| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/28/2003 03:44:24 PM · #1 |
"" The studio shots that are winning ribbons on these challenges are completed with thousands of dollars of studio equipment. That's more like 80% equipment and 20% technique.""
Now this is bunk. Equiptment is the smallest part of photography. There is this weird "equiptment" thinking today, that the difference between an amateur and a Pro is equiptment, and the difference between a good and a bad shot is equiptment. WRONG!!
Lots of equiptment will actually make shots worse if your not ready for it. If I handed you 16 studio flashes, booms, stands, softboxes, backdrops, etc. I guarantee that your photo for that shot would probably be worse.
The pure beauty of still lifes and digital cameras is the lighting doesn't matter. It could be 3 studio lights at 1/200 of a second or 3 desk lamps at 2/3 of a second, but the exact same shot.
Quit making wrong assumptions, start making creative photographs. Most of the beautiful work on this site is done with very little equitment and adapted lighting.
No Virginia equiptment doesn't make the photographer. and remember the best camera is the one you have. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 05:10:06 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by ganders:
(b) send everybody a 10D. Personally I vote (b) :-) |
If you make up a petition to send to Canon to give everyone here a 10D I'll certainly sign it. Hmmm... then I'd have two 10D's... Wonder if I could send two 10D's in and have them send me back a 1Ds. Nah, would probably have to send them 4 or 5. ;) |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 04:37:49 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by ganders:
I think I've worked it out. All these people have EOS-10Ds.
Therefore, to make all challenges fair we must either (a) ban people with cameras worth more than mine, or (b) send everybody a 10D.
Personally I vote (b) :-) |
Hey, we're just living in frugality trying to recoup some of the money we spent on the 10-D. :D |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 04:31:03 AM · #4 |
I think I've worked it out. All these people have EOS-10Ds.
Therefore, to make all challenges fair we must either (a) ban people with cameras worth more than mine, or (b) send everybody a 10D.
Personally I vote (b) :-) |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:23:19 AM · #5 |
| I would also like to add...although Kiwiness DOES likely have all the studio equipment a person would need; to recreate most of Kiwiness' winning shots here at DPC (Ice fall, can of worms, H2O, overpainted) would NOT require a studio with high $$$ lights and backdrops. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:16:28 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
To say it's merely "technique" is an understatement. The studio shots that are winning ribbons on these challenges are completed with thousands of dollars of studio equipment. That's more like 80% equipment and 20% technique. |
Interesting assumption, I would really like to know if you have anything to support that or if it is pure conjecture. Sounds more like someone portraying something they believe as being a fact.
My last entry didn't get a ribbon, but was very close to one in fifth place, just after Quad's gun shot (a friend calculated that 5 more points would have put it third as I was only .04 under the ribbons, so it is close enough to a ribbon to be covered by the comment here I believe).
Cost:
Camera/lens - part of the standard process and the photo would have worked just as well with a cheap camera.
Flash: No Cost $0
Lighting: Just the fluro light on the ceiling in the garage. Cost $0
Additional equipment required: Nil. Cost $0
Oops, sorry
Cost of Jam: 12.74 cents (approximated, will calculate more accurately later).
I hate when people make assumptions and then present them on forums as facts.
Message edited by author 2003-11-28 03:18:20.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:03:09 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
To say it's merely "technique" is an understatement. The studio shots that are winning ribbons on these challenges are completed with thousands of dollars of studio equipment. That's more like 80% equipment and 20% technique. |
I take great offense at this statement.
Let's get this out of the way right now. Yes I have a Canon EOS 10-D, yes I paid for it MYSELF. Yes I have a house ($130,000), wife, kid, 2 cars (2003 Kia Optima, 1976 Chevy sedan), 2 cats and bills. No I do not take pictures for a living, yes I work a 40 hour a week job in a completely non-photography related blue/white (blurred line there) collar environment. I do not have a "studio" in my house, I have a card table and a living room. I am not a rich person, but through ingenuity and judicial purchasing, I have some decent equipment and can make pretty good use of.
Here's the cost rundown of the set up on 2 of my "studio" shots that did fairly well here at DPC.
The Sands Of Time:
Tripod: $24.00, Wal-Mart (every photographer should have a tripod anyway)
2 clocks: $8.00, purchased 2nd hand at the local Salvation Army.
Sand: $5.00, for a 50lb bag at Toys-R-Us.
Two cardboard boxes taped together (to hold the sand): $0, I acquired them from my workplace.
Flashlight: $5.00, (but everyone has one of those, right?)
2 gels- Blue and Yellow: $4.00
I took about 200 shots using different gels, different camera angles and lighting from different directions. This is digital, the number of shots you take shouldn't really matter, should it?
"Smoking Gun"
Gun: FREE, I used a friend's gun for this image, so I didn't have to pay for that.
2 flashes: $60, purchased used a few months ago from KEH.com.
Blue Gel: $2.00
Softbox on the ungelled flash: FREE, I made it out of cardboard.
Non-dedicated off camera pc cable: $10, (had previously)
Optical slave trigger: $10, used (had previously).
Smoke: FREE, the friend holding the gun was smoking anyway, why not put it to good use?
Background: $4.00, Black felt found on clearance at a local fabric store.
I took about 5 different shots of this before getting a "keeper".
____________________________________________________________________
I get a bit edgy when people ASSUME that a "studio" shot used thousands of dollars worth of equipment. I think that some people actually BELIEVE that the equipment makes the photographer. How wrong they are.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 01:56:41 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by glimpses:
Of course, you did receive the Canon EOS-10D from Santa Claus, didn't you? =) |
he he.. You're right, well, actually Mrs. Claus. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 01:54:13 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
Since you brought up all the details of your shot, how many times did you re-shoot your photograph before you finally accepted the final image? |
I'm not exactly sure. I deleted all except three photos but I think I tried three different positions of the skull and ashtray, one with a cigarette pack. So probably something in the neighborhood of 15-20 frames bracketing included. I usually take enough to where I feel confident I'll have something workable so I don't have to go back and forth to the computer. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 08:58:42 PM · #10 |
Just an interesting thing to note:
my highest score ever on this site was --
a) a found shot, and b) taken with a point and shoot camera ..
So it obviously *is* possible :)))) ................
|
|
|
|
11/27/2003 05:58:26 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I was just saying that a rule like "no tripods" would be impossible to enforce.
I am a "nature" photographer; I am admittedly mediocre at set-up shots. |
OK, so maybe I'm stretching it to make a point.
Let me ask you about your set-up shots. Do you have slave umbrella flash units, and a selection of backdrops and foregrounds? |
Nope -- I have a basic P+S camera with onboard flash. I have used directable lamps, a mini-flashlight, bought some small pieces of velvet for backdrops ... I kind of know what to do, but am too poor for fancy equipment, usually too lazy to make proper jury-rigged workarounds, and too impatient to take more than 20-30 attempts at any set-up.
Interestingly, probably my best effort is from The Past challenge, where we weren't allowed to do any editing at all.
 |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 05:24:07 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
The studio shots that are winning ribbons on these challenges are completed with thousands of dollars of studio equipment. That's more like 80% equipment and 20% technique. |
Be careful when making generalizations. Take my photo for example. Here's the rundown of expenses for the shot...
1 glass ashtray - $5 (got it as a gift though so free to me)
~2 packs of cigarettes - $9 (would have smoked them anyway so essentially free)
1 Halloween skull - $12 from Halloween Superstore
1 Clip on Light - $5 from Home Depot
1 150w Halogena bulb - $3 from Home Depot
1 1.5 yard piece of felt - $1 from fabric store
3 bottles and a cookie sheet to hold up fabric (too lazy to get out PVC frame) - Free
Grand total $35 but in reality the cost is only $9 because I only bought the clip on light, bulb, and fabric to take photos with. The other items are common to my home and used in other capacities. |
Of course, you did receive the Canon EOS-10D from Santa Claus, didn't you? =) |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 04:01:34 PM · #13 |
I agree that it's a great suggestion to place limits as you described. Enforcement might be an issue in some cases, but I prefer the honor system anyway. Without honor, what has a man? Nothing.
But it's also a challenge and a skill to create effective set-up shots. I don't think that skill should be denigrated either.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2003 03:45:09 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
The studio shots that are winning ribbons on these challenges are completed with thousands of dollars of studio equipment. That's more like 80% equipment and 20% technique. |
Be careful when making generalizations. Take my photo for example. Here's the rundown of expenses for the shot...
1 glass ashtray - $5 (got it as a gift though so free to me)
~2 packs of cigarettes - $9 (would have smoked them anyway so essentially free)
1 Halloween skull - $12 from Halloween Superstore
1 Clip on Light - $5 from Home Depot
1 150w Halogena bulb - $3 from Home Depot
1 1.5 yard piece of felt - $1 from fabric store
3 bottles and a cookie sheet to hold up fabric (too lazy to get out PVC frame) - Free
Grand total $35 but in reality the cost is only $9 because I only bought the clip on light, bulb, and fabric to take photos with. The other items are common to my home and used in other capacities. |
Your right, all generalizations can be inaccurate to the specific. Your shot was certainly creative, and that's what this site should be about.
Since you brought up all the details of your shot, how many times did you re-shoot your photograph before you finally accepted the final image? |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 03:18:31 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I was just saying that a rule like "no tripods" would be impossible to enforce.
I am a "nature" photographer; I am admittedly mediocre at set-up shots. |
OK, so maybe I'm stretching it to make a point.
Let me ask you about your set-up shots. Do you have slave umbrella flash units, and a selection of backdrops and foregrounds?
|
|
|
|
11/27/2003 03:16:09 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
The studio shots that are winning ribbons on these challenges are completed with thousands of dollars of studio equipment. That's more like 80% equipment and 20% technique. |
Be careful when making generalizations. Take my photo for example. Here's the rundown of expenses for the shot...
1 glass ashtray - $5 (got it as a gift though so free to me)
~2 packs of cigarettes - $9 (would have smoked them anyway so essentially free)
1 Halloween skull - $12 from Halloween Superstore
1 Clip on Light - $5 from Home Depot
1 150w Halogena bulb - $3 from Home Depot
1 1.5 yard piece of felt - $1 from fabric store
3 bottles and a cookie sheet to hold up fabric (too lazy to get out PVC frame) - Free
Grand total $35 but in reality the cost is only $9 because I only bought the clip on light, bulb, and fabric to take photos with. The other items are common to my home and used in other capacities.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2003 03:05:35 PM · #17 |
I was just saying that a rule like "no tripods" would be impossible to enforce.
I am a "nature" photographer; I am admittedly mediocre at set-up shots. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 02:53:17 PM · #18 |
O.K. So let me get this straight. Not allowing spot editing, or blending, but allowing gaussian blurring as long as it's not done in layers is practical. But just simply not allowing studio generated shots for particular challenges is impractical?
To say it's merely "technique" is an understatement. The studio shots that are winning ribbons on these challenges are completed with thousands of dollars of studio equipment. That's more like 80% equipment and 20% technique.
You say you can go out and re-shoot if you don't like the results? Fact is most times it is either impractical or impossible because of certain elements not avaialbe or have changed. Like the surfer shot in my porfolio, how could I re-shoot that? It means something that I was able to capture that moment in time. The photo carries signficant character because it IS NOT reproducable.
The fact is, this site currenty promotes equipment more than art. You can try to minimize me by saying I should go to a club or take classes, but that doesn't change reality. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 01:24:16 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
But it is simply not legitimate to compare studio photography with field photography, and it's obvious that most of the critics on this site don't understand this concept.
Is it their fault though? I don't believe so. It goes directly on the organizers of this site to not recoginize this problem because it could be easily fixed. Challenges should NOT just be based on subject matter, that much is very obvious. Challenges should be based on style as well. For example you would have a Propaganda challenge that's "Hand held only, no flash." Or "Hand held, tripod, and on-camera flash." or "Studio Only", or "Open". You could have challenges that limit focal lengths, filters, and even challenges that the images cannot be altered in ANY regard.
To me, those are Photography Challenges! This would level the playing field dramatically. To me, if your a good Photographer you wouldn't mind that leveling one bit, but just somehow, I don't think the concept will go over very well around here... |
I think you make some good points about the differences in technique, but I think your suggestions for limitations on the challenges are merely impractical, not necessarily undesired. They would be well-suited to a small photography class or club, but how would we really verify that any shot submitted here was handheld and not on a tripod, for one example.
There is also a strong tradition (countering natural instinct) in photography judging to go by the results, not what we imaging the photographer went through to get the shot. I'm probably more impressed by one of Galen Rowell's sunset photos, knowing he took it while dangling from a rope over a 2000 foot cliff, than I am with my own sunsets, but in a competition of sunset photos, I'm not supposed to consider that factor.
I rather like that we mix photo techniques and abilities here. I long ago subsumed the competitive aspect of this site to the learning aspect. It would be nice to get a ribbon or a really high score, but I don't think either would really make me a better photographer; trying to come up with interesting ideas and seeing which ones resonate with others probably will.
The time-limited nature of these challenges makes it likely that a large number of entries might have the potential to be improved or re-shot; they can still be worthy efforts even if not as "finished" as the top-placers.
Message edited by author 2003-11-27 13:25:00. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 12:33:05 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
Staged, studio shots (IMO) are not evaluated correctly on this site. |
You can't just throw this out without clarification. It doesn't matter if it goes anywhere or not you've got people wondering. |
Photograhy is very subjective, that part is true, so let me throw out some facts. I looked over 10 recent challenges; Book Titles, Still Life, Infinite, Shadows II, Halloween, Science, Recipe, Exposed, Literalisms, and Propaganda. 30 ribbons were awarded, 24 of them were staged, studio shots.
It really bothers when someone makes a statment like, "Yours was the only image that made the statement about the challenge without having it in the title." Well, of course when you completely stage a shot, you can do whatever you want. Try and walk the streets and get the same results, now not quite so easy is it? So who did a better job, someone who walked the streets and got 75 percent of it right, or someone who sat in his house, stacked the deck in his favor, pulled-out all his big time equipment and got it 95 percent right?
I think you'll be suprised by my answer. BOTH! There's nothing wrong with staged, studio photography. I've seen some really wonderfull work done by some of the photograhers on this site. But it is simply not legitimate to compare studio photography with field photography, and it's obvious that most of the critics on this site don't understand this concept.
Is it their fault though? I don't believe so. It goes directly on the organizers of this site to not recoginize this problem because it could be easily fixed. Challenges should NOT just be based on subject matter, that much is very obvious. Challenges should be based on style as well. For example you would have a Propaganda challenge that's "Hand held only, no flash." Or "Hand held, tripod, and on-camera flash." or "Studio Only", or "Open". You could have challenges that limit focal lengths, filters, and even challenges that the images cannot be altered in ANY regard.
To me, those are Photography Challenges! This would level the playing field dramatically. To me, if your a good Photographer you wouldn't mind that leveling one bit, but just somehow, I don't think the concept will go over very well around here.
Such is life. That's why I said I didn't even want to bother cause nothing will change. This is still a good site, just significantly flawed. I'll get over it.
Hope you all have a great Thanksgiving weekend, and I look forward to seeing the studio shot that wins the weekend challenge.
Message edited by author 2003-11-27 12:36:43. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 11:38:00 AM · #21 |
| MrCaN I just left you a comment on the photo. Seriously although the photo is not to bad it does have two big flaws I noticed instantly. Don't let how you finished with this challenge have anything to do with your joinning. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 10:55:44 AM · #22 |
MrCan, Sorry you seem so bitter. I have had a great time on this site. I realize everyone can not think like me. I’ve been there myself, being bitter (to a degree) but I understand that the people here are damn good at photography and I have a lot to learn. And you have to realize your shortcomings in relation to what is expected on this site. I accept it. Just enjoy what is given here. A lot of interesting photo’s by a bunch of interesting people. I know it can be fun to gripe, but it can get embarrassing to have to read. I think you should just continue to enter your photos and see what happens. It was just one picture out of hundreds. Don’t give up. That’s my advice.
jmritz
|
|
|
|
11/27/2003 05:48:45 AM · #23 |
The photo isn’t all that outstanding although it is quit good. Most people around the world wouldn’t know who Phog is. It may remind you of something but not to other people. I suggest you join the make believe site that I suggested a while back in another thread. The site that always allows you to get top scores no mater what the voting public thinks. Other than that all I can suggest is that you build a bridge and get over it in regards to you middle score.
Cheers
Craig
|
|
|
|
11/27/2003 04:15:01 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by MrCaN:
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by MrCaN:
This is bunk |
Why post on a discussion forum if you're not interested in others' opinions unless they support yours?
And it wouldn't hurt you to remain civil. |
Good point, mabey you should have thought about it first, you are mad because I didn't agree with your statement and that ilistrates why you shouldn't post on a discussion forum if you're not interested in others opinions unless they support yours.
And as being civil, I don't understand that comment at all. |
I'm not mad at you in the slightest - I entered this thread because I genuinely thought I could offer some thoughts on why you didn't do well. I don't give a rat's a**e if you feel my reasonings are valid or not - it doesn't matter to me other than a mild feeling that I could have spent the time more productively. So to suggest that I'm mad that you didn't like my post is not accurate.
*Shrug*
Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks that a) it is difficult but possible to create propaganda themed images that do appeal to more of the diverse range of voters and b) your image may have met the challenge in your own eyes but simply failed to convey the connection to most of the voters.
As for being civil - it's usually considered rude to dismiss someone else's response, which is posted for no reason other than trying to shed some light, which is what I assumed you wanted, as "bunk". Maybe you have different concepts of courtesy, however, so I'll let it drop.
Originally posted by MrCaN:
Originally posted by Kavey:
Clearly some subject were successful in communicating to a varied and diverse audience. The ones at the top of the rankings, for example. |
I'm not saying that the winners were bad, or that mine should have won, my problem is that people just throw it a bad score without an explination or a thought. |
Indeed. I've said it before on forums and I'll gladly say it again: Although it's frustrating not to get comments, commenting is voluntary. Whilst it's true that the lowest scoring photos might benefit from more comments and the higher scoring ones may not need them, it's also true that it's sometimes more pleasant to spend more time considering the images that one really likes.
It may also be that people simply had so little clue as to the idea (that you've explained) you were going for that they just didn't know what to put into a comment other than "don't understand how this meets the challenge" and therefore resisted, since those comments don't usually go down well.
When I decide which images to comment on I choose the ones that I really like, the ones I like a lot but can offer a suggestion of something that might be changed to make it better (in my personal opinion only) and a few that I like less but can really see the idea and think I can offer a useful comment on, such as suggestions about composition, depth of field, colours, lighting, whatever.
I often find that I don't comment photos that I really dislike and feel are really poor (and no, I'm not saying I can do better) because I just don't know what the photographer was thinking or believe I have the skills to bridge the gap between what they "see" when they look at their entry and what I see. Yours didn't fall in that category, because I think it's a nice enough image, fairly well taken, nothing much wrong with it. However, as I said above, I had no idea where you were coming from on the concept. Since, in my eyes, the failure of this image was not down to image quality (which is good) but to conveying the theme, I, and possibly many other voters, had no comments to offer.
Thats just a theory. If you don't like it, just ignore it, OK?
|
|
|
|
11/27/2003 01:15:43 AM · #25 |
no offense, mr. can, but your shot is just really, really obscure and inscrutable as to what you were trying to accomplish, without additional explanation.
furthermore, even after explained, while a technically sound image, fails to excite any great passion or intellectual reaction.
by contrast, the images that won had strong and in some cases, multilayered messages, were visually interesting, and clearly the product of some masterful thought and creative processes.
again, you're picture isn't 'bad'; you just took a subject few are passionate about and rendered a difficult to interpret picture of it. not a recipe for success in a themed photo contest.
forgive my candor, but i'm being totally honest because you seem to really want to know.
|
|
