Water Photo Close Up Contest Winners: Some Amazing Images

[SorellaLaBefana]

…Along with the usual CUPOTY (Close-up Photographer of the Year) competition that runs each year, the organizers hold an annual challenge focusing on a different theme. “Water” was the chosen motif this year – and the entries did not disappoint the judges.

“We asked photographers to show us work on a Water theme. Our callout was answered with images of seahorses swimming through kelp, flowers bejeweled with rain, and insects drying out their wings before taking flight, among so many other things. As usual, looking at all the entries was both educational and inspiring,” noted Tracy Calder, co-founder of CUPOTY…

https://www.iflscience.com/a-newts-midnight-feast-wins-close-up-photographer-of-the-year-water-challenge-73917

My favourite at first was the second place winner which was incredibly colorful and surrealistic.

When I read the description of how the image was made I was disappointed by the manipulation. I don’t even like photos where mist has been sprayed on subjects to make them appear dew covered, much less imbedded in a block of ice and shot on a light table.

The damselfly (above) did it for me: Simplicity of composition, sharp focus and no manipulation of the subject.

I also enjoyed the apparently dew covered images. Yet, am always concerned that such subjects have been ‘enhanced’ as mentioned above. The finalist ‘Long Over Dew’ is striking but wonder not only about the ‘dew’ but if the insect has been put in a refrigerator by the photographer—I hope not, yet this is not an uncommon practice.

This all points out that long before AI generated or even photoshopped images a picture might not be what it seems.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. A picture is what it seems to be. Period. Manipulation is as old as cave paintings.

We call it "artistic license."

Thank you for posting these incredible images!

[stopdiggin]

2. share your concern (while trying not to be too 'purist' and hoity toity) about manipulation

as I'm sure many of us have for years ...
And now - with AI burgeoning ...
Thing is, to me anyway, even the 'enhancements' and 'tricks' long employed to embellish an image at least fell under the umbrella of artistic expression. With AI - and a human providing neither the 'embellishment' or the creative impulse behind it .. ? Do we truly have 'art' - if a human element and creativity is no longer the driver (or in fact really even involved) ?

And there we are - with pretty images ... But do they really say anything? Or - is it enough that something serves to light up the mind - delight the eye?
(Personally don't know - and probably not near smart enough to suss it out ... But it does give pause.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[SorellaLaBefana]

3. My thoughts exactly

Being a (nature) photographer as well as a painter (oil, acrylic, pastels—and dreadful watercolourist) I feel that it is not about 'purity', it is about photography non-destructively capturing reality versus all the other art forms which, also non-destructively, take a more nuanced look at the world.

To leave your subject injured or dead in order to 'get the image' is not something with which I am comfortable. If a plant or animal is beautiful enough to photograph, then it is beautiful enough to not harm. Same is, of course, true for less photogenic living beings.