| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2003 01:29:24 AM · #1 |
Hello,
I've been thinking about the challenge, and the fairness of it. My last challenge was my best ever and I'm not entered in the current ones so recent scores aren't affecting what I'm about to say. I think figuring out a way to handicap users based on their hardware should be thought about. A simple system in which each camera is given a rating based on its color, focus, megapixels, etc. Then use the EXIF data to verify that the camera listed is the actual one used, then add or remove a number of points from the final score based on that.
I believe this system would level the playing field for all DPC users and encourage better photographs, not better hardware.
Thank you.
-togtog
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 02:45:57 AM · #2 |
This photo was taken with a £500 camera and an add-on telephoto lens (another £70).
This photo was taken by my girlfriend with a £200 camera in auto/landscape mode on the same day.
As you can see, the scores were *very* close despite my equipment costing 3 times more than hers. I had to put up with a lot of taunting that week, God help me if I start losing points for having a better cam!
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 02:49:37 AM · #3 |
Unfortunately, as I told you in chat, nothing can be implemented here that relies on EXIF data for verification. This is why DQ's for date violations weren't enforced before.
I know a lot of people say that low end hardware isn't a handicap, since people do well with lower end cameras. But there's a difference between being able to score really high from time to time, and being able to score highish consistently. I just went and calculated my average score with the Polaroid PDC 1320 I used to have, and it was 4.8. My average since I upgraded to an Olympus C-720UZ is 5.5. I don't think I've increased in ability in that time. The fact that I've mostly submitted to the members challenges with the Olympus may have an effect, because scores can be higher there on average. But I think part of the jump is a systematic effect due to the increased image quality of my photos.
This, to me, suggests that there's a case for scaling people's scores based on camera quality. How you would work this out and implement it, though, is another question. I doubt that it would actually make this site a more harmonious place, either. I can easily imagine the complaints it would get. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 02:57:45 AM · #4 |
Personally my main purpose for being here is to learn. It doesn't matter that much what kind of camera I'm using. The ability to see a good photo and compose it properly has nothing to do camera price.
Next challenge I think I'll use my $20 web cam just to prove my point.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 03:10:33 AM · #5 |
| I think any pros would outweigh the cons. The whole idea of confirming photos with the EXIF data and setting up a handicap system for different equipment is too complicated. As the owner of a middle of the line camera, I'd just as soon take my chances against the people with superior cameras, as most people on this site have. It adds to the challenge. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 05:21:16 AM · #6 |
| Togtog, given the 640 pixel size rule, I don’t think there is much the lower end cameras can’t do to be competitive in this challenge, except perhaps super fast or clear low light, long exposure shots. My pocket Minolta broke down last week and a neighbour lent me the same camera you own for the presently online challenges. Fine piece of equipment, and certainly an upgrade from what I have. Not much you can’t do with this camera. Checking under “cameras” to see how well you are doing in your own category is another way you can approach the challenge (easy for me to say since I’m the only one in mine with pictures to show). |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 07:40:18 AM · #7 |
TogTog
My wife took 3rd place with THIS PICTURE in the humor challenge, using a 1.3mpx camera with no manual capabilities.
She's also placed in the top 10 and 20 a few times with the same camera.
I won the Road Signs challenge with a Kodak point and shoot.
How many times do people have to say it:
IT'S NOT THE CAMERA, IT'S THE PERSON BEHIND IT!!!! :):)
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 09:20:02 AM · #8 |
I don't like the idea of handicapping at all. I will agree that having a good camera can be an advantage. However, I also totally agree with magnetic. Great photographs can come from the cheapest cameras.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 09:24:12 AM · #9 |
actually by my experience the inverse is true:
the crappier the cam i use the better i do.
LOL
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 09:35:44 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by jjbeguin:
My pocket Minolta broke down last week and a neighbour lent me the same camera you own for the presently online challenges. Fine piece of equipment, and certainly an upgrade from what I have. Not much you can’t do with this camera. |
Togtog isn't concerned with himself or his own camera at all. He is a sensitive, caring guy who is having trouble watching another friend of ours being upset by low scores and bad comments. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 09:35:50 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by lisae:
I know a lot of people say that low end hardware isn't a handicap, since people do well with lower end cameras. But there's a difference between being able to score really high from time to time, and being able to score highish consistently. I just went and calculated my average score with the Polaroid PDC 1320 I used to have, and it was 4.8. My average since I upgraded to an Olympus C-720UZ is 5.5. I don't think I've increased in ability in that time. |
I have to disagree with you Lisa. It was your old camera that you used for This image and while I like most of your stuff, this one has always been a favorite. If you look at your score progression, you'll see your scores were steadily rising before the new camera.
It would be interesting if we found a cheap (under $100US) camera and had a challenge where everyone that wanted to enter had to buy one and use it. It would need to be a special challenge since it would cost to be able to enter. But if folks want a level playing field, that is the only realistic way to achieve it.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 09:39:03 AM · #12 |
I need a pretty good camera for the type of shots I like to do (stop motion, bright colours, macros, etc). I need something with full manual mode. By pretty good, I mean something that lets me controle the exposures. However, I think that the best camera in the world won't guarantee you nice pictures if you can't compose properly or think creatively from time to time.
I still enjoy taking pictures with my HP 315: 2 mega pixels, no optical zoom, fully automatic. I have to run back and forth to get the proper framing; what a hoot!
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 09:52:49 AM · #13 |
| I recently upgraded my camera from the Finepix 2600. Does my new one take great pics? YES! Do I take great pics? NO! I am very new to all of this and am just learning how to make everything work for me. I still do not quite understand how my camera even works, let alone the exact science behind it all. Has my scores gone up since the new camera? Yes. I think that this is because as with any new toy, I am using it much much much more. I don't think that the handicap idea would be good for soooo many reasons, even if I had my old $200 camera. I will probably never win or even come close to winning a challenge, but have fun trying, and learn a ton. I think that is the most important thing of all. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 10:09:00 AM · #14 |
The last time I used my 6 year old, fixed lens, no zoom, no white balance, 1Mp camera I scored 5.7
That's almost exactly the same as my average for the whole year using a Canon G2. It is exactly the same as my average for using a D60 in the last month or so.
The hardware may limit the kinds of shots that you can take effectively, so that you have to understand what you can and cannot do well. This is the same with any camera, expensive or not. It's the person behind the camera, not the camera. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 10:16:54 AM · #15 |
All I know is that I haven't scored below 5 once with my new camera, when most of my scores with my old one were in the 4s. Back then, it was a huge blow to my self confidence. I didn't know how much was my fault and how much was my camera's fault. A lot of you here don't know that feeling, because you're experienced photographers who know you can do well. When you don't know that, and you have no idea how much of an effect your camera is having on your scores, it's an incredibly frustrating process.
Right now, photography is a joy to me rather than a frustrating, unpredictable ordeal. I can tell the scores I get reflect my own ability and my own artistic or technical decisions. I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand the barrier you hit when you can't tell at all whether you're a crap photographer, or whether your camera is to blame.
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. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 10:28:57 AM · #16 |
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. I'm certainly not talking as an experienced photographer, unless a year counts as experienced, but I can still get scores in the high 5s using a very old, very poor quality camera. What I have done is spent a lot of time working on composition, subject and lighting and trying to understand what works and doesn't work - not just for dpc, but for the pictures I like in general. People score badly with really expensive, top of the line, brand new cameras too, some of my worst scores were with a D60. I guess I don't have the luxury of blaming the camera for those ones, so I have to take it on board personally.
Message edited by author 2003-02-05 10:30:30. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 10:31:54 AM · #17 |
If i win I want it to be because people believe my photo is superior, not because of a handicap system. The bottom line is you need to know your equipment so it's limitations aren't a main issue.
If you know a photo isn't going to work well with your camera, try a different shot. Sure, sometimes I wish my camera had better aperture control, but if I don't getthe shot I'm looking for I move on and forget it.
I think the larger problem is simply the people with lower end cameras are new to photography and just need to learn a bit.
Message edited by author 2003-02-05 10:32:56. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 10:36:53 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
People score badly with really expensive, top of the line, brand new cameras too, some of my worst scores were with a D60. I guess I don't have the luxury of blaming the camera for those ones, so I have to take it on board personally. |
As I tried to say in my previous post, I am VERY HAPPY not to have the "luxury" of blaming my equipment for my scores now. It's a massive relief. It is pure joy. It is extremely liberating. I know I took decisions and the equipment did what I wanted it to, and people responded to that. And I also know that the scores I get now are higher. They're not as high as yours, or mag's, or Setzler's, or any of the other ribbon-winning photographers here. But for my own purposes, scoring 5s instead of 4s is bliss. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 10:42:06 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by lisae:
As I tried to say in my previous post, I am VERY HAPPY not to have the "luxury" of blaming my equipment for my scores now. It's a massive relief. It is pure joy. It is extremely liberating. I know I took decisions and the equipment did what I wanted it to, and people responded to that. And I also know that the scores I get now are higher. They're not as high as yours, or mag's, or Setzler's, or any of the other ribbon-winning photographers here. But for my own purposes, scoring 5s instead of 4s is bliss. |
I apologise if you took what I said earlier as some sort of personal comment or if it sounded like I thought you were complaining. I'm just trying to say that I don't believe that the quality of the camera makes as large an impact as some believe. It is certainly harder to do certain types of photography well with a cheaper camera, but that doesn't mean that they cannot perform well and score highly. It may be an easy thing to blame though. The scores that have been achieved with cheap cameras show that you can get good results with them. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 10:54:03 AM · #20 |
OK, I didn't mean to sound emotional, but this is a sensitive debate because it's about ability vs. equipment. This is the crux of the misunderstanding:
Originally posted by Gordon:
It may be an easy thing to blame though. The scores that have been achieved with cheap cameras show that you can get good results with them. |
Yes you can get good results from them, and I did. The issue for me though was my low scores, not the high ones. I do not believe I'm a crap photographer, nor do I think I'm a great one. I'm not serious enough about photography to become that good. I'm a perfectionist in my 3D graphics work, so I like taking photos without putting that much effort into them because it gives me instant gratification and a way to relax.
In my hands, and those of most people who treat photography as a hobby, equipment does make a difference. We don't have the time or the inclination to achieve the level of understanding you have, which is very high, and I admire it considerably. Given the level of effort I am happy to put into my photos, the equipment I use makes a difference. This is going to be the same for anyone like me who takes about 30 photos a week rather than 300 or more.
To me, this site is about having fun. It's no fun when you get low scores for things that are out of your control UNLESS you're going to put the time and effort into improving your skills/understanding enough to compensate for having bad equipment.
Is that statement a good enough compromise? :) |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 10:56:51 AM · #21 |
| I just realised I made it sound like I just point and shoot. I don't, I've used full manual mode on all the photos I've submitted with my Olympus. I've used manual cameras since I was 12. It was more the case that I wasn't able to put the time into learning how to get good results with a fully automatic, low res, high noise camera. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 11:05:34 AM · #22 |
i fully understand about the REALLY low end (sub $100) and really older level cameras. As i said in another thread once upon a time, YES, people are conditioned to expect a certain level of image quality. Anything that's grainier, more artifacted or perceptibly crappy because of hardware limitations will DEFINITELY not do as well ..
That said, it's possible to get a cheap cam on a student budget nowadays that, as long as you dont badly exceed it's limits and abilities, can go head to head image quality-wise, with most mainstream cams .. :)
So I hear ya, Lisa, and again, congrats on your new cam ..
|
|
|
|
02/05/2003 11:20:35 AM · #23 |
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 :). |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 12:08:09 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by lisae:
In my hands, and those of most people who treat photography as a hobby, equipment does make a difference. We don't have the time or the inclination to achieve the level of understanding you have, which is very high, and I admire it considerably. Given the level of effort I am happy to put into my photos, the equipment I use makes a difference. This is going to be the same for anyone like me who takes about 30 photos a week rather than 300 or more.
|
I think this is a big point - people get better by taking more pictures, not buying more expensive equipment. I'm not suggesting randomly taking pictures, but taking more shots of a subject, conciously working with the composition, trying different exposures, new angles, perspectives, rotations, distances, and then spending the time to look at the _bad_ pictures to work out what was wrong with them and learning from that.
Digital shots are free, and cheap cameras have a real advantage over expensive kit in that respect - I can fit over 10,000 shots on a single card with my HP C20 - I can take a whole load of pictures of the same thing and learn from them. I can maybe get 30 shots on the same card with the D60 in high quality mode.
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.
I've taken pictures while jumping up and down or running down the street. I've tried swinging my camera on the end of the strap while using the timer. I've had funny looks from people while doing it. I've shot at +4 normal exposure and -4 and liked some of the results, deliberately moved the camera during flash shots, tried a whole series of shots around the house with the camera as out of focus as I could get it. Mostly the results were rubbish. Every now and then I've gotten an idea that I've been able to reuse to make a more effective picture later. Just a thought.
Message edited by author 2003-02-05 12:10:50. |
|
|
|
02/05/2003 12:34:30 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by togtog:
Hello,
I've been thinking about the challenge, and the fairness of it. My last challenge was my best ever and I'm not entered in the current ones so recent scores aren't affecting what I'm about to say. I think figuring out a way to handicap users based on their hardware should be thought about.
-togtog |
Togtog,
I don't think there should be a handicap rating or anything like that. I've seen some great images on here that were 1 to 2 MP shots that have gotten in the top 5. My wife placed 7th with one of her shots that was shot at 1024X700 (something like that) and I think that is about 1 MP or less. You've got a great camera and I've seen lots of 1st place wins with it. |
|
