What makes a photo a prize winner?

[nature_pix_me]

I just received the January issue of Popular Photography Magazine, which features the winners of the annual photo contest. The Grand Prize was won by someone who produced a landscape image by, and I quote from the magazine: "spending seven days shooting more than 200 photographs, then edited the number of shots down to 30, then spent more than a month of extensive layering, color correcting, dodging, burning, and masking with Adobe Photoshop 7.0 to come up with the final composite."
If one must spend so much time altering a photo, perhaps it was not a good one to begin with. Maybe I'm a purist, but when I take a photograph, it's because I'm inspired by something which I want to capture as I see it at that moment. I might use a graduated filter or polarizer occasionally, but if we need photoshop to produce a good image, where does the true art and skill of a photographer come in?
I am interested in hearing what your opinions are on this subject.

[talleyfamilyphotography]

I'm with you. It's late though, so I can't go into a more philosophical discussion.

[simplephotography]

Let me tell you: it's like selling cooked air. If I would turn in a picture I shot yesterday, that was well composed and well exposed, and send it to that magazine telling that was what I came up with, taking 2,000 shots, narrowing them down to 50 and combining them all in different layers, boosting all kinds of parameters, well, everyone will say I must be a hell of a photographer and PS artist, so they will at least mention me.

The reason why I'm convinced of that, is because people tend to tell me what great photos I take, and that I must master every aspect of photography. Well, to be honest, everything I have produced was done with a compact Pentax Optio S5i camera, without tricks. What matters, is the man/woman behind the camera. The rest is show. The people from those magazines also tend to be those dandy saints in their high and lofty chairs, thinking they own the truth. BS.

Before you start thinking I wrote this to boost my own ego: I just started this a couple of months ago, and I think my work stinks. My ideas are good I think, but the execution is a different ballgame. I hope that improves with the DSLR I should be receiving today.

[cbpersel]

I agree and disagree. True that it is the person behind the camera that counts foremost and that fancy equipment is not necessary. I use an ultracompact Canon SD300 and Paint Shop Pro 6.0 (not Photoshop) as my post-production tool. That being said I have also discovered many greats shots within supposed "thowaway" shots. Sometimes zeroing in on a detail of a larger photo, cropping, re-framing, and tweaking the brightness, contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc. can result in an amazing image that wasn't there at first glance. There are two ways of seeing. One is the initial shot and the second is seeing it in the post-production phase. Filmmakers can also be of different methodologies. Hitchcock planned every phase and angle of a shot before hand and shot films very fast. Fellini improvised the script and images based on what he was thinking and seeing at the moment. Kubrick shot massive amounts of takes and then created the film in the editing room. So . . . I guess I fall somewhere between the purity of the initial vision and the discovery of "another" image during post-production. Hopefully, as one's skills improve it becomes easier to "capture the moment" initially and not have to spend hours finding it after-the-fact, but that is always a viable option and artful skill in its own right.

Craig

[simplephotography]

Sure, all of that is true, but why does one photo win a prize, and another one which is equally good or even better does not? Because of all the air you cook around it. Make people believe you're great, and you are. The right persons around you will be able to make you a star. It's that simple. I know some famous photographers whose work I like, but I know at least twice the amount of people here on Pbase that I think make equally great work, and they are not known. Why is that do you think? Just a matter of being in the right place at the right time with the right people. I think that's what this thread is about, or am I wrong?

[gpaai]

I was once told by a local Pro Photographer to make use of every tool available. I guess it has got to the point where fantasy and reality go hand and hand. Photographers have become artists. You wouldn't expect a painter to limit himself to a single brush.

With a Photographer sometimes a click of the button is sufficient, sometimes it's not. If a magazine approached me and said they wanted to use an image but would prefer that I did this or that to the photo. It's done! At least at this stage of the game. Maybe if I were famous it would be a different story.

Gary

[nature_pix_me]

I agree with your comments. Photoshop is a good tool, but I think some photogs rely on it to produce quality photographs. I use it occasionally, especially if I want to do something dramatic or artistic, just for fun. I never use it on any of my nature or wildlife photos, however. I believe photography is an art form, and part of that comes from the creativity and skill of the photographer. The other part is having a good camera in your hands and knowing how to use it.

[cbpersel]

Photography is evolving. Painting also changed to include different types of elements that didn't initially exist, sculptures became installation pieces and multi-media art was born. Photography - now digital - includes post-production effects and manipulation that have opened up new avenues of expression.

As for the question/comment regarding who becomes a famous photographer . . . I agree that there is not a level playing field. There are - in my opinion - photographers on Pbase that are just as good as most published photographers. Getting published involves a vast array of factors, quality of work being one, and working hard at getting published the other. Sitting back and waiting to be discovered probably isn't a feasable option. Promotion and self-promotion are - unfortunatley - part of the game.

Craig

[nature_pix_me]

I guess I'm one of the lucky ones. I was "discovered" one day not long ago, while taking photos for fun in a nearby small town. A lady approached me and asked if I was a pro. As it turned out, she was a writer and needed a photographer to do some photos for a magazine. After she viewed my work on pbase I got the job! Right place, right time. Definitely.

[gpaai]

while taking photos for fun in a nearby small town.

Being discovered always seems to include a small town. Here there is a Photographer on every corner trying to be discovered. I think that is why there are so many trying their hand at coming up with something original by way of post editing.

[jypsee]

....

[nature_pix_me]

The only help this photo needed was some fill flash to reduce the shadow created by the cap.
Thanks for your comments.

[1designguy]

Got to give Jypsee kudos for a perfectly illustrated point.

I too fall somewhere in the middle of the argument. I fought off even entering the digital age in photography for quite some time. Now that I made the move and have instant access to images, processing, posting and printing I could never go back.

Ansel Adams was a master of the (non-digital) darkroom and doging and burning. It is said that he once was seen joyfully leaving his darkroom after finally tweaking an image to the point he originally envisioned decades earlier

[camera0bug]

Give me a minute...

[camera0bug]

There are so many variables in today's world that everyone experiences everything differently including how one views another's art. Picking winners from contest, show and publication submissions in general is a crap shoot and you're at the mercy of the pair of eyes on the receiving end. I see photos that look horrible all the time winning awards and garnering praise. On the other hand, I see some creative images that make my jaw drop too.

I can say I've been published, sold my photos and have gained a few kudos in the process on my long road to "success" [I'm not sure where success is exactly - I thought it was a lake in upper New York State...].

I'm about the image in the viewfinder. That's my priority. If it isn't interesting, I've failed and should work harder with what's between my ears (brain AND eyes) in making it more so. If it takes some tweaking, that goes into the mix (and especially in the digital world)

If it's purely about money, it ain't art, it's prostitution. Depth of emotion supercedes the pat on the back and the coin in the palm. Sure there's satisfaction for getting paid for something you do well or have had good luck with but your priority should still be the love for the image and not how much you can make on a given photo. That's the gravy on the turkey.

Everyone defines success differently.

Seek praise and you'll probably find it...to some point.

(...my loooong week continues)