[toni-a]

Was just seeing the photos of National Geographic wildlife

looking at the winner it's clear background blur isn't appealing, yet that's Nat Geo winner.

Nobody cares what camera and lens took it nor for the imperfections, the photo is there and that's the important

you can check the remaining winners here

 

http://photography.nationalgeographic.co...year-2017/

 

[stoppingdown]

If one wants to be picky, there's also some clutter in the upper-left corner (just behind the yellow NG logo).

 

Now, one should enter in the context of the contest (no pun intended...): what are the selection criteria? Sure aesthetics, in the case of wildlife also documenting, and also the special meaning that a photo can have in delivering a message about an environmental problem (in this case I suppose the attitude of the subject, in relationship with is endangered status).

 

In general, I understand that some lacks in the first aspect can be compensated by features in the other two.

 

But I frankly have enough of this stuff, because I think that things have shifted too much from aesthetics towards other things, and we have also increasing doses of propaganda. That's why, after more than ten years, I've stopped looking at big contests (I used to buy the book from the former BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year). I also had a subscription to the NG magazine, that I cancelled even earlier.

 

Today, as a source of inspiration, I'm just following a bunch of photographers I like, some famous, some not, and sometimes looking at a few general websites such as 500px, where I carefully pick shots I like.

[JJ_SO]

So, good news for people who love their mediocre 50 mm and 17-50 as best and "winning team"  if they ever see an Orang Utan in the water behind a tree, just snap it.

 

Hang on: it was one of these lenses, no?

 

No????  :blink:

 

Hmmm.

[obican]

I don't think that's poor bokeh. That scenario is pretty much a torture test and all lenses would suffer, maybe except the APD/STF ones. This is one of the better ones, I'd say.

[JJ_SO]

I think, it's a very long tele. EDIT: And I thought wrong. Canon 100-400 @220 mm. I like this lens' rendering.

 

I like that one. bokeh free and full of all the fun you can have when being an eagle 

 

[Brightcolours]

Awful image, the bokeh is so blurred behind the birds into nothing that you can't see the polar bears juggling empty beer bottles at all.

In all seriousness... Nat. geo. always is on about no photo manipulation what so ever. That birds shot is a composite, if I ever saw one...

[JJ_SO]

manipulated by polar bears. I see. And the one with the bigger bottles also knows how to smuggle some EXIF in? Or was that done by the dark powers of Amazon owned DPReview? Or the polar bears from Hungary at www.bencemate.com? Well, ist should be a Canon EOS 1D X with a 140 mm lens at f/4. Tiny bit hard to believe, but who am I? How could a Canon 70-200/2.8 be THAT sharp? naaah.

 

[Brightcolours]

The herrons are a different shot than the eagle. You can save the result with whatever exif...

[JJ_SO]

I think we need to travel to Hungary and ask the eagle. Maybe the three are buddies anyway.