These are the winners of the 2019 Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition

Projected, Photoshopped same difference.

Obviously there is a difference.

Point is, I don't think photographing a projection should count as wildlife photography. The original "actual" wildlife photo may not have been that impressive.

That's even worse, photojournalism is about capturing true, live events. Once again, this is a picture of a projection.

I love all of the other winners, but I don't think a lotta people are gonna agree on a pre-set up shot winning a photojournalism award.

Whenever I am "at the right time at the right place", my camera is either at home or I have the wrong lens attached to it.

I'm a wildlife photographer with over 60 years of experience photographing wildlife all over the continental USA including Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and other SW states bordering Mexico. Being a wildlife photographer doesn't give one any particular knowledge about the extinction of wildlife so don't give me that crap about this photographer understanding the "science of the jaguar habitat" far more than I do. It's a political BS statement by someone who wants open borders - plain and simple.

The reason a wall could be a potential problem is it would reduce the Jaguar population on each side to a smaller genetic pool that could cause all sorts of genetic anomalies if bad genes get reinforced. Surely as a 60-year wildlife photographer you would realize that. Or not.

if you don't think that is true just look what happens with animals that we breed. Dogs cats horses cattle have all had unusual and damaging genetic mutations reinforced when they are reduced to very small breeding pools.

@Lin Evans: You can give me all sorts of words regarding your supposed credentials, but you still haven't given any scientific explanation on how a wall would not impact the survival of the Jaguar. Please feel free to do so. Until then you are the one promoting political views, and nothing else.

The wildlife photographers I have met and read about are indeed all incredibly knowledgeable experts about the wildlife they photograph. Perhaps that is one reason why they are so renowned in their field.

You're naive if you think this isn't a political BS statement. The photographer gets a mediocre image of a Jaguar then proceeds to post is as a "projection" against a symbolic "wall" and make a statement about extinction in the "USA." First, you are both demonstrating your ignorance about the wall. It DOES NOT stop migration of wildlife - there are plenty of places where wildlife can cross. The wall is being built were human traffickers and drug runners cross with impunity. Obviously neither of you has any experience in this part of the USA so save your arguments for someone naive enough to give a rip. I live in this part of the country and I'm not interested in politics, especially when a photographer makes a political point and the damned NG Magazine publishes it. End of my participation in this discussion..

Politics aside. The issue I have is the image of the animal is a projection. So there's no real wildlife in the photo. The photo of the cougar was taken some place else?

@Lin Evans: sorry, but your argument is unconvincing, and again, you are the one bringing politics into this. In this matter, I trust the photographer more than you.

Also, FWIW, I know a few people who live in that area too, and in fact many others have been interviewed on the news, and no one was begging for a wall, and no one wants the wall. In fact many are angry about it for what it will do to their property.

Lin Evans stated: "The wall is being built were human traffickers and drug runners cross with impunity."
That is a myth. NPR asked Gil Kerlikowske, former commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, about how illicit drugs end up in the United States:

NPR: So, first of all, just walk me through it. How do most illegal drugs enter the U.S.?

KERLIKOWSKE: So the drugs that are actually taking the lives of people here in the United States ... almost universally come through the ports of entry along the southern border - so that is people that carry them on their bodies or even in their bodies or cars or vehicles. And then the second way is through the international postal mail service.

NPR: And when you say most, what do you mean? Like, 50 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent?

KERLIKOWSKE: Oh, well over 90 percent.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/06/710712195/how-do-illegal-drugs-cross-the-u-s-mexico-border

Also, contrary to popular belief among most people, we ALREADY have the walls... we built the barriers in 90's to prevent illegal crossings and we did not build the walls where it's unlikely for people to cross due to potentially dangerous conditions like rivers that will definitely likely drown them or heat.

I lived in CA, TX, and now in NV and I can assure you that we already have the walls and there is no point of having a wall when they cannot cross because of unsafe conditions.

S Yu: it is also true for human sex trafficking... how do you think they can carry humans across dangerous borders? Most of them enter through legal checkpoints:

"Most identified foreign-born victims of sex trafficking are brought into the U.S. by using legal documents in illegal ways."

https://www.amberadvocate.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/AATTAP-Publication-Formatted_ASU-STIR_Sex-_Trafficking-U.S.-Borders_Victim_Characteristics.pdf

BTW, I would say that the photographer with this jaguar photo has easily created meaningful art, in that it is engendering the greatest amount of thought and discussion.

Bravo to the artist!

100% agree. SJW's literally ruin everything.

It’s always amazing to me that a discussion about photography can devolve so quickly into a childish, petty political food-fight. People are so easily bated, or maybe just lonely for someone with whom to argue. It’s not even political, it’s tribal and a lack of self control.
BTW, the wall is a stupid idea :)

Thanks I'll check it out. I also still shoot film, cause I'm an actual photographer

Try the Photography presentation listings on B&H Photography's YouTube Channel. The talks are image centered on particulars of composition, lighting, form, texture etc.B&W is strong, landscape, portrait, architecture a little light on macro. Other great talks include renaissance masters, their composition styles , rules of construction and how these foundations were built on etc. ie the Art history behind the lens etc etc. They average 60 min, most have Q&A and most presenters have some gift of the gab.

I don’t shoot film and I am an actual photographer.

It’s called humour.

Both Canon and Nikon should be releasing their next gen pro bodies sometime before the 2020 Olympics. Nikon has already put out a development announcement on the D6.

And yes, the pro bodies of Canon/Nikon really cannot be beat for extensive outdoor work in tough environments. They are like John Deere tractors: they may not be small sporty cars, they may not have the gadgetry of something like a Tesla, but for what they do they are magnificent tools, elegantly refined throughout the years.

They'll probably release more bodies, but their old gear is so good. That's their biggest problem.

"newer gear gives you advantages" - the ones winning awards with the Canon 7D, 5D II, and Nikon D3 from over a decade ago clearly didn't get the message. And they're not going to get the message with the next generation either.

@vscd - or maybe try to think about actual photography instead of obsessing over gear?

@Barry Duggan Photography
I guess I'm one of the guys which think least of gear as I still earn money with my brave Canon 5D Mark III; which is a hellof a cam, even without fancy 20 fps. But it's reliable and a workhorse for everything out there... I didn't even need the Mark IV, but I wait for the fifth generation to carry on. Maybe.

My first 5D is still a backup and works like a charme, too.

Olympus has the best weather sealing and IBIS on the planet. Any of these photos excepting the low light perhaps could have been captured with an Olympus M1 MKII. The FF mirrorless would have been fully capable of even the low light photos. The only quality no camera has is the talent to know and capture the moment!

@moimoi: One point that the Canon critics have never been able to answer is what you state: if Canon equipment is so bad, then why is it the leading choice of pro's, and why are most award winning photos taken with Canon?

I've asked some Canon critics and never gotten an answer; the question is just ignored.

As you mention, Canon makes great stuff.

I am totally astonished.
I have not written anything about Canon or Nikon???
Comments under my text here must have been ment to some other writer??

As for why so many use Canon? When Autofocus was new Canon had Big, Fast Glass a full 4-5 years before Nikon. That's right, Nikon was really that slow in bringing out Autofocus in 200/300/400/500/800mm pro lenses.
In use the Autofocus worked well and suddenly you saw sidelines of sporting events filled with white lenses. This really hurt Nikon as many changed systems so they could be competitive.

We don't know the ending for the marmot. It's not likely that a fox will easily kill a marmot any more than a fox will kill a domestic cat. The assumption that a fox can take a domestic cat is frequently promoted by people who haven't a real clue. In the majority of cases, a domestic cat will run the fox off quickly and a marmot is not a simple animal to take down for any fox. And yes, I've had years of experience with both in the wild.

Read it again. Nothing was said about the outcome. Take a careful look at the claws on the marmot. They do NOT fear a fox. We've got lots of both and marmots are not a prey species for a fox. For a coyote, yes, for a fox, no.

From The Smithsonian:

“The Moment” attracted meme-worthy acclaim on social media for its comedic value, but sadly, the marmot in question died a few moments after the image was taken, says museum spokesperson Zoe Summers in an email to the New York Times’ Liam Stack.

“I can confirm that sadly the marmot didn’t survive,” Summers wrote. “The fox was successful in the attack and was able to feed some very hungry cubs!”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/see-fox-spook-marmot-cougar-take-down-alpaca-and-more-wildlife-photographer-year-winning-images-180973378/

The eagle is a perfect example of what you are saying.

Hard work beats talent, when talent's hardly working.

People are born with the predilection to certain skills. Some are great at math, some at fixing things (like me), etc.

Hard work and practice absolutely apply, but for example I can take all the math classes in the world and even assuming I pass (with like four times the effort of someone gifted in math to begin with) I would be a mediocre mathematician at best.

However as the owner of a bicycle shop, I've trained a number of mechanics and the reality is that some guys got it, and some don't. I can put their hands on bikes all summer and at the end they still can't adjust a front derailleur to save their bacon.. but other mechanically inclined types get it in a week.

No matter how hard I tried (and try I truly did) I was poor in math, but in auto shop the other students came to me when the teacher was busy. I didn't have to try, it just came to me. I was voted by my peers as best in class and won an award for it.

I think some might take to a skill sooner than others, but just about any skill can be learned over time. One factor for many is simply what they enjoy doing; if you enjoy something, you will put in the work and get good at it.

I think in order to overcome any difficulties with any skill one has to come to enjoy it. I knew a guy in high school who hated math, did poorly at it, but then in college he started to take a liking to it and then voila, got better at it. He ended up majoring in math and eventually got his Ph.D in the subject.

So it is a complex mix of factors...you have the areas you excel in from the beginning, which seem natural, and which you almost assuredly enjoy...and then you have areas you struggle in, but which can be greatly improved with hard work and persistence.

At any rate, the secret to unlocking human potential is indeed a complex equation...sorry for my poor attempt at humor with the math reference :)

One more data point that DSLRs are not going away any time soon, and are still very viable workhorses. And no matter what current sales trends are, there are still far more DSLRs out there in use than mirrorless, and will be for years to come.

This also confirms that Canon and Nikon are not going away either, and still remain the favorite of most pro's and serious shooters.

DSLRs are old stuff. There is no longer need for a mirror, period. The fact tht combustion cars drive most of the people does not mean cars like Tesla aren't the future.

fferreres, just because it's the future doesn't necessarily mean it's better. Just like wireless headphones will never replace wired ones in audio quality, but most ppl use wireless ones when on the move. To me, it feels like humans are dumbing down things and setting lower standards in the name of convenience.

Electric cars are cool but to me they are just a product of capitalism. The industry convincing both people and politicians why this new category of product is better than the old one, then you have all the lobbying by politicians to establish laws to ban ICE cars, so that ppl will be forced to buy electric cars and to "Save the planet". It's all a facade just to drive business. If they are serious about saving the planet there are other higher priorities. If you have seen what mazda has done with Skyactiv engines, it's possible for ICE cars to be very efficient. But pushing electric cars as the next best thing everyone should have, is more profitable.

Deardorff do you mean for a medical reason or refusal to change?

DSLRs relevant because people use them and win compositions or earn money using them. MILC fans call them old tech and a few disparage them for having mirrors. However the advantage of MILC is not showing up in the results .
DSLR cameras are far from dead and continue to demonstrate their worth.

Bigsensorisbest - never had such issues myself using a DSLR . I also use mirrorless and frankly I don’t see any better output between the two.

Cars are junk from the past, the future has no cars, just warp drive and matter beaming technology.

Don McCullin still shoots film, he still shoots DSLRs too. Lets not pretend that new is better, lets agree its different

EVF will always be garbage until global shutter becomes mainstream. Artificial light + high shutter speed selected = banding. Right. In. The. Bloody. Viewfinder. That's unacceptable.

Stop making EVF sound like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Evf is still immature tech.

I suppose, but it's not as impressive when essentially, all you need to do is show up and have decent gear. Now that eagle shot took some serious prep and patience. I know the old mantra is "f/8 and be there." I'd just change that to "be there, and have a good RAW editor."

Also interesting to see that DSLRs were used for the majority of shots. Why do we need MILCs again?

Yes, much of it is about being in the right place at the right time, but I think you ignore the incredible amount of effort it takes to be in the right place at the right time. One photographer I used to follow closely (don't recall his name, unfortunately) commented in a blog that he's an impatient sort of photographer, he'll wait at most ten or eleven hours but if nothing is happening in that time, he's moving on. And wildlife photographers take this to an extreme, many of them spending months or years in remote wilderness in every sort of weather. Also, most of them have to have deep knowledge of the animals and outstanding ability at tracking, stalking and hiding in order to get the shots they do.

Being in the right place at the right time requires great talent and extreme dedication. Or incredible luck, though that's less common.

What's impressive to me is someone who can get good wildlife photos in "regular" places, like say, a local park or forest (assuming local isn't some exotic location). Anyone can take a safari in Africa and get wonderful shots. All it takes is time and money.

How many people can spend months or years in the remote wilderness in order to land a shot that will win them a contest? That doesn't take extreme talent, just patience. And who can actually pay their bills that way?

The lesson is simple: hard work and persistence pay off. These shots are not trivial, but they remind us that once you have good gear, the rest is up to you.

To capture that shot at the right moment and place takes an extraordinary amount of work. In many cases these photographers have to wait hours each day over several days to get a shot. Maybe they have to do this for months; maybe even come back for years.

Aslo, the photogs have to really know their subject very well; they have the knowledge base rivaling a biologist of the subject they shoot.

The good news is that yes, most anyone can do that. But that doesn't make it easy or trivial. This is like success in most things in life; if we work hard enough at it we will become very skilled and achieve amazing results. But the key is putting in the time and effort.

@IronEagle: In order to take great shots of wildlife, you do need to know a lot about your subject; it's habits, behaviors, etc. I've talked to some really great wildlife pro's and trust me, they know their stuff when it comes to the animals they photograph.

You can do just as well, but the point is this: in order to be at that right spot at that right time, you have to put in an extraordinary amount of work. These photogs spend hours and days and months and years trying to get into that right spot. It isn't like they just quickly lucked into it. And they also use comprehensive knowledge of their subject matter to predict that right spot. It's not like they are given special access; they earn that access.

So put in the years of work and we can see you winning one of these contests in the future!

I would, but I have this thing called a job =) It's a real buzz kill.

I could have accepted the Nobel prize had I just been in the right place and right time on that stage.

Alternatively, just use a stuffed animal. Easy win guaranteed.

Especially given all those advantages that Sony cameras have, why are the Sony shooters cleaning up, perhaps they are waiting for the photographers eye focus firmware upgrade😁

It's not surprising that features like Eye AF and now Animal Eye AF get so much attention from reviewers. Those are great features for amateurs like me, but pro's do not need them at all. Hence reviewers give them a lot of weight because their audience is primarily amateur consumers.

I've talked to a lot of pro's and know some personally, and I don't know a single one that cares one bit about eye AF on any camera. That's purely a consumer feature. Nothing wrong with that, but too often we see reviewers act as if it's the most important feature these days, as they try to differentiate between what are all highly competent models.

I'm waiting for 'things af' to be perfected.

If you look at the ant-spider shot, i'd say this competition had to choose some ugly, bad photos, just to match the quota that the sponsors had told to the judges. I have seen 150,000 more amazing photos than the dull arachnid or the ugly ant shot. But some of the images are breathtaking and amazing.

I don't know why you don't know why. Why don't you?

Becoz it was a photo competition, and there was prize for the winners.

What would expect to win it then? And why didn't you enter and clean up.

Yes, Eugene, but it will not collect any prizes any more...