Cavechat.org

Do I sense a little bitterness that a salamander photo took second place and you didn't sweep 1st, 2nd & 3rd all with pics of the same person over and over and over... and that a cricket photo won first place last year... Perhaps the judges are interested in seeing different stuff. I think more people should submit their photos, professional or push here dummies as you call them.

Those images by Phil Lucas are superb and you can tell they are done with technical lighting and artistic merit rather than incorrect, flat, improperly composed, cluttered, and non technical images. The cricket BOS last year is in the came category.

bob biddix
Innermost Imagery
http://www.innermostimagery/com

innermostphoto wrote:Anyone with a camera pointing at the sky can get that shot with virtually any point and shoot. Push and click, done. Same way with the recent pictures of critters in caves. Nothing artistic about it as it's the same flat ,non-technical, on camera image that any PHD camera (push here dummy) can create.

After browsing your site, I get a strong impression that your own shots are dependent on fantastic subject matter rather than artistic excellence. Could most anyone standing in Blue Spring, for instance, with your camera and lighting take equally impressive shots? Perhaps not, perhaps so. I'm sure there would be a lot of great results, even from the untrained.
Perhaps this is why your portraiture is creatively indistinguishable from photos in a family album (excepting the comically cliched posing). The subjects are not in themselves fascinating and the photographer has done little to make them so. Of course, I am not a photographer, and know absolutely nothing about the matter. I only know what I find appealing artistically, what impresses me. Many of your photos do and you no doubt deserve your reputation as an excellent photographer. But goodness, give the cave or the waterfall or the gorilla or the mountain more credit than you give yourself.

rowland7840 wrote:I think more people should submit their photos, professional or push here dummies as you call them.

I love seeing non-pro photos. It's especially nice to see an ignoramus use crappy equipment to take a fascinating picture. I wish I had that gift since I'm an ignoramus who will never have a nice camera.

innermostphoto wrote:Perhaps a little when it is technically just not a good photo. Heck look at my photo. I have said it many times that the BOS photo is not that great. A good photo perhaps but definitely not BOS. Don't know what they were thinking. That salamander photo is flat and nothing to it. Anyone with a camera could get that who took the time to do it. Don't know what they were thinking there either. It does however, irk me that good quality photos do not make BOS or not necessarily "make the grade" as it were. Those images by Phil Lucas are superb and you can tell they are done with technical lighting and artistic merit rather than incorrect, flat, improperly composed, cluttered, and non technical images. The cricket BOS last year is in the came category.

bob biddix
Innermost Imagery
http://www.innermostimagery/com

I seem to have trouble remembering, who won Best in Show in the photo salon at TAG this year? I mean, if everyone except you sucks, it must have been you, right?

TAG has their own photo salon now? Nice!

I get sick of seeing the same old places in cave photos too (including some of my own). And I'm not a big fan of most salamander, bat, or other critter photos. The same posed models wearing essentially the same clothing in many photos also tends to get boring for me. I guess I'm just a hater.

Gosh people only read what they want and hear only what they want. Makes little sense to me. Erica and I have created some amazing images over the past few years and just because she is a pretty model some people gotta be haters. E has become very adept at what we do and the images we have created and donated to the NSS in salons and NSS published books are too numerous to count. This last years' salon I entered 4 different people inside of 30 images, If I recall 27 were shown. I can't help that the award winners were of Erica. So don't be hatin'.

Oh and a nice camera is not what is responsible for amazing pictures. I have proven that with disposable Kodak. In other words you can buy me the most expensive paint brush and I still can't paint


bob biddix
Innermost Imagery
http://www.innermostimagery.com

innermostphoto wrote:This last years' salon I entered 4 different people inside of 30 images, If I recall 27 were shown. I can't help that the award winners were of Erica. So don't be hatin'.

So one of your pics won Best of Show then?? Which one?

innermostphoto wrote: The issue of touching a formation or not is a non issue in my opinion. While I do not exhibit such in my own images,

Ahem...

HA!!! Now THAT"S funny....well, at least I try not too. Oh and as a footnote a lot of images. The reason for this was to get a representation of a simple image of what the passage or place looks like for publications and not artistic quality. Fabulous photo BTW!!

Good Show!

bob biddix
Innermost Imagery
http://www.innermostimagery.com

You forgot to answer, which one of your pics won Best of Show at the TAG photo salon??

innermostphoto wrote:Oh and a nice camera is not what is responsible for amazing pictures. I have proven that with disposable Kodak. In other words you can buy me the most expensive paint brush and I still can't paint

I agree. However, comparing photography to painting is like comparing Madden on your Playstation to NFL football.

GroundquestMSA wrote:

innermostphoto wrote:Oh and a nice camera is not what is responsible for amazing pictures. I have proven that with disposable Kodak. In other words you can buy me the most expensive paint brush and I still can't paint

I agree. However, comparing photography to painting is like comparing Madden on your Playstation to NFL football.

The best painters aspire to create images to rival good photographs.

NZcaver wrote:The best painters aspire to create images to rival good photographs

My reference was to the skills required to be proficient at each. No offense to photographers, I am genuinely jealous of your skills.

I assume you aren't a fan of impressionism

GroundquestMSA wrote:

NZcaver wrote:The best painters aspire to create images to rival good photographs

My reference was to the skills required to be proficient at each. No offense to photographers, I am genuinely jealous of your skills.

I assume you aren't a fan of impressionism

I guess it all depends on your definition of proficiency. Many photographers spend their whole life honing their skills, just like painters. I would say the skill involved in a good painting is more readily apparent to the viewer than someone who spends days planning, lighting and composing a complicated photo. It may not rival the artistry of a Monet or Picasso, but it certainly might rival the technical skill, seeing as how a similar amount of learning and practice may have been involved in arriving at that point.

As far as the TAG photo salon goes, it is more just for fun and in no means a serious competition. I wouldn't go bragging "Hey I won such and such place at the TAG Photo Salon"... There is not alot of entries for the judges to chose from and it's not based on technical merit. Last year it was People's Choice Award but because it took me nearly TWO hours to count up the votes (which took two hours away from my party time), this year I selected (begged) three cavers to do the judging for me. When it was time for the judges to show up, only two of them did and they only had a handful (less than 10) photos to chose from. The majority of the photos that were entered were disqualified because people did not read the rules which I thought were pretty darn simple and there were only TWO Categories for photos. It was a lot of work setting up the area for the salon and getting all the materials ready for not a lot of participation so it was kinda a defunk that one person got several ribbons anyways. I doubt I will be willing to volunteer to host it again.

Kelly
^V^