Composition wise, is this a good photo? (taken on my mobile) page 1
devogue
21st January 2012, 01:55 PM
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/401740_174075716032985_100002916722434_284180_1370 508657_n.jpgood
I consciously tried to take a good photo on my Blackberry type phone. I wanted my daughter and the headlands to frame the beauty of the beach (a bit dark due to limitations of phone camera).
Talent? No talent? Worth me getting better kit? Full of shit?
I consciously tried to take a good photo on my Blackberry type phone. I wanted my daughter and the headlands to frame the beauty of the beach (a bit dark due to limitations of phone camera).
Talent? No talent? Worth me getting better kit? Full of shit?
charlou
21st January 2012, 02:30 PM
It's a really nice photo of a happy, carefree child at a beautiful beach on a lovely day. That's what I see .. and I like the composition. Nice surf, too.
Exi5tentialist
21st January 2012, 02:36 PM
It is excellent. Include it in your exhibition.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 02:39 PM
are you familiar with the rule of thirds (http://www.digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds)? This photo follows the rule of thirds quite well.
It's beautiful. I love the curves of the intersecting waves which could make an art study of their own. As a detail, they add a lot of depth to an already very interesting and beautiful image.
It's beautiful. I love the curves of the intersecting waves which could make an art study of their own. As a detail, they add a lot of depth to an already very interesting and beautiful image.
charlou
21st January 2012, 02:50 PM
I love the curves of the intersecting waves which could make an art study of their own. As a detail, they add a lot of depth to an already very interesting and beautiful image.
Ahyes, so they do ... thank you for drawing my attention to that.
Ahyes, so they do ... thank you for drawing my attention to that.
Hermit
21st January 2012, 02:52 PM
Composition wise, I'd prefer it if the water did not dip.
Also, why, oh why, do people insist on taking shots of the ocean when the surf is so crappy. Three foot onshore mush just will not do. Granted, you probably don't have much influence on the size of the swell, but if you get to the location earlier you're more likely to catch it glistening, glassily, kempt back by the morning offshore breeze. 5:30 am would be suitable in your area this time of the year.
Also, why, oh why, do people insist on taking shots of the ocean when the surf is so crappy. Three foot onshore mush just will not do. Granted, you probably don't have much influence on the size of the swell, but if you get to the location earlier you're more likely to catch it glistening, glassily, kempt back by the morning offshore breeze. 5:30 am would be suitable in your area this time of the year.
charlou
21st January 2012, 03:37 PM
Beach bum. :p
The surf is picturesque.
The surf is picturesque.
Hermit
21st January 2012, 03:40 PM
Beach bum. :p
Wayback machine fallacy! [/Sethchannelling]
Wayback machine fallacy! [/Sethchannelling]
nostrum
21st January 2012, 04:05 PM
Composition wise, I'd prefer it if the water did not dip.
Also, why, oh why, do people insist on taking shots of the ocean when the surf is so crappy. Three foot onshore mush just will not do. Granted, you probably don't have much influence on the size of the swell, but if you get to the location earlier you're more likely to catch it glistening, glassily, kempt back by the morning offshore breeze. 5:30 am would be suitable in your area this time of the year.
:rofl:
Good pic, dev! Even if it is of NZ...
Also, why, oh why, do people insist on taking shots of the ocean when the surf is so crappy. Three foot onshore mush just will not do. Granted, you probably don't have much influence on the size of the swell, but if you get to the location earlier you're more likely to catch it glistening, glassily, kempt back by the morning offshore breeze. 5:30 am would be suitable in your area this time of the year.
:rofl:
Good pic, dev! Even if it is of NZ...
BrettA
21st January 2012, 06:33 PM
I think it's a good composition as well, and as noted follows the rule of thirds to a degree. But if you also were also looking for potential improvements, I'd try to get down to her level a bit more (this partly depends on the effect you're trying for, but is even more important with animal shots as one to follow) and while she is outside the lower right third point, try her inside and a bit higher next time. There's also a rule that says to give some space to the direction in which the subject was looking, and that's where I'm coming from here.
Oh course rules are made to be broken, so you might wanna take 'em more as points to consider than follow - and break them knowingly. I often do what you do here by having the subject outside the third lines... 'cause I like it. But her gaze is important, too. Criticism aside, though - great shot!
Oh course rules are made to be broken, so you might wanna take 'em more as points to consider than follow - and break them knowingly. I often do what you do here by having the subject outside the third lines... 'cause I like it. But her gaze is important, too. Criticism aside, though - great shot!
Magicziggy
22nd January 2012, 09:49 AM
this is such a wonderful moment captured dev :)
Robert_S
22nd January 2012, 05:30 PM
I think it's a good composition as well, and as noted follows the rule of thirds to a degree. But if you also were also looking for potential improvements, I'd try to get down to her level a bit more (this partly depends on the effect you're trying for, but is even more important with animal shots as one to follow) and while she is outside the lower right third point, try her inside and a bit higher next time. There's also a rule that says to give some space to the direction in which the subject was looking, and that's where I'm coming from here.
Oh course rules are made to be broken, so you might wanna take 'em more as points to consider than follow - and break them knowingly. I often do what you do here by having the subject outside the third lines... 'cause I like it. But her gaze is important, too. Criticism aside, though - great shot!
I dunno, if you lower the POV then you'd lose some of the criss-crossing waves coming in, which I think is captured very well here and adds a lot to the photo.
That said, I usually try to get at, or close to, eye level with the subject. If I'm photographing a non-animal, like I usually am, then I try to get it from where I would draw a pair of eyes on it.
But it is a great shot and if you like taking photos, then spend a few dollars on a compact that has the capability for you to go manual. If nothing else, it's a great excuse to get out of the house!
Oh course rules are made to be broken, so you might wanna take 'em more as points to consider than follow - and break them knowingly. I often do what you do here by having the subject outside the third lines... 'cause I like it. But her gaze is important, too. Criticism aside, though - great shot!
I dunno, if you lower the POV then you'd lose some of the criss-crossing waves coming in, which I think is captured very well here and adds a lot to the photo.
That said, I usually try to get at, or close to, eye level with the subject. If I'm photographing a non-animal, like I usually am, then I try to get it from where I would draw a pair of eyes on it.
But it is a great shot and if you like taking photos, then spend a few dollars on a compact that has the capability for you to go manual. If nothing else, it's a great excuse to get out of the house!
BrettA
22nd January 2012, 08:02 PM
I think it's a good composition as well, and as noted follows the rule of thirds to a degree. But if you also were also looking for potential improvements, I'd try to get down to her level a bit more (this partly depends on the effect you're trying for, but is even more important with animal shots as one to follow) and while she is outside the lower right third point, try her inside and a bit higher next time. There's also a rule that says to give some space to the direction in which the subject was looking, and that's where I'm coming from here.
Oh course rules are made to be broken, so you might wanna take 'em more as points to consider than follow - and break them knowingly. I often do what you do here by having the subject outside the third lines... 'cause I like it. But her gaze is important, too. Criticism aside, though - great shot!
I dunno, if you lower the POV then you'd lose some of the criss-crossing waves coming in, which I think is captured very well here and adds a lot to the photo.
That said, I usually try to get at, or close to, eye level with the subject. If I'm photographing a non-animal, like I usually am, then I try to get it from where I would draw a pair of eyes on it.
But it is a great shot and if you like taking photos, then spend a few dollars on a compact that has the capability for you to go manual. If nothing else, it's a great excuse to get out of the house!
Certainly it's a judgement call, but what's lost is really, really minimal IMO if you get her up a bit but keep her head below the white surf. And for my money, I wouldn't go to eye level here (until I'd got the shot mentioned) as I wouldn't want that surf cutting through her neck - YMMV.
And good point re the OP - I'd agree that it's easily good enough to upgrade kit, depending on available cash.
Oh course rules are made to be broken, so you might wanna take 'em more as points to consider than follow - and break them knowingly. I often do what you do here by having the subject outside the third lines... 'cause I like it. But her gaze is important, too. Criticism aside, though - great shot!
I dunno, if you lower the POV then you'd lose some of the criss-crossing waves coming in, which I think is captured very well here and adds a lot to the photo.
That said, I usually try to get at, or close to, eye level with the subject. If I'm photographing a non-animal, like I usually am, then I try to get it from where I would draw a pair of eyes on it.
But it is a great shot and if you like taking photos, then spend a few dollars on a compact that has the capability for you to go manual. If nothing else, it's a great excuse to get out of the house!
Certainly it's a judgement call, but what's lost is really, really minimal IMO if you get her up a bit but keep her head below the white surf. And for my money, I wouldn't go to eye level here (until I'd got the shot mentioned) as I wouldn't want that surf cutting through her neck - YMMV.
And good point re the OP - I'd agree that it's easily good enough to upgrade kit, depending on available cash.
oblivion
22nd January 2012, 08:06 PM
It is easy to upgrade, and I have a nice close-to-entry-level dslr camera that I enjoy fiddling with. It's also fun to see how far you can take an inadequate camera. I think I mentioned elsewhere that a photographer friend on another forum said that the best camera is the one in your pocket.
charlou
22nd January 2012, 11:27 PM
You did, ob, and I agree ... so many photo opportunities lost otherwise.
re the OP pic ... the slight tilt of the horizon, and the not quite rule of thirds .. these are both able to be remedied if the photographer wanted to, aren't they?
MZ, it is a beautiful pic. :)
re the OP pic ... the slight tilt of the horizon, and the not quite rule of thirds .. these are both able to be remedied if the photographer wanted to, aren't they?
MZ, it is a beautiful pic. :)
charlou
22nd January 2012, 11:32 PM
I think it's a good composition as well, and as noted follows the rule of thirds to a degree. But if you also were also looking for potential improvements, I'd try to get down to her level a bit more (this partly depends on the effect you're trying for, but is even more important with animal shots as one to follow) and while she is outside the lower right third point, try her inside and a bit higher next time. There's also a rule that says to give some space to the direction in which the subject was looking, and that's where I'm coming from here.
Oh course rules are made to be broken, so you might wanna take 'em more as points to consider than follow - and break them knowingly. I often do what you do here by having the subject outside the third lines... 'cause I like it. But her gaze is important, too. Criticism aside, though - great shot!
I dunno, if you lower the POV then you'd lose some of the criss-crossing waves coming in, which I think is captured very well here and adds a lot to the photo.
That said, I usually try to get at, or close to, eye level with the subject. If I'm photographing a non-animal, like I usually am, then I try to get it from where I would draw a pair of eyes on it.
But it is a great shot and if you like taking photos, then spend a few dollars on a compact that has the capability for you to go manual. If nothing else, it's a great excuse to get out of the house!
Certainly it's a judgement call, but what's lost is really, really minimal IMO if you get her up a bit but keep her head below the white surf. And for my money, I wouldn't go to eye level here (until I'd got the shot mentioned) as I wouldn't want that surf cutting through her neck - YMMV.
And good point re the OP - I'd agree that it's easily good enough to upgrade kit, depending on available cash.
For me, this pic is not just about dev's daughter, but about dev's daughter in that moment in that environment .. dev has captured that well.
Oh course rules are made to be broken, so you might wanna take 'em more as points to consider than follow - and break them knowingly. I often do what you do here by having the subject outside the third lines... 'cause I like it. But her gaze is important, too. Criticism aside, though - great shot!
I dunno, if you lower the POV then you'd lose some of the criss-crossing waves coming in, which I think is captured very well here and adds a lot to the photo.
That said, I usually try to get at, or close to, eye level with the subject. If I'm photographing a non-animal, like I usually am, then I try to get it from where I would draw a pair of eyes on it.
But it is a great shot and if you like taking photos, then spend a few dollars on a compact that has the capability for you to go manual. If nothing else, it's a great excuse to get out of the house!
Certainly it's a judgement call, but what's lost is really, really minimal IMO if you get her up a bit but keep her head below the white surf. And for my money, I wouldn't go to eye level here (until I'd got the shot mentioned) as I wouldn't want that surf cutting through her neck - YMMV.
And good point re the OP - I'd agree that it's easily good enough to upgrade kit, depending on available cash.
For me, this pic is not just about dev's daughter, but about dev's daughter in that moment in that environment .. dev has captured that well.
Mr. Mellow
23rd January 2012, 12:28 AM
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/401740_174075716032985_100002916722434_284180_1370 508657_n.jpgood
I consciously tried to take a good photo on my Blackberry type phone. I wanted my daughter and the headlands to frame the beauty of the beach (a bit dark due to limitations of phone camera).
Talent? No talent? Worth me getting better kit? Full of shit?
It's a very nice picture, and I think you have a good eye for composition. It seems to fit a "rule of fourths" better than thirds, but that's just because it breaks into quadrants to my eye. It's a nice family keeper.
I know that some people detest "'shopping" photos, but I rotated it slightly to horizon-ize the horizon. :rolleyes: Unfortunately, rotating requires a bit of cropping afterward to keep it square. I also tweaked the contrast ever so slightly. I hope I'm not meddling, but I thought it would be easier to see the difference than explain it.
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb74/mistermellow001/Forum%20photos/DevoguesphotoPhotoshopped.jpg
I consciously tried to take a good photo on my Blackberry type phone. I wanted my daughter and the headlands to frame the beauty of the beach (a bit dark due to limitations of phone camera).
Talent? No talent? Worth me getting better kit? Full of shit?
It's a very nice picture, and I think you have a good eye for composition. It seems to fit a "rule of fourths" better than thirds, but that's just because it breaks into quadrants to my eye. It's a nice family keeper.
I know that some people detest "'shopping" photos, but I rotated it slightly to horizon-ize the horizon. :rolleyes: Unfortunately, rotating requires a bit of cropping afterward to keep it square. I also tweaked the contrast ever so slightly. I hope I'm not meddling, but I thought it would be easier to see the difference than explain it.
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb74/mistermellow001/Forum%20photos/DevoguesphotoPhotoshopped.jpg
BrettA
23rd January 2012, 12:28 AM
For me, this pic is not just about dev's daughter, but about dev's daughter in that moment in that environment .. dev has captured that well.
Oh, absolutely. That's one reason why everyone's noting it as good, of course and no one to my knowledge has suggested even the slightest change to the environment. Are you suggesting that attempts to recommend "improvements" - if you will - are inappropriate in any way (and those based on universally acknowledged compositional techniques that Dev might be unaware of)?
My question is in the context of your including my (and Robert's) text within your post, of course.
Oh, absolutely. That's one reason why everyone's noting it as good, of course and no one to my knowledge has suggested even the slightest change to the environment. Are you suggesting that attempts to recommend "improvements" - if you will - are inappropriate in any way (and those based on universally acknowledged compositional techniques that Dev might be unaware of)?
My question is in the context of your including my (and Robert's) text within your post, of course.
Magicziggy
23rd January 2012, 12:43 AM
I would improve this pic in post... A straighten.. Boost in contrast .. Crop .. All personal prefs
It's stunning
It's stunning
charlou
23rd January 2012, 12:54 AM
Are you suggesting that attempts to recommend "improvements" - if you will - are inappropriate in any way (and those based on universally acknowledged compositional techniques that Dev might be unaware of)?
My question is in the context of your including my (and Robert's) text within your post, of course.
No, I was commenting on what I understood was a suggestion that the subject of most focus should be dev's daughter in this image (although that would be sweet, too) ... by not focusing on her, she really becomes part of the environment there yet somehow more special in it because she's experiencing it, if you know what I mean?
My question is in the context of your including my (and Robert's) text within your post, of course.
No, I was commenting on what I understood was a suggestion that the subject of most focus should be dev's daughter in this image (although that would be sweet, too) ... by not focusing on her, she really becomes part of the environment there yet somehow more special in it because she's experiencing it, if you know what I mean?
charlou
23rd January 2012, 12:59 AM
Edited my post above :)
BrettA
23rd January 2012, 01:48 AM
Are you suggesting that attempts to recommend "improvements" - if you will - are inappropriate in any way (and those based on universally acknowledged compositional techniques that Dev might be unaware of)?
My question is in the context of your including my (and Robert's) text within your post, of course.
No, I was commenting on what I understood was a suggestion that the subject of most focus should be dev's daughter in this image (although that would be sweet, too) ... by not focusing on her, she really becomes part of the environment there yet somehow more special in it because she's experiencing it, if you know what I mean?
I doubt any focus - as I understand your term - would be significantly altered by the fairly small change I suggested... merely that these well known "rules" (rules of thumb, guidelines, etc.) are widely acknowledged as often producing a more pleasant image to the human eye. But knowingly breaking them is fine, too.
In this case, Dev had pretty well nailed the rule of thirds, but was perhaps unaware that many or most expert critics - and I'm not one of those - would suggest more space in the direction of gaze (Rule of space) and a lower camera (can't recall a name, but so you're more on the subject's level)... neither of which alters the focus (much?) in my opinion.
In your terms, I think she'd still really be part of the environment in the same way she is now (taking up the same space, etc.) BTW, I've been roundly critiqued negatively by accredited judges on the Rule of space for these two:
http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Top/PeopleEvents/11616348_VsEJw/#!i=1652553824&k=Wpp89Z7 (http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Top/PeopleEvents/11616348_VsEJw/#%21i=1652553824&k=Wpp89Z7)
http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Top/PeopleEvents/11616348_VsEJw/#!i=820768345&k=fdtUQ (http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Top/PeopleEvents/11616348_VsEJw/#%21i=820768345&k=fdtUQ)
And for this one on the Rule of thirds (similar to Dev's):
http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Kodachrome/Kc-Mountains/11617781_ATgeq/#!i=846258929&k=UG5w4 (http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Kodachrome/Kc-Mountains/11617781_ATgeq/#%21i=846258929&k=UG5w4)
I still like 'em all, though - and say fuck your rule of thirds re the icefield shot as I'd do this as is again and again. But I think I've belaboured this one to death, now - I'm done.
My question is in the context of your including my (and Robert's) text within your post, of course.
No, I was commenting on what I understood was a suggestion that the subject of most focus should be dev's daughter in this image (although that would be sweet, too) ... by not focusing on her, she really becomes part of the environment there yet somehow more special in it because she's experiencing it, if you know what I mean?
I doubt any focus - as I understand your term - would be significantly altered by the fairly small change I suggested... merely that these well known "rules" (rules of thumb, guidelines, etc.) are widely acknowledged as often producing a more pleasant image to the human eye. But knowingly breaking them is fine, too.
In this case, Dev had pretty well nailed the rule of thirds, but was perhaps unaware that many or most expert critics - and I'm not one of those - would suggest more space in the direction of gaze (Rule of space) and a lower camera (can't recall a name, but so you're more on the subject's level)... neither of which alters the focus (much?) in my opinion.
In your terms, I think she'd still really be part of the environment in the same way she is now (taking up the same space, etc.) BTW, I've been roundly critiqued negatively by accredited judges on the Rule of space for these two:
http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Top/PeopleEvents/11616348_VsEJw/#!i=1652553824&k=Wpp89Z7 (http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Top/PeopleEvents/11616348_VsEJw/#%21i=1652553824&k=Wpp89Z7)
http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Top/PeopleEvents/11616348_VsEJw/#!i=820768345&k=fdtUQ (http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Top/PeopleEvents/11616348_VsEJw/#%21i=820768345&k=fdtUQ)
And for this one on the Rule of thirds (similar to Dev's):
http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Kodachrome/Kc-Mountains/11617781_ATgeq/#!i=846258929&k=UG5w4 (http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/Kodachrome/Kc-Mountains/11617781_ATgeq/#%21i=846258929&k=UG5w4)
I still like 'em all, though - and say fuck your rule of thirds re the icefield shot as I'd do this as is again and again. But I think I've belaboured this one to death, now - I'm done.
charlou
23rd January 2012, 05:43 AM
I doubt any focus - as I understand your term - would be significantly altered by the fairly small change I suggested... merely that these well known "rules" (rules of thumb, guidelines, etc.) are widely acknowledged as often producing a more pleasant image to the human eye. But knowingly breaking them is fine, too.
In this case, Dev had pretty well nailed the rule of thirds, but was perhaps unaware that many or most expert critics - and I'm not one of those - would suggest more space in the direction of gaze (Rule of space) and a lower camera (can't recall a name, but so you're more on the subject's level)... neither of which alters the focus (much?) in my opinion.
In your terms, I think she'd still really be part of the environment in the same way she is now (taking up the same space, etc.)
No worries ... I had misunderstood. Not that I thought your suggestion was wrong, in any case, just an interesting point to talk about.
In this case, Dev had pretty well nailed the rule of thirds, but was perhaps unaware that many or most expert critics - and I'm not one of those - would suggest more space in the direction of gaze (Rule of space) and a lower camera (can't recall a name, but so you're more on the subject's level)... neither of which alters the focus (much?) in my opinion.
In your terms, I think she'd still really be part of the environment in the same way she is now (taking up the same space, etc.)
No worries ... I had misunderstood. Not that I thought your suggestion was wrong, in any case, just an interesting point to talk about.
Orphia Nay
23rd January 2012, 09:04 AM
I think it's gorgeous apart from the loppy horizon which has been dealt with. Thanks for sharing.
pensioner
25th January 2012, 08:33 PM
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x131/goldingeric/dev-1.jpg
Robert_S
25th January 2012, 10:44 PM
It is easy to upgrade, and I have a nice close-to-entry-level dslr camera that I enjoy fiddling with. It's also fun to see how far you can take an inadequate camera. I think I mentioned elsewhere that a photographer friend on another forum said that the best camera is the one in your pocket.
Yes, my DSLR is kind of a pain to carry everywhere, so I'm looking for another compact.
Dev, if budget is a constraint right now, I'd recommend a new or used compact camera that will let you play with the ISO, aperture and shutter speed settings. If really get into it and have a lot of fun, you can always upgrade.
If you want to get a superzoom, make sure you read the reviews and get one that's also good with the wide angle. I find that standing back and zooming in tends to flatten scenes sometimes while getting in close to the scene makes the picture seem more alive. I had a 10x Canon that didn't go very wide at all. Some great photos didn't get taken because of that.
But a powerful zoom can yield you some great wildlife pics,
Yes, my DSLR is kind of a pain to carry everywhere, so I'm looking for another compact.
Dev, if budget is a constraint right now, I'd recommend a new or used compact camera that will let you play with the ISO, aperture and shutter speed settings. If really get into it and have a lot of fun, you can always upgrade.
If you want to get a superzoom, make sure you read the reviews and get one that's also good with the wide angle. I find that standing back and zooming in tends to flatten scenes sometimes while getting in close to the scene makes the picture seem more alive. I had a 10x Canon that didn't go very wide at all. Some great photos didn't get taken because of that.
But a powerful zoom can yield you some great wildlife pics,
Sentinel
29th January 2012, 03:24 PM
It is easy to upgrade, and I have a nice close-to-entry-level dslr camera that I enjoy fiddling with. It's also fun to see how far you can take an inadequate camera. I think I mentioned elsewhere that a photographer friend on another forum said that the best camera is the one in your pocket.
You suck at quoting.
Q: What is the best camera?
A: The one you have with you.
You suck at quoting.
Q: What is the best camera?
A: The one you have with you.
oblivion
29th January 2012, 03:29 PM
oh man. I've had that wrong for months. :blush:
Sentinel
30th January 2012, 09:18 PM
Meh. you had the essence of it.
unless... y'know... you always walk around with gigantic pockets.
i dunno. maybe you swing that way.
unless... y'know... you always walk around with gigantic pockets.
i dunno. maybe you swing that way.
Feck
30th January 2012, 10:25 PM
http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/feckneddy/401740_174075716032985_100002916722434_284180_1370 508657_n.jpg
Dirtyarris
1st February 2012, 05:02 PM
as a layman the composition is spot on for me taking your eye from the bottom right corner and away to the left upto the headland and then onto the sea in the right background.
As a layman, I would also suggest if it looks good, then it is good.
As a layman, I would also suggest if it looks good, then it is good.
Witticism
2nd February 2012, 12:45 PM
Composition is excellent Dev - and as Guy ... err ... Mr Mellow said ... make sure you level your picture!
This is especially important when there is water in a picture as water can't flow uphill!
(Generally speaking)
Nic pic
This is especially important when there is water in a picture as water can't flow uphill!
(Generally speaking)
Nic pic
Witticism
2nd February 2012, 12:55 PM
Here is how you can make any size swell look great ... needs a Neutral Density filter on a dslr and a tripod!
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/208695_10150151282281149_505776148_6851432_2823004 _n.jpg
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/207486_10150151282166149_505776148_6851430_5318621 _n.jpg
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/208695_10150151282281149_505776148_6851432_2823004 _n.jpg
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/207486_10150151282166149_505776148_6851430_5318621 _n.jpg
Witticism
2nd February 2012, 01:01 PM
It is easy to upgrade, and I have a nice close-to-entry-level dslr camera that I enjoy fiddling with. It's also fun to see how far you can take an inadequate camera. I think I mentioned elsewhere that a photographer friend on another forum said that the best camera is the one in your pocket.
Yes, my DSLR is kind of a pain to carry everywhere, so I'm looking for another compact.
Dev, if budget is a constraint right now, I'd recommend a new or used compact camera that will let you play with the ISO, aperture and shutter speed settings. If really get into it and have a lot of fun, you can always upgrade.
If you want to get a superzoom, make sure you read the reviews and get one that's also good with the wide angle. I find that standing back and zooming in tends to flatten scenes sometimes while getting in close to the scene makes the picture seem more alive. I had a 10x Canon that didn't go very wide at all. Some great photos didn't get taken because of that.
But a powerful zoom can yield you some great wildlife pics,
Maybe one of these as a compromise? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/
Yes, my DSLR is kind of a pain to carry everywhere, so I'm looking for another compact.
Dev, if budget is a constraint right now, I'd recommend a new or used compact camera that will let you play with the ISO, aperture and shutter speed settings. If really get into it and have a lot of fun, you can always upgrade.
If you want to get a superzoom, make sure you read the reviews and get one that's also good with the wide angle. I find that standing back and zooming in tends to flatten scenes sometimes while getting in close to the scene makes the picture seem more alive. I had a 10x Canon that didn't go very wide at all. Some great photos didn't get taken because of that.
But a powerful zoom can yield you some great wildlife pics,
Maybe one of these as a compromise? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét