| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/06/2003 12:10:20 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Arachnophilia:
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. |
not to sound harsh... but slap down the cash for a better one like the rest (well most) of us did. im only 16 and i bought a F707 so dont say you dont have the money, unless youre younger than me or you just went bankrupt... you can find a perfectly fine camera for under $200, everything you need with it as well. a lot of my favorite shots were taken with a point and shoot digital. |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 12:50:44 AM · #52 |
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 :) |
Approximate costs for textile arts:
Knitting Needles: $4
Instruction Book: $4 (maybe used, or a magazine)
Wool for 1 sweater: $20-50 Depending on quality, type, colors, size of sweater)
Time to knit sweater: 20-40 hours (for someone who knows how to knit)
I prefer crochet myself; I'm a lousy knitter but can crochet a hat pretty good... |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 12:55:52 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by a1leyez0nm3:
not to sound harsh... but slap down the cash for a better one like the rest (well most) of us did. im only 16 and i bought a F707 so dont say you dont have the money, unless youre younger than me or you just went bankrupt... you can find a perfectly fine camera for under $200, everything you need with it as well. a lot of my favorite shots were taken with a point and shoot digital. |
Do you pay rent/utilities and buy your own food, pay taxes and insurance, medical expenses, and all the expensive clothes and toys your kids want? Maybe by the time you're as old as I you'll also be thousands of dollars in debt...but I hope not!
Message edited by author 2003-02-06 00:56:20. |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 12:58:36 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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 :) |
Approximate costs for textile arts:
Knitting Needles: $4
Instruction Book: $4 (maybe used, or a magazine)
Wool for 1 sweater: $20-50 Depending on quality, type, colors, size of sweater)
Time to knit sweater: 20-40 hours (for someone who knows how to knit)
I prefer crochet myself; I'm a lousy knitter but can crochet a hat pretty good... |
Add to it the medical expenses of dealing with RSI and accidental needle stabs :P. I nearly damaged my eye badly once with one of those. |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 02:50:34 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Annida:
Wow, I feel so patronized. |
I'm sorry if you feel that way, that wasn't the intent.
I have an expensive camera and only a few months experience in photography, how do you think I feel every time people start saying that some high scores are only because of the camera?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2003 03:14:23 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Annida:
Wow, I feel so patronized. |
I'm sorry if you feel that way, that wasn't the intent.
I have an expensive camera and only a few months experience in photography, how do you think I feel every time people start saying that some high scores are only because of the camera? |
Did I say that? |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 03:31:11 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Annida:
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Annida:
Wow, I feel so patronized. |
I'm sorry if you feel that way, that wasn't the intent.
I have an expensive camera and only a few months experience in photography, how do you think I feel every time people start saying that some high scores are only because of the camera? |
Did I say that? |
Did I say that you said that?
This kind of thread pops up every couple of weeks, and every time I'm made to think 'well maybe that 6 I got last week would only be a 4 if I had a cheaper camera'.
Now people* are actually suggesting that that 6 I got really should get changed because I have a good camera. :-/
[* people = generic term meaning this isn't aimed at any particular individual]
|
|
|
|
02/06/2003 05:43:58 AM · #58 |
Magnetic's point, which I know he's made pretty much every time I've gotten into this argument, is a good one. There is a difference between hardware that is cheap but modern and hardware that is downright crap. But many people, like i did at first, have chosen to get involved in DPC with that kind of camera for whatever reasons we have. I don't think a handicap system is necessary at all, but some kind of indication on a photo that shows that it was taken with a camera out of a list of ultra-low-end cameras (which could be compiled through consultation and discussion) would be useful.
It's like training wheels. People can then judge and critique a photo knowing that there's no point making comments about apertures or shutter speeds or ISO (nothing on the list should have control over those things). Advice should be centred on lighting setup, composition, the choice of subject matter, post processing, etc.... all the things within the user's control. And the scores these photos get MAY then organically be more reflective of the photographer's ability, just because the voters are aware that the photo was taken using something that has been deemed, by consensus, to be one of the few ultra-low-end devices in use on the site. |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 06:43:14 AM · #59 |
I have only recently upgraded my camera ,prior to that i had a sony that had no manual capabilities , on some sites i was often asked what lens,settings etc did i use and it became annoying as i had no way of changing my settings.
So i sold my kids (joke ;-)..) and purchased a more suitable camera, my point is photos should be voted only on the final product regardless of what camera you have...if you dont have a good one then do your best and save for another....SIMPLE
If Australia beat New zealand in a sport should N.Z have points added because the population of N.Z is 1/10th the size of australia??
same difference |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 07:42:49 AM · #60 |
could New Zealand save up and buy some more people? :) :P
|
|
|
|
02/06/2003 07:46:09 AM · #61 |
I definitely don't think this is a bad idea. I personally wouldn't mind knowing that this was a (sorry for the term but i'm just using convenient shorthand) 'crap camera' so I could restrict my comments to meaningful ones. The other reason this would be helpful is that I've seen some images on here taken with more expensive cameras (~$500) that, because of lack of skill on the part of the photographer, either in the exposure phase, or in the post-processing phase, LOOKED LIKE they were taken with a web cam.
However, I think a lot of people will respond that that would be taken as a plea for sympathy by alot of people.
At any rate, thanks for recognizing the nuances of my points :) ..
Originally posted by lisae:
Magnetic's point, which I know he's made pretty much every time I've gotten into this argument, is a good one. There is a difference between hardware that is cheap but modern and hardware that is downright crap. But many people, like i did at first, have chosen to get involved in DPC with that kind of camera for whatever reasons we have. I don't think a handicap system is necessary at all, but some kind of indication on a photo that shows that it was taken with a camera out of a list of ultra-low-end cameras (which could be compiled through consultation and discussion) would be useful.
It's like training wheels. People can then judge and critique a photo knowing that there's no point making comments about apertures or shutter speeds or ISO (nothing on the list should have control over those things). Advice should be centred on lighting setup, composition, the choice of subject matter, post processing, etc.... all the things within the user's control. And the scores these photos get MAY then organically be more reflective of the photographer's ability, just because the voters are aware that the photo was taken using something that has been deemed, by consensus, to be one of the few ultra-low-end devices in use on the site. |
|
|
|
|
02/06/2003 08:36:11 AM · #62 |
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 :) |
This really says it all. There have been numerous examples of winning images taken with "inferior" equipment in this thread.
As has been said... It is the photographer, not the equipment that makes the image.
An example is my first entry "Grill" which finished 153/174 with a 4.582 in the Roadside signs challenge - and I have a fancy new camera.
Not many people have mentioned software, but those with photoshop have a clear "equipment" advantage over those with nothing.
Digital photography is still in its infancy and many cameras, even expensive ones, can introduce pixelation into images. Until they get to about 20 megapixels with better viewfinders and lense options they will remain inferior to film-based cameras.
I don't believe the goal of DPC should be to level the playing field, it should be to inspire great photography. |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 09:21:43 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Magnetic's point, which I know he's made pretty much every time I've gotten into this argument, is a good one. There is a difference between hardware that is cheap but modern and hardware that is downright crap. But many people, like i did at first, have chosen to get involved in DPC with that kind of camera for whatever reasons we have. I don't think a handicap system is necessary at all, but some kind of indication on a photo that shows that it was taken with a camera out of a list of ultra-low-end cameras (which could be compiled through consultation and discussion) would be useful.
It's like training wheels. People can then judge and critique a photo knowing that there's no point making comments about apertures or shutter speeds or ISO (nothing on the list should have control over those things). Advice should be centred on lighting setup, composition, the choice of subject matter, post processing, etc.... all the things within the user's control. And the scores these photos get MAY then organically be more reflective of the photographer's ability, just because the voters are aware that the photo was taken using something that has been deemed, by consensus, to be one of the few ultra-low-end devices in use on the site. |
Now that is something I'd agree with - often I've not commented on something because I didn't know if the photographer could do anything about it or not. I'd at least like to see the aperture/ shutter speed/ ISO info and camera make would be useful too (lens length/ flash/ metering mode etc would all be nice too :) ) |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 11:27:52 AM · #64 |
This has been brought up repeatedly, and it seems to be repeatedly ignored. I don't think ISO or camera make are necessary (could compromise anonymity, and don't really tell you much about the photo itself), but every serious photo critique site I've ever seen has published aperture and shutter info for the image. Additional information, ie. focal length, lighting, etc., would be useful, too, but including basic exposure information would make critiquing (potentially) much more specific and useful.
Which brings me to my next point. Okay, I understand that for some people even a couple hundred bucks (really... just $200) might be more than the budget can bear. But, honestly, unless you're already an expert photographer taking on a personal challenge w/r/t composition or something, how are you ever going to learn or improve while using a camera that doesn't give you control of exposure? Why would you choose to participate in a photography competition with images you've made while controlling only the composition and content? Imagine playing at a piano recital on a toy keyboard, pressing the 'demo' button to start a track, and plinking away on top of it. If you were exceptionally talented or already an expert pianist you might actually produce something worthwhile, but I wouldn't count on it. If your equipment is really that crap, and you're not using it for the specific reason that it's crap, then wait until you can afford a basic camera with manual controls and have learned the basics of controlling exposure and focus before participating at DPC. Or go ahead and participate, but don't expect pity points or custom-tailored critiques because you're not adequately equipped.
Message edited by author 2003-02-06 11:39:27.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2003 12:22:10 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by irae:
If your equipment is really that crap, and you're not using it for the specific reason that it's crap, then wait until you can afford a basic camera with manual controls and have learned the basics of controlling exposure and focus before participating at DPC. Or go ahead and participate, but don't expect pity points or custom-tailored critiques because you're not adequately equipped. |
Well, two photographers with really crap cameras who I admire are Gracechild7 and Arachnophilia. I think they deserve recognition for what they achieve despite their equipment, and I don't think they should be discouraged from participating in this big old popularity contest. Regardless of what anyone thinks should or shouldn't happen, as time goes on there will ALWAYS be photographers on this site whose equipment lags far behind everyone else's. This argument will occur time and time again. |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 12:50:31 PM · #66 |
Edited because someone will no doubt think I'm talking about them :-/
That's all, I'm finished, move along, nothing to see here.
Message edited by author 2003-02-06 13:18:48. |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 12:50:41 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Well, two photographers with really crap cameras who I admire are Gracechild7 and Arachnophilia. I think they deserve recognition for what they achieve despite their equipment, and I don't think they should be discouraged from participating in this big old popularity contest. |
OT:
Why do you keep saying this? In what way is DPC a popularity contest?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2003 01:01:28 PM · #68 |
I think photography is quite a simple recipe:
1. Rubbish camera + rubbish photographer = Rubbish photo
2. Rubbish camera + good photographer = Medium photo
3. Good camera + rubbish photographer = Medium photo
4. Good camera + good photographer = Great photo
Of course occasionally you get photos that break the above rule, but I think it mostly holds true. My aim in being here is to get from point 1 to point 2.
I think having a one-off challenge with fixed settings (aperture, etc) would be very interesting though. Not because I think someone who spent good money on a nice camera shouldn't use it, just because I'd love to see what great artistic shots we came up with when settings weren't a consideration. |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 01:31:25 PM · #69 |
I think an f4 challenge, for example, would be interesting. Trouble is lots of the lower-end cameras don't let you pick an aperture or shutter speed, so they couldn't participate.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2003 03:51:04 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by irae:
...how are you ever going to learn or improve while using a camera that doesn't give you control of exposure? Why would you choose to participate in a photography competition with images you've made while controlling only the composition and content? |
Because I have a limited amount of time, I choose to concentrate on composition and content, and let my middle-of-the-road camera take care of the rest. I see nothing wrong with that. I may not take a "great" photo, but it still might be meaningful, moving, and creative.
Besides, I anticipate what my camera's auto modes will do under specific conditions, giving me (in essence) a manually-determined exposure set automatically. I don't see that as much different than correctly interpreting what aperture/shutter settings to use given a light-meter reading (and fumbling with buttons or browsing menus while the shot moves on...)
I don't think this is a site only for great photos. It was set up so photographers could exchange and learn from each other's work. Most people think you learn most from mistakes... |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 04:22:41 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by irae:
...how are you ever going to learn or improve while using a camera that doesn't give you control of exposure? Why would you choose to participate in a photography competition with images you've made while controlling only the composition and content? |
Because I have a limited amount of time, I choose to concentrate on composition and content, and let my middle-of-the-road camera take care of the rest. I see nothing wrong with that. I may not take a "great" photo, but it still might be meaningful, moving, and creative.
Besides, I anticipate what my camera's auto modes will do under specific conditions, giving me (in essence) a manually-determined exposure set automatically. I don't see that as much different than correctly interpreting what aperture/shutter settings to use given a light-meter reading (and fumbling with buttons or browsing menus while the shot moves on...)
I don't think this is a site only for great photos. It was set up so photographers could exchange and learn from each other's work. Most people think you learn most from mistakes... |
If you can anticipate the auto settings your camera will choose, then you obviously already understand exposure. BTW, can you really? Do you always know if the camera is going to select 1/80 @ f4 vs. 1/250 @ f2? I don't always shoot full manual, myself. I often shoot in aperture priority and use exposure compensation to get the results I'm after. I guess if you completely understood the logic of your camera's exposure system you could do what you say, but I sure don't.
Sure, there's nothing "wrong" with letting the camera make the exposure decisions for you, and just thinking about composition. But, IMHO, exposure and control of focus and depth of field are what make photography... well... photography. By giving up these elements to an automated system you cheat yourself out of the opportunity to learn better photography, rather than just composition (a more general skill). Of course, and as alwyas, YMMV.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2003 04:57:17 PM · #72 |
Wow, I can't believe I just read this entire thread. I might as well join the club and add my 2 cents worth.
In most competitive endeavers there is not exact equality among the participants or the equipment they use. That is usually understood and accepted. Most people who get involved with a hobby and then start to participate in competitions have lower quality equipment and less experience but they understand that is part of the challenge and learning experience. Lower quality doesn't have to mean less capable, though. Most people who are serious enough to compete in something will purchase equipment that is, at least, capable of getting the job done. So, I agree that a digital camera, if it is too cheap, will hinder your performance but quality cameras, especially used ones, are easily within reach of most people.
I am strongly against any sort of handicapped system based on the quality of cameras. That puts too much emphasis on the cameras and introduces a bias that may or may not be true for individual photographers. Like in any competitive endeaver, if you feel like there is something in particular that is hindering you than fix it. In photography it may be that your camera truly is too low of quality or it could be any number of things like poor composition, choice of subject matter, lighting, or whatever. These are all equally important. We all enter these challenges knowing that we are going up against many very good photographers but that is the challenge. It isn't right to handicap a photographer because they have finally worked their way up to an expensive camera as their skills have improved.
I am also very much against displaying the image data. What does that have to do with the photo? It will serve to influence the voters and probably would help certain photos to recieve extra sympathy votes from people who admire what was accomplished with an inexpensive camera or vice versa to allow unethical voters to lower their votes for photos taken with more expensive cameras. Even without the actual model of the camera differences in the quality of cameras could be determined by examining the data. I just think that any additional information could only serve to sway the vote in some way which creates unfairness.
Sorry, I think that was actually 3 cents worth.
T
|
|
|
|
02/06/2003 05:23:02 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by timj351:
I am also very much against displaying the image data. What does that have to do with the photo? It will serve to influence the voters and probably would help certain photos to recieve extra sympathy votes from people who admire what was accomplished with an inexpensive camera or vice versa to allow unethical voters to lower their votes for photos taken with more expensive cameras. Even without the actual model of the camera differences in the quality of cameras could be determined by examining the data. I just think that any additional information could only serve to sway the vote in some way which creates unfairness.
T |
I agree with pretty much the rest of what you said, but would still like to know some of the fundamental info, on aperture/ shutter/ ISO. It would help some people maybe make more informed comments |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 05:24:06 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by irae:
If you can anticipate the auto settings your camera will choose, then you obviously already understand exposure. BTW, can you really? Do you always know if the camera is going to select 1/80 @ f4 vs. 1/250 @ f2? I don't always shoot full manual, myself. I often shoot in aperture priority and use exposure compensation to get the results I'm after...IMHO, exposure and control of focus and depth of field are what make photography... well... photography. By giving up these elements to an automated system you cheat yourself out of the opportunity to learn better photography, rather than just composition (a more general skill). Of course, and as alwyas, YMMV. |
No, I can't predict exactly what settings the camera will use. I'm talking about a more practical understanding of when I need to pre-focus away from my subject to get a useable exposure, and what part of the scene to use for that.
I rarely have time for fully-composed photos, and for now I'm satisfied with challenging my ability to creatively interpret one or two themes each week. I use my stronger compositional skills in a more-or-less photo-journalistic approach, and compensate for my limited exposure control with 15+ years experience using Photoshop.
Someday I'd like a fully manual camera, and the time to use it properly, but right now my time and budget force me to limp along at 2MP for a while yet. But I have no disagreement with you about learning exposure control (or lenses, lighting, or anything)! I just can't work it into my lifestyle right now. But I've been doing OK lately...gee, maybe since we started allowing borders? |
|
|
|
02/06/2003 05:25:17 PM · #75 |
I think all Canadian entries should receive 35% extra points to eliminate the difference in exchange rate. I also think we should get another, say, 20% to account for the extra coldness up here.
|
|
