Digital Photography Competition - May Results

I'm always dismayed by those so-called photographers who decry something being in the photograph. If it's there, then it deserves to be in the photo just as much as the subject. It's called reality, deal with it. Also little details like this are of immense value to the archivists of years to come helping place and date photos.

The worst examples I see are at Manchester Airport's Aviation Viewing Park. People go to extrordinary lengths to avoid getting the littlest bit of the boundary fence in the frame. It's there. If it's in the photo, it's in the photo.

And don't get me started on cropping!

@johnbaker

"pylons obscure the subject in two places".
Actually, to me, triangles give a sense of strength or stability, so the 'triangle' of pylons works very well in juxtaposition to the carefree, winding road.

And anyone who can say anything bad about Robert's photo is just crazy.

Mark's image is striking, though deeply unnatural. The sky is darkened way too much. The rapeseed's texture doesn't yield enough depth: it seems more like a vertically stacked 2d image than a 3d recede-into-the-distance type shot. It's certainly striking, just not natural. I dislike the proportion of sky to land as well.

Robert's pic is intriguing, but not difficult to achieve, and worthy only for its novelty value.The motion blur is unattractive, and the pic is spoiled by the tax disc on the windscreen, along with the lack of symmetry, especially in the trees behind the driver's head.

Very interesting to see these pics, but none of them are worthy of publication, and it might be nice if people were entitled to a little feeback instead of all 'great shot' comments that tend to pervade amateur photo websites.

Hi Cliff,
I don't know if there is anything you can do but I never received my copy of Lightroom 2. I got the memory card and reader which are fantastic, huge thanks for that.
thanks
Robert