U
unruled
Guest
I did indeed, that's what I get for using an hp touchpad. Thanks nonetheless, great entries so far by all 
Contest Announcement!
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
G
Grizzly
Guest
Otherwise it had been unfair towards good photographers that own low end cameras only (not everybody can afford a 1D). I am in the fortunate position to own one of he really good toys, but there is still so much to learn and I am sure some people with PS cams were way more creative than I was...jnachtigal said:
J
jnachtigal
Guest
I respectfully disagree, for the same reason I wouldn't want to watch a car race where all drivers are handicapped to drive under 70mph because they can't all afford the same level racecar.Grizzly said:
(For the record, my photo was taken using a Rebel and non L glass)
N
nocojoe
Guest
At 72dpi which is the resolution for computer screens, it is near impossible for me to tell the difference between shot taken with a low end camera and a high end camera. The lower resolution (instead of 300dpi for a print) can hide flaws from both the photographer and the camera, and most photos look good on a computer at 72dpi. Just my two cents.Grizzly said:
N
nocojoe
Guest
nocojoe said:At 72dpi which is the resolution for computer screens, it is near impossible for me to tell the difference between shot taken with a low end camera and a high end camera. The lower resolution (instead of 300dpi for a print) can hide flaws from both the photographer and the camera, and most photos look good on a computer at 72dpi. Just my two cents.Grizzly said:
Just too bad. Then avoid all car races, as they usually have such limits. Plus you should know better, that speed is not all that matters in car racing.jnachtigal said:
Look closely at F1 races. Are there any more prestigious racing events?
There are very detailed regulations and limits to cars construction. Cars do differ, but they have limits to engine power, cars weight must be within given limits, all teams use the same tyres, must use both tyre types in race... list goes a long way.
All for good reason - to narrow down competition to engineers skills within given limits, to skills of pitstop teams, skills of drivers and their ability to cooperate.
IMHO you missed it with car racing comparision.
J
jnachtigal
Guest
It was intended to be a simple analogy. If I knew it was offensive to die hard racecar fans, I'd have chosen a different one.KacperP said:
I think the point in both is to say that they test the skills of the person, not the technical assets or budget.jnachtigal said:
Different one would not work too.jnachtigal said:
(plus I don't care much about car racing or cars at all)Whatever sport contest you would choose as analogy there are still limitations and regulations on them, to underline specific qualities and compensate for other factors. When contest is about technology, then there are limits to budgets, or similar.
Back to photography:
When you test cameras, you shoot with the same lens, same subjects, same ISOs, ect. to have comparision.
When comparing lenses it is logical to test on the same body, and on same subject.
Or not?
On the other hand, photo equipment does matter, but does not help with composition, subject, story, ect. which make photos stand out.
More important issue is definition of "photo" itself, how much PS was involved and how many shots per picture were used.
Plus don't forget that the forum width just happens to be 700 pixels wide, so all the images load inline and you don't have to click on them individually, the thumbnail and bigger-versions would have added a lot to the server-load.
It also means everything gets judged on composition, framing, and lighting, which all photo competitions get judged on, not the quality of the glass/body.
And also, don't forget what would have happened if he'd specified every photo to be 2000px wide. There'd probably be an uproar from people who didn't want to post that good a quality version of their stuff, for fear that someone would steal it and claim it as their own (I've never posted anything online wider than 1000px for that reason).
It also means everything gets judged on composition, framing, and lighting, which all photo competitions get judged on, not the quality of the glass/body.
And also, don't forget what would have happened if he'd specified every photo to be 2000px wide. There'd probably be an uproar from people who didn't want to post that good a quality version of their stuff, for fear that someone would steal it and claim it as their own (I've never posted anything online wider than 1000px for that reason).
J
jnachtigal
Guest
Those are all valid reasons for the contest rules governing photo size. And I completely understand the decision to standardize all photos to this common [somewhat small] resolution. My point is that this is inherently disadvantageous to photos which feature small, yet significant, details. I believe my own photo falls under this catagory.
A necessary evil, perhaps. It doesn't appear that too many others are bothered by it.
A necessary evil, perhaps. It doesn't appear that too many others are bothered by it.
I know what it is like, my wife under-estimated 3 gigs she is busy with (good thing is she under-estimated the revenue too), so right now she is not sleeping, and our dining room table is covered with stuff that has to get out to clients... and at the lab they just pull out my wife's prints as I walk in the door!Canon Rumors said:I'm back to judging tomorrow, there has been a big thing going on with my other venture Lens Rentals Canada. I don't think I've slept in 72 hours as things get restructured and negotiated.
I may sleep tonight.
Thanks for the patience, kind words and criticisms.
cr
It's a good problem to have, but you spend a lot of time wondering why you are doing this to yourself.
Good luck! I hope you get some sleep soon!
These winning pictures, some a good, and some are so average, Competitions are a waste of time for anyone who has any daring photography, Ive noticed a huge pattern in selections.
I have been hugely impressed by the vast majority of the images that have made it into the final ten in each category.
Very many were just absolutely awesome. A few were not to my taste, but I could see why they were picked.
Congratulations to all the finalists.
Very many were just absolutely awesome. A few were not to my taste, but I could see why they were picked.
Congratulations to all the finalists.
Some exceptional images there and best of luck to the finalists. One or two of the selections left me a bit baffled I must admit but they'll get filtered out in the next stage.
Wildlife carries the highest standard by far in my opinion and it will be a hard call to pick the top 1.
Interesting times ahead!
Wildlife carries the highest standard by far in my opinion and it will be a hard call to pick the top 1.
Interesting times ahead!
I do agree, congratulations to everyone, but what do you think of having 1 winner for so many categories? I would be dum struck trying to pick that winner,
Canon Rumors said:I'd love to give away 13 lenses, however.............Louis said:
Now that would be cool!
C
canadier
Guest
wow...
to be honest, I never thought I would make it to the final with all those unbelievable shots being displayed here. just making it this far makes me just a little bit proud.
this must have been tremendous work to pick the finalists. so thank you for letting us participate (esp. the ones just checking the site every now and then and not activly participating in the forum).
to be honest, I never thought I would make it to the final with all those unbelievable shots being displayed here. just making it this far makes me just a little bit proud.
this must have been tremendous work to pick the finalists. so thank you for letting us participate (esp. the ones just checking the site every now and then and not activly participating in the forum).
