Unfair contest?

m1ndless

m1ndless

New Member
In my opinion, the photo contest seems unfair to those of us who cannot afford a $1000 digital SLR, we all cant get those amazing close ups and quick snap shots like you guys.

I am sure I am not the only one who agrees...
 
As stated in another thread, it`s not about the camera. It`s mainly the operator. Sure, an SLR helps, but I`ve taken some awesome pictures with a point and shoot. You just have to be patient and learn to work with your camera.
 
Well with all things being equal, then yes, it is hard to compare pics from different "level of quality" cameras.

But, you can always try for the creative shot. I think many of the members would appreciate it and it would level out the playing field. At the very least you would get photos of your chams out in front of everyone!
 
yes i agree but i have a $h1tty camera and took an awesome pic i think its called i see the fog let me know what you think
 
Puritania said:
As stated in another thread, it`s not about the camera. It`s mainly the operator. Sure, an SLR helps, but I`ve taken some awesome pictures with a point and shoot. You just have to be patient and learn to work with your camera.
Click to expand...

I agree. Most point and shoots have a bunch of settings that allow you to make adjustments. Sure DSLRs go beyond that but it is actually easier to get a "better" picture with a point and shoot, because the camera does all the work for you.

These 3000 dollar cameras can take some god awful photos..ones you would never see with a point and shoot, because the photographer has to make all the setting choices and not the camera.

For every good picture posted, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of crappy ones. It takes practice, and a ton of bad shots to get a good one.

Talking to justin the other day, we laughed at how many pictures we have taken of the water running in the shower to that running water "look" perfected and how to repeat it at will.

Anyway. I ramble...but at least semi on topic.
 
Last edited:
Just fo finance an SLR with your bank.lol:rolleyes:
User, operator, timing, and head space has something to do with it too.
This has already been said, but I agree a SLR does pick up more detail than a PS.
Dodolah had posted this on last months contest.
Maybe two seperate contest: PS and SLR.


haha dont forget the sink Josh!
 
one of about 150 pictures....lol
 

Attachments

  • water 007.JPG
    water 007.JPG
    160.7 KB · Views: 290
I think its all fair. I dont have a SLR. I dont feel its a disadvantage either. Ive taken some awesome pictures in my time but for some reason dont enter the photo contest. I feel that when I do enter the contest though I will have a fair chance at competing.
 
ive used both SLR and Point and shoot...

in the past year ive not even gotten close to winning a photo contest with my SLR! But b4 i got my SLR i received 3rd place from a picture taken on a Point And Shoot camera!

If u think the SLR is whats winning these contests ur 100% wrong because im still learning how to work mine after a year! and im still not close to being able to take a award winning picture!
 
Lost Lake Chameleons said:
I agree. Most point and shoots have a bunch of settings that allow you to make adjustments. Sure DSLRs go beyond that but it is actually easier to get a "better" picture with a point and shoot, because the camera does all the work for you.

These 3000 dollar cameras can take some god awful photos..ones you would never see with a point and shoot, because the photographer has to make all the setting choices and not the camera.

For every good picture posted, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of crappy ones. It takes practice, and a ton of bad shots to get a good one.

Talking to justin the other day, we laughed at how many pictures we have taken of the water running in the shower to that running water "look" perfected and how to repeat it at will.

Anyway. I ramble...but at least semi on topic.
Click to expand...

Dead on, Josh. I have so many ugly gigs of my cham sitting on my hard drive.

A DSLR won't save your pictures. The amazing DSLR images seen on this site are product of a lot of time and energy into learning about photography. If there's anything about the equipment that is unfair, it's the lenses, not the camera.
 
Nikon D40
I have a bunch of good ones, but they are to large to post.
It is so crazy trying to use a DSLR.
I shot most of my pictures in Aperature.
I have found that this take really good pictures.
I have taken about 1000 pictures in the month that I have owned this thing.
Trying to learn ISO, White Balance, how open you want the shutter, etc etc
It is really hard, and takes soooooo long to learn.
so maybe it is fair....hmmmm....:confused:
 
I agree with everyone here. The camera is just a tool. Wether it cost $1000 or
$100, it all depends on how you use it. I take pics on a camera that costs less than $100. It all comes down to lighting, composition, and subject matter. If you want to learn how to get an edge up on taking some killer picks, start with researching 3 point lighting. Trust me it will make a difference.
 
To some aspect, i agree with you guys..
Composition and designs do make a difference..
But, we cannot deny the fact that SLR will help.

I can use a point and shoot camera... but if i am allowed to use photoshop and go all crazy (without misrepresenting the chameleon, off course.. so you won't see a rainbow veiled chameleon).. that would be great. :p

I can turn a photo shot by polaroid looked like being shot by D3000 without altering the chameleon natural colors..
you know.. a little gaussian blur here and there, increase contrast on the back, play with level and curve (to those who know how to use photoshop)
The problem is... Will you guys let me do that and still think that it is a fair game :)?

To me, SLR still tipped a favor a bit with the color brilliance and level of details (and like Royden said when he talked about the "Lens":).
I mean.. if it really does not make a difference then Ansel Adams would use a Fuji point and shoot camera for his subject matter.

Just like a difference between using a cheap watercolor crayola paint with winsor newton professional paint.
In the hand of maestro, crayola can be used to make a good painting.. but a maestro with winsor newton can create a stunning masterpiece.

In my line of work, a good medium wins half of the battle.
I wonder, if we can have a contest where everybody is restricted to use a point and shoot camera and get creative..
and see where it leads.. just for fun :)
I would love to see how people get creative and not just rely on the magic of the lenses. :)
 
Last edited:
royden said:
A DSLR won't save your pictures. The amazing DSLR images seen on this site are product of a lot of time and energy into learning about photography. If there's anything about the equipment that is unfair, it's the lenses, not the camera.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

You cannot take anywhere near the same type of picture with DSLR that you can with a point and shoot.

You can not take high speed shots, good marco shots, cannot adjust shutter speed or apature, those are the basics of photography, and a PandS wont get you the same results a DSLR will get you.

A $75 kodak 3.2mp camera is going to have a crappy/blurry picutre, a basic DSLR will get you an amazing shot regardless of how you use it.

Therefore, the contest IS unfair to those with a crappy camera.
 
And yet 3 awards have been mentioned on this thread ... all for pictures taken with a point and shoot camera.

-Brad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lurker9090
Carpet Chameleon Enclosure advice!
Replies
10
Views
739
Action Jackson
Action Jackson
Delef3
New but not new
Replies
9
Views
469
Delef3
Delef3
lurker9090
Chester has RI.
Replies
5
Views
407
MissSkittles
MissSkittles
sketchtone
My happy boy!
Replies
1
Views
231
BleuSaphir
BleuSaphir
emma_5774
Filling with gas
Replies
5
Views
658
kinyonga
K
Back
Top Bottom