Guardian Landscape Photographer of the Year

Maybe it's just the presentation, but the first two appear so manipulated they look more like paintings than photographs. (not my thing anyway, though, so I may be disinclined to fully appreciate them)
 
Maybe it's just the presentation, but the first two appear so manipulated they look more like paintings than photographs. (not my thing anyway, though, so I may be disinclined to fully appreciate them)

Huh?? Maybe the second one but whats wrong with the first one??
 
Well 2,3,4 & 5 are NOT landscape in the true sense, they are two seascapes a cityscape and an archictectural shot........

........So, were there not enough landscapes entered or did they throw out landscapes because the judges like 'not landscape' better....??

If you are going to have a photo competition is helps to keep the the subject. We have already had the BBC 'countryfile' contest were the winners were not really appropirate to the subject classes so it's getting to be a trend.......Is it really worth entering?
 
Well 2,3,4 & 5 are NOT landscape in the true sense, they are two seascapes a cityscape and an archictectural shot...

<sarcasm>Thanks for explaining for the rest of us what is and is not a landscape "in the true sense."</sarcasm>
 
Huh?? Maybe the second one but whats wrong with the first one??

It looks artificial to me, as if the foreground, midground and background were heavily worked separately. I'm not saying that it is, but I wouldn't be shocked if someone told me it was a composite.

But again, not my thing so maybe I don't get it. Sally Mann's landscapes are closer to what interests me.
 
You gotta like the term cliche. Just about every photo in most categories can be considered cliche. There is not much different out there from what was done years ago. Just the gear and medium change. Hard not to be cliche, similar subjects/themes have been done to death for over 100 years.

Bob
 
Back
Top Bottom