Our favorite images from 2018's Wildlife Photographer of the Year winners

So you realize your comment is idiotic, right?

Check the photo. Where are natural highlights and where they shouldn't' be. And please, don't call anything idiotic. Just check the details.

Just a bit of shadow recovery here and there (nothing really unusual when shot raw). Overall, I see nothing wrong with the tail. The color of the tail is grey as it should be, so I am not really sure what your initial comment was referring to. Also, it was said that the photographer used at least one flash, so textures and colors might appear slightly different, specially lighter colors that tend to reflect light more. I really do not understand the hatred for this photo.

Have to agree. The opening monkey shot looks unnatural.

Your last comment proves that you don't know much about light and photography. If you are not shure, again, check the photo.

Oh well, I won't comment further as your "no fact" statements are not worth pursuing, I would simply advise you to check the photographer's work. Maybe you will learn a few things:

https://500px.com/marselvanoosten

So you think that firing a flash at a wild animal (or any animal) is "well crafted"?

This shot is unethical and should have been disqualified.

It’s not styrofoam for crying out loud! Omg! I don’t know wether I should laugh or cry at what you are insinuating here?

You are calling out this shot because a perfectly natural ice berg photographed with drone looks like styrofoam and therefore must be a fake...unbelievable...

Commented similar. Excellent painting.

The effect is from his flash setup

Nice try, but I find it implausible that the cartoonish color scheme and painterly look is from flash.

Maybe he had a golden filter over his flash 🤔

@badi
What are you talking about? What logic? It was an observation!

Well, the "observation" implies that nikon has some sort of merit for those pictures. Never heard of somebody commenting on the brand of brushes a painter is using.

But i guess the information being presented with the pictures somehow made this inevitable.

Only a few could reasonably be seen as being overly edited . The rest look natural. The available software is also not to be blamed. It is whoever chooses to use in unnatural looking ways. Compared to the film only days, LR and Photoshop, in addition to digital cameras, actually make it possible to have much more natural looking photos.

Still looks weird, no matter what method took it.

@goactive.
The Nikon/Canon-users are in the field. Sony/Fuji-users are commenting in forums and compare specs. ;)

vscd, you obviously own both Sony and Fuji then.

"Seems about right" There are some fantastic images and you're concerned about brand loyalty?

Actually, most of them were. ;) Many high end cameras in there.

and there is a D3300 with a sigma 10-20mm lens... so a $500 combo...

OF COURSE rkodama1 IS KIDDING
WHO CARES ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT

who says you need the best equipment to take the best photos?

ahm, every marketing team from camera producers?
oh, and 95% of DPR users....

its a joke people

No Sony, no Fuji. They are all inside their basement, commenting Canon EOS-R threads.

@farhadvm

Absolutely.

Back in mid-1970's, when most members of my high school's tennis team had wood and metal rackets, one guy had a HEAD graphite composite. The racket was flashy and very expensive, and that guy (M.S.) was the worst player.

Yes it looked too fake to me.

@SteveAnderson
Don't use the word "definitely" when you are most likely wrong. There are plenty of lighting situations where it ends up looking just like in the first picture, considering fill-flash was used. Color and contrast seem pretty tasteful, too, aka. not too far from reality.

they seem to fulfill the title requirements ... alive and wild ....lol

Smiler, no need to act like a troublemaking idiot and call me a racist. The ‘general’ meaning of wildlife genre in photogrpahy is animal like. Changing the contest name to Nature or Natural life, opens it up. Even on this site their is a ‘Nature and Wildlife’ forum. I used to Moderate the wildlife forum at Nikonians.org for eight years and we never had posts where a mushroom was the subject.

Of course it's the image that counts, but I think he was only saying he didn't understand how you'd be able to get close enough with only 70mm max, for wildlife in general. I can see his point. 500mm and more lets you be much farther away, and less missed shots, not scaring away subjects that are timid, etc. And you'll notice there were quite a few longer lenses used in this collection.

jazja - You need to broaden your view more buddy. I photograph landscapes at every focal length from 16-400mm, and I shoot wildlife photographs using exactly the same range of focal lengths.

Almost any focal length can be used with almost every subject, and often it is the choice of the unusual that results in the most stimulating photographs.

Try using a wider range of focal lengths - you might be very pleasantly surprised at what you can achieve.

it's not only about the lens its the art of being patient and timing and also knowing the animal's behavior to get close

Quite childish, this remark.
The photographers takes these pictures, in their efforts, they succeed.

Well, the winning photo would have been impossible without Sony's famous eye AF ;-)

It's pretty obvious that some of those photos could only have been taken with Sony's AF system, Dynamic Range, IBIS, color science and last but not least with Sony's ergonomics. We are all grateful for what that company has offered to Photography .

Yes, I also thought they were taken by a photographer?

fnio-nyc - I dig the sarcasm. Not a single shot here taken on a Sony, and many of them taken in extremely poor lighting conditions :)

manos- Yes we are all grateful for Sony's contributions to sensor and AF technology, but colour-science - are you kidding or what?

It's notable that many of the best professional photographs are taken with older equipment. Pros rarely dash out to buy the very latest techno-wonder. That's the realm of amateurs, and often the worst amateurs, who feel the need for a "better" camera, in the mistaken belief that it will somehow magically improve their abilities to take a decent photo.

I'm actually not surprised Sony wasn't in the collection. You'll notice it's not just Sony missing, it's mirrorless in general. The guys that take these kinda shots, generally speaking, are out shooting and doing their thing and spending very little, if any, time on internet researching advances in cameras. They are often completely unaware of advances made in recent years.

I'm sure some will eventually experience lighter weight bodies, nice EVFs that simplify getting exposures correct, etc, and will want the conveniences and speed they lack now. Mirrorless will get in, across many brands.

Come back in 10 years and you'll probably see a more even mix of brands in the top selections of this contest.

Interesting that a couple of drone shots made it in. Those show that something other than Canikon can take award winning shots.

Although, I'd also point out that Sony made a lot of the sensors in this collection.

This is with sony:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/2018/images/animal-portraits/5384/mister-whiskers.html

This as well:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/2018/images/behaviours-amphibians-and-reptiles/5313/hellbent.html

Nothing about Sony and this tool has to drag it in. Smh.

+Kelstertx - I absolutely agree with you. Quite frankly, there are photographers out there that shoot (all platforms) and post on Instagram instead of entering photo contest such as this one. I've seem amazing photos on a daily basis from Instagram. It's a very narrow minded view to make judgement about which cameras are the best by looking at this. There some shots done with a cheap D3XXX aps-c cameras too. I could have easily made the point that if you can get great shots with a cheap body, what is the point of spending couple grands on Canikon or alike... This post is just some fanboy trolling because he's envy the fact that Sony sells more cameras than his favorite brand (Canon). Beside, camera choice is a personal preference sort of thing. People who make decision about their camera choices based looking at either pros/the masses are really beginners who do not fully aware of their own needs.

Joed700 - “This post is just some fanboy trolling because he's envy the fact that Sony sells more cameras than his favorite brand (Canon).”
This says so much. In this world of consumerism, it is of course common for people to define (in part) who they are by identifying with a brand. Unfortunately, some take it to the level of defending their favorite brand as though defending personal honor, taking it to the point of posing petty statements and insulting fellow human beings, losing site of the fact (in this scenario) equipment is a tool, a means to an end.
I’m an amateur photographer at age 59. This hobby, like any equipment based hobby, invites one to be an equipment junkie. I can still get caught up in that from time to time because, let’s face it, it’s fun. However, I know for as much as I love my Nikon, a new piece of cool equipment or “upgrading” to Sony or mirrorless will not improve my photography as I haven’t done as much as I can with what I own now.