|
I only look at the camera if I already like the picture and I'm wondering how the photographer got it.
Megapixels don't much count. The last photo in my stream was taken with a 10.7 Mp camera, but even viewed large it's less than 0.3 Mp on flickr.
I never do challenge groups, though, it makes no sense to me.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
GabrielR [deleted] says:
"anything can look great with the best camera money can buy"...
NOT TRUE.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If the challenge pertains to a particular theme I look at how well the photographer has represented the theme overall and then I look at the composition and technical aspects of the photograph.
I disagree with the notion that anything can look great with a good camera. At the end of the day the camera is just a tool. It's the photographer that makes the photo. Having decent tools may help you produce a technically superior photo but no camera can help you with the composition and artistic aspects of photography.
I've seen some great photos taken with point and shoots and some really crappy photos taken with top of the line gear.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Background info: I use a Canon Powershot G6, which is just one level above point-and-shoots. Granted, it is a very good camera, but it is not an SLR with all the fancy lenses.
I do not take it into consideration at all. In fact, it does not interest me at all what camera they used to take that shot. I do not think I have ever looked at someone's EXIF to see what kind of camera they are using.
Ever.
But I am interested in what program they use to achieve their post-processing (if not film).
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
does a bad tradesperson always blame their tools?
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
For instance, if a pretty good shot was taken with a 5 megapixel camera and it is going against a 12 megapixel professional shot, do you give it a handicap?
If you think that actually makes a difference ... well, you probably just need some more experience with photography.
I mean anything can look great with the best camera money can buy.
Um, no. That has so little to do with it, it's not even funny.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A great photo is a great photo period. Are my pics the best? No. Is it because of my camera? 98% of the time it's not. There are times when I am frustrated with noise that I may not have with a DSLR and sometimes I get motion blur that I would not get if my camera was faster but the majority of the time, if I get a photo that is less than stellar, it because of my technical skill and newness to the world of photography.
I would pick a well composed well lit p&s photo over a sub-par DSLR photo any day. If it's better it's better.
Originally posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
amanda ♥ finnrose edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
Before i came to Flick i did time at other major photosites critting thousands of pics in depth. Kinda obsession. My fave digital "look" is the early D100's. Just surreal. Canon contrasts seem to portray birds better than Nikon. Nikon does other things better, buildings etc.
Thats just general observations but really the camera means little. If an exposure is near perfect the adjust ranges are very broad. If expose is weak, narrow and difficult to optimize. Production for the web plays a bigger role than cam type. Beyond basic colour correction and USM a change in picture mood can be noted in as little as +/-1 brightness/contrast adjusts on a very solid expose.
Almost all cams today are auto everything except taking off the lens cap and holding the thing straight. Its rare to see a level horizon on this site so that says something. Beyond composition most of the artistry is mastering adjusts and knowing a strong expose for a weak one.
Theres a misconception among beginners that "PS" is some kind of cheating or bogus. The basic law is PS can enhance your raw image but it can never genuinely improve it. Its like dressing up a bum in a suit, still got a bum down deep. Its long been used to mask a poor expose but people see through that.
Normally a weak expose when brought to acceptable parimeters... that range may be +/- 5 or less, that u think it looks ok at. It will have a lot of grain noise or in the case of a sunset, black clouds and nicotine like tones, plus a weak look in open areas of sky. ...nothing can change that.....whereas a perfect expose range will look great in a +/- 20 range with zero noise, banding etc.
Perfect is rare until you begin quantifying and treating your pics objectively...a loser is a loser throw it out, unless of course its historic or something. Define why it is weak or blown out, if autoexpose, its gotta be the light...its always the dam light...sorry i got a bit off track but see so many folks here post a raw shot straight from the cam expecting thats all there is to it, but of course thats not so. Even a very cheap cam has a better metering system today than a highend one pre 80's.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
delete what huh?? hope i didnt write all that crap for nothing
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If it makes you feel better, I read it...;)
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Some of the high end point & shoots are pretty nice....but why don't the Canons (and others) shoot RAW? I love my daughter's Panasonic TZ-1, but I don't like how it tries to smooth grain, especially at high ISO......
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Not sure why poster erased this but it was a very good thread. Something like .... when u have to judge pictures on a quality basis in a rating group, do you take into account expense and cam type and make allowences to level the playing field.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Maybe the Thread title can be restored. I agree that the question was a good one.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yes, that was a strange deletion... and indeed it would be better to have an informative subject. Would you like to make a suggestion?
Edited to add: I posted a tentative replacement subject line. Let me know if it is inaccurate.
Originally posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
ƃoʌɐʇsnƃ (a group admin) edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
Ernest Hemingway: "Good pictures, what camera do you use?"
Irving Penn: "What typewriter do you use?"'
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Excellent quote Dave!
I often say similar things if someone makes similar comments to me."I expect you type some really great emails with that Macbook pro".
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've wondered about this, I seem to have had my average scores in scoring groups drop after I started leaving my EXIF in. (and thus admitting to shooting a 1dsII.)
Leveling, jealousy, or my skills going to hell?
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Leveling, jealousy, or my skills going to hell?
Raw red jealousy, obviously.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The EXIF data is stripped from my uploads by the PP software. Besides EXIF data is anal it hold no useful information.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've been judged by what camera I use... But do I care? No. I've seen some of the best shots on a disposable, and some of the worst on a hasselblad... Equipment only matters in as far as how well you can use it.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
well... more expensive cameras dont make good photos alone they are just a tool. But I certainly find my SLR less fustrating and more enjoyable than my point and shoot so I think most of my pictures are better - but then I see photos way better than mine taken with point and shoots all the time - and I sometimes check someones EXIF data for exposure time or aperture.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Totalvoyew [deleted] says:
Some folks are real camera snobs. I have seen some terrific photos taken from disposable cameras.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Some folks are real camera snobs.
Go to a bird reserve and watch them checking out the make of binoculars you're carrying. Funniest is those with chunky branded shoulder straps.
www.sherwoods-photo.com/swarov_bino/strap.jpg
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Swarovski: Purveyors of Crystal Bunny Wunnies Since 1895
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
'Course, I've also had a case or two of "lens envy" when at the nature preserve or zoo....
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm not of the belief that the camera doesn't matter when taking a picture. I have some shots that are pretty good taken with a Sony Mavica 1.2 Mp camera, but If I had a Nikon D200 with a 70-200 f2.8 VR the shot would be frame worthy. As it stands now I can't print the shots I have from Africa because of the limitation of the camera I used. Now, this isn't to say that the shots aren't good, but with a better camera the shots would be better. So the camera doesn't make the photographer per se, but in many cases makes a photograph better.
-lee
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Swarovski: Purveyors of Crystal Bunny Wunnies Since 1895
Yeah is amazing what a brand name can do.
www.swoptics.co.uk/view.asp?key=1776
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Some of my best shots were taken with my old point-and-shoot, simply because it was in my bag when the moment came. I think technology has progressed to the point where just about any camera can take a decent picture...
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Walwyn- I don't think EXIF is totally useless i think it is very helpful to see how someone achieved a shot that you love when you are in the process of learning. Looking at EXIF made me start using A mode as my primary because I saw that a lot of photographers i admire used it a lot and had great results.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
skinjester [deleted] says:
EXIF is intended to assist and enable cataloging. At least I find it pretty useful to be able to sort my personal image database by:
date & time captured
date & time modified
lens used
focal length
f-stop
aperture
camera type
ISO
flash fired?
etc...
Originally posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
skinjester edited this topic 58 months ago.
|
|
e-person.ipernity.com [deleted] says:
 I agree. You need to be a good photographer first, then tools make the job easier and help getting better results.
That only if by good we mean sharp, focused and well exposed.
On the other hand, many here define good quality pictures, those taken with toy cameras that are not sharp, focused, or well exposed. To them your point of view is wrong.
You need to know whom you are talking to before hand, to avoid misunderstandings and useless flames.
Originally posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
e-person.ipernity.com edited this topic 58 months ago.
|
|
|
@friskycat01
It would seems so, but for example the other day I had the camera on A mode and the exposure for the scene I was shooting didn't look right on the screen, so I shift the camera to take the exposure from somewhere else locked it and then took the shot.
The EXIF will say it was taken centre weighted at 1/100, f7.1, which in light of what I've just told you is pretty useless. The EXIF won't tell you that I had a polarising filter on, and should I retain the EXIF after post-processing its not going to tell you what I did there either.
About the only useful information it going to be camera make and lens, but in reality all that tells you is whether some one using that combination can achieve an image you like. The rst is just geeky noise.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
:) Even wax crayons will give a fantastic (if bizarre look) if the artist knows what they are doing with them :)
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Totalvoyew [deleted] says:
Mr.Tickle have a look at this stuff made with crayon
www.jeffreyrobert.com/Gallery_1.html
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm glad the responses to this topic have gotten much better since the initial replies to my question. I'm sorry to delete the subject and description but it seems that people were using personal attacks and assumptions about me instead of focusing on the topic.
I already know that megapixels is not an accurate measure of camera quality. I know there are even bad pictures with really expensive cameras...
My question is:
in Flickr challenges, do you give weight to your vote by the camera, lens, or post processing used?
I guess I would still consider myself an amateur photographer...I have never used a lens or post processing in my shots. This is just my preference however, because I like to have a camera that can fit in my pocket and not hang around my neck all day.
Thanks for everyone's responses so far and I look forward to more of your opinions. If you have a recommendation of a high quality professional camera that can fit in your pocket, I would love that as well. :)
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
no.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
skinjester [deleted] says:
lighting, composition, context & intent are what its all about. Learning and self development are what its all about. If a challenge or "contest" helps with that, awesome! though I sort of question the need to rate and score everything as if somehow a single number summed up the worth (or pointlessness) of a particular image.
Originally posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
skinjester edited this topic 58 months ago.
|
|
|
Of course being human we take everything into account. If someone has a really expensive camera it's tempting to assume he or she is really serious about photography. Or, he or she could just be rich and stupid.
People are saying the camera doesn't matter. More precisely, cameras have gotten so good that they usually don't matter as much as they used to.
On my upcoming vacation I will leave my dslr behind and take my canon sd500, and carry it in my pocket. All the canon sd line are small and excellent, though I wouldn't go so far as to call them "professional." I'm shooting outdoors stuff; indoors the flash of the p&s leaves much to be desired.
Originally posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
doc bee edited this topic 58 months ago.
|
|
|
You shoot a red rose with the finest optical glass known to man your gonna get a great picture. Shoot it with some discount lens your gonna get a burnt blob.
You can stand back and claim your blob is artistic and even have many believe it is...cause art is subjective. But how long u been shooting blobs? I go to your stream will there be years on that venue? If anywhere in that stream you have said...ya i need to get a better cam...then all your art claims are bs and u were only running a sham.
If not and you run or are very active in Holga groups, live and breathe it, people look to you for inspiration...u are probably a Holga artist.
If you take a Holga and stick it in a highend group, no matter how masterful the comp...its gonna look like hell. And i know i run many groups and do allow them in because we are based on colour or theme not overall quality so much.
In the aestetic sense it is hurting, on a general average to some undefined ideal? Art and that ideal cannot be quantified or even defined.
Its allowed in because that person wants to be part of the group. We are not creating pics here we are experiencing creativity, friendship and common bonds. The epitomy of photographic success for most here might be something worth putting on the wall. Maybe your own wall or the white walls of Flickr. I keep my walls filthy and hope i never shoot one good enough for it. The pics on these walls i view as crap its the ones waiting to go the lab are the masterpieces. But they never are and thats good cause photography is not about pictures its about passion.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads