| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2003 01:23:03 PM · #26 |
I think I have more money invested in camera equipment than 95+% of the people here. I have a lens for just about every occasion and I donĂ¢€™t believe I am handicapped in any way by my equipment. That being said, I have still yet to see any blue ribbons, and I have even gotten at least one score that was very close to last place. I do believe that having the right tools for the job makes a huge difference in the end result, but just having the tools does not guarantee good results. When things need to be fixed around my house and I feel like I have the right tools for the job I get to work. If I donĂ¢€™t have the tools for the job I call a professional and look for some other job that I can do with the tools that I have. I know there are a lot of very talented people on this site that could produce a blue ribbon picture with just about any camera you give them. PLEASE donĂ¢€™t make it even harder for me because I am a nut that spends way too much on photography equipment :).
Just my thoughts,
Greg
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 01:51:06 PM · #27 |
I want to back up what Gordon said - shoot lots & shoot often. When I first got my cam I was out every weekend and all that practice is all I can think of to explain how well (IMHO) I'm doing here - I knew absolutely nothing about photography before last summer.
To add to that - ask for opinions & advice. Show your photos to friends, colleagues (I have a workmate who's *very* happy to tell me what's wrong with my shots!), throw the link up in the chat and start threads here in the forums.
Annida, you're doing great, write this week off and take heart from the fact that you've got a photo that you like. There's always next week : )
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 03:13:11 PM · #28 |
Just thought I would throw my 2 cents in.
I also don't think any kind of handicap is a good idea. If we would start handicapping because of camera model, we would then have to factor in handicap for those that don't have Adobe PhotoShop, Photography Training, Etc., Etc., Etc. You can take a really bad photo with a really cheep camera and make it into an award winning photo using Adobe PhotoShop and the legal manipulation features allowed for these challenges. Then we would have to handicap everyone who doesn't have PhotoShop and/or the knowledge to use PhotoShop properly.
IMO I also think 90% of a good photo is the photographer and maybe 10% being the equipment being used (equipment working properly).
As I said, just my 2 cents. :-)
Bill Miller (wackybill)
Message edited by author 2003-02-05 15:14:20. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:12:19 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
So I hear ya, Lisa, and again, congrats on your new cam .. |
Thanks :). And I'd also like to thank you for how supportive you've been of Annida as she's been strugglling with that camera. She has been doing a lot better than I did, because she's a truly talented person. That's why she's the creative side of our business partnership (I'm sure we'll tell you guys more about that later). The fact that she's getting a shockingly low score this week is difficult for people like me and togtog to deal with, when we know how cool she really is. I'm sure she'll go on to take more and more great photos until she's pushed all mine off the Polaroid PDC 1320 page, and prove that it was more me than the camera :). |
Thanks for the kind words lisa.. I'd like to say to everybody that it's very frustrating for me, and I know I complain a lot.. and even though digital pictures are free, I took over 200 different shots for my square challenge photo, and the photograph I submitted wasn't the one I wanted to submit. In fact, this was the only photograph without the horizontal lines my camera has the habit of adding to any photograph which isn't taken with natural light.
I feel stunted, and as if i cannot move forward. In fact, I guess I've moved backward with my photo this week. I'm not trying to complain about it, but I know if I had a better camera with better DOF, or whatever the technical stuff is that I'd need, the shot idea would have come out better, and sharper.
I agree with most people who say that adding a handicap would be wrong. Yes, I agree it would be wrong, but at the same time, i feel like I am being punished for my camera's inadequacies, instead of mine. I'm not saying either, that I'm an amazing photographer. I'm totally new at it, but I know if I could afford a better camera (which I can't), I'd be taking pictures which I could actually display without the fear of being voted down because of my camera.
Keeping that in mind, I'd like to thank lisa again for sending me her old camera; she's a very generous person, and I'm so thankful that she sent me the camera to be able to start this new hobby of mine. I am very grateful, and all she's been hearing is about how upset I get with it. One day it wouldn't even turn on! Maybe you people can help me find a new cheap camera, which wouldn't kill me every week? I dunno, I just want to be able to submit a photograph without knowing that my camera was holding me back, which is what it's doing. *sighs* |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:15:59 PM · #30 |
When your camera has known weaknesses, you should try to avoid situations where that weakness is going to dominate your photo. Try to tailor your shots to the strengths of your equipment :)
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:20:20 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
When your camera has known weaknesses, you should try to avoid situations where that weakness is going to dominate your photo. Try to tailor your shots to the strengths of your equipment :) |
But then I'm not taking pictures of what I want, and I'd end up taking pictures of signs for the rest of my life :p
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:36:45 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Annida:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
When your camera has known weaknesses, you should try to avoid situations where that weakness is going to dominate your photo. Try to tailor your shots to the strengths of your equipment :) |
But then I'm not taking pictures of what I want, and I'd end up taking pictures of signs for the rest of my life :p |
Then it may be time to upgrade your camera :)
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:38:25 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Annida:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
When your camera has known weaknesses, you should try to avoid situations where that weakness is going to dominate your photo. Try to tailor your shots to the strengths of your equipment :) |
But then I'm not taking pictures of what I want, and I'd end up taking pictures of signs for the rest of my life :p |
Then it may be time to upgrade your camera :) |
Will you lend me the money? I'd pay you back! |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:39:15 PM · #34 |
I spent all my extra money on my camera :(
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:40:11 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I spent all my extra money on my camera :( |
You tease! |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:42:38 PM · #36 |
you could take up knitting... i think you can get into that for about $10. if you knit enuff sweaters, you could sell them and buy a new camera :)
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:49:12 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
IT'S NOT THE CAMERA, IT'S THE PERSON BEHIND IT!!!! :):) |
someone needs to do a statistical report on the whole site. it'd be really interesting to see.
but in response to that comment, it is not true.
a good photographer tends to take good pictures, yes. this is true. it is also true that a bad photographer tends to take bad pictures. but keep the following in mind: a bad camera takes bad pictures, even though a good camera does not neccessarily take good pictures.
this means that a good photographer behind a bad camera can and probably will take a bad picture.
if the voting on this site were soley based on composition, your statement would be true. however, the following CAMERA RELATED aspects will affect one's score:
* Focus, Aperature, ISO, Shutter Speed. many cameras on this site are NOT manual.
* Grain
* Compression
* MP. (try taking a winning shot with 0.3 mp camera, i dare you setzler)
* image distortion (not all lenses are created equal)
* SHARPNESS
but, if one of you top photographers on this site is willing to make a bet as to the accuracy of that often quoted camera... i'd be more than happy to see how it turns out. and i'm not talking 3 mp. or 1.2 mp. i'm talking "VGA" or 0.3 mp. and i gaurantee you that a good photographer behind a craptified camera will take a low-scoring picture.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:50:30 PM · #38 |
//www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=228674
All above shot with a Kodac DC4800 and a bunch of filters this guy is a genious and kicks peoples butts who shoot medium format. The camera doesn't matter at all unless you are doing really equip intense stuff like macros and the like.
Bob's shots on photo.net are revered. His camera cost him $400 I think.
Dave |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:51:33 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
you could take up knitting... i think you can get into that for about $10. if you knit enuff sweaters, you could sell them and buy a new camera :) |
Sorry John... Knitting LOOKS inexpensive. You'd be surprised how much different kinds of yarn can run you. Not to mention there are different sized needles for different things and they can cost $25 each. Then you need to buy a new house to fit all the stuff in. I know... My wife knits
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:55:41 PM · #40 |
Go back and read what I wrote in a subsequent post about the really low end and older cameras. :)
VGA cams, webcams, whatever, would be in that category for sure.
as i've said before, im not talking about that stuff. I know that stuff that SUCKS actually does suck :).
But I think that there is a misconception that someone with a $300 camera has no chance against someone with a $2000 camera because of the huge diff in price.
And that just absolutely AIN'T true :)
Originally posted by Arachnophilia:
[
. |
Message edited by author 2003-02-05 17:58:46.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:56:46 PM · #41 |
if the playing field was level, we could simply randomly select a name from a list to determine the winner...
if everyone on this site used the exact same 640x480 digital camera, i would bet that your winning photos would come from the same sources that they do now... the photographers with the knowledge of what makes a good photo and how to make it will still prevail as winners.
The number of 'new' first time winners continues to grow...
The competiton here is already tough with the number of photos we have each week.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 06:22:56 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by lisae:
Perhaps this is the problem. You're looking at it as though people with low end cameras and low scores think they deserve better and are just jealous? But it's not that at all. You can't learn and progress in your skills unless you KNOW what the problems with your photos are. That's the source of the frustration. It's not about wanting to win, just about wanting to know how to improve. |
I think people are trying to explain that the low scores aren't a result of just the camera, it is what you do with it too - perhaps blaming poor results on a low end camera means that there is a tendency to assume you can't get better, after all the low score is a fault of the camera, not the person taking it. |
Don't you think expecting poor results because of your camera is a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you feel unhappy using a camera, you're never going to do the best work you're capable of. I know that I was very unhappy using a borrowed camera a while back and certainly didn't take as many photos as usual, nor the kind of photos I usually take. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 06:53:35 PM · #43 |
Tiger Woods is good at golf. I have never played in my life and would be willing to bet that I would suck at it.
Tiger Woods plays with the golf club equivalent of an 11mp D-SLR, I would have to nip out and buy a cheapo 1 or 2mp set.
Tiger Woods would beat me. Because of my clubs?
Tiger, being a down to earth cool kinda guy offers to swap clubs for the second round. Guess what? He would beat me again!
Give Tiger a bag full of twigs (the golf equivalent of a webcam with a memory stick) and I would stand a chance.
You could extend this to just about any competitive sport ... David Beckham has expensive football boots ... Serena & Venus have expensive tennis rackets ...
These people are winners because they have talent and they practise (a lot), not because they have the most expensive gear. Ditto for the winners here.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 08:03:18 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
as i've said before, im not talking about that stuff. I know that stuff that SUCKS actually does suck |
yes.
well this is what i'm complaining about. it may possible to paint like the masters using cheap oil paints from your local art store as opposed to those imported from italy, but it'd look damned silly in crayola fingerpaint.
unfortunately, a lot of people on this site are dealing with cameras that, well, SUCK.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 10:05:17 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by bod:
Tiger Woods is good at golf. I have never played in my life and would be willing to bet that I would suck at it.
Tiger Woods plays with the golf club equivalent of an 11mp D-SLR, I would have to nip out and buy a cheapo 1 or 2mp set.
Tiger Woods would beat me. Because of my clubs?
Tiger, being a down to earth cool kinda guy offers to swap clubs for the second round. Guess what? He would beat me again!
Give Tiger a bag full of twigs (the golf equivalent of a webcam with a memory stick) and I would stand a chance.
You could extend this to just about any competitive sport ... David Beckham has expensive football boots ... Serena & Venus have expensive tennis rackets ...
These people are winners because they have talent and they practise (a lot), not because they have the most expensive gear. Ditto for the winners here. |
Wow, I feel so patronized. Would beckham play football as well with socks on? what about if venus and serena had wooden paddles? What if Tiger woods had a club made of a banana?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 10:40:27 PM · #46 |
Well, I do not think that it matters what equipment you own. I will challenge anyone to out do my vast inventory of photographic toys.
But, the bottom line is that my attempts at photographic art are still horrible failures and my DPC submissions pretty much suck. So, money does not buy talent or points, and nor does it make for winning images and ribbons - trust me on this point. I would likely still be a poor excuse for a photographer with the cheapest, lowest resolution camera. I should not get a better or worse handicap for simply spending money. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 10:44:38 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Annida:
Originally posted by bod:
Tiger Woods is good at golf. I have never played in my life and would be willing to bet that I would suck at it.
Tiger Woods plays with the golf club equivalent of an 11mp D-SLR, I would have to nip out and buy a cheapo 1 or 2mp set.
Tiger Woods would beat me. Because of my clubs?
Tiger, being a down to earth cool kinda guy offers to swap clubs for the second round. Guess what? He would beat me again!
Give Tiger a bag full of twigs (the golf equivalent of a webcam with a memory stick) and I would stand a chance.
You could extend this to just about any competitive sport ... David Beckham has expensive football boots ... Serena & Venus have expensive tennis rackets ...
These people are winners because they have talent and they practise (a lot), not because they have the most expensive gear. Ditto for the winners here. |
Wow, I feel so patronized. Would beckham play football as well with socks on? what about if venus and serena had wooden paddles? What if Tiger woods had a club made of a banana? |
You might not feel so patronized if you actually read his post. (Bolding above is mine). :-)
Yes; truly crap equipment generally produces crap. Thing is if you insist that Serena and Venus play in your tournament with ping pong paddles, then they're going to lose interest and go find a better game. I know that if someone started subtracting points from my score because I had the gall to work and extra job for a year to afford a decent camera, I'd go find a playing field with a little less tilt. If photography is really important to you, then do what you have to to get your hands on a 2+ Mpix camera with a 3X zoom lense and a copy of Photoshop LE. I bet you could find all the equipment required to make consistently excellent VGA sized images for well under $200 used.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 10:47:04 PM · #48 |
BTW, what's the name of that short story where the talented people are forced to wear various hobbles and encumbrances so that they remain the equals of everyone else?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 11:17:04 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The same advice is always given by pros for people shooting with film. Film is cheap - digital film is even cheaper. Shoot more, try things out, learn from what works and more importantly what doesn't work. Don't be afraid to take bad pictures or ones that you can't enter - play with it. I've just had a look - I've taken over 3000 pictures with my new camera in the last 2 months. A large chunk of those are garbage, or experiments or exercises that I'd never expect to show anyone and get deleted fairly shortly after I've looked at them and worked out what was good or bad. |
This is all wonderful advice, and one day, when I have the time, I might do it. Or if someone pays me to be a photographer. But right now, I'm working on 4 3D projects, 2 of which I will probably be paid for, one which is also possibly commercial, and photography is my stress relief. This site, to me, is an appropriate one to use for this purpose, since it's a meaningless, amateur popularity contest.
Please remember that I wasn't the one asking for a handicap system, and I gave reasons why it wouldn't work. But I do have the evidence that there was a jump in my scores when I upgraded my equipment. It's nice that we've now settled on the idea that it's just because I don't take enough photos, rather than either a) my camera was crap or b) I was crap and suddenly got better. I'll buy it. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 11:59:56 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
TogTog
IT'S NOT THE CAMERA, IT'S THE PERSON BEHIND IT!!!! :):) |
WORD.
besides, i paid almost $1000 for my camera. giving the advantage to someone who paid for a $50 dollar camera? i worked hard for my camera. i dont want to see all that work to be AT MY disadvantage. if you feel restricted by your camera. and which i only feel that point and shoot cameras are really in this, get a better camera! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/13/2025 12:36:13 AM EDT.
