Landscape Photographer of the Year Winner Disqualified

[Mike Farley]

The full story on AP.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/539279/photographer-loses-10k-crown-claims-editing-not-major

Looking at David Byrne's website, he has a very impressive set of acceptances in major exhibitions which he has accumulated in a very short period. He appears to have taken his disqualification with good grace, although it must be galling for him to lose out on such a major prize. On this occasion, it seems to be a genuine misunderstanding of the rules rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive. An object lesson for us all to ensure that we adhere to what the organiser has stipulated.

I have to say that I much prefer David Byrne's image to the one which has become the new winner.

[Mike Farley]

After my initial post, I have found out a bit more about this non winning image. I have to admit that when I first saw it, I was a bit disappointed. Lindisfarne and its upturned boat huts is one of those iconic locations and we have all seen photographs which have been taken there. So the image did not have a total freshness to it, unlike the winner from the previous year which was of trees in the snow. I now know that the inspiration for the composition of the Lindisfarne shot was taken from another photographer, who had taken something very similar a year earlier. Both pictures can be seen on this blog.

http://www.alexnail.com/blog/news-updates/lpoty-2012/

We all know that it is very difficult to shoot something which has not been taken before, particularly where the subject matter is fixed such as landscapes and architecture. In some instances, people do set out deliberately to copy someone else's work, even with an intention of selling it. From what I have read, I do not in any way believe that this was the intention in David Byrne's case, especially as he has been very open about what he did and he applied his own interpretation in the post processing. I do wonder about his courage in submitting his image to a major competition, although he knows the other photographer as they are both in the same club.

It could also be argued that the winning shot from 2011 was not especially original either. Even if the location is not well known, countless pictures have been taken of trees in the snow. In any artistic endeavour, it is easy to find many instances where people have taken inputs from others in creating their work. Jack Vettriano's "The Singing Butler" immediately comes to mind. From a photographic perspective, this is to be encouraged as a useful learning tool since it helps the student gain experience through understanding the issues that the original photographer faced in creating the image.

So the question is to what extent should we strive to be unique in our photography? For professionals who sell their work through galleries, this can be quite a struggle. Once they have become known for a particular style, it can be very difficult to deviate it away from it and gain acceptance of something new. For the enthusiast without such commercial pressures, matters are different. When I go somewhere recognisable and shoot the familiar, often I will appreciate that it has been done before, but my view is that it is the first time I have done it and there will always be something where my picture will differ. But I would think very carefully about how widely I would want the resulting image to be seen.

[davidc]

Looking at the two images I'd probably disagree with your assessment he isn't deliberately using a copy of someone else's work. He hasn't gone so far as to claim the other work as his own, for obvious reasons, but considering he's deliberately post processed the image to make it look more like the original shot shows clear intent to plagiarise. It's essentially the same POV, the same treatment/tones and unless you see them side by side you could be forgiven from seeing them on two separate occasions and assume they are the same shot.

As for originality, I agree it can often be tricky to be truly original but don't think that precludes reimaginings on a common theme or viewpoint. I wouldn't class this controversy as a reimagining though, considering the elapsed time and the end result it's practically a copy and think it's good that he also cheated in competition terms so he isn't rewarded for peddling someone else's work as his own.

What I do value though is honesty and integrity in the shot - theft and lying about it for me personally does invalidate the artistic merit of an artist and their work, Peter Lik being the first example that springs to mind.

[Mike Farley]

I agree that David Byrne definitely had the earlier image in mind when he took his photo. The question is whether he set out simply to plagiarise it or produce his own "improved" version. Whilst there are many similarities, there are also some variations and the angle of view is slightly different for example. It is also unusual for plagiarists to acknowledge their sources, which is why I am prepared to give David Byrne the benefit of the doubt. Rather his fault seems to be naivety, firstly in entering the image into a major contest knowing how he had found the scene and then choosing the wrong category for it.

With such a well known location, it is difficult to believe that even Peter Clark's image had not been done before. That was the reason for my disappointment that David Byrne's shot had initially been named the winner of LPTOY. Not that it is a bad photograph, which it isn't, but it is something which anybody with half an eye for composition could have taken. For such a prestigious competition, I was expecting more than that.

Where I cannot disagree is that all artists require a considerable degree of probity, especially if their work is to be sold for considerable sums (or put up for a large cash prize). I wonder if the the person who owns The Singing Butler is entirely happy with their purchase? In terms of investment value, its provenance is unlikely to help increase the price.

I have not previously heard of David Lik. Do you have any examples of where he has been proven to have copied another photographer's work? The best I can find is a forum reference that he and someone else shot the same tree in a similar manner, although that is another example of a subject which can hardly be considered unique.

[davidc]

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2011/03/3 ... -thoughts/

This is a summarised version of it, the piece of work in question was taken by Trey Ratcliff, an HDR shot of Times Square. Peter Lik then attempted to claim the shot as his own and tried selling it - fortunately this was spotted. At the time I remember things being a LOT more heated! The tree you refer to was also supposed to be a copy of another artist's work then photoshopped heavily - though for this one he was given the benefit of the doubt as it couldn't conclusively be proven he copied it.

Generally speaking though his images are fairly overly processed fakes, entirely not to my taste and often an exercise in marketing rather than good photography. The fact he's been caught stealing others work caps it off. Consider this -



It looks like a badly photoshopped montage from the 80s and it sticks out even more if you've tried capturing this kind of scene yourself with many incongruous technical elements. But he tried marketing it as the result of a lifetime of searching, planning and preparation captured with a single click. Whereas in reality it's a crappy composite. As you can tell I'm not a fan of him.

edit: sorry, sort of dragged this image off topic a bit. I agree that it's hard to maintain originality particularly in landscapes and that it's very easy to be accused of copying - in this case, the evidence seems to indicate he knew full well he was going to replicate the image to the point where he photoshopped in elements to make the image even more similar than it was.

[Mike Farley]

Now that is odd. As Patrick Trey said, why would a well known photographer want to pass off other people's work as his own? Surely the long term risk would far outweigh any short term gain. It might be something which he would have got away with a couple of decades ago, but the world is too well connected these days for people not to notice and cause a fuss. At least David Byrne went out and took his own photo, even if the idea was not his own.

[Mike Farley]

I have now seen the composite image in your post and, yes, it is trashy. Not to my taste, but I can imagine it appealling to some. Personally, I have no other issues with it provided he has the rights to the different elements. Artistic freedom gives anyone the right to create all sorts of horrors, just do not ask me to look at them.

It is the kind of scene which our eyes and brain could nearly see, although the moon is obviously a telephoto shot and not realistic in that regard. I remember a couple of years ago seeing a similarly sized moon rising over Abbotsbury one night, although that was an optical illusion and I could not have recreated it in a photograph without resorting to Photoshop.

[davidc]

Yes the moon can indeed appear large near the horizon, it's called the moon illusion and although the moon doesn't change in size (it barely gets larger even on closest approach to Earth) it's because as the moon is near the horizon your brain compares it to objects of known sizes like trees, houses etc. so it can often LOOK huge. But if you hold your thumb at arms length when it's at the horizon and again at the peak of the sky it will in both cases just be covered by your thumb.

The thing about that moon shot that gets me is that he tried to sell it as his lifelong goal and a single shot. It's most definitely NOT a single shot. He the back pedalled publically and stated it was two shots even giving the shot settings - yet they too don't actually match the shot itself. It's likely that the moon needed to be on a decent sized telescope let alone a lens, implying that he didn't even take the shot himself. People have looked at it and suggested it's at least 4 shots, the moon, the horizon, the stars and the purple sky.

I don't mind entirely artificial images and think they can be incredibly artistic but it's yet more proof he's a fake The only thing that moon shot needs is a wolf howling at the sky

Sorry - derailed your thread. Back to the original question!

[Mike Farley]

The only thing that moon shot needs is a wolf howling at the sky

That might be an improvement!

I originally missed the bit where he claims that this was a single shot, which is quoted in a number of places on the web although none which I can track directly back to him. For his own credibility, I suppose that he would have to remove any such nonsense.

He does seem to be very successful and there are many who are ready to pay a lot of money for his pictures. Some of the people all of the time, I guess.

As you say, slightly off topic, but an interesting diversion about a photographer who appears to mislead intentionally.

[davidc]

Getting back to the main item, it seems like the would-be-winner has garned more controversy in a different image category. This one DOES allow edits so he hasn't broken the rules per se, but he HAS denied making any edits. Other landscape experts have investigated his claims and confirmed that the scene as shown below isn't actually visible therefore he must have made some!

This is the image -



And this is the discussion

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/2012/10/land ... he-year-2/

To me, he's now been caught lying at least once which means whatever benefit of the doubt I did have for his other image are evaporating. Either way, with some pretty damning evidence he probably ought to explain himself if he wants to retain credibility...