• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Next Photo Contest: So what's it gonna be?

Terri said:
C'mon Joe...
All we've heard about lately is how your pictures are WAY better than everyone else's. Give it a rest already.

Yes, your pictures are nice, but they lack character. People like character. It's not just about perfect focus/exposure.
Click to expand...

Amen, Terri!

If this isn't a case of sour-grapes well then I'm the Queen of Sheba. Bow down to me. =P

A high-quality camera is NOT needed to take good photographs, simply put. Sure it helps, but it isn't necessary. Look at the pics that Spiritmist took with two very average cameras (one of which I own). Now if I could get that sort of quality out of my shots, I'd be a happy camper. Why? Because I wouldn't have to spend $800 to buy another digital camera for megapixels most people don't ever end up using anyway. Unless you're professionally doing photography and printing high-quality photos or posters, most of those megapixels are going to waste. The only clincher right now I'd pay for is DSLR technology and something that takes the picture when I push the freaking button, not half a second after the snake has moved.

What I think it all boils down to is Composition vs. Clarity. Thanks to this "discussion" I know I'm not the only one sick of plain ole head shots on aspen or paper towel. Any fool can take those. Yes, your pictures may be more crisp than someone else's, but clarity don't mean much to me for the whole photo. Everything has to come together for me to consider it a good shot.

Pictures don't have to contain flowers for them to be optimal. But I like different things going on either with the pose/mood of the snake or the background that's variable. You live in Florida for goodness sakes, take your snakes out for a daytrip or something. Most of us in the colder climes don't have that luxury right now.

Like Serp said, photography is an artform. Don't take "mugshots" when you can have so much more. Expand your eye into something that isn't a super-duper macro shot (which are neat) but rather onto something more eloquent.

Obviously based on this whole thing, you're more into the technical side of things rather than the artistic side of things. Had your snakes been in some leaves or pine needles, I might have voted for more than one of them. Heck, I didn't even vote for one of my own because I felt it was boring, but yet showed a crisp head/tongue.

And lastly, leave the clarity as it is, some of your pics look like "cut-outs" pasted onto a background because of your Photoshopping. I very rarely alter an image's sharpness, and after a while it just begins to look fake. How about a really good picture without editing for a change.

I'm really not trying to be harsh, but I think you've taken this "camera elitism" thing just a tad bit too far. Most of us aren't made of money or have parents made of money. I'd rather spend my hard-earned money on snake cages at this point rather than a new camera. Not saying I wouldn't like an 8.0 megapixel Super-Duper PAS, but right now its just not practical, so I deal with what I've got. A very good 4.0 megapixel Olympus C750.

Them's the beans as I see it.
 
dionythicus said:
Would hairy legs count, too? I'm growing out my winter pelt. I know, TMI.
Click to expand...
Hey, watch it! I'm getting a tad bit excited :crazy02:
Sorry, but I felt this thread needed a little "lightening up" :grin01:
 
CornCrazy said:
Yes, your pictures are nice, but they lack character. People like character. It's not just about perfect focus/exposure.
Click to expand...

I don't really want to argue about any of this, but the photos Joe took of my snakes have plenty of character. And not only that, but they captured characteristics of my snakes that I'd never seen with my own eyes, and that I'd definitely never seen in my own photos.

But I admit that I'm biased. I guess I'm more into documentary style photography than artistic. This is why I've never been that concerned with the fact that my ugly left hand is in 90% of my shots. ;)
 
Aww...but that's the part of being a royal subject. ;)

Sides, I haven't horked in 3 weeks, and even then it was just that nasty Starbucks coffee.
 
Misty excellent points. I went and got a good DSLR because I wanted one. I love it and thats great but my Fuji point and shoot did a good job too. I hate taking the time to edit my pictures so if they get ANY attention at all its an AUTOFIX. But more than 90% of them are straight off the camera. I dont want to spend a week editing one memory card. Excellent points best of luck and I cant wait to get them back outside for pics again.
Josh
 
Taceas said:
Sides, I haven't horked in 3 weeks, and even then it was just that nasty Starbucks coffee.
Click to expand...

Awe, there's your problem right there. Notify your doctor right away! :p
If the coffee doesn't make ya hork, the price sure will.
 
Joejr14 said:
I don't agree at all. A picture is either in focus, or it's not. There's no 'maybe it's in focus'. The same goes for exposure. Things are either correctly exposed, underexposed, or overexposed. When you see a reflection of the flash on the snake, the picture is overexposed.

It's really not a big deal, and I understand that photography is an art and everyone has their own opinion on what is a good picture. Everyone's tastes are different, but from a technical standpoint, there's no debating focus and exposure.
Click to expand...
Heh, no it's not a big deal, it's rather entertaining, though. :santa:

Anyway, not all things should be in focus at all times. Have you ever listened to a piece of music (for example, a piano piece) that is performed "perfectly" via MIDI? It's way too rigid and uninteresting. When a snake's tongue is made of stairstepped pixels, it makes the picture look "fake" and pulls my attention away from what the picture is supposed to actually be. Instead of admiring the picture, I'm staring at it with my head cocked, going "what's up with that?"

When it's so crispy, to the point that you're seeing details you don't want to see, it can also be a bad thing. It's like cranking up your stereo to 150dB so that I can "properly appreciate" a piece of music you want me to hear. In the example you provided, the caramel has little chunks of aspen dust on him. They are WAY too visible for me to look at anything else in that picture. I'm reminded of the nice big closeup in Ren & Stimpy where you oh-so-clearly see the lovely little pus-oozing zit right next to a chunk of earwax with a hair stuck in it and a dead gnat stuck in a cobweb. (Joy! LOL) I never even noticed that the tongue was not in focus. ;)

"Perfect" exposure is a judgement call, too. Sometimes stuff looks better in "natural" sunlight, or with incandescent lights, or with a flash, or when it looks like it is under fluorescent lighting. Some things look better overexposed, some look better underexposed. It depends on the thing, and the picture it is in, and where it is in the picture. The idea is not to always get a perfect replication of what your eyes might happen to see under ideal conditions.

At this point it seems you're a little too worried about the technical aspects to notice the big picture. One thing that any good picture does is convey something. A thought, a phrase, a feeling, something. (Or as the French say, "a certain... I don't know what.") I have to be compelled to continue looking at it, for a good reason. If I'm not, it doesn't matter how well it is "exposed" or "focused" or "composed." It doesn't have to be "technically flawless" to convey a message and be a good picture. I just have to be able to see it well enough to pick up on whatever that is, and not be distracted by other things. :)
 
Roy Munson said:
I don't really want to argue about any of this, but the photos Joe took of my snakes have plenty of character. And not only that, but they captured characteristics of my snakes that I'd never seen with my own eyes, and that I'd definitely never seen in my own photos.

But I admit that I'm biased. I guess I'm more into documentary style photography than artistic. This is why I've never been that concerned with the fact that my ugly left hand is in 90% of my shots. ;)
Click to expand...
I would definitely have to agree that you are biased. ;) If Joe took pics of my snakes with that camera of his, I am sure I might see characteristics of my snakes that I've never seen before. The problem is...character is different from characteristics.

Joe's shots to me are "seen one seen 'em all." The documentary/technical shots are not nearly as interesting as the artistic shots. Now don't get me wrong, Joe's pictures are very clear, but they are not appealling to me because of the above mentioned reasons.
 
Joker<------ "Bows to the Master" :grin01: Serp your my HERO!
Josh
My camera phone is better than your camera phone! :flames:
 
Last edited:
OK, (not to get on topic for a second), how about a 2-part contest...

Perhaps a bit more manly...
"Hairy Arm Pics"

And a bit more romantic...
"Valentine's Day Pics"

That should give most people something to shoot for. :D

Hey Terri, do you still need a Valentine's day pic for the calendar?
 
Ok but to get serious for a moment. Do we need a corn snake in our entry for the hairiest arm?
Josh
 
FWIW,
I judge photos on a 50/50 basis, considering picture quality and creativity. A photo with 30% pic quality and 50% creativity scores the same as a pic with 50% pic quality and 30% creativity. :shrugs:


How about Corns on your feet?
 
Do you want me to hold off on this theme and have it run in your thread? :D Or do you want to pick from the entries if I run it for the next "Braggin' Rights Corn Photo Contest" along with Apeman...er...hairy arm pics? I'm happy either way. We've got lots of topics to choose from...
 
So whats the topic for this weekends contest? Joe wins or which one did we end up picking?
Josh
 
Hurley said:
Do you want me to hold off on this theme and have it run in your thread? :D Or do you want to pick from the entries if I run it for the next "Braggin' Rights Corn Photo Contest" along with Apeman...er...hairy arm pics? I'm happy either way. We've got lots of topics to choose from...
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with you running a Valentine's one. I will be happy to add them to the "contest" for February's picture.
 
CornCrazy said:
The problem is...character is different from characteristics.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understood this difference. That's why I italicized "characteristics" in the post. I chose the word carefully. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top