Student takes 2016 Zeiss Photography Award top prize

you have to go to India for long time to see for yourself, then you can relate to that image a little bit different. A lot of going on in that picture. Relativism of wealth, understanding, time, customs, society, etc.

I've been but only for a few weeks but i've been to places with a far lower average gdp for extended periods; but you dont need to have been at all to see it looks like women only train carriage of the same economic class who use mass urban transport in any major city. If you then want to compare that against shanty towns or huge villas then that's your call.

That appears to be 2nd class seats to me. 3rd class in India is just wooden benches and includes farm animals. 1st class has cloth seat covers and AC.

some people's job is to document the facts ;-) ...without these people even the Holocaus would habe been questioned my some (seems that the witness' testimony would have not been enough) :-(

@Brotherbill: LOL! Have you ever seen morning commuters on the London underground - or the Berlin Metro ?? They look even more miserable (despite being some of the highest wage earners in the world). Besides, I'm not sure everyone shown in the photo is in misery. You'll be surprised how content people are with their lot - even if it appears small by other standards. In many cultures, material wealth isn't a measure of happiness.

How original. Criticising someone for criticising people who like clichés.

I think with your deep rooted negativity and strong opinions you might well find the content and comments on The Daily Mail Online a little more 'up your street'.

Your positivity, on the other hand...

Did you compete in the zeiss award and didn't got recognized? sounds like...

Woah! A psychiatrist is in the house!
(Oh wait: psychiatrists don't spell "didn't got". My mistake.)

So, show us your photo if you're so good

Lawrence: are you really that dense?

They probably judged the entire set of pictures and I like to imagine that all them together make up some nice thing about India and the same about the other competitors' sets.

But I must admit/agree that most of the images on short gallery above are deeply uninteresting and amateur compared to the other thousands of great photos that I have seen recently from other great photographyers on other contests, flickr and even instagram.

Agreed, know-nothings who think they know what good photography is. That lead photo is fabulous. I've taken two working photography trips to India. This photo captures the feel of being there like few do.

Of course, the critics here probably think a pristine photo of the Taj Mahal would be the ideal winner.

Some seem to feel that, to win, a photo must be of a completely different place, angle, color, or whatever to be considered "creative." I have news for those who think this way: EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. Period. More that once. Creative is how or when the photo is captured. And the mood that photo invokes. The same photo can be shot by hundreds of people and they'll all look a bit different.

Really? So you prefer if the community just indiscriminately praised everything that is posted? Is that what you think the comment section is for - communist style cheering?

I have seen many amazing pictures on DPReview, and I use the comment section to voice my admiration for them. But in the same vain I use it to voice my disappointment in those images shown that I do not consider to be up to the high standard I have come to expect from pictures shown online. In this case it's naturally not DPReview who are responsible, they are simply showing the winners of a competition.

But like many others in this comment section I find the winning image (and many of the runner ups) pretty poor. They are okay for your average amateur portfolio, but I would not expect them to win a prestigious award. And if a company like Zeiss feels they should award a not very original, over-processed image, then they need to prepare for criticism. Simple as that.

That's your opinion. You're welcome to it. I was referring to the slew of cynical posts decrying the winning image. I've never seen so much pure slander over a photo that isn't that bad....depending on the criteria the judges were using. And if you offered some constructive criticism, good for you. But if you just moaned and screamed like too many in this thread, don't respond to this message.

LOL, 'communist style cheering'..That's a good one FantasticMrFox. On a more serious note, yes, comment section is for comments, it may be positive, it may be negative. It may be opinions, baised or non-biased. What we should avoid is our comments to become 'insults' or perceived as insults. Come on guys, life would be dull if everybody's cheering like a robot.. A good guy bad guy situation would create 'drama', envoke emotions, like many winning photos..

Exactly, Kairil. I have no idea about the rules for the contest or what the judges were using as criteria or what they were looking for in a winner. So why should I insult the photographer that won?

At Cannes film festival -or many other festivals- contestants either receive standing ovations or boos... Nobody gets offended. It is part of the nature of a competition. Here seems like nobody can make an honest critic without being marked as "envy or negative" and it is just as valid -and subjective- to claim X picture is the best or is the worst.

@babart If you like the picture so much then buy the book or a print and be happy. The point is not everybody has to share YOUR opinion or the judges'.

No one is forcing you to share HIS opinion. You're the one calling others' comments 'pathetic' in your original post.

Wow... "go suck an egg" how old are you, 4?

Taliban, what's your point?

Maybe because the train is moving to the left side and the man is moving to the right whereas the sign is standing still. Might be an explanation

Parallax

What Jules said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

say the train is moving right - to - left (in the frame) at a speed of x (could be feet per second or metres per second, doesn't matter). So the speed of the train is x

The camera is then also moving at speed x. In the frame of reference of the camera, the speed of the train is 0. So everything that is stationary outside will be moving, relative to the camera, at speed -x.

If something or somebody outside is moving (right) at speed -x relative to stationary objects outside, they are moving relative to the camera at speed -2x.

If something is moving outside at speed x then it appears to have speed 0x so is still in the camera (because it is moving in the same frame of reference as the camera at the same speed as the camera)

This works with all objects that are the same distance from the camera.

Objects at various distances will increase or decrease this effect (angular speed relative to the camera).

BadScience might be right, but I didn't have the stamina to read his/her answer.

Short answer = things that are closer to you appear to be moving faster. You can prove this to yourself the next time you're in a car by looking at fenceposts along the highway and the mountains behind them in the distance. Or just look at clouds. When clouds are very close to you, they may appear to move fast. But that's never true when clouds are far away.

bob, your short answer is a bit wooly (as is the example of the clouds) and therefore not a general explanation (so it is wrong).

The short answer is that it depends upon angular speed.

Things that are moving perpendicular to you at a constant and same speed have a different angular speed relative to you depending upon their distance to you. So this is fine if the constant speed is the same (as with your fence posts and distant mountains). It's not fine if the speed is non-zero or not the same.

So, with your example with the clouds you can easily prove your example is not always right: Distant clouds that are moving fast will appear to move more quickly than slow moving clouds that are near.

I understand your answer, but I used to be a teacher. You have to explain things so that people can access your answer. If you don't understand that principle, then you haven't very often received or sought out feedback for your explanations.

I realize that a bullet fired at 100 yards will appear to be moving faster than a flying chicken at 10 yards distance in the same direction. I also understand that it depends on angular momentum, which I would explain using a record album as an example; hopefully that would still work with this generation. But the simplest answer is that things appear to be moving faster the closer they are to you. And it's an answer that photographers can use.

A star moving across the sky at 100 light years distance appears motionless to the naked eye. Not so if it were a mile away from us. Best.

"So, with your example with the clouds you can easily prove your example is not always right: Distant clouds that are moving fast will appear to move more quickly than slow moving clouds that are near."

Well sure, if you make things move in one place and not in another, you will get a different result!

Clouds moving 60 miles per hour on the horizon appear motionless for all intents and purposes. Clouds moving 60 miles per hour right over your head, at an altitude of a couple of hundred feet, look like they're moving at 60 miles per hours. I'm sure most people can figure out for themselves how to apply the principle of things appearing to move faster the closer they are to you.

don't confuse angular momentum and angular speed!

btw. my original answer was as simple as 1+1 (that is exactly what is was!). There are three people, dressed in white, green and pink, all roughly in the same plane from the camera, all at different "levels" of blur. I'd say this is because they are moving at different speeds, not because of their distance.

btw, your star doesn't appear motionless; because the earth is spinning. The speed of the star across the sky is about 0.00007 rad/sec; which is fast enough to be a nuisance when photographing them. You need a shutter speed below 3 seconds for decent sharpness; or invest in a camera frame that rotates at - 0.00007 rad/sec.

BadScience,

You seem to want to teach me something really badly, so I'll go along here and say that you are smarter than me, better educated, I learned from you, and you win.

Interesting that you talk about cameras and blur with stars. Reread my comment. I said, "to the naked eye," on purpose. Also, it is impossible for three people on a plane to be at the same distance from a single object. I hope this helps.

Interesting that I understand this concept well enough to have taught the Coriolis Effect, but not well enough to satisfy you. Best.

P.S. Not to flog a dead horse, but for the first people that answered this thread, the answer that the man is moving in a direction contrary to the train might be partially true, but is definitely not completely true.

Look at the tiles underneath the man's feet. They also show more motion blur than the signs in the background. The answer is that things appear to move faster the closer they are to you.

Pooya, behold...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-MqzjceE9o

Pooya

It COULD be a composite, but I don't think that is likely. Any photo could be a composite, for that matter.

Here is what I think happens.
http://i.imgur.com/aTRsUnB.jpg

BadScience's explanation doesn't work, because it depends on the motion of the men, but objects in the foreground such as the tiles which are not moving are equally blurred.

Here is another image showing the same effect.
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/200413861-001-woman-taking-photograph-from-car-window-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=BrkCzwuu7vGgcbQQ%2Bb8igPLQ9CNBA0apokgTU6Blur%2FGKxll26Pu78rIBr0kpfF%2Bgq8S8m%2FMJ2oSOO8adQ%2B6lA%3D%3D

maybe for you. for me not. she overcooked any file. before sony sensor this people couldn't take any photo

And before film was invented you couldn't take any photo either. what's your point? She's using the technology available to her today so her photos don't count?

I like the photo, but I too wonder if age and gender might have played a role in the win. An average middle-aged white guy might be accused of exploitation for taking the same photo.

That said, more power to the winner. I hope she has a great career, and Zeiss certainly picked a photogenic face of the franchise.

bobbarber, exactly. And choosing a women-only car is shrewd decision on the part of the "student" knowing that no male photographer can compete with her there. Even McCurry:)

Not too flimsy kit for a student. Personally I find her winning image predictable. Unfortunately knowing that she used top-class gear to secure it doesn't do her much credit as an artist, only as a craftsperson who knows which buttons to press (literally and figuratively).
Of the shortlist, I like the Australian blue image and the family one. Don't see the point of the nuclear plant one and especially the one documenting a room. Did the photographer paint it herself, I wonder?

i get the whole 42mm normal lens or a bit shorter choice for reportage, i am in the same camp. it's just the odd match of bulky DSLRs by both Nikon and Canon that confuses me. although the C5D2+40 combo is kinda small... hm...

@Rocky, might be true. a 6 weeks trip with school equipment would've been something i liked during photo school..

@Gediminas: does the camera really raise your artist credit score? i think the images do. and from what i can see of her other work, she aspires to become a well-versed artistic crafts- and businessperson being able to earn her living with that. to me that is highly preferable over a crafty artsperson fumbling around for nothing. ymmv.

@GRUBERND, true, a camera doesn't exactly make (or break) one an artist, but... with foolproof gear like this and extraordinary location like this, the image seems almost too easy to get to be worthy of first place.

i agree this series is a cliche overdone by millions of people..india asia are cliche...everybody can take this photos and this concept...impressed by the low quality of the project presented in terms of originality. maybe it was cause if uy took part to sony award you couldn't take part also in this contest.

So by all means, go there, stun the world with your photography. It does not need to be in India or Asia, anywhere in the world will do. Talking is easy, doing the real and hard work, well, that is different.

https://www.google.it/search?q=train+india+mccurry&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&imgil=zM_7ZU1CrB3X9M%253A%253BbUUvY0vChn-OmM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fza.pinterest.com%25252Fpin%25252F302093087477634413%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=zM_7ZU1CrB3X9M%253A%252CbUUvY0vChn-OmM%252C_&usg=__tFPuCDyWWihx70ul8a4LwAMi-vc%3D&biw=1363&bih=727

for those who have limited knowledge of photo history, this are masterpiece of train photography in india, done with film 35 years ago....compare to the photos of this winning entry and you see pur point of surprise to see a boy of work so elementary wins what looked like a serious contest.

this is another body of work of a great bangladehs photographer

http://www.panos.co.uk/stories/1-5-1107-1576-AKA/GMB-Akash/

@jonny1976 Went to see your amazing non-cliche photos and ... oops ... "Site Unavailable".

Ha ha, tried that as well, I suppose we are the ones to lose, we can not see his much better photos ha ha.

As for comparing the work of a 25 year old student with Steve McCurry, well, that is just stupid.

it's not pretentious sorry..i said is a good project, nothing more. i see thousand of photos like this everyday.

I actually like #1 more than #2. Despite what people might say about the processing I think it's scene is more natural and beautiful. #2 is too staged for me IMHO.

While I agree basically, what is wrong with butterfly macros and cute kids? With about 1 billion (pure guess of course) people around taking images most things are "overdone" to a certain and varying extent(s). As I am interested in the winning image's theme (train travel in India) I am also interested in places with nice sunsets ...

You forgot pictures from birds feathers so you can admire the sharpness.
Or birds in the flight for arguments of C-AF performance.
And little sprayed water or snow in camera to promote the weather sealing...

Totally agree. The reactions to these major contests are so predictable. Could add comments about randomness and binning better shots than these. We also need more properly exposed and focused pics of hot air balloons, dew on flowers and long exposure waterfalls.

IMHO the first has lots of interesting detail and you feel like you are there. The second is mostly pretty.

Well this is a gear-oriented news and review site. One shouldn't be surprised people come here with that mindset.

Nonsense! Everyone knows for sharpness you shoot test charts!

I thought you had to photograph cats for sharpness testing! No wonder I've never won a contest.

I think we should stop shooting extreme poverty only once we eradicate it.