Quote:
Originally Posted by LigouriRd
Um, that picture is a perfect example of what Ken was saying. You as the artist had an idea of what you wanted the picture to look like and and adjusted the camera accordingly. Granted that would be hard to achieve on my 16 yr old pentax point and shoot film camera...mabye I could âve blurred the waves in photochop. The $100 digital point and shoot that I gave my sister last xmas has shutter settings and could have easily taken that shot straight...I prolly would have bracketed the sheet of out the shots but that is all part of the process.
Remind me to post the macro shots my gf took of a cattail seedpod. Better than or equal to what my SLR could have done.
Sometimes it is not the technical detail of the shot that matters, rather the emotion that it carries. Whether that shot above was in pixels or graphite the artist would be trying to convey the same wow factor.
|
Ok, I meant if you couldn't use much Photoshop. I realize this picture has been edited, but I find it had to believe that you could get even semi close with a P&S without heavy use of Photoshop. All that aside, if point and shoots can convey the same emotion and take the same pictures as really expensive equipment, then why do pros not use them to get shots like the one I posted?
Also, the quality of the lenses available for any SLR doesn't even compare to the lenses a point and shoot has. Dammit, I am arguing this, and I didn't want to. Ok, I'm not saying any more, but if you guys really want to compare pencils to cameras, go ahead. I'll use and enjoy my equipment, and be happy with it.