Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

FIAP, PSA & RPS new definitions for Nature & Wildlife Photo Exhibition Entries


dunksargent

Recommended Posts

dunksargent

This is the new agreed definition (effective 01/01/15) as to what constitutes acceptable Wildlife and Nature photography as defined by FIAP, PSA and RPS for exhibition entries.

 

http://www.fiap.net/pdf/DefNat-en.pdf

 

Note that infrared photography is not allowed and that no mention is made of UV photography.

 

I do not know the history and reasoning ref. the decision to ban IR wildlife and IR natural history, photographs - and it seems a bit odd that no mention is made of UV photography.

 

Has anyone entered UV photos into any international exhibitions and if so were they accepted and did the judges understand the images?

 

The revised rules will prevent me entering e.g. chitin penetrating IR images of insects' exoskeletons in both competitions and exhibitions … because local UK photo clubs/societies' rules usually mirror those of the RPS/PAGB/FIAP

 

Best wishes

 

dunk

Link to comment
I had entered some of my UV-induced visible fluorescence pictures to Sony World Photography Award Open Competition in 2013 and made it into top 50 ("commended") in the "Nature & Wildlife" category. No issues. I also submitted some UV and multispectral images to the same competition in 2014. Although I did not make it anywhare, there was no "rejection" of images during preselection process either.
Link to comment
These fundamentalist attempts of narrowing down the scope of nature photography are as sad as they are tiresome. Even sadder is the fact many active photographers are willing to be regulated and restricted in this manner - for the sake of what?
Link to comment
dunksargent

These fundamentalist attempts of narrowing down the scope of nature photography are as sad as they are tiresome. Even sadder is the fact many active photographers are willing to be regulated and restricted in this manner - for the sake of what?

 

Partly for the sake of authenticity and honesty - because since the digital imaging revolution, the practices of plagiarism (of both images and ideas) and composite-itis (whereby e.g. a captive animal or plant is photographically 'lifted' and post-processed into another habitat) have created too many false images which can bear no relation to reality. But I am not sure why IR images have been banned - because IR imaging has much to offer nature and scientific photography.

 

dunk

Link to comment

The point is that the photographer can make all kinds of visual 'lies' without doing any kind of post-processing, merely by being selective in the framing and timing of the shot. Digital hasn't changed this basic fact one iota.

 

When UV+IR comprise more than half of the irradiance incident to Earth, one should think visible light should be banned instead. It is after all a minority view. What is the more appropriate 'reality' ??

 

If one really thinks rules and regulation can put an end to 'cheating' (or rather, visualisation), you are sadly mistaken. The tricks and work-arounds just become more elaborate and sophisticated.

Link to comment

Perhaps we should start entering some contest with our UV pics and get to the bottom of this.

 

Great points Bjørn. I suspect that they don't have a clue about UV/IR and thus just avoid it. It is somehow not representing the visible reality we live in and see or some BS like that. It's too non-traditional. Photography is an art, just like lots of other "arts".

 

Damien Hirst puts a giant shark in a tank full of formaldehyde and gets accolades but then we have this. It's not consistent. Art is supposed to be freedom from constraint--at least that's how I look at it.

 

-D

Link to comment

The Swedish nature photography journal "Camera Natura" has been publishing articles on human impact on landscape and its change over time. Not exactly a fine art landscape photography, if you ask me, but it has its place and interest. I am sure it will not qualify as nature photography in many competitions though.

 

As far as "other photographers and general public understanding UV photography" – being a sole UV-shooter of one of the photographic communities and trying to share with them my work I can say that it is at times not rewarding and even frustrating.

Link to comment

I share your concerns and have all too frequently encountered the same.

 

It is food for thought that any notion of photography as art is null and void when one accepts photography to be constrained by any set of strictly defined 'rules'. This is independent on whether UV/IR is included in Nature Photography.

Link to comment
dunksargent

Restricting exhibition/competition images to what appears to be only the visible spectrum, is a bit like saying the earth is flat, because such a narrow view of the world and mother nature fails to see beyond the horizon.

 

I note however that so far there are no restrictions/rules regarding UV photography - but I wonder how many exhibition/competition judges would be able to recognise and assess a UV photograph?

 

The whole practice of scientific photography, in the broadest sense, deserves more exposure within the above organisations' rules and regulations.

 

Scientific photography enthusiasts are not as a rule international photo exhibition entrant Noddy van Goghs endeavouring to pull the wool over judges' eyes in a quest for brownie points and distinctions - they are serious photographers on a mission of discovery and education.

 

Best wishes

 

dunk

Link to comment
I have had UV and UVIVFL images accepted by RPS earlier submitting them to Science Photography contests. Thus I don't understand why the 'rules' had to be rewritten. Not that I care a straw about their notions anyway.
Link to comment

Scientific photography enthusiasts are not as a rule international photo exhibition entrant Noddy van Goghs endeavouring to pull the wool over judges' eyes in a quest for brownie points and distinctions - they are serious photographers on a mission of discovery and education.

 

I have seen a lot of photographs, originating as scientific illustrations and later becoming pieces of art. K. Wilder's "Photography and Science" has some interesting examples of this.

Link to comment

Thus I don't understand why the 'rules' had to be rewritten.

 

I fear in many cases such rules are imposed to make pre-selection process for competition entrants easier.

Link to comment
Hmm. A worst-case scenario. Hopefully one has made progress before that end point occurs.
Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...