Something to learn from (kind of a long read) but worth it

[Red92vr4]

For example. You could draw the following picture with any pencil correct, albeit maybe not color. Try to get a shot like this with a point and shoot. FWIW, I'm not trying to say that it's all gear that makes a photographer, because it isn't, but comparing cameras to pencils is a pretty bad analogy.

[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.

[Red92vr4]

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.

[Konfyoused]

I just recently got started on trying to see what the best i could do with my '03 model Olympus D560z point and shoot 3.2MP was, so far, here's what i feel is the best result, no editing whatsoever except a resizing in irfanview:



lemme know whacha think

[zero or die]

Just for my two cents on the ensuing argument...my dad tells me all the time how his 3.0 MP 35mm can take WAY better photos a lot easier than my mom's point-and-shoot "play camera" (Olympus FE-290 I believe, 8.0 MP). He does think that the camera would have potential if photos were taken in RAW though. Still, he feels that his Pentax SLR is one of, if not the best, cameras that he has ever owned. It takes the best looking photos with ease, and no major editing has to be done on the pictures.

If you want to look at some of his photography, his website is http://www.awjweb.com/. Do keep in mind, if you decide to visit, that most of the pictures are pictures of my mom, my siblings and I. His more artistic photos are located under sub-pages like the Landscapes section. He has some of the best photo composition that I have seen though (and I am trying my best not to be biased, but he is my father). Most of the photos, including the dragboat pictures and the semi-recent photos of my family, were taken with his DSLR. Other photos, such as many of the Landscape photos from our trip out West, were taken with a P&S or his 35mm. And if you do not like the photos, please, no flaming. If the pictures aren't for you, they aren't for you. Simple as that.

(As for topic-relevence, I posted the link to my dad's site in order to furthur the discussion regarding quality camera vs quality photographer, since several photos on his site were taken with a lesser quality (but still pretty good) P&S camera.)

[zero or die]

And Konfyoused, I think that is a pretty good picture. The only thing that is really unappealing to me is the yellow flower on the left and (for some reason) all of the dead blurry leaves at the bottom. But without any real editing, there isn't much that you could do about that anyway, and those are only minor faults with the picture. I can't think of any major ones.

[James92TSi]

Originally Posted by zero or die

3.0 MP 35mm

Huh?

35mm = film. Film does not have pixels.

Did you mean to say 3MP SLR?

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by James92TSi

Huh?

35mm = film. Film does not have pixels.

Did you mean to say 3MP SLR?

+1

While you can compare the two, film does not have pixels, but I suppose you could equate the two. Also, 35mm is equal to much higher than 3mp. Granted a small picture on the two will not look much different quality wise. However, blow them both up and the 3mp picture will distort very quickly while the 35mm shot will not.

[Red92vr4]

Originally Posted by James92TSi

Huh?

35mm = film. Film does not have pixels.

Did you mean to say 3MP SLR?

I had to do a double take on that too, but after reading the rest of his post, I think he did mean SLR. On the other hand, there are 35mm digital cameras. They are known as "full frame" though. The Canon 5D is, as well as any of the 1Ds line.

Originally Posted by Polygon

+1

While you can compare the two, film does not have pixels, but I suppose you could equate the two. Also, 35mm is equal to much higher than 3mp. Granted a small picture on the two will not look much different quality wise. However, blow them both up and the 3mp picture will distort very quickly while the 35mm shot will not.

From what I've read film has an approximate resolution of between 18 and 22 mega pixels, depending of course on the ISO and brand. Film also does have a higher dynamic range than digital, though with recent cameras, the gap is narrowing. Digital is way more flexible however.