 Scott Bricker |
B&W vs. the flower category... Has anyone given any thought yo having a category for just black & white photography (permanently, not just a monthly theme)? With no offense to flower shooters (I can be one of 'em), it seems such a very specific category, even very seasonal for many photographers. Could many of the flowers fit in the details or macro category, leaving a slot open for a black & white category? Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brendan Knell |
Lately there's been a lot of debate about the categories. I personally do agree with you that it would be a good idea to combine flowers and detail and macro(I've always been somewhat curious as to why there's two categories as most flower shots are macro). I also agree that a b&w category might be nice. But I know that a lot of people have been asking for a sports category so that would probably come first.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Scott Bricker |
Or perhaps an action/photojournalism category.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
whataya mean lately? There's always a new category to include.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Candid architecture.
|
|
|
|
||
- Carolyn M. Fletcher  Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
They just took the flowers OUT of the macro/detail category last time they redid categories. Nobody's ever gonna be happy with the categories. I'd like to see the "catch all", "open" or "miscelleneous" category back in there for all the stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else, if they must have another category.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Chance |
Yeah the categories can be a bit confusing sometimes. I do a lot of wild birds, so I'm never sure whether to post in the 'Animals' categorie or the 'Nature' category. I figure they should expand nature to include wildlife and make the 'Animals' category for pets and domestic animals. I agree too, that flowers are almost synonimous with macro. Sure, occassionally you may see an expansive shot taking in a whole garden, but mostly are up close and personal. I don't know if they should have a category dedicated to B&W. Afterall, whether it's color or B&W, the subject will still fall into one of the othe categories. Not sure about that one. Bob
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brendan Knell |
Carolyn, when they redid the categories and made the flowers category, did they give a reason? The reason I ask is like Bob said, most flower shots are macro. After I posted my first response, I went and looked at the Feb. finalists and winners. In my opinion, 99% of them were macro. There were also a couple of flower shots in the macro category.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Carolyn M. Fletcher Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
No, they didn't, but my best guess is that it was such a huge category they probably felt the need to split it up. It seems to me the Digital Darkroom and Special Effects could easily be combined, as there aren't all that many in Special Effects anyway, and that would free up a space for another category.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brendan Knell |
That's probably why they split them up. Now that you mention it, combining DDarkroom, and Special effects would be a good idea.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
When you have a category for animals, how in the world can somebody be confused about putting a picture of a bird in that category?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Chance |
It's not a matter of confusion. It's a matter of whether it is a pet animal, or an animal found in the wild. To me anyway, wildlife is considered part of nature. People go on 'Nature' trails in the hopes of seeing wildlife. Not the family pet. Bob
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Would you be as lost if you had a picture of a flower in your backyard, and a picture of a flower found out and about? An animal in the zoo, backyard, nature trail, or under the kitchen table waiting for somebody to accidentally drop some food is still and animal. This is worse than the urban corn field confusion.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Chance |
Well now that takes us to the discussion of whether or not they should do away with the flower category since most of them end up under macro anyway. And if you don't like the discussion, no one is forcing you to respond.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Who said I didn't like or dislike a discussion. In fact, it's an intriguing discussion topic, how somebody could say they find it a bit confusing(your words), when you knowingly have a category title animals, you'er talking about a picture of a bird(animal), and even with the mention of birds in the category explinations of the contest. I could give somebody some lee-way(only some) if they said they didn't know where to put insect photos. But birds? You may have been avoiding my question, but flower pictures that are in the flower category are mostly close-ups of one or two flowers, and groupings. There's a tendency for people to choose flowers for macro, so the argument would seem better to do away with macro. But the whole notion of doing away with categories is still unnecessary since they tell you a photo can fit into more than one category. But that sure dosen't provide any more confusion than if they had a vegetable category and would it be a choice between that or nature for a squash picture.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter Hundley |
Well, since I shoot mostly B&W, and never flowers, It seems like a "no-brainer" to me!! But I may not represent the majority of the masses. And Candid Archetecture sounds great to me!
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Except there'd be a some people confused about where to put photos that have more gray in then than black or white.
|
|
|
|
||
lawheadphoto.com - Larry Lawhead Contact Larry Lawhead Larry Lawhead's Gallery |
Perhaps you're right, Gregory... How about B&W and Greyscale?
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||