like and those you don't whatever is selected, difficult to please everyone I suppose but thats life, we always like to knock unfortunatly.
Complain about this comment
My Ged, they mostly look like bad Victorian watercolours, knocked out by inmates of a lunatic asylum.
Complain about this comment
I've read through all the comments and man, what a tough crowd. When tone mapping a image it can only be as good as the original exposed bracketed images. In other words, for those of you that are criticizing The HDR and the quality you don't know anything about HDR. I'm amazed how many people commenting are afraid of change, think about it, If the camera never got invented we would still just be looking a paintings and really bad water colors knocked out by inmates of a lunatic asylum.
Complain about this comment
First of all congratulations to the winners of the award. I am myself a great fan of HDR processing. If done correctly it can really enhance an images detail and colour. I am also an active memeber on flickr and see lots and lots of images that are poorly composed and if you like 'processed'. Basically, If the original images taken at the time are of poor quality or of poor composistion then the final result is going to be the same - poor.
Digital photography is here and it is here to stay, Change happens guys.
Complain about this comment
HDR isn't really the issue here unless you hate colours inspired by Walt Disney; the biggest problem is that the photograph is a tired cliche. For those that have never ventured to Skye or Scotland, this image belongs to the tourist collection that includes Buachaille Etive Mhor (Glencoe), Glenfinnan Monument, Edinburgh Castle, The Forth Bridge, Loch Ness, 18th hole at St. Andrews, Burns' cottage, Gretna Green, sheep holding up traffic, 2 highland terriers (one always black & the other white)standing on a rock surrounded by heather and it must be taken in October, etc etc. Surely the winning entry MUST be at the very least an original idea, not a postcard facsimile of eye watering candy boosted by halucinagenic digital voodoo? I guess it was too tempting for the winner who clearly made a huge journey from Paris that the view can be readily taken from the car window.
Complain about this comment
44. At 1:35pm on 20 Oct 2009, Antipasto wrote:
In a competition for ordinary people who know nothing of HDR, allowing this technique has effectivly excluded entrants with simple photographs.
How is that a fair competition ?
I'm afraid this has ALWAYS been the way, whether it is in film or digital, there is always someone who knows more, has more skill, more experience and more knowledge.
It's a good thing, in my view, as it encourages all photographers to constantly progress in their photographic knowledge, creativity and skill.
Digital techniques are not new, they are just an evolution of film processing techniques.
Too much suspicion is given toward digital editing when fil, editing has been just as commonplace, no suspicion toward that though, no film is 'pure', isnt it! :) (slightly sarcastic).
peace out.
Complain about this comment
Re the overall winner - This is a great image.
I know this scene intimately - the photographer has got himself out of his bed at an ungodly hour, driven miles in the dark and hiked across moors to get in position before sunrise. He's obviously researched his location thoroughly as the surrounding ground is steep, heatherclad and can be boggy. It will not have been warm! He may have been plagued by midges. In other words, he's done a helluva lot of ground work to just get in position for this image. His technical ability, choice of lenses and his judgement of exosure and filtration have been perfect. In other words, his training and experience have culminated in precisely the right decisions to capture this scene. Skye light is magical. It's very difficult to describe in words but when you experience it you just want to keep going back. It may not have lasted long - a few minutes? A few seconds? He's had to work quickly. If he then looks at it on screen later and thinks I can do the modern equivalent of the old printer's art and dodge/burn/enhance to bring out some of the more subtle features of the scene then I say - great, do it because it's exercising his skill and expertise to produce a fabulous image. It's the image that won him the award, not just his choice of gear. Have a look at his website. This guy produces these fabulous images again and again. This is not a one-off.
If this was your image would you be proud of it?
I do think, though, the title "PhotographER of the Year" should be judged on a portfolio, not a single image.
Complain about this comment
Some very valid points raised in here, I for one will be reserving judgement on these winners until ive seen them all in print.
HDR can be used well and can be used badly, in most cases above it has been used very well, for example the Buachaille Etive Mor shot, others however have obvious signs of hdr. The sign of good HDR is to finish with a shot that you cannot tell whether it has been used, many shots these days are infact blended exposures, digital simply cannot exposure for the same dynamic range as film which is why joe cornish and co can use just a selection of grad filters and also processing techniques to arrive at their final 'natural' shot. No landscapes are natural and nearly all use some kind of filter or processing techniques.
Judging by the winning photo im not too sure whether it is a worthy winner of this competition (mainly due to the distortion)- however after viewing the winners website this guy has produced some really excellent images and is in fact one of the best landscape photographers I have seen this year so well done!
Complain about this comment
Hey, I love it. But then I love Roger Dean, Alan Aldridge and Maxfield Parrish. It's a stunning graphic image, but actually quite hard to 'see' as a photograph. Be great to see it full size though.
Complain about this comment
HDR is just another tool like others such as lenses, PH-Plug Ins
etc., ... . It depend how its implemented. It depend on skills, taste
and talent of photographer.
Just like Mr. Ansel Adams said ::: " YOU DON'T TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH, YOU
MAKE IT" ! ... c/o ... "A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH NEED NOT BE EXPLAINED, NOR
CAN IT BE CONTAINED IN WORDS "
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS