|
Posted 6/22/2008 1:20:06 AM
|
|
|
|
Howz everyone doing? I hope everyone is doing very well.
The following is my opinion.
I always check on the site to see the photos of the daily winners for all categories. I think there's always a lot to learn from viewing and studying them. I really Appreciate the great photos.
I really like the wildlife category, because some images just amazes me, the quality of the images and the composition etc. Some of them are absolutely gorgeous.
BUT, I see a trend in the winners of wildlife category. Most of the time, the winning image of the wildlife category is a wildlife that is perfectly focused and the aperture chosen allows the photo to show the great details of the subject and not too over/under exposed and that makes a winner already. The issue is that most of the winners with the qualities of what I mentioned above usually has a rating of 8 or more, this is especially obvious in Wildlife category.
I see some images that I think deserve much higher than what the score actually shows. Some may be because they are technically difficult shots or rarely seen wildlife or views etc...
My point is that some, not all of the winners in the wildlife category is just a subject sitting there. All the photographer has to do is to have good enough equipment (lenses) to reach the subject, focus properly, and set the aperture to smaller to allow the details of the whole subject to display with relative clarity, AND THAT'S IT. I don't think it is too technically difficult for a keen learner with some experience with DSLR to achieve.
What are some of your views and opinions out there. Thank you for reading and giving back to this site and photography.
Lets go capture 
Best regards,
Nelson
|
|
 Posted 6/22/2008 5:53:26 AM
|
|
|
|
You are correct in that capturing a bird in flight is, in general, much more difficult than a static image, but that is just one criteria. Not to be funny, but it's difficult to judge difficulty.
You mentioned equipment as being a equalizing factor and one that might enable you to assume that the difficulty was low, the problem with that is that at the time of voting you really know nothing about the equipment used. To assume that, in my mind, is somewhat of a mistake. It takes much more skill to approach an animal close rather than shoot it from a distance even if it is in flight so unless you know the focal length there is little context for your assumption of ease.
In my opinion you have to leave equipment out of the decision making process or assume the least quality equipment to be fair. I can't see penalizing someone because they made the commitment of resources required to buy the best. Just my opinion.
Oh BTW, did I mention I shoot with a quality point and shoot? Given your theory, if you see an image of a bird in flight from me I should get all 10s since the highest ISO that produces a quality image on my camera is 200, the shutter lag is abysmal, and the focus acquisition time at times feels like it's measured in minutes. Having said all that I'd still not want someone to increase my score because of difficulty. It is my choice, by design, to wring out the last bit from the tools I have rather than to move to something that makes things easier because it forces me to become a better photographer. The majority of my stuff is now shot fully manual.
The next logical step to handicapping scores would be to take into account the Photoshop skills of the photographer. A slippery slope indeed.
To me it's all about the image, it's quality and how it makes you feel. All the rest is just mechanics.
|
|
|
Posted 6/22/2008 7:47:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris,
Thanks a lot for the opinion. I really agree with you because as you say there are a lot of unknown factors. I should judge every image with a neutral mindset instead of the easiness of achieving that image.
As for you using a point and shot. May I ask if you are a very experienced photographer even used film cameras before? The reason I ask is because I want to know before AF camera systems came out how to photographers shoot moving objects? or did those types of images just not exist? I can image it is very hard to focus on a moving object while you are shooting. Sorry but I have no experience with film cameras, so I don't know how the viewfinder becomes when the shot is being exposed (like DSLR black out or???? I am not sure, so in my opinion it was really difficult to shoot a moving object with a non AF film camera or lens.)
Thanks a lot,
Cheers
|
|
|
Posted 6/22/2008 8:53:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Nc16 (6/22/2008)
Hi Chris,
May I ask if you are a very experienced photographer even used film cameras before? The reason I ask is because I want to know before AF camera systems came out how to photographers shoot moving objects? or did those types of images just not exist? I can image it is very hard to focus on a moving object while you are shooting. Sorry but I have no experience with film cameras, so I don't know how the viewfinder becomes when the shot is being exposed (like DSLR black out or???? I am not sure, so in my opinion it was really difficult to shoot a moving object with a non AF film camera or lens.)
Oh, they existed! it was just difficult to achieve the result that you achieve with a DSLR. You gotta remember shutter lag was, for all practical purposes, non existent, you pressed the shutter you got the shot. I shot a Miami Dolphin game with a 300 2.8 with a press pass and never, I'll repeat NEVER, got a publishable image. My friends however, all press photogs , using 400 f4s walked away with amazing images. I even tried to get a simple shot of the kickoff, one where you know where the ball is and what is going to happen and never succeeded. Those guys had been doing it so long that they just knew how to follow focus manually and where the ball was going.For the record, I did however get some nice images of the cheerleaders.
One of our photographers Jack Hutton would on occasion shoot with a Graphlex Speed Graphic 4x5 and come back with images that would amaze even the best of them. It wasn't surprising since he shot for the army in WWII but he did have a tenancy to be heavy handed with the motor drive on the F2 (grin) 4 or 5 shots of the same image. I still own the camera.
The most powerful tool a photographer has is their mind. It matters little if you are shooting with a 40 year old 4x5 or the latest Nikon, you are still gathering photons reflected off a solid surface. The rules of physics haven't changed in my lifetime nor will they change in yours. The question is how you use the tools that you have to best capture those photons. There is a reason that the best photographers in the world are the best photographers, it isn't because they have the best equipment, it is because they understand the interaction between light and shadows and "know" how to tell a story with that interaction.
The best advice I can give anyone is to switch their camera to manual, put it on spot focus, and manual focus for half of each shoot. You will miss a lot of shots but the learning experience is invaluable, not to mention the satisfaction of it being "all you".
What you will find when you do this is that you become much more deliberate about your shots, you meter more, you will think about DOF, you will plan shutter speed, you will think about your composition, in short you become a photographer that plans the shot rather than takes a bunch of shots hoping that one will turn out. It forces you to envision the shot before you capture it. In my opinion, the most skilled photographers are the ones that know what the captured before they capture it. Just for the record... I'm not among their number... yet. What can I say I'm a slow learner. LOL
|
|
|
Posted 6/22/2008 9:15:30 PM
|
|
|
|
| Hey Chris, I feel exactly the same as you for the learning process. I really believe in learning with the manual mode. It makes you think so much more. Using a DSLR, I really cannot imagine how much more skills was needed to be a good photograher prior to the digital era. With all the number or ratios of the shutter and aperture relation, etc... I really think it is much easier to capture good photographs in the digital era, but there are new issues and challenges for sure. Other things to consider. One day I will pick up a film camera and start to really feel what photographers have to do with a film camera to get an Excellent shot. Cheers, Nelson
|
|
|
|
