No, it doesn't, and I agree that it could be useful for others to see.petesmith wrote:does keeping the exif data available with the photos cause problems in terms of the file sizes?
Cheers,
- Pete
No, it doesn't, and I agree that it could be useful for others to see.petesmith wrote:does keeping the exif data available with the photos cause problems in terms of the file sizes?
Not sure where you're looking, but if you go to the competition albums, then all of the EXIF data is there (just click on an image to go to the appropriate page, and you'll see it). Apologies - I missed this post!petesmith wrote:The exif data doesn't seem to be available now that the competition has ended
I'm a newcomer to all this - butterflies came into my life a couple of years ago and I have been thoroughly enjoying them ever since and photography has become part of that pleasure. And one thing that has surprised me is what I perceive to be an apparent rather narrow photographic mindset that the "butterfly on a stick" image is the default photographic style that all should aspire to. And in a away I suppose it is not surprising. Like a studio portrait of a person these images display the beauty of butterflies more effectively than any other style of photography IMO. But, like studio photographs, they don't display the character of the creatures as well as those that place the object in its natural habitat and they ultimately tend to look a bit samey (the need to place the butterfly subject square on to the lens to deal with the limited depth of field doesn't help here). Lots of people have studio portraits done of themselves but they don't put them on their facebook pages because they say so little about their subject. And it does seem a little odd that we go to the trouble of getting out into the naturalish countryside and then focus on exorcising that countryside from our pictures to take a shot that could almost have been taken indoors!Chris Jackson wrote:Hi Pete,Pete Eeles wrote:
........ I'm proposing to shake things up next year ......... but have a year to think about it ..... - Pete
"Butterflies in their landscape" is a good idea.
If we know in advance the types of challenging categories envisaged before next year is over (or even at the beginning of 2018), we could then rise to the challenge accordingly ?
Cheers,
Chris
This hasn't been an issue to date.rolf f wrote:It would also help if decent image sizes can be handled in the comp. For my shots, I got really close (28mm wide angle at antennae prodding distance!) and it is a shame to capture all the scale detail and then lose it in image size reduction.
Great idea - thx!Gruditch wrote:Way back, we used to run monthly competitions, but during the off season ( October- March) we ran themed competitions. Before we come up with some potentially great new categories, only to find we receive just a couple of entries. It could be worth the time trawling through them, to see what categories we had back then, and which ones were popular.
Regards Gary
Worth remembering that 1200x1200 pixels is equivalent to 1.4 mp; ie what a good digital camera would boast 20 years ago! You're throwing a lot of technical development away with that size limitation. If bandwidth really is that much of a limitation then fair enough but you (and we) aren't seeing the entries at their best (unless there are folk out there still using 1.4 mp cameras!)- and surely that is the point of a photo comp?Pete Eeles wrote:This hasn't been an issue to date.rolf f wrote:It would also help if decent image sizes can be handled in the comp. For my shots, I got really close (28mm wide angle at antennae prodding distance!) and it is a shame to capture all the scale detail and then lose it in image size reduction.
At the end of the day, this is a photography competition. We can "spice things up" by having different categories, but we can't compensate for those that take photos that are not as good as others. And so, once again, this is a request for suggestions on different categories.
Cheers,
- Pete
Aside from the fact that most would agree that it's the photographer and not the equipment that results in good photos, I have no idea how anyone would determine how much a camera cost. If I buy a DSLR and lens for £100, does that count?Charles Nicol wrote:Maybe there could be a category of "camera cost under £100" to encourage the less affluent snappers among us