Photographer of the yr 2015 shortlist

puzzledpaul

Wondered if (some) ppl might be interested in this ?

pp

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/ng-interactive/2015/dec/07/photographer-of-the-year-2015-shortlist?CMP=fb_gu

torags

Thanks for the post

Great images; be sure to read the first comment by a seasoned photographer

Richard

Some great images, some not so great. I especially liked the Pamplona shot with the woman's face looking up a lot. Thanks for posting.

Rags: Which comment are you referring to?

torags

Richard wrote: »

Some great images, some not so great. I especially liked the Pamplona shot with the woman's face looking up a lot. Thanks for posting.

Rags: Which comment are you referring to?

This one:



"JWildgoose

This is all so interesting, I worked as one of the freelancers at The Guardian (and later The Observer) in the mid 80s and early 90s and it strikes me how much has changed, and how much hasn't.

Digital has made a huge impact on the industry, as has internet connectivity. Firing pictures down a fast broadband line almost immediately after shooting them has obviated the necessity of waiting for news images. Before we would grab a bag of film, jump on a plane, trying to persuade security staff not to x-ray it (I got threatened with a rifle in Bogota for arguing about this), then drag it all back to process it, caption it, have it printed, half toned and pasted up on layout boards before it went downstairs to be printed. Some times it would take three or four days to get the story out. Compared to today, that's glacial.

Not only is it faster, it's better looking too. Half tone was a nightmare. We never agonised about great sharpness; it didn't matter as no one could tell if it was a 'little out' once it appeared in the paper. We used to joke about adding 'sharpening powder' to the chemicals. Today the quality of images reproduced (especially as we move toward more digital delivery over print) is just astounding.

But having all these great images is meaningless unless there are people appreciating it. The democratisation of photography is probably the single most exciting thing that's happened during my thirty years of shooting. Because of the access to and ubiquity of image making tools, many people now have developed a much greater affinity with images, and as a result, a completely different attitude to the environment they inhabit. People are much more visually literate, and appreciate good imagery much more because they produce images themselves or they see so much on image based social media outlets like Instagram, Flickr and Pinterest.

But (and here is the point -sorry to make you wait) what is really interesting is that non abstante all these developments, the photography itself still adheres to the same core principles we used to employ: Be in the right place, be ready, be observant. Know the story. Anticipate what might happen. Look for the details, how can you crystallise in one image the essence of the story. Framing, always looking for balanced, coherent and harmonious compositions, and working the light (beauty is always an added bonus to action, witnessed with much of the above photography).

I loved looking at these shots, but while the stories change, the images still operate in the same way. I can still rationalise the process the photographers went through in capturing them, it's not alien to me. The art of story telling hasn't changed all that much, it's just the technology that surrounds it has made it so much more accessible. Compared to the the old smudgy half tones, these images have so much vibrance and clarity. They are just so much nicer to look at, and for that we must be grateful."

rainbow

Good read, Rags. Thanks for pointing it out and sharing.