Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Squirrel photograph wins international photography prize. No, not that one you idiots   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Suffolk Park  
•       •       •

14468 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2014 at 4:44 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-19 02:59:57 PM  
I call shenanigans.
Squirrels can't take photographs.
 
2014-03-19 03:01:32 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-19 03:20:06 PM  
farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2014-03-19 03:49:39 PM  
This is awesome. And my new photographic metaphor for what morning feels like.

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2014-03-19 03:51:33 PM  

i.dailymail.co.uk


i1123.photobucket.com

 
2014-03-19 04:29:22 PM  

ZAZ: [farm1.staticflickr.com image 512x640]


Do your balls hang high?
Do your balls hang low?
Do they itch
Like a b*tch
When you drag em through the ditch?
 
2014-03-19 04:41:00 PM  
OMG! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
 
2014-03-19 04:46:39 PM  

vossiewulf: This is awesome. And my new photographic metaphor for what morning feels like.


I speak Deer. Allow me to translate: "FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU"
 
2014-03-19 04:46:54 PM  
Every other pic in that article was better.

/not a judge
 
2014-03-19 04:48:23 PM  
A fifteen year old boy has beaten off who? What kind of story is this?
 
2014-03-19 04:51:19 PM  
All lovely photos.  Nice to see an amateur win.
 
2014-03-19 04:52:50 PM  

Walker: Every other pic in that article was better.

/not a judge


Agreed. Maybe someone could explain why this one got picked. The second place photo is beautiful and you can tell it took forever to take.

/also not a judge
//own a camera though, so there's that
///slashies times three
 
2014-03-19 04:53:08 PM  

pottie: A fifteen year old boy has beaten off who? What kind of story is this?


I know!  I was coming to ask this same question.  What do pedos have to do with squirrel pictures?
 
2014-03-19 04:54:31 PM  

Walker: Every other pic in that article was better.

/not a judge


I'm with you. It's a nice picture and all but pretty much all of those other entries was objectively better.
 
2014-03-19 04:55:54 PM  
A 15-year-old British boy has beaten off professional photographers from across the world to win an international photo prize.


Well, whatever it takes, I guess. usually people just submit a photo and hope it wins.
 
2014-03-19 04:56:04 PM  
I liked the picture of the baby squirrel living in a girl's ponytail better:

a.abcnews.com

But a lot of the nature photography in TFA were beautiful, indeed.  :-)
 
2014-03-19 04:56:12 PM  

Walker: Every other pic in that article was better.

/not a judge


This. Common picture of a common squirrel.
 
2014-03-19 04:56:59 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: I call shenanigans.
Squirrels can't take photographs.


Done in one.
 
2014-03-19 04:57:23 PM  
The "Solitude" one with the tree. I wants it.
 
2014-03-19 04:57:51 PM  
This one?

i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2014-03-19 04:57:59 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 850x548]
[i1123.photobucket.com image 480x270]


came for yellow king; leaving satisfied and thirsty for lone star.
 
2014-03-19 05:01:11 PM  
Maybe the teenager has a terminal disease and the professional photographs and judges agreed before hand to let him win. The article does not mention it because they're in on the conspiracy and the guy's mother told them not to tell because he does not know he only has a few weeks to live.
 
2014-03-19 05:05:10 PM  
Another vote for not the best photo.  It was nice, but some of the others were outstanding.
 
2014-03-19 05:05:26 PM  
How does the moth or something like that not win?  At least when talking about skill.  Squirrels, see those all the time.  You don't see many pictures of feeding moths.  I take it if you are filming insects you have reached at least some high skill level of photography.  That said all good pictures.
 
2014-03-19 05:06:57 PM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

Until further notice, I'm just going to presume the photographer was killed by Dark Link a few seconds after taking this shot.
 
2014-03-19 05:08:37 PM  
obviously talking about this one:

squirreltesticles.com
 
2014-03-19 05:08:46 PM  

ZAZ: [farm1.staticflickr.com image 512x640]


i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-19 05:08:59 PM  
[any one of a dozen pics of me and my minions.jpg]
 
2014-03-19 05:11:12 PM  
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2014-03-19 05:11:42 PM  
All of these shots look great....but I still twitch a little at the ones that are noticeably "touched up"...I mean, color correction is one thing, but it's a shame when a contest like that goes from nature photography to photoshop.
 
2014-03-19 05:13:11 PM  

MagicBoris: Until further notice, I'm just going to presume the photographer was killed by Dark Link a few seconds after taking this shot.


lol perfect
 
2014-03-19 05:13:29 PM  
FTFA: "A 15-year-old British boy has beaten off professional photographers from across the world"

Lulz
 
2014-03-19 05:17:04 PM  

GalFriday: pottie: A fifteen year old boy has beaten off who? What kind of story is this?

I know!   I was coming to ask this same question. What do pedos have to do with squirrel pictures?


Euw.
 
2014-03-19 05:18:27 PM  
www.gasolinealleyantiques.com
 
2014-03-19 05:19:50 PM  
For those saying it wasn't the best photograph, I think beyond a certain point it all depends on what the judges think, and is necessarily subjective.  For the guy complaining about photoshop, which images look "noticeably touched up" and what touchups were made?  Just askin'.  I guess the white spider does look a bit soft filtery.
 
2014-03-19 05:20:24 PM  

humanshrapnel: This one?

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 460x288]


dhkjhgjaih: obviously talking about this one:

[squirreltesticles.com image 350x528]


Oh, come on! It's OBVIOUSLY this one:

lh3.ggpht.com
 
2014-03-19 05:21:44 PM  

Mikey1969: A 15-year-old British boy has beaten off professional photographers from across the world to win an international photo prize.


Well, whatever it takes, I guess. usually people just submit a photo and hope it wins.


Came to say this, leaving satisfied.
 
2014-03-19 05:28:03 PM  
 
2014-03-19 05:28:25 PM  

dhkjhgjaih: obviously talking about this one:

[squirreltesticles.com image 350x528]


done in 26 ..or something. Lost count.
 
2014-03-19 05:28:58 PM  
Did anyone else notice that 90%+ of the photos were submitted by UK people? And, that the association running the contest is based out of the UK?

/Wonders how many contest entries were dismissed due to not being from the UK?
//No UK hate, just think that there might be some bias.
 
2014-03-19 05:35:42 PM  
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-19 05:37:02 PM  
Do drunks write those captions under the photos? Or are we supposed to be drunk when we're reading them?
 
2014-03-19 05:38:38 PM  

mama2tnt: Do drunks write those captions under the photos? Or are we supposed to be drunk when we're reading them?


Why not both?
 
2014-03-19 05:40:45 PM  

vossiewulf: This is awesome. And my new photographic metaphor for what morning feels like.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 850x548]


LOL

The picture sums up how I felt after St. Patricks day.
 
2014-03-19 05:42:43 PM  
There's something to be said for the degree of difficulty in the lighting condition of the squirrel photograph.  There's a fairly good dynamic range in the photograph, from the snow to the reflection in the eyes, that the other photographs really don't have to deal with.  Granted, with the snow it doesn't really matter that it's more than likely blown out in the bottom part, but there's enough detail as you move up the photograph that it gives you a sense of depth.  Combined with the shallow depth of field, high amount of detail in the squirrel (for instance the snowflakes on its whiskers and fur), and decent framing, I could see the argument that it's one of the better technical pieces of the bunch.

As far as composition and concept though, I prefer some of the other photographs.  Technique is all well and good, but if you're not trying to say anything it sort of defeats the purpose.  I probably would've chosen the runner-up or the tree one.

Also agree on some of those being ridiculously touched up.  I'm all right with color and contrast correction, but once it looks hyper-realistic I'm out.
 
2014-03-19 05:44:57 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-19 05:48:11 PM  

Walker: Every other pic in that article was better.

/not a judge


I agree.  Especially the snake.
 
2014-03-19 05:50:19 PM  
Get out of my head!
 
2014-03-19 05:50:38 PM  
www.harleyvieranewton.com
 
2014-03-19 05:57:04 PM  

Walker: Every other pic in that article was better.

/not a judge


Well, I'll give him points for composition. Having the horizon at the lower third mark, having the squirrel dead center but it's tail of to the side both acknowledges and breaks the "don't center" guideline. He used depth of field properly to focus on the squirrel. Overall, it's not a bad photograph.

The second photograph doesn't have as good of composition. It seems lopsided with one bird centered and the other offset. The brown background with the brown winged birds isn't doing the picture any favors. He does hit proper use of depth of field though. I wouldn't consider this picture better than #1, maybe around the same level.

Third one has more interesting composition with the branch snaking it's way all the way across the photo. I can't help but feel the bird should be a little further to the left though, maybe a closer crop fixed to the top-left to get more detail from the bird and his meal and limit the branch to the interesting, flowery part on the right. The background is much better suited for the subject than in picture #2. I wouldn't consider this picture particularly better than #1, again about the same level. Definitely better than #2 though, I think this guy got the shaft because #2's type of bird is more colorful.

The forth photo has a much more interesting subject, but the composition is shiat. Look at the background. Way too much noise. What's that big brown line going across the photo? This looks like the photographer said "Oh cool!" and snapped a shot of a cool thing with no attention paid to the background or composition. Definitely a worse photograph than #1, and #2, and #3.

The fifth photo is where they start getting good. THAT'S how you get a picture of a snake, using the repetition of the snake's coils as the background. All points on a snake lead to the head. I feel if he had tweaked the colors a little better to get some better contrast out of the photo it would be a great one. As it is, it looks a little washed out, so I can see passing it up. But definitely better than the ones above it.

The sixth photo is OK, again with the dead center composition. The depth of field work on this one isn't as good, which is understandable given the size of the subject. Lenses to capture this photo correctly are kind of expensive and don't come with the kit. Overall I'm kind of "meh" on it.

The seventh photo (tree) is well done. By at least a million other people at this point. I wouldn't select it just because I've already seen so often. Not that it's a bad photo.

The eighth photo (salmon) is pretty poor quality. Looks like it was cropped out of a much larger picture. Not a good photograph.

The ninth photo is OK. Good use of symmetry. Not a particularly exciting composition or subject. Either one of the ducks doing what they are doing by themselves would have been better, giving the photo a singular purpose instead of it just being a "crowd shot" of "ducks doing various things". Not better than most of the others.

The tenth photo is pretty but cropped poorly. Centering the flower would have been a good idea. As it is, everything is *just* off of center, making the picture disjointed. The detail in the insect wings is awesome, but my eye keeps getting pulled away to the mushy fuzz fest that is the out of field flower center. It's a photo that's good because the equipment was good, not because the photographer is.

The eleventh photo must have taken some effort. I'm not liking that the wings are only partially blurred out though, and the back of the bug being out of focus is distracting. Not bad, not necessarily better than the squirrel.

The twelfth photo is the best one yet. Composition is great, the background helps it pop, the entire subject is in sharp focus, there's nothing to take your eye away from it. You get a sense of the mushroom striving upwards in a sea of a green. Fantastic, the only thing I would change would have been removing whatever the brownish thing forward of the field at the base of the mushroom is. Definitely better than the squirrel; I suspect it didn't win because the judges liked squirrels more than fungus.

The thirteenth photo is pretty good as well, but suffers from the same problem as a lot of the other insect photos. It's really not easy to get outstanding shots of insects. I'm not thrilled with the composition on it either.

The fourteenth is pretty meh. He's lucky he happened to be out when they background was obscured by the fog or else it would probably be a terrible picture. As it is there's nothing special here, nothing to make me think this anything but a random snapshot with some kids iphone.

Christ there are a lot of these. I'm going to sort of condense it here:

15: good
16: meh
17: poor
18: great
19: great
20: poor (what the hell is up with the top left of the photo?)
21: poor
22: poor
23: ok, but riding entirely on subject matter and not anything the photographer is doing
24: good
25: meh


All in all, the only photos I would consider "better" than the squirrel photo by a quantifiable amount are 7, 12, 18, and 19. Certainly not every other photo.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report