 ALLEN O. HOWARD |
Information I am curious as to why so many of the winners do not add any of the info as to thier entries. I thought that this was a criteria. I really appreciate seeing this but do not understand how they continue to win without it. Granted, these are great photographers but is not what is good for the goose also good for...? I am wondering why I should waste time with this. Any answers?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
I've seen many great contest winners here, but I too have scratched my head as to what techniques were used to obtian the prize winning shot. What surprises me more is that few people who submit responses to the winners ever ask "how did you do it?" Ray
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mike Rubin |
I have stopped adding Exp. data with most of the photos I post. Focal length usually has to do with your distance to the subject and the composition you are looking for. Sure shutter speed means a lot when you are blurring motion or freezing it but is dependent on the speed of the object, Even a waterfall can flow at a different speed than another one., Aperture is important not only for lighting but for creative use of DOF, But take a shot 5 minutes later and you may need to alter your setting to achieve the same results. I like when people state if there was difficult lighting, if filters were used,& what post processing was done.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Even though many digital cameras record EXIF information, the truth probably lies in the fact that most amateurs aren't interested in the information. Digital photography, along with Photoshop and other editing programs, allows a maker a great deal of latitiude. Immediately upon adjusting Levels, what does the actual aperture or shutter speed really mean? There's also another interesting fact that was published in either Pop Photo or Modern Photography [I'm showing my age again] many years ago. Most photographs - like maybe 60-70 percent - are taken at apertures of f/5.6 to f/11, at 125th sec. All the fuss about ISo, etc. doesn't really mean much to the amateur. But, you're absolutely correct. This information should be included - if, only, to force the maker to become more aware of the creative controls at his/her disposal. Unfortunately, the current ads for digital suggest that anyone can make "professional" images. The Professionals must scream out loud every time they read one of these.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Uh oh, deja vu. Film has wider lattitude than digital, so if info means little, it'll mean less with film. So it's not a digital issue. Current ads are saying the same thing they said with film cameras. Unless there's an ad for a film camera that states our camera is expensive, but unless you read the manual and get yourself a good how-to book, you're still not going to get any better. Info is there if you ask, I'm sure. Shouldn't be required. Especially since with some time looking around on their own and reading, some practice, those that want to know can look at a picture and see what was done many times. Otherwise, all you have to do is ask by cliking to send and email. And I'm talking about straight forward shots. Clarify that before somebody goes into the digital darkroom thing again.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
There's more than just glancing info that I would like to know, for instance what lens and focal length? Was flash used or other type of lighting? Rarly ever see that here. And with digital, I'm curious as to what PS work might have been done to the image as well. Over the years, I've learned a lot from such information. Ray
|
|
|
|
||
|
ALLEN O. HOWARD |
Exactly, Raymond, But ultimately this is where I am going. In the rules and guidelines under TITLING AND DESCRIBING YOUR IMAGES, It says "Be specific. The judges especially like to see DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS of the equipment and techniques used, notes that are true and helpful to the beginner..." I could go on but my point is if this is "CRITERIA", then why are so many winners sliding by on this? Be it digital or film, info is always helpful. But so many simply give thier name and are omiting what is considered a standard. And keep winning. Yes they are wonderful photographers but they are sidestepping an impotant issue., Allen
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
Allen I guess simply put many contestants choose not to follow the guidelines and there's no penalty for doing that, the guidelines have no teeth. You probably didn't see it but this was thrashed out in this thread. I can appreciate your point of view!
|
|
|
|
||
|
ALLEN O. HOWARD |
I see what you mean, Jane! I went through the thread and I guess the simplist way is to stop worrying about it. I added a couple of entries here lately and did not bother with the data. It is so easy to make a note of what filter you used in PS. and to track your own personal techniques. I am sorry I brought this up but I'm with you in that this has a little to do with ethics. And if the attitude is I am not going to take the time, noone wants to know, who can remember, then I surrender. They can ignore the "implied" rules and so will I. Thanks for the thread, Allen
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
Just a final note from me Allen-: Frustrated as I was about the lack of accompanying data with some images I still continue to include information with my photos as I always think there might be one person out there who can learn something from it. Maybe you want to think again about throwing in the towel and instead carry on including descriptions as it might help someone new to the site!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
so here we are.info does not have to be included to win even though the guidelines say they must be included. and politicians stand by their promises?
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Don't confuse a rule with a guideline, and don't confuse something something that has to be done with a suggestion that somebody would like to see. Plus, if you do follow the suggestion, could you please be specific. But, with looking at a picture, you can tell if a long focal length was used. Not the exact focal length, but short telephotos or long telephotos. Same with flash. Over the years, the information that you learned, I'm sure you somewhere in those years you came out and just asked somebody how they did it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ed Wenger |
As far as the contest goes, I believe that I have read in this Forum some time ago that all the judges see is the photo. They do not see the name or the discussion.
|
|
|
|
||
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
As it should be. The only thing that should be judged is the quality of the photo.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
With one caveat, Dennis, Theme. Say the theme is Water in Motion. You enter a picture of three kaayaaks racing, titled "Finish Line." The excitement is all there, the red kayak, the bright wet suits. And, yes, there are even some droplets of water spray caught magnificently at 1/1000th sec. And, I'd disqualify the picture in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
Ed, Dennis - the judges do see them, from the guidelines: "Although the images are judged primary on the quality of the photo itself, the judges do see what you write in the title and description. Therefore, it is a good idea to put some thought into what you write. Be Specific The judges especially like to see detailed descriptions of the equipment and techniques used, notes that are true and helpful to the beginner trying to learn the art. " Whether they're called rules or guidelines they are all listed under "the judging criteria". The only real rules are under "terms and conditions", basically image usage and no nudity, etc. The only question is how much weight do each of the guidelines have, obviously the title/description is much less than the overall image but the original complaint seems to be that tech details guideline appears to have no weight whatsoever. I don't think the judges are ever going to treat the "tech details" as a 'rule', or even give much weight to it, so it boils down to how helpful the contestant wants to be to beginners on the site and to following the site ethos. It's obvious the judges would like contestants to be helpful in this way, but they don't enforce it. I personally still list tech details and techniques because I receive emails from beginners who say it is helpful and because I learned a lot from them when I started out on here.
|
|
|
|
||
|
ALLEN O. HOWARD |
I am sorry to all here that I brought this up. I'll make this as plain as I can, This is not about the wonderful photographers on BP. It seems so many are taking this personal and what I was asking is "NOT" about any of you. Ultimately it is the (Judges) who bypass this. Call it a suggesrtion call it a rule but it is in the guidlines. Be specific, Be professional, Be honest.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Nobody was taking it personally. You get judged on the photo. Sometimes a catchy title(or what sounds catchy to the judge) can add a little extra. But you get judged on the photo. Descriptions go along with courses, Q&A, discussions, critiques, and the overall atmosphere of the site to help teach and learn. Be honest when you say what you did and you actually did what you say. Be specific when you use a telephoto, say 300mm or something like that because yeah, it's obvious it was a telephoto.But don't be lazy. If you want to know, just ask.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
I am curious as to why the technical information is important to people? I frankly don't care if someone used a 24mm or a 135mm. I can usually tell the approximate range. But, it's not important to me at all. I like to look at great photography, but the very last thing I do is wonder what f stop they used. I just don't care. Why do you care?
|
|
|
|
||
|
ALLEN O. HOWARD |
I don't anymore. I was curious becuse I believed it was what they wanted. No one has to care. I am O.K with this and I will give it a proper burial., Allen Howard
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
For the past 30 years or so for me the technical information was and still is very useful to me. I may not digest all the information such as f-stop but there have been times it was handy. Now on my images I usually do not post the f-stop but I do explain a little bit about getting the shot, lens, flash, etc. Anyhow, for me it has been helpful. This thread has gotten way off track and I can see Allen in his last post has attempted to bring it back on course. It has nothing to do with the judging on potential contest winners. It would be nice to see a little more info on how the image was obtained, plain and simple. Ray
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
I’ll add another point to this discussion. Look at how many questions constantly get posted here asking “what lens is best for portraits?” or “what should I shoot at basketball games?” Now for me I learned the answer to many of these questions years ago by examining the image and the detail provided by the photographer as to what was used to get the shot. Wouldn’t others also benefit with this valuable information? I sure did. Ray
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
I'd like to weigh in here too. I am always appreciative when a photographer takes the time to include any technical, location, and aesthetic information relative to the image posted. Sites like BP are meant to help one another, and an important venue in this spirit is through sharing with others how you made any photographs you post. That said, I also concur with another poster here, pertaining to the fact that many posters simply do not "know" enough, or "retain" enough data in order to share. This is understandable, but for any seasoned photographer who posts on sites like this, and has the knowledge to know what/why/where/how he/she did, they should be willing to share said information. No secrets allowed here! Sharing is a good thing - it helps us all grow. For what it's worth, I always travel with a small Panasonic mini-cassette recorder whenever I am photographing. I record all pertinent data about the image on the spot, and transfer it to a written file once home. And yes, sometimes it does get a little difficult, especially if one is trying to shoot rapidly. Often, a series of exposures will all be the same, so one recording does it for all. Othertimes, when I am shooting rapidly, I will turn on the recorder in my shirt pocket, and talk away as I am shooting. Much to the entertainment of anyone within ear's reach of me. It is often a neat experience when you get home, and play back your recordings - background sounds like water falls and roaring creeks enable you to relive the moment! I'm with you Allen - let's all share more data with each new posting. Michael H. Cothran
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
I see your points. I was asking because I learn nothing by looking at that info. It's not interesting and I gain nothing from it. I truly don't understand what people get out of it. There are so many variations of settings, and so many reasons why photographers do what they do. I am constantly making decisions based on a certain set of circumstances. Just because I shot this shot at f/1.2 doesn't mean that's always how I shoot that shot. If I turn to the left slightly, the light could completely alter my shot, and I switch for f/4, maybe, as an example. Plus, if I give you one thing, I have to give you all things, like the level of flash, and exp comp, and exp comp on the flash, and reflectors and diffusers, the postioning of the lighting. I know for newbies, this doesn't really make sense, but if you give one tiny bit of info, you have to give it all, or it has no context. Now, if a pro photographer takes an amazing shot, and details everything out to every last detail of the entire set up, all the way through production, and then to print. Then, I can use that information. But, it almost takes a small book to do that. And, to do that for every shot is exhausting. Does that makes any sense? Telling you I used a 24-70 2.8 at 35, at ISO 400, shutter speed 250. What do you learn from that? To me, it's pretty close to meaningless because there are many, many other factors involved. Now, what is interesting is if a photographer discusses why they used those settings. Now you have some understanding of what those settings mean and why they were chosen for that particular shot. You can learn from that kind of information. My $.02
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
Jerry, As a pro, I do not have time to record my every setting since I shoot mostly spot news images and the time does not allow for that, although with digital that information is already recorded with the image. I agree that usually the f-stop and exact focal length from time to time is meaningless to me but at least tell us what lens was used. Nikon 28-70 2.8 ED for example. Again, I try to share information as to how I achieved the shot especially if I encounter difficult situations. I would like to see more of that here, especially with the contest winners. I just asked one today about his image and I’m waiting a reply. He got tons of “atta boys” but not one person was curious as to how he pulled off the shot and its one worth asking for!! I think some info on any special lighting issues, types of lighting used, etc. would be very helpful especially for this site which is bombarded by lighting and lens questions on an almost daily basis. Ray
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
As an example, in portraiture I can't imagine taking a photo where the f-stop isn't the most important thing in conjunction with focal length and distance from subject to get the desired DOF. I learned what DOF effects were possible for single subjects and group shots by looking at photos on BP and seeing what focal-length/f-stop combination were used. Try taking a close up group shot at f1.2 and you'll see it's not interchangeable with f4. I guess the camera-makers gave us Av mode for a reason :-)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael Skelton . |
I have never won any contest and may never , but the reason I never add technical setting is I can't remember what they were. looking at any of my photos I could give a real close answer but it may not be exactly what I shot the photo at . And I dont want to give info that may not be exact. I do try and give location information in case some one would like to visit the areas I find very photogenic .Im also more then willing to give any info that maybe of interest should some one ask. I dont mind if the information is not giving with the photos. I like breaking down the photos in my head to see what and why they did what they did.For me its a lot more fun and it gets easier and more helpful the more you do it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
Jane, WOW. The MOST important thing in portraiture is expression. Raymond, my cameras capture most of the info that people would be interested in. It's easy enough to put it there. I guess it could help some people.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
Jerry, I think the most important thing in portraiture is having someone's face in the frame LOL I was talking about the most important of the listed technical aspects of a shot contained in the EXIF, you were asking what anyone gets out of knowing the f-stop when to you it doesn't matter if it was f1.2 or f4.
|
|
|
|
||
|
ALLEN O. HOWARD |
Well for what it matters it is exactly how I cut my baby teeth. My manual, Books and DVDs (some purchased here) and last but not least by the information I have gleaned right here from so many wonderful and gracious photographers. I am not intending to put a stick in anyones eye. When I got my first digital camera (Olympus E-300) I had no idea what a ride I was in for. Default SQ. 1200 images!!! I was leveled. And the computer (new to me)! I had my hands full. I had no Idea what PS was. I still dont have Photoshop at that kind of money. Between the manuals, books and DVDs, and this site I started to understand what was going on. Lens speed? Why should I care? But I did and I had no Idea what all of it meant. I never wanted the darkroom secrets that so many are threatened by. Once again for it to be said that this is important to the judging is not correct. This is it in a nutshell and it should not be said or implied that this is important.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
Jane, I shoot close-up portraits at f/1.2 sometimes. But, if I told you that, wouldn't that be dangerous if you didn't know WHY I was doing it, and what my mindset was for doing that? For instance, if I was writing text, I might say, "it is not important for this group photo for everything to be sharp, in fact, the only thing I wanted sharp was the wifes eyes. the rest of the family I intentionally blurred out by being fairly close and shooting at f/1.2" Then, I could show another where I back up a bit, and shoot the smae thing at f/8. With this context and some description, my settings make sense to you, and you'd also have an image to compare with the different settings, and say, "Oh, I get it". But, without that context, and a single image, you have no idea why the photogrpaher did what they did. So, the settings are nonsense. Unless, as I said, they give you ALL of the data, such as flash settings and positions, and everything involved, including post-processing (which no one is talking about but is equally important). Cheers,
|
|
|
|
||
|
ALLEN O. HOWARD |
Jerry, It is a puzzle that can be put together not by one persones complete and accurate description of all they do. Bits and pieces of all of this make it all very challenging. One evening I may go to bed with this whirling through my head and wake up with the answer because of all the bits and pieces. I go find that book, go to that page, sign in to BP and low and behold I see my answer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
Jerry, it wouldn't be dangerous - it would be instructional! When I used to see a close up group shot and saw f1.8 listed I'd think "oh, that's the setting you need to isolate a subject in a group" and if in similar close up group images with all the group members in focus I'd see they were all shot around f8-f11 and think "aha, that's what you need to shoot at to get everyone sharp using that lens ". Obviously a heavy crop can make the shooting distance hard to discern but in general it holds true. As a matter of fact I am interested in f1.2 shots, is it worth getting an expensive 1.2 lens? What effects can you get with it you can't with other lenses? Is it possible to get a close up shot at f1.2 when the subject is not staring straight at you without getting the "artistic" one eye in focus, one not shot LOL. So if anyone lists f1.2 on their shots I'll be looking and learning :-)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
I shoot alot at f/1.2 and f/1.4. I think it is worth every penny. Here are a couple with my 85mm: http://frazierphotography.wordpress.com/2006/06/22/yesterday-was-summer-solstice/ Off-hand, I don't have examples, but I do have a ton of them. There's a bunch on my blog. Cheers,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
Thanks Jerry, fantastic photos on your blog! Love that 1.2 DOF
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stan Lubach |
I used to put the basic data in my description, but I've recently stopped. I realized that a lot of times I would make adjustments on the PC to exposure and white balance, and sometimes crop the shot, so those original numbers don't really mean anything anymore. And describing all the changes I made would make for long reading in some cases. Of course, if someone asks how something was done, or the settings I used, I'd be happy to describe it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
i got lazy lately on the info I post.but since the know it all has already posted,i guess I waste my time. sam
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
boy I put a damper on this. first i'd like to say I guess your getting better. no one lashed out about the know it all thing.nice. so my theory was total reluctance to post.well,if you post your kinda guilty? but if it's a chuckle for you,i was wrong in my final summation. theory:,not mine.mankind,men and women,will lash out when an acqusation is made.i was wrong,i kinda agreed. question everything.espicially yourself and your intent. tis the season,sam
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
"...acqusation..." Gesundheit.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
danken!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
Dieser sichere Faden ist Spur abgestiegen! Ray
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
I knew this would come to a meaningful conclusion!
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Well it started out that way Didn't it?
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||