National G best pics 2016

[elsa hoffmann]

not sure if this is the right place to post this -

I enjoyed the images very much - I hope you do too.
It's not about "are the images good" - for me it was "what do other photographers see"
whatever it is for you - enjoy. I did

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/best-photos-2016/#/rooftop.ngsversion.1480971824666.jpg

[Akira]

Elsa, thanks for the direction.

Some impressive images, yes.  I also feel that the over-processed images are in fashion.  It may enhance the dramatic scenes, but, to me, they look rather sterile...

[elsa hoffmann]

Akira this is true. I have noticed recently that this seems to be the trend.
Even with the Hasseblad photographers - their stuff is very dramatised
Sometimes is creates something too surreal in some way

[PedroS]

Thanks for sharing Elsa.

Majority are not real, but that's today's trend. Not for me...

[Akira]

Akira this is true. I have noticed recently that this seems to be the trend.
Even with the Hasseblad photographers - their stuff is very dramatised
Sometimes is creates something too surreal in some way

Maybe the clients wants those dramatized images rather than the photographers.  People are too much accustomed to the manipulated visibilities.

I love artistic manipulations often posted here in NG, but not these ones...

[atpaula]

I don't like over-processed pics too, but none of these from NG disturbed me this way.
Awesome pics.
The vulture pics are simply stunning.
Thank you for posting Elsa.

[MFloyd]

For decades this has been NG's style [edit: NG=National Geographic]. You call it over-processed if you like.

[Anthony]

Thanks for sharing Elsa.

Majority are not real, but that's today's trend. Not for me...

Yes, it is pretty pointless to produce fake images of nature.

[Akira]

For decades this has been NG's style. You called it over-processed if you like.

Just to make sure: you mean National Geographic by NG, right?  I meant NikonGear by NG in my post.  Sorry for the confusion.

[MFloyd]

Oups, yes I meant National Geographic. I overlooked that it could also mean Nikon Gear .....

and what is "fake" or what is "real" in an already two dimensional rendering ?

[elsa hoffmann]

Viewing any image is subjective. It is inevitable with any competition, that images will be chosen by a panel of judges and photographers will comment with "WHAT THE F WERE THEY THINKING"

Usually its the general public that will be in awe of those images. not other photographers. But we dont car - right?

In the 3 years I have been doing stock - Shutterstock's library grew from 25mil to 100 million photos. Who these days don't take photos? One of the few ways to make your images stand out - is editing. Because  - for 99% of images out there - there are several who have done it before, and done it well.

[Anthony]

and what is "fake" or what is "real" in an already two dimensional rendering ?

There are lots of answers, but one would be putting in some significant picture element that was not there when the photo was taken.

[Les Olson]

There are lots of answers, but one would be putting in some significant picture element that was not there when the photo was taken.

A photograph is made up of elements that were never there: the real world is not still, it does not have depth of field, and it is not black and white, eg.  Above all, the real world does not have edges, and a picture must; if there are no edges it is not a picture, it is virtual reality.   

Surely the issue is treating both the person looking at the picture and the subject of the picture - person, animal or landscape - with respect: treating the viewer and the subject as an end in himself/herself/itself, not merely as a means to an end.  In photographic terms that may put a limit on post-processing, but more importantly it means not making the subject an object of amusement or derision or idle curiosity, and not making the viewer a gawper.  So, it is not enhancing the drama of a landscape that is wrong, it is enhancing the drama of a landscape because that is an easy way to make some viewers go "wow" and all you care about is having some viewers go "wow". 

[Anthony]

Bjørn, I cannot agree with your first paragraph.  Things in nature are there, even if only for a moment.  For the rest, I think you are not distinguishing  what is there from how we perceive or interpret what is there.  Depth of field is only a matter of perception, and black and white is an artistic representation of what is there.  Nature does not have edges, but human perception does. 

This is very different from the issue of putting in important elements which were not there in the first place.  Take, for example, the first picture in the National Geo series.  If the two men were really there on the edge of the tall building, then Wow!  If they were not, well, congratulations to the skill of the pp creator, but zero marks for producing a worthwhile nature photograph.  Same for others in that series, including the man diving into the stream, the diver with the shark, the large herd of rhino and the kids with the monkey.

[BW]

I think all these pictures are well within the acceptabel range of processing IMO. As documentary photos they still work as intended. As art or expressing your own feeling when viewing a scene, anything goes, but representing NatGeo one have to keep the processing within limits. What bothers me  with their style, sometimes,  is how clean their images are. Some of them look like they were taken in a studio. But thats just my personal taste.