I doubt i'll be stealing any of these images. Secondly, none of mine are really enhanced. You're obviously not really that "in the know" about digital photography. Or photography in general. The whole point of taking a photo, digitlal or film, is the CONTROL you have over the final image in the darkroom. Ask Ansel. He was famed for LOTS of manipulation in the darkroom post photo. Would you argue with that guy? And yes, it is a huge factor in image quality. It's called "real world usage." I'd be a wholly irresponsible photographer if I took an image directly from my DSLR, be it Canon, Nikon or anyone else, and gave it to a client as a final file.
The point of ISO 1600 on a well lit subject? The fact is, it wasn't well lit! Neither were. BUT I used ISO to achieve a proper exposure. THAT'S the point of ISO.
Your images were underexposed, and they were soft. Not in focus properly. What's the point of shooting flora if you can't make out the details? Your flora was underexposed (hiding detail!) and also soft focused (hiding detail also!) Secondly, your compositions were boring and not very exciting. Putting a flower in the middle of the frame is boring composition. Try offsetting them a bit.
😉 Or get a macro lens and THEN go and try and do flora photography. I've done it. Whole magazine worth of garden photos next month as the feature. Hehehe.
Also, did you get permission to take that couples photo? That's kind-of dirty pool, or at least bad etiquette to take photos of a couple on their wedding day when you're not even involved in the wedding. Makes you a paparazzi of course. Just watch some groom doesn't sock you one.
😉
As far as your iMac comment goes, i don't complain about my iMac's plastic case because i'm not going to be using it in places where a plastic casing would be a potential detriment to the machine. That said, my D2h's rock solid build and water sealing is nice, even at events, where last week, I had a woman turn around and get startled by my closeness to her (i was photographing a mayoral candidate) and she spilled her soda all over my camera and lens. I took a few moments, wiped it down, and continued shooting. I also manage to do a lot of shoots in industrial sites. I like knowing that my camera has a chance of surviving should something heavy get dropped on it. Or during sports, say a bunch of athletes at a lacrosse game come crashing into me. I want rock solid gear that will hold up. I just don't think a 70-200 lens attached to ANY consumer based DSLR (300d, 350xt, D70, Nikon N75, or Rebel film series) is gonna hold up to that kind of abuse. In a professional setting, the Rebel is severaly underbuilt. In a regular setting, i've seen soccer moms drop their rebels with 75-300 lens on it down a set of bleachers and no more rebel. The lens mount popped right off. Nasty! So yea, I prefer a more robust build quality, since a camera does get subjected to elements that are far and above what we subject our iMacs to.
I'll go over your photos for critique in order. Don't get mad at my critique. Just the facts:
1. Washington.jpg : Bland composition. Do you know about the rule of thirds? If not, i'll give you a lesson if you like. No 300d, d70, D100 or 350xt can help a bad composition. Also, you could have tried to throw some fill light on the statue. There's really not a lot of detail that tells me that's washington. And that is your main subject, right?
2. Tree.jpg : Again, poor composition. The tree is barely visible against the left building, and the picture isn't sharp. Also your WB is off, as the blocks on the building have a big blue cast to them.
3. Wedding.jpg : First off, it's not good etiquette to shoot people's wedding if you're not a) the official photographer or b) a guest of the wedding. Secondly, the people in front, out of focus, take your eye immediately away from the couple, who look to be having a private moment. You shouldn't have taken this shot. Lastly, you didn't even get the bride's whole face. But probably because you had to be sneaky to get the shot.
4. hydrant.jpg : Again, would have been helped immensely by using the rule of thirds. Also, you seem to be shooting in unfavourable light. You should avoid midday sun. You've lost alot of detail, and again, your WB is way off.
5. Duck.jpg : Probably your best job compositionally, but the focus is way soft on this one. Either that or you used a slightly too slow shutter speed.
6. Gull2.jpg : Just a flat composition. You have two birds in the photo, neither of who's faces we can see. I would have zipped to the other side of the statue and tried to get one of the birds from the front.
Nikon or Canon (Fuji or Kodak or Minolta or Pentax) you have a ways to go. Let me know if you'd like a primer on composition and WB. I'm sure either myself or iGary would be willing to show you some tricks.
jared_kipe said:
Hey buddy, what is the point of discussing image quality of a camera and then posting "enhanced" images. Not to mention what is the point of iso 1600 on a well lit subject?? There isn't any noise because there isn't any where for there to be noise. My images were WORST case scenarios, no they weren't under exposed, they were taken in the SHADE. That would be like saying your bridge shot was underexposed because you can't see the blurry person's face. They were accurate to what I saw, and I didn't do any "touch up" work on them
You calling me a canon troll, on a mac forum, on a canon thread, is pretty ridiculous. In fact I'll have a brain aneurism if I think about any of this anymore.
So if we are going to step back and go take some pictures, I just went to the University of Washington's campus ON MY DAY OFF, to take these. I did get to walk by a wedding, but they were watching me so I quickly snapped one while I walked by. 😛
Now even though these may not be published or in a gallery, please don't steal them.
And you know, I don't hear anybody complaining about the imac being a plastic computer.
