| Author |
Message |
imacon
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 126
|
|
photonotebook
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 398
Location: www.chasingmoments.com
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:52 pm
|  |
| budgaugh wrote: | Point and shoot won't let you blur backgrounds out like this.
 |
But photoshop will. Create a copy of the bg layer. Use gaussian blur. Use large soft eraser to erase the face. Voi la. |
|
snokid
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 592
Location: Troy Michigan USA
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:58 pm
| |
Im sorry blur is not the same as bokeh.
Bob |
|
dvest
Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 249
Location: Southeastern USA
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:41 pm
| |
| snokid wrote: | First to defend laurin (like he needs it)
I can take 2 photo's with the same camera and post them online one will be grainy as hell the other will be clean!!! Exposure people!!!
So other than reading camera x can do 9 fps and camera y can do 8.6 fps the reviews are pretty much useless!!!
|
I could do this also, but looking at two images correctly exposed can show differences between cameras. Even though the difference may be small there are differences. When your images are being examined at 100% every little bit helps. Yes exposure is very important but there are actually differences in the equipment, especially at ISO's above 100. The better you start with the better you end with. Not everybody has a local camera shop close by to try out any equipment they are interested in buying. Also everybody doesn't have a friend with a dslr.
You do need to be cautious but I don't think all reviewers are purposely dishonest or misleading. Sometimes it's the only way to see actual images using the equipment in question. This could be a body, lens or any other type of equipment. If you choose not to use reviews in your decision making process that's your choice, but for some of us they are useful and informing. |
|
photonotebook
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 398
Location: www.chasingmoments.com
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:45 pm
| |
| snokid wrote: | Im sorry blur is not the same as bokeh.
Bob |
Well, you are right it's not. But for somebody with a p&s and somebody who has a vision of what they want to achieve & the depth they want to achieve using their p&s, PS offers a solution without the need to buy a new camera, lenses, and so on. I am not saying that everybody should stick with p&s because they can always ps their work to the desired result. But, if you are stuck with a certain kind of camera, you have to learn to be able to work around its limitations and still achieve the effects you want to achieve. That's all. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39224
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:46 pm
| |
| sharond wrote: |
Would that sort of thing work indoors with food? Thanks! |
Of course.I use them as a quick lightweight way to do a fast portrait outside. I use the remote commander on the hot shoe. |
|
redcloud
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 95
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:12 pm
| |
| snokid wrote: | First to defend laurin (like he needs it)
I can take 2 photo's with the same camera and post them online one will be grainy as hell the other will be clean!!! Exposure people!!!
So other than reading camera x can do 9 fps and camera y can do 8.6 fps the reviews are pretty much useless!!!
On the topic of the OP...
Well you tried to be cheap and use your P&S and you got rejected. Does that tell you anything about what most of the people on this topic have said?
Ok so your broke, I get it.
With out breaking a sweat I can think of 5 of my buddies that have DSLR's I'm sure I could borrow one for a weekend if I need it.
Get creative I'm sure you can come up with a camera!!!
But wait you said you are pretty good with Photoshop, I bet I could come up with 10 images that would get accepted in less than an hour.
How bad do you want it?
It's up to you!
Bob |
I didn't use a point and shoot, I used my film SLR, and they got rejected because of "limited commercial value" due to framing, but I don't just see what was wrong, I used rules of composition, framing is one of them. |
|
sharond
Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 847
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:29 pm
| |
| Quote: | | Of course.I use them as a quick lightweight way to do a fast portrait outside. I use the remote commander on the hot shoe. |
Thanks, Laurin! That is the neatest thing I've seen. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39224
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:55 pm
| |
| redcloud wrote: | | snokid wrote: | First to defend laurin (like he needs it)
I can take 2 photo's with the same camera and post them online one will be grainy as hell the other will be clean!!! Exposure people!!!
So other than reading camera x can do 9 fps and camera y can do 8.6 fps the reviews are pretty much useless!!!
On the topic of the OP...
Well you tried to be cheap and use your P&S and you got rejected. Does that tell you anything about what most of the people on this topic have said?
Ok so your broke, I get it.
With out breaking a sweat I can think of 5 of my buddies that have DSLR's I'm sure I could borrow one for a weekend if I need it.
Get creative I'm sure you can come up with a camera!!!
But wait you said you are pretty good with Photoshop, I bet I could come up with 10 images that would get accepted in less than an hour.
How bad do you want it?
It's up to you!
Bob |
I didn't use a point and shoot, I used my film SLR, and they got rejected because of "limited commercial value" due to framing, but I don't just see what was wrong, I used rules of composition, framing is one of them. |
Post a few. |
|
thesupe87
Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 859
Location: arenacreative.com
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:58 pm
| |
I have a 5 megapixel Canon point and shoot- check out all of the images in my portfolio. Most are done in photoshop, but you can sell stuff from the point and shoot it you know how to post process and are good with NeatImage...without overfiltering of course :)
My all time downloads is 10,447 in just two years. Go for it dude. There is definitely money to be made in this game. It's more you, not the camera - but you're going to want to upgrade once you get going and build up some steam. I'm at that point right now. Sometimes I get to use a Nikon D40x at work, so a few of the pics in my portfolio were shot with that camera. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39224
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:43 am
| |
Sorry super but 12 Photographs on 8 pages as most popular doesn't really put you in a place to recommend a P&S for others and doesn't account for any of your 10,000+ DL's. Sorry Bud. Like has been said many times there are folks that have mastered the limited applications of P&S cameras extremely well But Most wont. Just like Those with $10,000 cameras wont. Cant we please let this subject Die? Please. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU USE, IT'S HOW YOU USE IT!!!! DAMN! . |
|
lightkeeper
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 197
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:54 am
| |
| sharond wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm just trying to help. DPReview helped me, maybe it'll help someone else. |
I don't know if it's dpreview or not, but one of those review sites lets you see the photo at 100%. You can see for yourself if there's much noise or not. I have found it quite useful myself.
BTW, is there such a thing as a lens that doesn't give CA? I took some snow photos a couple of weeks ago with a clearn sky with the D200 and the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5. I've read get expensive lenses, but I have a couple and still get CA. I have the Nikon 105mm macro lens and have gotten it with that lens as well. Thanks. |
Maybe looking to these test results on lenses will help.
It covers chromatic aberrations too ... but as rinder said ... don't believe everything ;-)
http://www.photozone.de/all-tests |
|
sharond
Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 847
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:38 am
| |
| Quote: | Maybe looking to these test results on lenses will help.
It covers chromatic aberrations too ... but as rinder said ... don't believe everything ;-)
http://www.photozone.de/all-tests |
Thanks Lightkeeper! I just read an article in an old issue of the UK's magazine Digital Photo that says CA can be corrected in the PS RAW converter. Anyone try this with success? Thanks! I guess it's time for me to upgrade to CS3. I haven't been able to use the RAW converter with CS since getting the D200. |
|
therossatron
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 17
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:49 am
| |
| snokid wrote: | Im sorry blur is not the same as bokeh.
Bob |
Isn't Bokeh the Japanese word for blur? :) |
|
snokid
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 592
Location: Troy Michigan USA
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:34 am
| |
Yes it does mean fuzzy or blur, but it's meant as how a person acts rather that how sharp an image is.
Mike Johnston, former editor of Photo Techniques magazine, claims to have coined the bokeh spelling to suggest the correct pronunciation to English speakers, replacing the previous spelling boke that derived directly from the Japanese word for "fuzzy" and had been in use at least since 1996
Bokeh can be simulated by convolving the image with a kernel corresponding to the image of an out-of-focus point source taken with a real camera. Diffraction may alter the effective shape of the blur. Some graphics editors have a filter to do this, usually called "Lens Blur", though Gaussian blur is often used when realistic bokeh is not required.
If you have time to read this explains it really well...
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh.html
It all boils down to how much can you get right in the camera before Photoshop I guess...
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-3088728-red-brick-wall-close-up-shot-with-selective-focus-drifting-off-to-blurry.html
Last edited by snokid on Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:59 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| |
|
Log in
