>>3440626>contests like these always come down to 'i was in a place you weren't in'First off, one could make that argument about literally all photography.
Secondly, there are a lot of pretty mundane locations in these that the photographer just found a good shot in: the raccoon, both puddle shots, the tennis court, the graffiti with the raindrops, and the field are all shots that don't require going to exotic locations.
>when i see photos like that and i know I can take an equivalent or better shot if I was there physically they mean nothing to meThis is armchair photography in a nutshell, saying the only reason you don't get award-winning shots is that there's nothing near you worth photographing.
Yes, a good landscape shot requires you to go where there's a good landscape. But I'd wager there are places near you that occasionally have puddles, or places that have fields, or places that have graffiti, and I'd wager you haven't taken any award-winning photographs in those places.
> All of these would look better taken with an actual camera Well yes, obviously. The point of the campaign is to say "Look at how good the photos our phones take can be", not "Our phones' cameras are better than high-end dedicated cameras".
