-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which is the most hair-raising South African mountain pass you've driven?
Photo Comps
- Thread starter Mephisto_Helix
- Start date
johanopperman
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm not arguing. :wtf:
I'm trying to tell you to enjoy your photography. Use your camera (be it cellphone, point-and-shoot or DSLR), and take some photos - within the camera's capabilities.
No doubt DSLRs offer a lot of advantages over cellphone cameras. Professional photographers cannot use cellphone cameras as they have disadvantages that they cannot afford (think wedding photographers having to take photos in low-light conditions).
What I'm saying is, don't blame the camera - stay within the limits of the camera and you can take great photos. Just don't blame your camera if you can't get great photos which would never have been possible with that specific camera in the first place. Blame yourself for not knowing a specific photo it outside the reach of your camera. If you need something more, then it's time to start investing in more expensive camera equipment.
BUT ENJOY IT! No matter what camera you have. Just take the bloody photos!
I was trying to get a more positive approach to the fabulous hobby of photography. That I'm being seen as being argumentative tells me to leave this thread alone to let people whine and complain about how unfair life is.
DTBA
Executive Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2011
- Messages
- 5,445
- Reaction score
- 840
IMO some one is gonna win, Its not gonna be the best photo, its not gonna be taken with the best camera.Its gonna be the photo the judges love that stand out for them and not us .Even if we vote for the photos it wont be the same one. SO IMO have fun enjoy and upload for people to see, you might win and if u do congrats
ichigo
Executive Member
IMO some one is gonna win, Its not gonna be the best photo, its not gonna be taken with the best camera.Its gonna be the photo the judges love that stand out for them and not us .Even if we vote for the photos it wont be the same one. SO IMO have fun enjoy and upload for people to see, you might win and if u do congrats
Looks the like the photoshoppers will win, personally I prefer original pictures not touched up to look brighter or darker or to have enhanced lines/colours which makes it look unnatural.
I just took a look through the photos to see which ones had very little editing too...
I hear you about just enjoying photography and I think the fact that I shared a number of images taken with a cellphone camera, that I thought were fairly decent, should illustrate that I agree with this sentiment. However, this thread was in specific reference to the competition and not about your enjoyment of photography. The chosen photos seem to illustrate the point made.
nanonyous
Expert Member
You do realise that every single camera out there with every single 'scene' mode it has will render the exact same photo taken with the exact same ISO/Aperture/Shutterspeed differently, and that their sensors will even have a role to play in that, right?
You also realise that every single physical film out there reacts differently and that the processing of that film has a massive effect on the final image, and that when a print is made of that film the printing paper used as well as the processes used to make the print will have a massive effect on the final outcome, right?
Did you know that in the film world, and to a VERY large extent the digital photography world even today, the photo you took and the end result you get are seldom going to represent reality accurately right off the bat?
This is again why it leaves me flabbergasted that people could get so upset about photos being 'edited' or 'photoshopped'. Maybe I should have left this photo looking like it did on the left, or that photo looking like it did, or the other photo looking like it did, all straight off the camera.
They don't one look anything at all like what I saw, but they're not 'manipulated' by my hand, so it should be fine! Right?
By the by, that fly photo is a stack of 9 photos, because my super fancy DSLR's sensor is so big that the depth of field is drastically narrower than most compact cameras'. If I had a compact camera I could have taken a single photo to get more in focus than I did, likely even with sharper results.
And I had to take it with this because I can't afford to drop money on a macro lens. I could use a reversal adapter for my 18-55mm kit lens, but the results aren't as good as what I get with this thing, and a reversal adapter would cost me more and place the rear element of that lens at risk.
Seriously, if you think it's all about 'photoshop', you simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. The results you're looking at among the finalists are not one 'photoshopped' either. They're processed.
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
Don't bother, some people just like to moan, even though they have no clue what they're moaning about.
Rocket-Boy
Honorary Master
^This, you can either take great photos and understand composition, lighting etc or you take bad photos that could have been good.
ichigo
Executive Member
Then why when I see a photoshoped photo competition the pictures always look the same as those ones in finalists like the one at the royal show yet the normal photo finalists don't look like them.
I see a big difference between using normal camera features than using a program when I look at the pictures in those competition finalists.
Either the judges suck at the royal show or there is a difference
The crocodile/Rugby and Rally car picture doesn't fit in the first 2 (photoshopped, processed) so they only used the camera features thats why I voted for them.
Last edited:
nanonyous
Expert Member
Because, as I said, you have no clue what you're talking about.
This is a 'photoshopped', ie edited, picture. It's edited because there's no way I could achieve this in a single photo, so editing it was mandated.
This on the other hand is again not edited. It's processed. There's an enormous difference.
Yes, a straight out of camera jpeg is not going to look like that cat photo unless your camera gives you an insane breadth of control over the image you're getting. The fact of the matter is that if I had taken that photo using film I could have chosen to cross-process it for the mild split-toning I applied and then during print-making have applied the effects I did to change its overall colour slightly.
I could even have simply used gel filters to change the colour temperature while taking the photo as well as using a specific film that I know gets the kinds of results I want to get.
This is a 'photoshopped', ie edited, picture. It's edited because there's no way I could achieve this in a single photo, so editing it was mandated.
This on the other hand is again not edited. It's processed. There's an enormous difference.
Yes, a straight out of camera jpeg is not going to look like that cat photo unless your camera gives you an insane breadth of control over the image you're getting. The fact of the matter is that if I had taken that photo using film I could have chosen to cross-process it for the mild split-toning I applied and then during print-making have applied the effects I did to change its overall colour slightly.
I could even have simply used gel filters to change the colour temperature while taking the photo as well as using a specific film that I know gets the kinds of results I want to get.
nanonyous
Expert Member
Oh hell no, the crocodile, rugby and rally car photos are all three processed. They're processed by, at the VERY least, the camera's raw to jpeg engine. You seriously just don't understand what you're talking about...
I'm sorry, those with DSLRs may be determined to convince us that you can take just as good a photo with a cellphone but I am never going to buy that. Yes, under a very limited set of ideal conditions a cellphone can take an acceptable photo but it will always be inferior to the DSLR shot. Cellphone shots are perfect for sharing online and having the cr@p compressed out of them by FB and the like but they never capture as much detail. They can't. For the most part the sensor is too small.
Look at these examples. Now most human judges of these photos are going to find the clarity of the DSLR image more appealing than the fuzziness of the iPhone (which by most accounts is a decent cellphone camera). Yes, these are crops but if you have had to stand a fair distance from the subject you are shooting then it is likely that some cropping was necessary post shoot to get the "perfect" image. And yes, you will no doubt argue that the image size in the competition levelled the playing field to a certain extent but I still maintain that if two photographers stood in the same place and shot the same subject in the same conditions then the DSLR would win out every single time. That is the point. The cellphone camera user inevitably has to put in more effort to achieve an "award winning" photo.
PS And some are getting pedantic here with the definitions used. I think it is apparent to most what people are referring to when they talk about photoshopped, processed or edited. They mean that the image has been substantially altered after the fact to enhance it's appearance. At photography school they may give more precise definitions for each of these terms but that should not affect the general point being made by some.
Look at these examples. Now most human judges of these photos are going to find the clarity of the DSLR image more appealing than the fuzziness of the iPhone (which by most accounts is a decent cellphone camera). Yes, these are crops but if you have had to stand a fair distance from the subject you are shooting then it is likely that some cropping was necessary post shoot to get the "perfect" image. And yes, you will no doubt argue that the image size in the competition levelled the playing field to a certain extent but I still maintain that if two photographers stood in the same place and shot the same subject in the same conditions then the DSLR would win out every single time. That is the point. The cellphone camera user inevitably has to put in more effort to achieve an "award winning" photo.
PS And some are getting pedantic here with the definitions used. I think it is apparent to most what people are referring to when they talk about photoshopped, processed or edited. They mean that the image has been substantially altered after the fact to enhance it's appearance. At photography school they may give more precise definitions for each of these terms but that should not affect the general point being made by some.
Last edited:
nanonyous
Expert Member
ClintZA, no. If a photo cannot stand on its own two feet for what it is, all the sharpness in the world isn't going to mean jack. Some of the world's greatest, most awe inspiring photos are a blurry mess, but they're great because of qualities other than sharpness.
nanonyous, let's step back and focus on the most important aspect, in my view. Let me repeat what I said and see if you agree or disagree:
"I still maintain that if two photographers stood in the same place and shot the same subject in the same conditions then the DSLR would win out every single time."
"I still maintain that if two photographers stood in the same place and shot the same subject in the same conditions then the DSLR would win out every single time."
Rocket-Boy
Honorary Master
Not always true, it depends on how good the photographer using the DSLR is.
I can tell you for a fact that someone who has no clue how to properly operate a DSLR will take a worse picture than the average point and click user will.
Photographers who understand conditions will move to a DSLR to get the finer granular control over light etc.
johanopperman
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 0
A photographer I know from a photography website (Outdoorphoto) had this as his signature, and I agree 100%:
"A technically perfect photo can be the most boring photo ever". (or something to that effect).
I hate doing this, but to use myself as an example.
2 months after I bought my first DSLR (then a Nikon D80) I went to the Kruger Park. At the time I only had the kit lens (18-135mm) and a Sigma 70-300. Now everybody with the most basic of photography knowledge would know that the 70-300 is notoriously bad....so much so that I actually GAVE mine away some time ago. But at the time that was all I had. And very little photography skills and experience, and NO Photoshop skills. I took an image there, with the 70-300, which I had to crop about 50%, it wasn't sharp at all - partly due to the crappy lens but also due to my poor photography skills. But that one single photo has earned me more money than I have made with all of my wife's and my photos on Shutterstock - COMBINED! (That one photo earned me about R 20k).
Why? It wasn't technically a good photo, but it was a special moment. It appeared in newspapers around the world, and was even on Sky news Australia.
If I had taken that same photo with an iPhone, the end result would've been the same. Purely because of the moment captured.
Last edited:
nanonyous
Expert Member
No, it wouldn't. If they were identical with the exception of their sharpness at full resolution, they would be equal, assuming the sensors are both working down at the cellphone camera's level of SNR. Dynamic range? Take multiple photos at different exposure values with the cellphone and blend them. This isn't 'HDR', it's fusion of exposures to widen the possible dynamic range of a limited sensor. You'd do this to bring the cellphone up to par with the DSLR.
Working with JPEGs only? Lesser bit depth on the cellphone? Take multiple shots with colour exclusion, blend them in software. Widen the bit depth of the cellphone camera.
In other words, the control you're given on the cellphone camera does matter, yes. The inherent base quality is a lesser issue if you have the human technical ability and time to work with the limitations of the cellphone to draw every last bit of its capability out.
If I had a compact camera or a camera phone that I carefully selected knowing what I would have to work with, I'd go out of my way to prove this through practical examples.
But I don't.
I don't have either.
The irony is that the 500D has limits as well. It has ugly shadows and less bit depth and a worse colour response curve than a 400D. I have to do all manner of things just to get my shots looking how I want them to, working with the limitations of my camera. I'm even looking at beginning to use film for landscape photos since there's greater dynamic range to be had, and doing that comes with its own set of problems.
Working with JPEGs only? Lesser bit depth on the cellphone? Take multiple shots with colour exclusion, blend them in software. Widen the bit depth of the cellphone camera.
In other words, the control you're given on the cellphone camera does matter, yes. The inherent base quality is a lesser issue if you have the human technical ability and time to work with the limitations of the cellphone to draw every last bit of its capability out.
If I had a compact camera or a camera phone that I carefully selected knowing what I would have to work with, I'd go out of my way to prove this through practical examples.
But I don't.
I don't have either.
The irony is that the 500D has limits as well. It has ugly shadows and less bit depth and a worse colour response curve than a 400D. I have to do all manner of things just to get my shots looking how I want them to, working with the limitations of my camera. I'm even looking at beginning to use film for landscape photos since there's greater dynamic range to be had, and doing that comes with its own set of problems.
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
Mind posting a link to your pic? I'd love to see it now
Indeed hence me fully agreeing with the sentiment that the best camera is the one with you. But if the one with you happens to take higher quality images then all the better.
If I look at the top 10 finalists there are probably only one or two images there that I could replicate with my cellphone. Or at least with the same quality. I could shoot anything