So being the idiot that I am, I decided to download a CS2 tryout before I repaired my good camera. I have three days left of the CS2 tryout and unfortunately I'm not having any luck running into pretty little landscapes. My question is, to submit a photo into a challenge, does the photo have to be edited? I need to know soon because I've submitted one that hasn't even been touched and I'd like to unsubmit it before I get myself toasted. I think the pictures are pretty good for not being edited at all, but I'm wondering if there are challenges that require the picture being played with alot. I'm not a member, so I guess. Gosh I don't know. I just want to know if what I'm doing is okay.
Well, I'm not here for a high score really. I'm here for fun and to learn new methods. I'm here to learn because I need to learn. Maybe some day I'll be the one teaching everyone else. Never know.
My best score, 5.8, was only cropped and resized, with no other edit, but it was for a basic editing challenge. I have done the same with an advanced editing challenge, and the score was not so good.
A lot of score is about the quality of the image, and not so much about subject matter, as long as the subject fits the challenge description.
Yeah. I guess I've noticed that. It's a shame when someone has a real nice photograph and it's a little too fuzzy or a little too dark so it gets dropped.. And then some idiot can take a picture of a pen on a table and as long as it's a clear bright picture, it scores high. I get where youre coming from though.
Yeah. I guess I've noticed that. It's a shame when someone has a real nice photograph and it's a little too fuzzy or a little too dark so it gets dropped.. And then some idiot can take a picture of a pen on a table and as long as it's a clear bright picture, it scores high. I get where youre coming from though.
If one could describe a photo as "a little too fuzzy or a little too dark" then it really isn't a "real nice photograph" now is it? The "idiot" who knows how to take/edit the "clear bright picture" that scores well isn't really an "idiot" then either.
and yes i meant toasted - as in the score - not in some form of cruel punishment... ;}
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by Beautiful-Joe:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. I guess I've noticed that. It's a shame when someone has a real nice photograph and it's a little too fuzzy or a little too dark so it gets dropped.. And then some idiot can take a picture of a pen on a table and as long as it's a clear bright picture, it scores high. I get where youre coming from though.
If one could describe a photo as "a little too fuzzy or a little too dark" then it really isn't a "real nice photograph" now is it? The "idiot" who knows how to take/edit the "clear bright picture" that scores well isn't really an "idiot" then either.
Yeah. I guess I've noticed that. It's a shame when someone has a real nice photograph and it's a little too fuzzy or a little too dark so it gets dropped.. And then some idiot can take a picture of a pen on a table and as long as it's a clear bright picture, it scores high. I get where youre coming from though.
If one could describe a photo as "a little too fuzzy or a little too dark" then it really isn't a "real nice photograph" now is it? The "idiot" who knows how to take/edit the "clear bright picture" that scores well isn't really an "idiot" then either.
I'm talking about the quality of the camera, to be exact. I started out with a crappy .3 megapixel digital because it was all I could afford. I can't afford a nice photo editing program, but I'm happy to learn about this Gimp thing and the others.. I rate images in a very odd way. If the shot looked like a difficult shot to take, its a good photograph. Some rich pompous moron who could afford a nice camera and take pictures of ridiculous things that nobody cares about, is not a photographer. That's an idiot with a nice camera. However if someone uses a cruel form of trickery by means of photographing human infants cuddling with little white kittens, many people are prone to rank the image higher just because of the primal butterflies within each of us that cause us to surrender to fuzzy little things.
Yeah. I guess I've noticed that. It's a shame when someone has a real nice photograph and it's a little too fuzzy or a little too dark so it gets dropped.. And then some idiot can take a picture of a pen on a table and as long as it's a clear bright picture, it scores high. I get where youre coming from though.
If one could describe a photo as "a little too fuzzy or a little too dark" then it really isn't a "real nice photograph" now is it? The "idiot" who knows how to take/edit the "clear bright picture" that scores well isn't really an "idiot" then either.
I'm talking about the quality of the camera, to be exact. I started out with a crappy .3 megapixel digital because it was all I could afford. I can't afford a nice photo editing program, but I'm happy to learn about this Gimp thing and the others.. I rate images in a very odd way. If the shot looked like a difficult shot to take, its a good photograph. Some rich pompous moron who could afford a nice camera and take pictures of ridiculous things that nobody cares about, is not a photographer. That's an idiot with a nice camera. However if someone uses a cruel form of trickery by means of photographing human infants cuddling with little white kittens, many people are prone to rank the image higher just because of the primal butterflies within each of us that cause us to surrender to fuzzy little things.
Photos shouldn't be rated on perceived difficulty. You never know what lengths someone actually went to to get a photo. Perhaps the photographer is deathly allergic to cats and had to borrow a friend's baby. Perhaps the boring landscape was shot after a seven mile hike up a 14er. Photos can be made to look deceptively simple. If you score someone low for something you think just anyone can do, perhaps they've done their job too well.
Yeah. I guess I've noticed that. It's a shame when someone has a real nice photograph and it's a little too fuzzy or a little too dark so it gets dropped.. And then some idiot can take a picture of a pen on a table and as long as it's a clear bright picture, it scores high. I get where youre coming from though.
If one could describe a photo as "a little too fuzzy or a little too dark" then it really isn't a "real nice photograph" now is it? The "idiot" who knows how to take/edit the "clear bright picture" that scores well isn't really an "idiot" then either.
I'm talking about the quality of the camera, to be exact. I started out with a crappy .3 megapixel digital because it was all I could afford. I can't afford a nice photo editing program, but I'm happy to learn about this Gimp thing and the others.. I rate images in a very odd way. If the shot looked like a difficult shot to take, its a good photograph. Some rich pompous moron who could afford a nice camera and take pictures of ridiculous things that nobody cares about, is not a photographer. That's an idiot with a nice camera. However if someone uses a cruel form of trickery by means of photographing human infants cuddling with little white kittens, many people are prone to rank the image higher just because of the primal butterflies within each of us that cause us to surrender to fuzzy little things.
Good pictures are taken using good quality lighting and good composition and are taken by creative and imaginative people. The quality (or better yet the price) of the camera doesn't necessarily have anything to do with getting a good image. A fuzzy, poorly lit image can be taken on a great camera, while a great sharp and well lit image can be taken on one of those cheap 2-3 mp P&S cameras that you are describing.
Photography is about writing with light - so the light and the message are the most important pieces to get to the good image.
