Wildlife Photographer of the Year People’s Choice shortlist announced

I guess you mean the sleepy bear❓However best not to forget he would eat you if he could….

@GodsCreation
Sorry if I misunderstood. I took it that the bear sleeping on the ice flow was the winner.

Woody Allen did stand up in his early days - “and the lion shall lie down with the lamb, but the lamb won’t get much sleep”.
It’s probably more realistic to show fierce carnivores than cute ones - though both are OK of course……👍

@rawdenial:
You didn’t know flash freezes action?

@mhtalic: Wait for daylight?

If you use a speedlight (which the photographer did), you'll freeze the motion of the bat, and then collect additional light to properly expose the distant background. The settings look correct to me.

@Photo-opinion : it's a bat, they tend to not be out too much in the daylight.

The problem is that not very many newer photographers understand flash, or how to use it. If it can't be shot at ISO 102400 -- forget it! :-)

OM/Olympus gear is quite rightly very popular with macro-photographers shooting insects etc, but it's alleged popularity for general wildlife and safari photography is probably mostly wishful thinking on the part of the manufacturer.

@DJ STU-C
who is this "we don't see"?
14 images, out of 24, are taken with the MLS cameras.

@SonyX
Right, with the R5 dominating it. Wouldn't have guessed it and if I recall correctly we saw just 1 of the flagship mirrorless cameras of each brand.

As a side note theres a 800 f/11 photo but according to comments on the lens release comment section it is trash and you can't take good pictures with it. Well you obviously can.

"because they barely trust important moments to heavily cropped sensor subcameras."

What does sensor size have to do with reliability?
What is untrustworthy in a "subcamera" by sensor size?

@Mk82 with reliability nothing. Did I ever mention "mFT cameras are unreliable"? With image resolution and quality — much.

> What is untrustworthy in a "subcamera" by sensor size?
Double crop sensor size wuth everyhing what it causes: noise level and detalization.

All in all, why those questions? Do you see any shot in that set made with a mFT camera? I think you can contact any of those authors and ask them why didn't they use mFT cameras. What a problem?

Just enjoy taking pictures with whatever gear you favour. Why waste time quibbling about what the other guy uses? Get over it.

"teletorn has not uploaded any photos to their gallery yet."

Imagine our surprise.

teletorn talks like someone who'd have trouble shooting a Lego figure and therefore feels it's necessary to disparage crop sensor cameras. BTW two of these photos were shot on APS-C and many with prosumer grade lenses (150-600, 200-500). Only subpar photographers talk of "subcameras".

Can you point us to your photography teletorn?

Edit: i see you posted a comment on one of my photos, in answer to the 'so what?'... im just interested to see the work of people who hold certain gear in such low regard, i want to see the evidence of why one person's camera is lacking and another's isnt, and build a picture of the type of people who claim as much.

Ill leave it up to you to decide if you think im struggling to capture 'decisive moments' with my inferior camera. I won't comment on your photos as i don't agree with that kind of pettiness, im just interested in viewing the shots.

Sony owners are full time on YT photographing flying bullets at 1/80000th of a second showing of zero rolling shutter. Jokes aside, Canon and Nikon have always been strong in the wildlife community where ergonomics, durability and reliability are rated highly.

In wildlife photography skill with the equipment that you have and knowledge of the creatures that you observe trump any tech advances. HOWEVER any advantage that you an have (af, dr ,lowlight, flexibility,forgiveness, resolution, reach etc) is welcomed. GS is not maybe aimed primarily at this market - but if it helps I’m all for it 👍

It's not that interesting, if you know about photography.

"This is not to start a brand wars debate."
Starts brand-wars debate...

It is Canon because most photographers are brand loyalists, same way as they are sensor size loyalists...
Most people can't think outside of the brands... They seek majority acceptance...

It is true that many photographers have gone with Canon and Nikon due to brand reputation for quality, reliability and results. Nothing wrong with that and it's not seeking "majority acceptance."

Once with a brand, they will stick with it as long as the brand keeps delivering, which they have. These great photographers are not gear nerds but true artists and scientists at their craft. As noted before, if someone masters how to work the controls of a particular system, like Canon, then they realize that from a technical perspective there is no reason to switch but that from a skills perspective there would be a real cost to switch.

On gear forums like these we debate minor technical differences and make them seem more significant than they really are. YouTube reviewers and company marketing departments do this as well.

Does anyone here know what brand brushes were used by Matisse, Renoir, DaVinci, Monet, Michelangelo, Picasso, Rembrandt, Dali, van Gogh, Manet, Degas, Botticelli, etc. etc. etc.........

Astro has it absolutely correct. Great wildlife photographers are like biologists/naturalists. They do understand very well the motivation and behaviors of the creatures they photograph. In fact some are actual biologists. I know of one great bat photographer who has made their study his life's work and does have a Ph.D in the field. His photography is just part of his research.

Still, it would be better to just stick to observations and fact rather than speculating on motivation, stated without qualification such as 'probably' or 'likely', etc.

It's a shame that the current trajectory indicates that so few of them will be left to do that after us, and that our legacy looks like it will be so many millions of years of evolutionary lineages ended.

@Sheeno

I agree it's sad and shameful. At the same time, the human species is so much more extrodinary than anything else on this planet. Obviously, that's my opinion as a member of the human species, but then other species have no opinion at all, and that's the whole point.

But... without us warming the planet, no chance for the dinosaurs to ever come back...

@Alex Hanin

I understand why you think that. But in my view, where other species play keystone roles in preserving ecosystems - having grown organically over millions and millions of years within the planet's confinements - that very gift that makes us extraordinary also meant we could run rampant and live in a way that is entirely unsustainable on this earth. So we're extraordinary, but not necessarily in a good way.

Our novel evolutionary ability for higher thought and abstraction means we are not apex predators, but instead, little gods. We have an immense power that can be used to understand and bring a net benefit on this planet, and I optimistically believe one day enough people will realise that to bring the change the planet needs, but only once we have wrought unimaginable and unignorable destruction.

Earth had harder moments to endure and it survived many times in it's 4.5 billion years of history...big difference is that in previous times it was not populated by 8 billion people.

@technotic

Yeah. Adding Chris and Jordan and of course Fro.

What's this "We" stuff. I don't eat bushmeat and I don't make or buy fur coats. If you do, then blame yourself.

And for the record, if my kids were hungry, I absolutely would kill and eat bushmeat, and/or make and sell fur coats. Other people's desire for photo opportunities, or their tut-tuting, would not be my primary concern.

@Suntan Predation is not the primary way that we humans have led to destabilisation of ecosystems and the extinction of species. It is more the inputs and the outputs of our whole social systems.

We all have a part to blame because of what we demand as consumers. It's a complicated topic, so please don't be so naive as to think that if everyone lived like you, the crisis would be averted.

@Suntan

"We" all contribute to the destruction of the planet's ecosystems, simply by being a cog in our modern societies. It's not your fault or mine, but it is what it is.

Please, it isn't naivete. It is just a refutation of self loathing. First off, I simply will not "apologize" for my existence. If you want to for yours, go ahead.

As for me being a cog that affects snow leopards, which live in the most rural reaches of the mountains of Nepal, sorry. No. Like I said, I don't hunt them, and I don't buy them as coats. I don't even buy "fake fur." I'm simply not involved in their life. And I refuse to take blame for the Napelese who do hunt them, or the people who buy the furs. And no, I won't take blame for not paying the Napelese to not hunt them either.

Same thing goes for the people of the Republic of Guinea eating primates. I don't like to see it happen, but I'm not about to flagellate myself as if something I'm doing, or not doing, is responsible for it.

And let's be real, your typing out on a website that you are bravely willing to take "your share" of the blame, whilst otherwise going about your normal day, does nothing about it either.

@ Suntan

You shouldn't get so defensive and take things so personally. I don't think anyone is trying to blame you specifically. It's also not about snow leopards or anything else in particular.

We, as a spieces, are destroying the world we live in, and it's a pity. It's the simple truth, and it's not your fault (although you do play your tiny little role in the whole process, like everyone else).

@Suntan

If you want to juvenilise this and make this entirely about snow leopards and eating primates, or want to pin the blame on other cultures that actually are less of a burden on the planet like the Nepalese, then I can't stop you. But from my perspective, the issue is flying entirely over your head.

The problem is so mutli-faceted I don't know where to begin explaining it. Greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming and to acidification of the oceans. Eutrophication of water systems from fertilisers. The myriad of forever chemicals we release into the world that destabilise ecosystems and disrupt endocrine systems. All these things and more that began only in the last couple of hundred years after we tapped into 10 billion years' worth of trickle-charged energy within the planet in the form of fossil fuels, and have lived entirely outside of what the earth can sustain ever since. Are you being facetious when you talk about snow leopards, or are you just unaware of this?

Just to continue as I ran out of characters - it is not just about cute animals that make for nice pictures. These ecosystems have taken millions of years to form, and we are disrupting them all. And the animals within them are vital for the maintenance of the earth, which we only find out after we decimate them.

You're quite right about typing on this website. I have a lot of cognitive dissonance about my usage of technology. However, I'm aware of the issue, and I've made some changes accordingly. I'm now vegan, I haven't flown anywhere since before the pandemic, and I'm considering the possibility of not having any children. No-one's going to force you to do anything, but if you think that the Nepalese are the problem, you are seriously misguided. No-one wants you to apologise for your existence, but that doesn't mean we can't all do better.

Sheena - Again, I'm not going to apologize for my existence. If you feel you gain virtue points because you're willing to type out a few sentences claiming that you are (while otherwise doing nothing of substance about these problems you are acknowledging are partially your fault) go for it.

Bye.

Yep, you hit the nail on the head. I do this all for virtue points. You've got it all worked out, mate.

Remember that everything you take today you deprive from someone tomorrow. I hope one day you stumble upon that little bit of information that makes it all click for you, like it did me.

Bye!

@Suntan
yes, you understand it. But don't be mad at me for saying you're naive. If you didn't "yell" so much and were more objective, I would refrain from doing it. Maybe you need to grow up even more.

@Suntan,

You sound decently intellectual and self-aware. I will highly recommend reading the book "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn, it might shed some light on the role your very existence plays, "in the grand scheme."

Simply put, it's not about eating bush meat, or any obvious, simplistic direct connection you could possibly have to the wildlife pictured here. Duh.

Your lifestyle itself, however, and the way you depict yourself to the world on social media, and the way you raise your children, *MAY* very well be directly affecting the climate, which will indirectly, yet quite literally, kill polar bears and many other species, in the long run.

It's really this simple: if you live a gluttonous, wasteful lifestyle, and you teach your kids to do the same, and you show off that lifestyle on social media, and your reasoning is nothing more than the incredibly shortsighted trope, "I work hard and earn good money, so I will do whatever I want with my money" ...then yes, you're partly culpable.

I think Suntan has left the building to work on their tan.

By that logic seeing as pretty much all of them are FF (and Canon) using an APSC or M43 camera is a no-go for wildlife photography.

By what logic Xenon? you're not following the OPs point at all here.

Now, the SFB won't consider a camera to be good unless it has a global shutter.

And AF-C tracking at 120fps.