Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PatCummings
The typical shot of a horse with rider or two simply isn't that engaging - they are taken every day with very little variety, big race or not. surprising?
|
I respectfully disagree and would argue that that's precisely what separates a good photographer from a great one. It's like the photos with gimmicks have some unfair advantage.
... and again I have to disagree... I hated that shot of Stephen's Angel. It took zero talent... anyone could have taken it. It said nothing, it provoked nothing. It was emotionless.
A moody shot of an early morning workout (I've seen tons of these, many of them very very good), somethng like this...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alydar_...n/photostream/
(and for anyone who would argue I'm being a hypocrite and it is gimmicky well it's exciting anyway!)... a huge upset shot (Revidere showed me his of Interpatation beating Gio Ponti... that kinda thing), even the usual shots of a jock with an arm up in the air crossing the finish... some of them are lovely, powerful, amazing. There can be so much emotion in something that happens every day, over and over, race after race and track after track. It's never the same though, is it? The light is different, different horses and riders, backgroundss, weather... some of these every day shots are stunning.
There's beauty every damned day in this sport that we love. Excitement, intensity, amazing things... horses and jockeys who - love them or hate them - have the only job in the world where an ambulance follows them all day and there wasn't a better shot???. Exurbance, collective joy, victory, defeat, crowds, angle after angle of facial expressions and the muscles these creatures have, nostrils and tails, silks and movement and this is the best of the year?
It's sad because the photo of the year? I think it's something we should all be proud of. I think it represents us... or it
could.
A 5 year old with a throwaway camera (if they still make those) could have taken this picture.
I'm disgusted.