| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/04/2004 03:23:11 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by jenesis:
Perhaps I'll take a break, and just concentrate on baby boy due in a couple of weeks. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to get those good low angle shots when you're working around a big ol' baby belly!! :-)
|
Congratulations on your up coming child and I pray every thing goes well. Good luck! |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 03:25:53 PM · #77 |
| Just wanted to clear up that I'm not against shooting in zoos - just wanted to answer to earlier posts that say they can tell a zoo animal, etc. Wanted to point out that many reserves allow animals to roam free - so it doesn't "look like a zoo" - but regardless... I agree that if a photo is well shot, I'm giving it high scores. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 03:29:32 PM · #78 |
Back to photography for a moment. I just voted on all the wildlife photos (blessings be to High Speed internet). The photos seem to be bi-modal. There were a large number (for me at least) of very fine shots that I scored in the 8, 9 and 10 range. And there were also a lot more stinkers than usual.
I hope you look long and hard at the the best of these photos. They are wonderfully captured, and technically near perfect. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 04:16:02 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
I hope you look long and hard at the the best of these photos. They are wonderfully captured, and technically near perfect. |
I certainly gave more 10s than normal this time. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 04:32:22 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think the zoo shots are kind of defeating the purpose of this challenge, that is, to go into the wilds and find a creature to photograph. It's a whole different kind of photography than going to to a controlled environment and getting your picture. I will score those that I think were taken in truly wild places much higher than those from the zoo. Sorry, but when you brave the weather, plan for the day as to what to bring with you (photo gear, food, clothes and pay for travel expenses) then you deserve a much higher score than someone who didn't expend that kind of energy and time and got a much easier shot. |
Let's see. I had to plan the day to coincide with taking the wife to the airport, drive round trip 180 miles, spend over five hours at the zoo trying to get some good shots, put up with inclement weather as it was the only day I could do it, get my tripod bump and knocked around multiple times by the multiple kiddies running, missing good opportunities in the meantime, watch the kids yelling at the animals and making them go in to hide, etc., etc. But it was so easy, what a snap.
BTW – I spend all day yesterday climbing to the top of a mountain to get fall shots; brought food and water, clothes for weather changes, tripod and camera, spend nine hours and drove another 180 miles round trip and it was far more enjoyable.
J.B.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 04:50:25 PM · #81 |
And yet even with this optimism my photo continues to plummet. I'm at a flat 4.3 right now. Argh! It's not _that_ bad, is it? And if you rate it low, please comment on it! How am I supposed to improve if nobody tells me what I'm doing wrong?
Message edited by author 2004-10-04 16:50:57. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 04:52:01 PM · #82 |
Study past winners, and do a lot of commenting yourself. These 2 things helped me the most when I started 2 years ago.
-danny
Originally posted by xtabintun:
And yet even with this optimism my photo continues to plummet. I'm at a flat 4.3 right now. Argh! It's not _that_ bad, is it? And if you rate it low, please comment on it! How am I supposed to improve if nobody tells me what I'm doing wrong? |
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 04:55:40 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
Study past winners, and do a lot of commenting yourself. These 2 things helped me the most when I started 2 years ago.
-danny
Originally posted by xtabintun:
And yet even with this optimism my photo continues to plummet. I'm at a flat 4.3 right now. Argh! It's not _that_ bad, is it? And if you rate it low, please comment on it! How am I supposed to improve if nobody tells me what I'm doing wrong? |
|
totally agree. I became a member 2yrs ago, but started looking at the photos when I first got my digital camera in June,2004 and in the last 3 months I have been trying to study the top photos in each challenge and this has helped me a lot. Still a long way to go. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 04:58:02 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Sorry, but when you brave the weather, plan for the day as to what to bring with you (photo gear, food, clothes and pay for travel expenses) then you deserve a much higher score than someone who didn't expend that kind of energy and time and got a much easier shot. |
Actually I don't think that's true.
Scores should not be given because the photographer deserves them but because the photograph deserves them. It's the photograph we're judging, surely? On it's own merit.
How hard or easy it was to capture is irrelevant to how much I like the image. I may recognise, when I view an image, that it probably took a lot of effort and I may feel admiration for the photographer for making that effort but... I won't score the image better because of it.
That's my opinion, anyway.
It should be the results that count, not how they were realised.
Message edited by author 2004-10-04 16:58:29.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 05:00:31 PM · #85 |
Actually I don't think that's true.
Scores should not be given because the photographer deserves them but because the photograph deserves them. It's the photograph we're judging, surely? On it's own merit.
How hard or easy it was to capture is irrelevant to how much I like the image. I may recognise, when I view an image, that it probably took a lot of effort and I may feel admiration for the photographer for making that effort but... I won't score the image better because of it.
That's my opinion, anyway.
It should be the results that count, not how they were realised. [/quote]
Ok - ignore my original post. Kavita is right on!
J.B. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 05:02:11 PM · #86 |
Wow! I agree with Kavey on this! :-) :hug
I actually had several shots early on that I spent a lot of time on, and found them quite challenging to create, and in the end they only had average scores. I learned then that my end result was more important than the difficulty of the shot. If the shot pleases the voters, than a quick snapshot can be just as powerful as a 2 day photo shoot.
-danny
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Sorry, but when you brave the weather, plan for the day as to what to bring with you (photo gear, food, clothes and pay for travel expenses) then you deserve a much higher score than someone who didn't expend that kind of energy and time and got a much easier shot. |
Actually I don't think that's true.
Scores should not be given because the photographer deserves them but because the photograph deserves them. It's the photograph we're judging, surely? On it's own merit.
How hard or easy it was to capture is irrelevant to how much I like the image. I may recognise, when I view an image, that it probably took a lot of effort and I may feel admiration for the photographer for making that effort but... I won't score the image better because of it.
That's my opinion, anyway.
It should be the results that count, not how they were realised. |
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 05:03:19 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
Wow! I agree with Kavey on this! :-) :hug |
Gotta happen eventually... law of averages or sumtin!
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 05:34:17 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Sorry, but when you brave the weather, plan for the day as to what to bring with you (photo gear, food, clothes and pay for travel expenses) then you deserve a much higher score than someone who didn't expend that kind of energy and time and got a much easier shot. |
Actually I don't think that's true.
Scores should not be given because the photographer deserves them but because the photograph deserves them. It's the photograph we're judging, surely? On it's own merit.
How hard or easy it was to capture is irrelevant to how much I like the image. I may recognise, when I view an image, that it probably took a lot of effort and I may feel admiration for the photographer for making that effort but... I won't score the image better because of it.
That's my opinion, anyway.
It should be the results that count, not how they were realised. |
I disagree. Yes this is a photography site. But if we were to use this we might as well turn it into a Photo of the day site like all the others.
The challenges are there for a reason and the criteria is there for a reason, not to find an easier way around it to get a good photo. We are suppose to be voting on the best photo taken the given difficulties for that situation, In this challenge we are not doing that.
Zooming in to take a lovely photo of the face of an animal in a zoo is far easier than getting a shot of that animal in the wild. I think that all of us who actually took the time to go into the wild to get our shots are being unfairly compared to the zoo photos.
Let me ask you this. If the challenge was to say. This is a "Wildlife" challenge. All those with even profile numbers may use a zoo and all those with uneven numbers must go into the animals natural environment to get their photo and then all will be voted on within the one challenge as if all taken in the wild. How would you feel.
Don't get me wrong I know its not easy in a zoo but that does not make it fit this challenge discription.
I believe that the true in the wild photo are loosing out because the degree of difficulty is much higher than that in a zoo and all we want to do is vote on the quality of an image.
I thought the discription was so that the quality of the photos would be compared to other photos taken with the same degree of difficulty.
Well my 0.50c worth
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 05:36:19 PM · #89 |
| I started off my voting by taking the challenge rules seriously and penalizing those photos I thought were shot in a "controlled" environment as opposed to a "natural" environment. It sure would have made things easier had the authors of this challenge clarified the rules by saying either "no zoo photos" or "zoo photos are okay." In any event, after reading this discussion I've decided to go back over all my votes and bump up the photos I penalized if I think they deserve a higher score, assuming they fit the challenge rules in all other respects. It really made me uncomfortable trying to figure out if someone had "cheated", especially as some commenters claim to have taken their shot in a natural environment but were afraid it would be misjudged. I guess I'd rather err on the side of generosity, especially considering that the rules weren't very clear to begin with. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 05:53:33 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Gurilla:
The challenges are there for a reason and the criteria is there for a reason, not to find an easier way around it to get a good photo. We are suppose to be voting on the best photo taken the given difficulties for that situation, In this challenge we are not doing that. |
I didn't suggest for a moment that we not take into account the CHALLENGE. I said we should judge on how good the resulting image is (within the context of the challenge). Not on how difficult it was to take it or how much the photographer hurt his knee when he fell off the rock on which he was standing.
Vote on HOW GOOD the image is in the context of the challenge. Not how hard it was to create. How could a voter possibly know that anyway?
I'm pretty sure I've never read anything about considering how difficult an image was to produce. [/quote]
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 05:59:08 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It sure would have made things easier had the authors of this challenge clarified the rules by saying either "no zoo photos" or "zoo photos are okay." |
I think "natural environment" was a weak attempt to do just that, but since it wasn't spelled out clearly, that left the door open to interpretation. IMHO as long as the environment appears natural, the photo meets the challenge. Photography is about capturing an image. Unless you're a journalist, how you achieve that image is secondary. Most of us don't live near Yellowstone. Fair or not, we have to make the best of what we've got available, whether that means full camouflage and a duck blind, carefully placed bird seed and patience, a trip to the zoo- or even an interesting angle at a museum! Ironically, voting down zoo shots puts those who ARE located near wild, "exotic" animals at a disadvantage because they might be wrongly assumed to be captive.
If we were asked to take a photo of a fisherman holding a fish, you could take your chances with a can of worms or you could just go buy a fish. In the end, you would be judged on the photo, and a good photo of a store-bought fish would outscore a bad shot of wild trout- no matter what you went through to get it.
Message edited by author 2004-10-04 18:07:44. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 06:02:42 PM · #92 |
| I feel sorry for the people who did go out and wait seven hours for a one second shot of an animal only to find that someone has taken it upon themselves to deem their shot taken in a zoo. Unless there are fences clearly in the shot you cannot assume it was taken in a zoo. Therefore any shot you judge to be in a zoo runs the risk of being misinterpretated. And why? All for the sake of trying extremely hard to make a point instead of enjoying some wonderful photography. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 06:03:42 PM · #93 |
Bottom line for me is that I don't see how a zoo is a natural environment and to me those shots taken in the zoo do not meet the challenge, whether or not they are harder or easier to get. Those shots that to me are obviously zoo shots I will score lower, say start at a base of 1 and work up from there, with maybe the highest score they could get would be a 5. On the other hand, for those shots that to me are obviously in their natural environment then start at a base of 5 and work up from there with the highest a 10. For those shots that are not obvious to me at all, I will most likely pass on. I also don't see how a zoo animal is non-domesticated as the zoo becomes their home and they are reliant on humans for their food, shelter, etc whereas in the wilds they are responsible for themselves.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 06:05:39 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Unless there are fences clearly in the shot you cannot assume it was taken in a zoo. |
And even fences aren't necessarily indicative. Given our propensity to destroy so much of that "natural environment" many remaining natural areas are preserved by being protected. Fences usually run around the edge to separate them from the non-natural environment that would otherwise encroach.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 06:08:51 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by moodville:
Unless there are fences clearly in the shot you cannot assume it was taken in a zoo. |
And even fences aren't necessarily indicative. Given our propensity to destroy so much of that "natural environment" many remaining natural areas are preserved by being protected. Fences usually run around the edge to separate them from the non-natural environment that would otherwise encroach. |
This is very true. Deers often roam the fields of farmers that are fenced off. It is indeed their natural environment even if it is controlled by man and the food grown by man. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 06:09:48 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I also don't see how a zoo animal is non-domesticated as the zoo becomes their home and they are reliant on humans for their food, shelter, etc whereas in the wilds they are responsible for themselves. |
Captivity does NOT equal domestication. Bear in mind that any given wild animal may still appear in front of (or behind) a fence. You'd have no way of knowing whether it was on the outside looking in. Furthermore, safari-type zoos and private game preserves would allow you to capture a shot with acres of background scenery (even rivers and mountains), yet those animals are no less captive than a traditional zoo. No matter how badly you might want to elevate the "wild" aspect, unless the animal is practically hanging on a rope swing, you're just voting blindly.
Message edited by author 2004-10-04 18:26:52. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 06:22:28 PM · #97 |
I think it's mistaken to think that in order to get a wildlife shot you have to have gone to Yellowstone or some exotic park and try to capture a rhino, tiger, giraffe, elephant, etc. I went to a natural environment that was within biking distance of my home and tried to get the best shot that I could of a creature of that natural surroundings. Despite the fact that I worked hard to get a descent shot for two days and came away with a subpar photograph, I learned a lot and enjoyed the photography and surroundings immensely.
Those kinds of natural surroundings are near to almost everyone, including those living in the city and I think most could have accessed those places. The art of photography isn't just about learning the technical aspects of using photographic equipment, pointing it at some remote and uninvolving subject and snapping the picture. Doing this kind of photography gets you involved with, and knowing your subject more thoroughly and I think it's more satisfying. |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 06:24:28 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I also don't see how a zoo animal is non-domesticated as the zoo becomes their home and they are reliant on humans for their food, shelter, etc whereas in the wilds they are responsible for themselves. |
Captivity does NOT equal domestication. |
So then what does define domestication? |
|
|
|
10/04/2004 06:29:34 PM · #99 |
I'm with the folks who think zoo shots were an easy way out. But I blame the site administrators for not spelling this challenge out more clearly. Shooting an animal in its real habitat is nothing like shooting at a zoo, and if animals could talk I don't think they'd say they were in their "natural environment." :)
But aside from that, you people blow my mind. There are some awesome shots in this challenge - much higher quality than I've seen in other recent challenges.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2004 06:33:40 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So then what does define domestication? |
VERB: To train to live with and be of use to people.
Tigers and alligators, as a species, do not fit into that definition (as Roy Horn will tell you). |
|
