# NatGeo 2014 Photo Contest Winners...



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 8, 2015)

Some of these are stunning. The winner is great but I think my favorite is the Shinagawa Station. Enjoy...

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/12/winners-of-the-2014-national-geographic-photo-contest/100875/


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 8, 2015)

Many of them look over-processed to me...surreal, like bad HDR.

Will future generations of photographers (or other visual artists) recognize the era of these photos by the style of processing?


----------



## preppyak (Jan 8, 2015)

The light in photos #1, #3, and #4 are pretty amazing; and even as common as that wildebeest shot is in this contest, its still really impressive. And I love the negative space and colors in #16.

Which makes it weird to see photos #11 and #13. I guess I can see the playful irony in #11, but, it isnt capturing anything particularly interesting, and the composition isnt that strong. And #13...aside from being an interesting moment...has nothing going for it that I can see. The composition and light are boring, and I can't tell if its the lens or the aperture used, or maybe the focus is a little off, but the depth of field and sharpness isnt working. In comparison to #9, its night and day.


----------



## sanj (Jan 8, 2015)

Most are very appealing.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 8, 2015)

preppyak said:


> The light in photos #1, #3, and #4 are pretty amazing; and even as common as that wildebeest shot is in this contest, its still really impressive. And I love the negative space and colors in #16.
> 
> Which makes it weird to see photos #11 and #13. I guess I can see the playful irony in #11, but, it isnt capturing anything particularly interesting, and the composition isnt that strong. And #13...aside from being an interesting moment...has nothing going for it that I can see. The composition and light are boring, and I can't tell if its the lens or the aperture used, or maybe the focus is a little off, but the depth of field and sharpness isnt working. In comparison to #9, its night and day.



I like #1.

I don't find #3 very interesting at all: while the light is nice, the subject could easily be replaced with an animal or some other subject and suffer no loss of value. 

#4 has too much contrast -- it's manufactured drama where there is already real drama. 

#11 reminds me of those "people of WalMart" galleries -- I have no patience for shaming or gawk value.

#13 reminds me of a Thomas Kinkade painting.


----------



## Roo (Jan 8, 2015)

Thanks for sharing. I liked most of the winners but I think some of the images in the 2 linked galleries had a stronger presence.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 8, 2015)

I am always slightly puzzled with these stacks of award winning images. Some of them are stunning and they clearly stand out from the crowd. It might be that my expectations are too high, But to be honest; If I had shot some of these, I would probably call them interesting, but not worth sharing. Examples:

No.5; Yes, he has an expression and lighting is good, but if you were next to him, considering he is apparently blind and don't move much, is that the composition you would choose?

No.11; Would you have considered that a candidate for an award if you had shot it?

No.12; Yes, it shows the desctrution of the war and the absence of people, with only birds circling adds to it and the light is dramatic, but I would have liked a different composition, with more of the ground in the image.

Taste is of course subjective ...


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 8, 2015)

Very interesting and inspiring pictures.  Thanks for sharing that link.

I don't want to point out favorites or to criticize anything but one thought:

Having a look at the "earlier selections of the entries" I'm a bit startled about some of the jury's final choices. ???


----------



## Phil L (Jan 8, 2015)

#14 looks totally set up.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 8, 2015)

I agree that some of the images are less impressive and puzzling as to why they were included, considered, awarded or whatever. My only idea about why might be that they didn't receive a large collection of images to choose from in that particular category. You know, they had to give the prize to someone and maybe that image was the best one out of the small sampling they received.


----------



## Orc (Jan 8, 2015)

Like so many here, I first looked through the pictures with a technical eye. It's easy to criticize the technique employed for any picture so I went back to all of them with a 'different' eye this time around: I wanted to see the art in every picture.
So #12 stood out stronger than the others, the destroyed Homs. It made me shiver to remember that these buildings were once inhabited and the owners and occupiers are now either dead or had to run for their safety. It's a ghost town today and I felt the picture reflected that very well.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 8, 2015)

Orc said:


> Like so many here, I first looked through the pictures with a technical eye. It's easy to criticize the technique employed for any picture so I went back to all of them with a 'different' eye this time around: I wanted to see the art in every picture.
> So #12 stood out stronger than the others, the destroyed Homs. It made me shiver to remember that these buildings were once inhabited and the owners and occupiers are now either dead or had to run for their safety. It's a ghost town today and I felt the picture reflected that very well.


I agree. It gives you the "destroyed and abandoned, with only death and vultures left"-look. I also believe the lighting is good, to give that dramatic effect. But I believe a framing, including the ground, would increase that message even further.

But No.5 is a neither fowl or fish for me. Centre framing, cut off head gear and cut off torso. It could have been just the face, or face with head gear or preferably face, head gear and torso, to show the tattoos properly, with the vague shapes in the background.

But again, it is always fun to be the outside critic of someone else´s work


----------



## Chisox2335 (Jan 26, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I am always slightly puzzled with these stacks of award winning images. Some of them are stunning and they clearly stand out from the crowd. It might be that my expectations are too high, But to be honest; If I had shot some of these, I would probably call them interesting, but not worth sharing. Examples:
> 
> No.5; Yes, he has an expression and lighting is good, but if you were next to him, considering he is apparently blind and don't move much, is that the composition you would choose?
> 
> ...



I agree. I see more impressive pictures daily on facebook.


----------



## Omni Images (Jan 26, 2015)

Australian Geographic "Nature" Photographer of the year.
http://www.abc.net.au/local/videos/2014/10/27/4115488.htm#.VLNy_XnSOxo.facebook
Some image typess I am working on .... under/over shots in the water.


----------



## martti (Jan 26, 2015)

For me the #17 represents photography in its best sense, depicting what is.
The number 9. is fantastic because there are two tigers in it. A young tiger can do miracles even to a mediocre photo. Let alone two.

I used to love devastated scenes like the one from Homs when I was young. Now they just make me profoundly sad. And then I start looking at the verticals and the horizontals of the buildings and I cannot decide is it the reality that is distorted or just the picture.

The winning shot won because it is a _zeitgeist_ picture, showing what is particular to our times.
Why is a Hong Kong train rolling with dim blue lights inside...maybe it is NOT aHong KOng train at all but a sightseeing train from an amusement park?

The number 2 owl shot is just great. "Wingman!"

Thank you for posting the link. NG is always NG even though it changes. So do we, until we die.


----------

