Scottish Landscape Photographer of the Year - New Rules 2021

Scottish Landscape Photographer of the Year 2021 - Changes to Rules

Competitions aren't for everyone and if you choose to enter, you also choose to accept the rules. ‘You pays your money and you takes your choice.’

I occasionally enter competitions for a bit of fun, it is dangerous to treat them with any more gravity than that. I haven’t entered the SLPOTY for many years for a variety of reasons.

This year there have been some very significant rule changes that are provoking discussion. I enjoy discussion and often amend my views in the light of what others contribute so I thought I’d set out some initial thoughts.

There are two key rule changes that contain four significant implications.

1. There is now a list of proscribed locations. Entrants are informed that entries will not be considered if made at those places. These include Elgol, Luskentyre, Buachaille Etive Mor and such like. 

2. No entries will be accepted that have used Gradual Neutral Density Filters on the camera during the creation of the image.

Non eligible Locations

https://slpoty.co.uk/non-eligible-locations-images/

There are some grains of sense here if your aim is to try to reduce footfall on heavily visited locations or to reward a more creative approach. If it further encourages personal exploration rather than following the crowds then better still but Glen Coe, for instance is a big place and to blanket ban the entire valley seems at the very least unsubtle and probably ineffective. In doing so the competition also forces residents of such a location to consume energy in transport so contracting the other stated environmental aims. There are an unlimited number of completely original images still to be made in Glencoe and banning the entire valley doesn’t really help. No doubt the organisers will say that’s not what they meant but it IS what they say. My feeling is that while laudable, the aim of reducing footfall is likely to be insignificant. I do think we should do whatever we can however to try to reduce our impact as landscape photographers and however small, every little helps. 

No entries with graduated neutral density filters

The reasoning here is twofold. The organisers have judged that having viewed many RAW files, the use of graduated filters is no longer necessary and can be replaced by processing digitally. They further judge that they do not wish to add to the proliferation of plastics and other materials harming the environment. (I’m paraphrasing)

These standpoints are deeply flawed and have further unintended(?) consequences.

My reservations are as follows:

• There is no way of policing such a rule and to create a rule that cannot be enforced is pointless and will only lead to conflict.

• The environmental impact of a metal filter holder and glass filters is very modest in comparison with the manufacturing of a digital camera, it’s lithium battery or the impact of transport to locations to make images. 

• The rule effectively eliminates the use of film for any high dynamic range images that might otherwise be achieved by the use of graduated filters.

• The rule effectively states that landscape images MUST be processed using software techniques and MAY NOT be achieved in camera.

How might these aims be achieved in a more straightforward way?

Rule 1: Credit will be given for originality or view and location. Entries will be marked down for views that have been seen a thousand times.

Rule 2: Consider the overall environmental impact of your landscape photography. The materials, hardware and processes you use all have the potential to damage the environment. Consider also the imact of your footfall on often visited locations and on less visited places. Consider also the impact of publicity on fragile environments. Finally consider and limit the imapct of the damage caused by your travel to enable your photography.