| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/29/2002 03:21:35 AM · #1 |
| I kinda wish I could see the type of camera used when voting on the images.. there's some that would have been better if there had been some other options.. but I dont know if the camera has those other options (aka- turn off the flash, and use a longer exposure) Some of these problems do have an impact in the technicality of the vote. Would there be a way of doing this, without losing the anoniminity of the photographer? |
|
|
|
04/29/2002 03:56:13 AM · #2 |
There's a vast variety of cameras used in these challenges - even displaying the camera type when voting would not be helpful unless you were totally conversant with each of them to assess there capability options.
I am sure that anoniminity would be threatened as very few have top-end equipment like yours and there are some I'm sure would vote down submissions from top and bottom-end equipment users. i would gues that almost all our submitters have the basic functions you mention but it would be interesting to post a the question so that users could highlight their cameras shortcomings?
Vin
|
|
|
|
04/29/2002 03:43:46 PM · #3 |
Actually, you know what would be nice...
Just be able to choose a camera type, and see all the pictures from ALL the challenges taken with that camera. |
|
|
|
04/29/2002 03:45:00 PM · #4 |
| I'd like to see the camera used under each photo-or-at least if it's digital or film. |
|
|
|
04/29/2002 03:45:31 PM · #5 |
| I dont think it would be helpfull really, The image size is 640x480 at the largest. Most images will have been cropped or reziZed down That acts as an equalized between the cameras. Sure enhaced oncameras can make a difference. But I've seen some really amazing shots with the lower end models. |
|
|
|
04/29/2002 03:46:23 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kee:
I'd like to see the camera used under each photo-or-at least if it's digital or film.
all shots here are digital, no film allowed. |
|
|
|
04/29/2002 04:23:11 PM · #7 |
rjhawkin: "The image size is 640x480 at the largest. Most images will have been cropped or reziZed down That acts as an equalized between the cameras. Sure enhaced oncameras can make a difference. But I've seen some really amazing shots with the lower end models."
True only to a certain extent. I have an under 1 megapixel camera. In the current contest, I've had a number of comments that maybe I've "over sharpened" my image. Not true at all. I only resized, adjusted saturation, and then actually used despeckle to try to soften the jaggies that are inherent in the smaller original image size. I know that the exact same shot with a newer, higher res camera wouldn't have had the same problem.
Now, don't get me wrong -- I agree that good shots can be taken with cameras like mine. However, I do have to wonder if any of them will ever win simply because they don't create the "crystal clear" focus of "better" models. So, I agree with others -- in fact, I'd posted a comment similar to this earlier today in the "web site" portion of the forums. I'd love to know what kind of camera each image was shot with and maybe even their maximum resolution. I think I'd vote a jaggie picture one way with a high end camera and a different way with a lower end camera.
Ultimately, I do know the abilities and limits of my camera, but it can be a trifle disheartening to get the feeling I'm being voted down because I simply don't have quite the same output ability as someone else.
(Yes, yes, I know this site isn't all about winning... but it sure is a whole lot. *grin*)
|
|
|
|
04/30/2002 03:29:44 AM · #8 |
I've been an "amatuer" photographer, amatuer in the sense that I dont make money from it, for a long time. I'm rather new to using digital cameras tho. One thing i've learned in using regular "film" photography, is its not necessarily the camera, its whose behind it. I imagine any boob can pick up a $5,000 camera and take a flawless photo. A real artist, though, can take a $5 disposable camera, and still make you FEEL something.
So, to me, a real artist can take, for instance, a Mavica FD-73, and still capture the life and essense of a moment. Any boob can pick up a $5k olympus digicam and take a sharp photo.
Since I hope to submit my first answer to a challenge, I'll see if I actually know what i'm talking about ;)
* This message has been edited by the author on 4/30/2002 3:49:04 AM.
|
|
|
|
04/30/2002 05:57:44 AM · #9 |
but can an artist pick up a boob and make it feel something?
sorry couldnt resist... |
|
|
|
04/30/2002 07:19:40 AM · #10 |
| I'd like to see the aperature and shutter value fields back on the voting pages (and think they should be required - none of this "N/A" I see from time to time), but not the ISO (the 50 on the Canon and the odd 80, 160, 320 on the Oly would compromise anonymity). It's a lot easier to tell if something is blurred from misfocus vs. camera shake vs. shallow DOF, for example, if you've got the dope on the exposure. It also makes it easier to make useful comments on how an image could be improved. |
|
|
|
04/30/2002 08:18:03 AM · #11 |
Lennier -- I completely agree with you. I love my $15 Holga medium format camera with its guess at the focus look and vignetting and all the other technical "limits" that a plastic camera makes me work around. I think I've managed to take some great pictures with it.
However, until we can see jaggies as, say, the digital equivalent of film grain or something, I still think that it won't matter how good a photog you are, there will still be artifacts introduced to your photos that will be seen as imperfections.
As always, that's just my opinion. :-) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 02:08:16 AM EDT.
