I know the competition is a bit of online fun, but posting the make and model of my camera next to one of my images is just something ah cannae bring maself tae dae.
I'm a fairly recent member and first entered the photo competition back in October. I had a look at the rules, which included "please include the following" which requested the date taken, location, both of which I understood to be key to the competition as they were to be 'outdoor' related images taken in the last month. Also under "please include" was "camera details". I did notice that most folks were posting make and model, but I figured 'digital capture' should be fine. And if I remember correctly no comment was made, but that also that ah didnae get a single vote
In 2013 my walking exploits had been going quite well. Then I started thinking about cycling again, and started to go about trying to get back into cycling, it didn't take many weeks to wreck my dodgy knees again. So I forgot about the cycling and tried to get back to my walking but the damage had been done. In January once again I sought help, my knees were aching and of course by now I had also lost all the useful muscle I'd built up during 2013.
My physio's plans for recovery were, to me, a bit scary - lots of gym work - but it seemed to work, and by the end of march I was back out hill walking and by the beginning of April I was back up a Munro. So I entered the competition in April, again - digital capture - and was e-mailed by Susie and Susie posted what camera I had used. But in any case I'd screwed up the posting of my image and I don't think many folks, if anybody, saw it. So no votes again
I did post a comment about the camera thing back at the beginning of April.
So I entered - 'digital capture' - and got another e-mail from Susie. Susie asked me if I had used my trusty old G1 again. But a rare event had taken place, Gareth had bought a new camera, so I relied that I hadn't used the G1 and knowing Susie would post my make and model of my new camera in the competition thread, well I forgot to mention it.
Like I say, I'm not bothered about this, it's not for a minority of one here to insist the rules are changed, all I can do is state, as I have, why I won't post camera details next to one of my images. I'll probably post some images in one of the other non-competition threads.
I hope it's OK seeing as others have commented and at some at length if I respond to some of those points, but I'm not spitting out the dummy, though I'm sure to some it will look like that, or trying to have an angry internet debate.
I obviously wasn't around for the 'photoshop' debate. I've already posted my views on that, but I'll add a wee bit more. I used to do quite a lot of photo-journalism as well as production stills for a voluntary film making collective and a few independent film makers. As such I had only one rule, add nothing, take nothing away. I might have cloned away dust spots but that was pretty much as far as it went. Everything else was game, manipulate the negative or the digital data to get the result you want, and my intention always that people would accept the image for what it was. I've spent hours on a single image before, then binned it the following evening and started again from scratch.
I don't think with landscape images cloning is such an issue, you can clone away an awkward stone or bit of rubbish you didn't notice at the time, that's fine. But of course there are what I would call composite landscapes and composed or manipluated landscapes, I think for the purposes of a competition it is important to state what is acceptable. I stick pretty much to my add nothing, take nothing photo-journo rules, though maybe not quite as strictly. I do however do a lot of digital processing on my hill walking snaps, I just try to get the best out of them. John Kay makes some good points on these matters.
I don't have to vote for things where it looks as if the editing has taken over, any more than I have to wear make-up if I don't want to.
I like Sgurr's comment. And if an image of mine looks 'processed' then my processing has failed. I happen to like to listen to JJ Cale now and again. JJ created his own unique, original and wonderful, and above all very natural sound. But the reality was he was a master of recording studio processing, behind that relaxed natural sound was 100's of hours of studio sound processing. It might have sounded natural but there was nothing natural at all about the creation of the sound. It's the end result that counts, not how you got there. And as John Kay points out cameras don't see what we see. Nor do they experience what we see or respond to it. The camera is just a tool that we use to capture information, it is in itself unimportant.
Tinto63's comments are also interesting,
I'll certainly have a preference for those great photographs taken on phones or point and shoot compacts
Why? If it is a photo competition, sure it is the photo that counts and nothing else. Also if I've got a nice camera and lens, maybe one doesn't want to every-time one posts an image taken with that nice camera and lens go, hey look I've got a fancy camera!
Here's a thought. A hypothetical competition. David Bailey v Gareth Harper and you are the judges. I get to go oot wi a the top o the range Hasselblad (mega bucks cameras) and poor David has to use a Holga (Chinese toy camera costing about a tenner). Who are you gonna put your money on? I'd try my best, but if I was allowed to bet, well it would have to be against myself.
So finally I think photography is more than cameras and lenses. Cameras don't take pictures, people do.
I know it's just a bit of fun, but sometimes I want to scream when I see a big list of equipment and technical details next to an image.
Anybody still awake?