 Karen Lewis-Gunn |
Competitions / Why Bother? I have been learning and taking photos with a passion for the last 12 months. I feel that I would like to have a go at entering a competition at a very basic level, just to test the water, so to speak! However after studying the entries over the past 12 months I cant help but notice that digital enhancement and correction is allowed on images made with a film based SLR via software programs. My question is.... how does someone like me who only owns a basic fully manual film camera (pentax K1000)and no software compete with all of this technology?? I am in no postion to run out and buy all this new technology and I'm not sure if I even want to! I feel discouraged and disadvantaged if this is the case with all competitions. How do I really know how my skills compare with others if the computer does half of the job? If when my time comes to update my gear what do think is the best way to go? Stick with film and enhance/correct via computer? or go fully digital? Will I get even further behind if I dont conform with the trend and stay on the path that I'm already on? Please can some one advise a very discouraged and confused shutterbug?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry Drager |
Hi Karen: You've raised some excellent questions here! You are certainly right that there are some very striking "digital art" shots featured at BetterPhoto.com. On the other hand, there are also many "straight" photos among the contest's winning and finalist entries, too! To my eye, all of these photographs - which are so amazingly diverse in subject matter AND in photo technique - share one important characteristic: Strong visual impact! In other words, despite all of the photographic innovations of recent years, BetterPhoto photographers continue to prove that they can come up with great images REGARDLESS of whether they shoot with film or digital, or whether they do a lot of post-shooting computer work or do none at all. For myself, film and "conventional" shooting techniques still fit my style and interests. As for my choices in the future? I'm not sure. But one thing I'm sure of right now: I'm having lots of fun shooting and making new images! In any case, Karen, my advice: Be open to new things, but try not to be too overly concerned with "trends." Continue to shoot your favorite types of subjects in the way you wish to shoot them. Also, keep striving to improve. And remember: There's always a "market" for creative, eye-catching photos ... regardless of the technology involved! Hope this helps, Karen!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karen Lewis-Gunn |
Kerry, Thank you for having the courage to respond to this curly question. I have asked this same question to many photograhers only to get an indirect vauge type of answer, which really isn't an answer at all for me. As I am not really getting a direct straight forward answer I was beginning to get discouraged. You raised some very good points. Strong visual impact is what makes a good photo work and this is the goal, I'm sure of every photographer, regardless of whether they use digital or film. I guess you have to work harder for that final outcome using film alone,paying greater attention to details eg: lighting, exposure etc etc, knowing once you "click" thats basically it! Surely that must train your eye to see greater detail? I will be open minded as I continue to learn and grow and certainly will look at all my options when the time comes to invest in new gear. I do love film and will continue to do so for some time to come. I do belive to is a little unfair that in competitions(in general), film based photos are judged together with digital. In the business world of selling and marketing photos I think that's fine, but in competitions, I think that's a different thing. I have never entered one so maybe I really don't know what I'm talking about. I am speaking as an observer only, and this is just my opinion. One thing is for sure, I love taking photos and I'm not going to get hung up on "trends". And I will continue to strive for that perfect shot using film and when I do, it will be all the more sweeter! Thanks again Kerry you have helped me put things into perspective. Most grateful to you.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry Drager |
Hi again Karen: I'm pleased my comments helped! Just a couple of more things: - You might take another run-through of the August contest winners and finalists ... I see many wonderful NON-digitally-altered photos, along with some very fine digitally-altered images. - When it comes to serious photographers, I think everyone must work hard at it! In any case, here's my thought for ALL shooters: Whether you do all of your "creativity" strictly in the viewfinder or whether you also do it in the computer "darkroom," it really pays to pay attention to composition, light, exposure, details, etc. After all, it's so much more efficient to "get it right" in the viewfinder ... at the time of shooting! Thanks again, Karen, for raising such interesting AND thoughtful questions!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karen Lewis-Gunn |
Kerry, Thank you once again. I feel reassured and inspired after your comments. I really appreciate your help! THANKS :-)
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Karen, Although I have a range of various cameras to choose from for various tasks, half of them have no more "technology" or complexity than your Pentax. The other half have an aperture priority AE mode that still requires manually selecting lens aperture. It has been quite some time since I've entered any digital scans of my photographs into any on-line competition. I've opted instead to submit large prints into regional, juried photography and art shows. Minimum size requirements for the prints reveals digital manipulation, and easily reveals any technical flaws as well. This question has been raised in different forms on a number of occasions in the past couple of years, usually in the form of "Where does photography stop and digital graphic art begin?" It's not an easy one to answer, becoming nearly impossible to "codify;" similar to the problem the U.S. Supreme Court has with differentiating art from obscenity: "don't know how to define it, but know it when I see it." Don't worry about what others are doing. Instead, define for yourself what you want to do and pursue that. Spend your time and energy creating, exploring and perfecting your own style. I agree completely with Kerry's remarks. Getting it "right" in camera saves enormous amounts of time later, whether you're using a digital scan of film with software or working in a wet darkroom. Been there, done that. It can be agonizingly difficult to pull the desired print out of a negative (or transparency) that has aspects of it significantly different from what was originally envisioned. Do the work up front by visualizing in your mind what the finished print will look like and your knowledge about how to create it on film with lighting, focus and exposure. It may be difficult, but it's still much easier than doing it during "post processing." One last tidbit; something I've come to realize in the past couple of years. The artistic medium for photography is *not* film and print materials. Nor is it the subject material. The medium is light! The film and its resulting print are merely a recording and playback of that light in a particular place at a particular time. Everything else is a light "modifier" used to change its color, intensity and qualities for the recording of it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry Drager |
You're welcome, Karen!! Kerry And, John, MANY thanks for adding your valuable insight to this topic!! Kerry
|
|
|
|
||
|
Leo Enriquez |
A camera doesn't make a photographer!... It depends of the skills of a photogrpher to make nice pics, and I believe that a great photgrapher has to start from the very basic!...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karen Lewis-Gunn |
Thank you John and Leo for your insightful words of wisdom. I feel I'm ready to let go of my "hang up" and move on. THANK YOU!!!!! And thank you once more Kerry. Karen
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael McCullough |
Great question,I don't enhance my photographs in any way yet,and that can also be a strong selling point,that you've worked hard in the field to achieve your images,film choice I believe is very imortant as well,right now I'm using Kodak 400UC.and find it to be great as well as a very reliable colour print film.Find stength in yourself and the good work you produce and at the end of the day its been a good one.Take care
|
|
|
|
||
|
paulina michaud |
Karen I know exactly what you are talking about. My personal opinion and advice is: challenge yourself to get those great shots just with your camera. For me, it has more credit to be able to get it "bare hands" and just with technique and talent rather than take a good or okay photo and make it better in an artificial way. The challenge is how good you are with your camera, and enjoy!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karen Lewis-Gunn |
Michael and Paulina Thankyou for your input. I do appreciate it! Thanks Karen
|
|
|
|
||
- Greg McCroskery Contact Greg McCroskery Greg McCroskery's Gallery |
Karen, You've raised an interesting topic! I shoot both film and digital (although more digital recently). In terms of competition, I've entered competition for many years and virtually all competition images undergo some form of post-capture enhancement -- whether in the dark room, or at the computer -- that's a reality of competition. The issue is not to become discouraged by what others are doing to enhance their images -- a great image will always have great impact. Entering competitions will make you a better photographer -- that's what should matter to you. Keep shooting and entering! God Bless, Greg
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deepanjan Banerjee |
Karen I have been asking the same question myself for some time now. While the ultimate objective is to capture the moods of light, winning a competition is something all of us dream of. I do believe that there should be separate categories for regular unaltered photos and digitally retouched ones. While digital technology is a boon for commercial photographs, I do think the overall skill level is going down. So far I have been shooting for my own pleasure - the day my target becomes winning a competition or making money, I will switch over to digital completely. Deepanjan
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karen Lewis-Gunn |
Deepanjan, Good point! Asking myself what my motivation for taking photos is, that should provide me with my answer. Thanks. Karen
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Don't worry about what others have. you'll learn more with exploring and experimenting with what you have. Just because you have expensive tools dosen't mean you know how to build a house. I have film and digital cameras and what I like most about digital is not that I can change things with a computer, but that I can do my own printing and see what I have right away. And if I do experiment with light angels, shutter speed, etc. and it dosen't work, I can just delete it. No going taking it to the lab and waiting. And no pile up of negatives. Just burn it on a cd. Film is still best for large blow-ups. So if I want to make a 20x30, I'll use film. I've seen many photos on this site that are really just plain pictures with a lot of dressing up to try and make it look like a good photo.Digital has it's place for graphics or fantasy type creations, but personally if it's not an obvious montage, then it always just looks like a corny attempt. About the only thing I would say against having a basic pentax is that eventually you're going to want to try different lenses and different perspectives and you're probably have a much easier time getting a new lens or accessories with a different brand, or at least a more up to date pentax. I do think that cameras and programs have allowed people to not develope much skill, or even sometimes no skill at all. Many sports pictures are taken with somebody putting the camera on autofocus, and with a camera like canon's 1D, put it on the highest advance speed, and they just keep the button mashed down and hope for something. So it's one thing to make adjustments with light and dark with digital, because that can be done with film. But it's different when you have to elimiante an object or a whole person from a background, then show it as a great scenic. If you could get a great scenic in the first place, you wouldn't need to cut anything out of it. So keep shooting with your camera. And keep experimenting. And don't worry about competitions. It's fine if you want to enter them for fun. But don't get caught up with what a judge says about your photo. If it looks good to you, that's all that matters. Be your own worst critic, that's how you'll get better.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karen Lewis-Gunn |
Thanks for your comments Greg, I am more than happy to keep on with my film camera. I am getting results that I'm pleased with and I am learning so much having to use a fully manual camera. Yes digital does have a lot of advantages over film in some ways eg: able to see instantly if the shot is not suitable and having to wait for results etc etc. So I will plod along with my faithful camera and continue to have fun. karen
|
|
|
|
||
|
- GARY L. ROHRBAUGH Contact GARY L. ROHRBAUGH GARY L. ROHRBAUGH's Gallery |
Good question! I can remember years ago when I took photography lessons and shot black and white. During this time I was making my own prints and doing some dodging and burning as I was shown. I read alot about Ansel Adams and the hours he spent in the dark room to make the perfect print. But the computer age has taken over and from I see it has it's own place. I can say that the work that I present isn't any different than what I'm seeing. Most people that I show my work to ask if I enhanced my photo's or not and I'm proud to say say not simply because that is what I my eyes saw. So it's a matter of choice.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||