mfeveland wrote:
Photographer Jim wrote:
mfeveland wrote:
...If a photo is in a photography contest, I believe there should be very a limited amount of PP allowed. There should be two categories - photographs and digitally enhanced photographs. ...
I have heard this before and feel that as a "general rule" it creates an artificial dichotomy which places too much emphasis on a specific aspect of photographic technique and lessens the emphasis on the final impact and quality of an image.
In reality, most competitions DO address the use, or non-use, of post-processing, but they usually do so within subject categories rather than as a general overall constraint. Some categories (nature or photojournalism, for example) have very tight restrictions and limitations as to how much post manipulation is allowed, whereas other categories (pictorial or creative) place very little in the way of limitations. The restrictions are determined by the subject matter and the final intent of the image rather than how much or little the image is processed.
For some competitive categories, restricting side by side competition between manipulated vs non-manipulated images is simply unnecessary and ultimately unjustified, IMHO. It creates an artificial distinction between images that has very little to do with the end merit of the photograph.
quote=mfeveland ...If a photo is in a photograph... (
show quote)
You can put whatever spin on it you want but photographs and digitally enhanced are two different groups. As I said before, the best comparison is digitally enchaned recordings and live music - I prefer live.
quote=Photographer Jim quote=mfeveland ...If a ... (
show quote)
Not really attempting to put any "spin" on anything. Just pointing out that the vast majority of photography competitions now-a-days do not consider "photographs and digitally enhanced" images as totally different animals with no room for overlap, and that the extent of the overlap is usually determined by subject category, not the premise that the two approaches are somehow exclusionary.
cactusflower wrote:
I have noticed that many photos will have the copyright symbol along with the photographers name. My question is, have all these folks registered their photos with the National Copyright Office? Since I suspect that they haven't, does the copyright symbol really have any value?
My understanding is that a photographer automatically has a copyright on his/her work from the time the image is produced in some tangible, physical form. However, if you wish to bring suit in court for copyright infringement you need to have registered the image before the time of the infringement.
I take this to mean: that since copyrights provide the photographer control over the use, reproduction, and distribution of their image, you would automatically have some protection over, say, someone scanning your image and posting it on their Facebook page without your permission. On the other hand, if one of your images turned up on a calendar that someone is printing and selling, you would have needed to have registered the image with the U. S. Copyright Office in order to take that person into court to sue for monetary compensation.
So, to answer your question, using a copyright symbol on unregistered work is more of a "warning deterrent" than anything else. Ultimately only regeristing your images will provide full protection.
mfeveland wrote:
...If a photo is in a photography contest, I believe there should be very a limited amount of PP allowed. There should be two categories - photographs and digitally enhanced photographs. ...
I have heard this before and feel that as a "general rule" it creates an artificial dichotomy which places too much emphasis on a specific aspect of photographic technique and lessens the emphasis on the final impact and quality of an image.
In reality, most competitions DO address the use, or non-use, of post-processing, but they usually do so within subject categories rather than as a general overall constraint. Some categories (nature or photojournalism, for example) have very tight restrictions and limitations as to how much post manipulation is allowed, whereas other categories (pictorial or creative) place very little in the way of limitations. The restrictions are determined by the subject matter and the final intent of the image rather than how much or little the image is processed.
For some competitive categories, restricting side by side competition between manipulated vs non-manipulated images is simply unnecessary and ultimately unjustified, IMHO. It creates an artificial distinction between images that has very little to do with the end merit of the photograph.
I have been using Aspen Creek Photo, sister company to West Coast Imaging. They are located in Oakhurst, CA. I have them do all of my larger prints which I sell at art festivals.
Aspen Creek does straight printing from your file. I upload my file in Adobe RGB color space. As long as I keep my monitor calibrated regularly using my iOne device, I get accurate prints. Very reasonable prices, good turn around time, and excellent service. The downside is that they do not offer a large variety of art paper choices. (gloss, luster, and matte prints on Fuji paper. Pearl, Moab Entrada Rag, Super-Gloss, and canvas are more expensive.)
Their parent company, West Coast Imaging, is a more complete service lab. They will consult with you, do post processing adjustments, etc. once the file is the way you want it to be, they will store it for you so you can make additional prints at later dates. They offer a variety of high quality paper options. Downside is they are more expensive, but not any more so than other labs offering similar services.
I don't personally use GIMP, so i can't answer your specific questions about it, but a number of my friends use it and swear by it. Given the difference in price between it and many (most) other editing programs, it certainly seems like a good place to start.
BTW, I saw today that RockyNook is now publishing a book about using GIMP. Given the usual good quality of their photography publications, you might find it helpful in getting you started.
I just looked over the site. I'm highly disappointed on three counts
1. Despite the variety, there were simply way too many of his Christmas card images.
2. Not so much as one Velvet Elvis image! (an oversight perhaps?)
3. He failed to steal ANY of my Images! I mean, what am I, chopped liver?
Sheesh, some people.
Since you mentioned an interest in photographing architecture, you might consider heading north on I-5 to Redding to see and shoot the Sundial Bridge. Then head 60 miles northeast on 299 to photograph Burney Falls. From there you could come south along Hat Creek on 44/89 to Lassen Volcanic National Park. This would be a two day excursion, but with a number of good and unique photo ops.
davidv wrote:
Thank you for clearing this up. So with this said,is the photo going to be that much better with the more expensive lens? Or is most of it the build quality? Water proof,longer warranty. I am just getting into photography and don't want to wast money on a lens that won't make a big difference in my photos.
A big factor here is what "new to photography" means. For those who are really just getting started and are still wrestling with understanding exposure, DOF, etc., investing in a really expensive lens might be jumping the gun. The lens alone is not going to make a significant difference in that case. Better to work with the kit lens that came with your camera for a while, and concentrate on building your skill set, having fun, and discovering what you really enjoy photographing. Then somewhere down the line invest in the lens that will fit your interests (a top quality macro lens if you love macro photography - a long telephoto if you have become passionate about wildlife photography, etc.). You'll know when your skills have reached the point of needing the expensive gear.
cableguy wrote:
Thanks for the negative reply. All I asked was for an opinion. I guess i shouldn't be surprised with some of the negative comments. I do appreciate some of the comments (positive) from some members such as MT who I respect.
I apologize if my response seemed so negative and somehow offended you. That was certainly not my intent.
silver wrote:
cableguy wrote:
I am in the market for new tripod (old one broke). I would like one to handle my dslr & Sigma 150-500 lens. $$ somewhere $100 - $175. I have seen a couple with a pistol grip head for quick adjustments, but don't know if it can handle the larger weight of the Sigma 150-500 lens/camera.
Any suggestions.
I have seen this discussion so many times and my only question to you is what did you spend for your camera and lens? I am sure that you have a couple of thousand dollars invested in your equipment so my question to you is why even consider a cheap tripod? You should make the same investment you made for your camera and lens. A good tripod and head at a minimum will be in the $300.00-500.00 range and the $300.00 is at the lower end. Also why are you asking people here what they think, why dont you go to a good camera store and look at the tripods in person so you can see exactly what is involved? A good tripod is a very important investment and the only way to find out what is necessary for you is to go look at them yourself. Also there is nothing wrong with buying a used tripod, a used Gitzo tripod will be better then most new tripods around today. One last thing, dont buy an all in one tripod get a good set of legs and a separate head of which ever style you like.
quote=cableguy I am in the market for new tripod ... (
show quote)
I couldn't agree with this more. Too many photographers under-estimate the importance of having a good quality tripod, and are too willing to settle for a cheap tripod. I've seen fellow club members spend oodles of cash on the newest and best camera bodies and glass and then be perplexed when their images aren't sharp, never considering that their tripod might be the major culprit. Investing in a higher end tripod may not be as "sexy" as having the newest camera, but if one gets serious enough about one's images a good tripod is a must!
It might help to know more about what it is that you are see as the difference between the too. Is it a matter of the sharpness, contrast, something else?
Please do. I see from your profile you are in the Berkeley club. I am with Diablo Valley, also an N4C member.
sjbegres wrote:
What are your views on dry mounting images for exhibits?
If is done properly, and the sponsor for the exhibit has no problem with it, then I don't see a problem.
Sheila B wrote:
Good morning!
It's 12/22/12 and we are still here! Amazing how things get twisted!
Anyway, I am considering submitting a photo of mine in a local print competition. They will be using a "light box"
Can someone tell me how to correctly present my print? I have absolutely no idea how to do this!
I have been told this group is quite critical but "what the heck!" I think my skin is thick enough!
Thanks, as always, for our support!
First, double check as to what "rules" they have for competitions. Usually that will include minimum and maximum image size, mat size (if allowed, or required), thickness limitations for the backing plus mats etc. I've seen more than one image from my club DQed because the photographer did not follow the competition guidelines.
I'm assuming (i may be wrong here) that by using a " light box" they intend to view the prints in a setup under daylight balanced light (5600K) in order to see color casts, etc. Try to proof your print using the same type of light if possible, and adjust the one you plan to submit so that it looks good when viewed under that light source.
Don't fret. If you have a good image and you follow the rules for the competition you'll be fine.
PalePictures wrote:
Where the hell does Superb fit in?
I use that about once a week, if I think the photo is
totally sick man...I mean awesome...I mean whatever.
I like to think I'm pretty picky about whatever.
"Superb" should be reserved for describing a well executed seared ahi with baby greens, arugula, and poached quail egg salad drizzled with a citrus white balsamic vinegarette.
Which, by the way, is totally awesome.