Your most artistic Disney photos

The voting for the Live Animals contest has begun!

Zz.

I would like to submit my photos too... maybe some day I will.

"We go ooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn................"

Zz.

Voted for you ZapperZ! For anyone else interested in voting (I recommend voting for ZapperZ), the link is:

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=375965

Thank you for your vote!

Still, I don't think I'll win this one. I'm not even sure I'll even make it out of the first round. Competition is fierce!

Zz.

Hopefully the votes will keep rolling!

Aw, man! I missed my chance and the polls are closed! I even remembered my WDWMagic username and password from years ago!

Fantasmic1

Great picture!

Fantasmic is the one show that I can never get a good picture of, for some strange reason, probably because I never had any room to set up my tripod.

Zz.

Hi Zapper -
Agreed, it needs a tripod! Instead of a tripod, however, think MONOpod. My most successful effort at Fantasmic was using the tripod as a monopod with the legs all folded together. It didn't take up more than my allotted 20.3 inches! I prefer the tripod with the legs folded together because you still have the "pan" head. Most monopods, unless you buy an auxiliary head don't do tilt. I have a few other Fantasmic pix that I'll post too. Another tip on shooting "available light" is to wait for the peak of the action. If something goes up and then comes down it had to be totally motionless at some point. Try to shoot at the motionless point. We'll get you some great Fantasmic pictures yet! It's not that hard. I'm glad you liked the picture. I'll be at WDW next week and may have another shot at Fantasmic.
John

Zapper - Have you ever thought of leading a photo walk or photo shoot at WDW? I think that would be a blast for us photography buffs, and you obviously know what you're doing.

Now that I think about it, I'm kind of surprised Disney doesn't offer something like that for guests--a photography class followed by a photo walk. Or do they, and I just don't know about it?

That is such a nice thing to say, because I am just a lousy amateur.

The photo walk is not such a bad idea. I don't think Disney offers that. However, I would feel like a fraud leading something like that, especially for photography buffs. It would look very funny when the person leading it only has a point-and-shoot camera rather than a fancy SLR camera.

Zz.

So I'm trying to decide which picture I should use for this week's photo contest on WDWMagic (the theme is "Disney Mountain"), and I can't make up my mind between these two. Maybe you can help.

These are pictures of the two extremes of Expedition Everest. One is a far shot, the other is a close shot. Which one do you think might stand a chance to win?

Or are they both losers?

Zz.

This post was inspired by Zapper's comment that he didn't have a fancy SLR.

You know, I have done a lot of photography and am always amazed by the weight that everyone puts on the quality of the equipment one uses. Every time I hear someone make the comment that I take great pictures because I have good (expensive) equipment it reminds me of a comment I heard way too many years ago - It's like going to someone's house for a GREAT meal and complimenting the cook by saying - "That was a good meal, Mrs. Jones! You must have a good (or expensive) set of pots and pans." It's equally inappropriate to assume that an expensive camera is necessary to take good pictures. Today's point and shoot cameras take pictures that are every bit as good as those taken by the $10K+ SLR's. You can't tell the difference on the screen. So - - - Don't use the quality of the camera as an excuse or reason for the quality of a photograph. Good photography depends more on the artistic eye and technical skill of the photographer. So, Zapper, don't put yourself down. You can be a GREAT photographer with your "point and shoot."

One comment on the "photo walk" idea. I would favor a format where guests spend an hour or two learning about their camera and how it works and then go out in the park to utilize their new skills followed by a review and discussion session. Walking people around and telling them where to point their cameras is way lame and doesn't foster the creativity that photogarphy is all about. Maybe spending an hour or two with a personal photography "coach" is another workable idea. They have golf coaches, tennis coaches, etc., etc. Why not a photography coach?

John

I agree with what you said, John. I've had a few people asking me what kind of camera I used, and they're always amazed that I use a simple ultracompact point-and-shoot. It has 12 megapixels, but still, a point-and-shoot. In fact, I was never much into taking photos until I got a digital camera, and then I got an ultracompact that I can carry with me anywhere. I learn how to "shoot first, and ask questions later", rather than with my old film camera where I keep thinking if I want to "waste" a shot and film roll on a shot. So the simple point-and-shoot camera got me into being a photo buff.

I definitely agree that people do need to be coached on how to properly use their camera. It's amazing how good of a picture one can take, even with simple, cheap camera, if one knows what to do, and what proper setting to use. Case in point: I often have to take photos of many of the equipment I work with. They are usually indoors and lighted by white, fluorescent lighting. If one simply use the automatic setting, more often than not, the picture will turn out with a slight yellowish tint. Not a bid deal if one knows how to do some color correcting, but most don't, and there is also no reason why it should come out that way.

It turns out that many of these cameras, even point-and-shoot ones, have macro settings for various conditions, and one of them is indoor setting that is under a fluorescent light. Using that, and turning off the flash will produce a more accurate color tones than using the automatic setting. Many of my colleagues here at work are always amazed with the pictures I took because when they did it, all the pictures come out either yellowish, or the background is dark (they had the flash on).

I'll be at WDW from Dec. 10 to 17. If anyone from this forum want to do a "photography" walk, I'd be more than happy to join you. With all the holiday lights going on (especially at the Osborne Spectacle of Lights), it should be an amazing time to snap pictures.

Zz.

Maybe not exactly artistic, but...

@ZapperZ: I think of the two photos I like the first best, but I'm not sure if it will do the best in a voting contest. The first one seems to have more interesting composition. The second one is "cleaner" but it is kind of boring to me.

Zzap--I like the first better, but I think I'd crop out the little brown shrine/statue in the front. As much as I like the water reflection of the colors (you don't usually see those bright colors at night at AK, so it makes the photo interesting), the shrine is a bit of a distraction to the whole photo.

Just my 2 cents!

If that were truly the case, photography wouldn't have been considered an art for as long as it has. Better equipment may allow clearer photos, but never "better" photos.

Some of my favorite and most cherished (and artistically best) photos were taken with my old 32 millimeter film camera. For a long time I wouldn't go digital because I thought I'd lose the spontaneity you get with film--a quality that I think is what makes photography truly artistic. With film, you really have to develop your "eye" for photography and know what truly sets up a good photo. With digital, you can just keep trying until the final product "looks right."

Hrm...I think I like the first one best too Zapperz.

I've submitted the first one to the contest. Fingers crossed!

Thanks to everyone for the input/comments.

Zz.

Good luck! When can we go vote? I don't want to miss out this time.

The voting usually starts some time on Friday.

Zz.

In part, very true. However, since my photo experience goes back to the days of a color darkroom in the basement, I can also attest to the fact that film gave a certain range that digital photography does not. In the darkroom, I could take a negative that was "marginal" or worse and produce an acceptable print. In the digital world, if you overexpose, there's literally NOTHING there! Same way with under-exposure. With film, I could always pull something out in the darkroom. The bottom line is that digital photography is the same but a different animal. Separate the "art" part of it and the "technology" part of it. The art hasn't really changed but the technology has. For those who have never used film, this is is hard to grasp. Photoshop and the other "darkroom" programs don't even begin to provide the latitude that was the norm in a modest truly DARK room. Shooting until you get it right with digital is no different than the intermediate step previously offered by the darkroom. Not all great images were created in the "lens to film" stage of the process. -- John

I agree that a great photographer can take great photos with a point and shoot. So imagine the quality of photos that person could take with an SLR! Similarly, an SLR can vastly improve the photography of someone who is not a great photographer (like me--though I am learning).

Your idea is exactly what a photo walk is--a brief huddle where everyone gets to know each other, discusses their goals for the walk, what they hope to get out of it, then everyone splits up and wanders around a particular area taking photos of interest to them, then everyone gets back together again and talks about how it went, whether they achieved their goals, etc. Sometimes people will share thoughts and ideas during the walk--for instance, I, as a less experienced photographer might ask a more experienced photographer what ISO setting or lens s/he would use for a particular shot I want to get. It's also interesting to watch what other people are taking pictures of; you get ideas that way. That's how you learn to improve your photography. But nobody tells anyone else what to take photos of or what angle to use.

I have to agree. I love the long shot best (mostly for the colors), and love the reflection on the water, but that shrine is distracting. Crop it to get rid of that and you've got yourself a contender.

I really never thought about it that way. That makes so much sense.

OK, back to some of my most favorite pictures.

This one actually did win the contest for the "Fantasyland" theme. I like this picture a lot because, unlike the fireworks shot, it has a sense of "quietness" to it. When I snapped this, I didn't realize that there was a kid looking over the water pool/fountain. But now that I see it, it added a certain quality to the picture.

A lot of my pictures are accidents like this.

Zz.

That's lovely, Zz. I'm really taken by how the water is falling--looks "ethereal."

Anyway, I can see why it won for "fantasyland." It's such an unusual image of that area. People are so used to the bright lights/big colors of fantasyland that they rarely see the end-of-the-night peacefulness.