What makes a photo a prize winner?

[prideofanglia]

Interesting debate! As far as my own personal stuff goes I'm just concerned to produce the most interesting/impactful image I can - sometimes that's a straight shot with almost no PP, other times it's taking something that has the potential to be something interesting and going to town on it with PP to produce something that was never there in real life but is interesting in its own right - my PaD shots are probably a fifty fifty split between the two.

Take this shot:



It was a grab shot taken in about two seconds as I was coming downstairs in a tube station, because the framing of the tunnel and the guy's legs looked interesting. The original shot is really quite dull, and this image needed a duplicate layer, desaturation, putting back the colour in the yellow line, a lot of oversharpening, a bit of grain, some levels adjustment and some dodge/burn. But I like the result, it's an atmosheric image (I think!), and it was roughly what I visualised as the end result I was after when I pressed the shutter.

Unless you're talking about photojournalism where there are ethical issues with misrepresenting "reality", isn't it the result that matters?

In other words I agree with Craig ;0)

[cbpersel]

You've stated it much more clearly than I did Steve. It is the end result and whether or not this matches the image you wanted to create . . . whether it was when you snapped the shutter or something that catches your eye when looking at the photo on your monitor. Documentary/photojouralism is all about the moment and "netting" reality, but does that mean you can't tweak the color or make any other adjustments? Maybe the resulting digital image isn't accurate to what you actually "saw". The exposure didn't turn out right, the framing wasn't quite on target, etc. Some of these things can be corrected and I don't see a problem in doing so. Art is art. It doesn't matter at which phase of the creation it takes place.

Craig

[rileypm]

As is evidenced in the many, many galleries here at Pbase, photography is not only a mirror of reality but also a mirror of the mind.

A perfect image of reality is an illustration. An image of the mind is art.

Keep in mind I don't wish to start a great debate. I am just offering my own humble opinion.

[simplephotography]

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)

Amen to that. I couldn't agree more. I too believed that I never needed post processing, but now that I've discovered Photoshop, it's different. I don't do a lot of it (3 minutes per photo max), because if I need a lot of processing, I'd better take the picture again.

My work is not sold in any way, but I get a lot of nice comments from nice people, and that's what counts for me. Also the fact that I can improve myself the way I seem fit is very nice, and last but not least: nobody tells me what to shoot. Great!
If ever someone wants to buy prints, that's great too, and if people start liking my work so much that I can't keep up with the demand, that's even better, because that'll allow me to buy better material, but I will NEVER EVER give up my own style. I will only shoot what I like (and that will never include marriages, although they raise good money).

People on Pbase living in my neighborhood have asked me to do something together: I gracefully accept, because they like my style, and I like theirs. the mayor of the town I live in has asked if I want to do some shoots for them, of landmarks and such, and I also accepted, on my terms. They will pay my expenses, but nothing extra: fine, because it allows me to do what I want.
I'm very afraid that if I would have to do shoots because I have to, because a customer pays money, that I could quickly lose interest.

All this, just to say that I agree: shoot what you really like, and if it gets sold, that's a nice plus, but it shouldn't be the goal.

[nature_pix_me]

Thanks for all your comments. I'm not a professional photographer (yet), but if someone offered me a nice price for an assignment which required the use of photoshop, of course I'd do it. BUT when I took my tripod and camera equipment with me on a trek through the mountains of Montana, I wanted to capture the beautiful landscape as I saw it, so that I could share that view with people and let them see how spectacular it really is . . . without any editing.

[bobfloyd]

Maybe it is my roots in photojournalism and the fact that the most influencial photography instructor I have had spent 30 years as a photojournalist but I have a real problem with doing much more to a photo in digital post processing than I could have done in a dark room with traditional chemical processing and a single negative. If it is a photography, you saw it through the view finder. If you did not see it through the view finder it can still be art and still be wonderful but it is not a photograph to me and to call it one is to be nearly dishonest.

While I can appreciate the effort the photo mentioned in the original post took and the skill of the artist who produced, I would not call it a photograph nor would I call the artist a photographer. Photography to me is capturing a single moment in time. The feeling of one place or event in time and displaying that in an image. A composite of several shots taken at different times and/or places and then layered into a single image does not fit with this belief. I am sure there are those who will disagree with me and that is fine but this is how I feel and how I approach this disapline.

[camera0bug]

Reflecting on this after a good night's sleep, I have to add a couple of things.

With digital photography (like film photography), it all comes down to money. To get the good stuff, you have to have good equipment. That means good lenses even more so than a good camera body. The lens is the most critical part of the chain and of course if you don't get the focus right (take into account that not everything has to be in focus) then it might not work at all.
Depth of field is your friend so get to know it.

Too many people buy expensive cameras but don't know how to use them. Do you really need a Ferrari when a Toyota will do? Do you really need all those megabytes or can you do it with less?

Master what you have and then take the next step.

Work on composition and tell a story. Too many boring photos enter the world of the internet these days and garner little in the way of attention.
Strive to make your images speak (in some manner) to the viewer. I happen to like a bit of mystery in my images at times.

Titles can have a psychological effect so think before you add words. Creativity DOES count!
Do I add more or less?

The big difference between film and digital is you no longer have to work with chemicals and paper. Today we're at the mercy of the monitor we use and others view on. I could be looking at your image on a laptop or an old monitor in need of calibration or a brand new high tech desktop or even a tv screen! In this world of quick technological change, what we view on, determines what we see. This goes doubly for what we do our post-processing on.

This of course doesn't even scratch the surface regarding printers, monitors, inks and papers when it comes to the modern printing processes used for hard prints.

....I'm going back to sleep.

[olher]

I am interested in hearing what your opinions are on this subject.

That's the live! Also my photo is a prize winner and i have reworked it in 15 minutes!

http://www.pbase.com/olher/image/53003932

Regards, Olaf.

[gpaai]

I've been thinking about this issue as well. There is an old saying: "It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round". I believe this is true in the area of Photography as well.

If you are in it for "self" then absolutely, shoot and preserve images that makes you happy.

Now if it is a profession issue, and you want to cover all of the avenues, then a broader frame of mind might be in order.

Take a look at nature magazines and yes, with the exception of a little post editing to bring the colors out, the photo remains in tact.

Now look at the pages of many of the surfer/skater magazines and there are all kinds of crazy grunge effects going on with those images.

Photography Magazines have to find that happy medium.

Looking at my galleries, it's obvious I have a blast workiing with Photoshop. I even coined the term Photoshopography that is now used in the PBase magazine.

Long story short I guess I could have stopped at my first sentence: "It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round"

Gary

[annayu]

What makes a photo a prize winner depends on who is giving out the prizes.

[simplephotography]

What makes a photo a prize winner depends on who is giving out the prizes.

Definitely. Just like a great photographer is great depending on who says he is. I know a lot of great, but unknown photographers on Pbase.

[alexhoggarth]

I see lots of photos that have lots of digital manipulation and many I enjoy and respect. I also see work that is advertized as having little PS work and many I respect.

Some shots that seem to get high praise have very interesting subjects either a pretty woman or a beatiful land mark. These shots are usually skillfully taken but have a great subject.

I have discovered a few people on Pbase that specialize in using props and I find their work very creative.

Others seem to be able to take shots of ordinary subjects and present some aspect of these subjects that grabs our attention almost making the picture some alive in a way that is not obvious.

In the end a prize winner for me is something that evokes emotion in me and makes me somewhat Wow'd. It could be any of the above or one of the numerious other types of photography Pbase holds.

Just my 2 cents, about what I'd pay for my advise :}

[clickaway]

How many of you have seen the Schweppes Photographic Portrait Prize 2005 winner?

http://www.npg.org.uk/live/schweppes.asp#anchor1814269

Doesn't look as if Shara Henderson used any Photoshop to speak of here, and she won £12,000.

The photo has been reproduced in the current issue of Photography Monthly and this and the winners are on display at London's National Portrait Gallery until 12 February.

Ray

[leggings]

My personal feeling is that you do all that is needed to a photo to make it the way that you want it and if it is a prize winner then fine, if it is not then that is fine as well. So I would say that I agree with Steve and Craig.

It should not be about the amount of work gone into a photo or any thing other than what the final product is. It also should be about what the photographer wants out of the image and what message him or her wants to convey, or emotion, or whatever it is that the artist wants to give to the viewer because art is a simple gift from one person to another and it should be personal and private at the same time, private on the part of the photographer or artist in whatever form they are creating in. It is hard to step away from something created but once it is given to the public then separation is needed. Separation is needed away from the personal lives of the artist as well because it should not matter if the artist has some relationship with the subject of the photo or not. What should stand is the image or images alone.

I have had the pleasure of working with film and now, just recently with digital, and both are wonderful. Age does have its rewards. Film does have its advantages and if there is a pure form of photography then it would have to be film. However film can be manipulated just as well as digital. It takes more time and is harder to do. There are and were a great many photographers who have proved that. That being said, I think the best work comes when you throw away the rule books and all of the teachings and experiment but keep in mind some principals that will never change like composition.

I think of voting here as like giving out a prize. It may not be 12,000 pounds but a prize nonetheless and the first thing I look for in a photo is composition, if it is interesting to me and if it is done well and done well can mean a whole lot of things.

So I guess that I would say that whether or not a photo is a prize winner or not is personal on both aspects of, the viewer and the artist.

Duncan

[camera0bug]

One of my all-time favorite "manipulators"...

http://www.uelsmann.net/