Some thoughts on photography

[nighthawk]

Many of you have been bitten by the shutter bug so to speak. I got bitten a long time ago. Photography really does go hand in hand with our sport. The environment of our sport exposes us to some of the most beautiful wonders of the natural world.

As I said, almost all of you do some type of photography while afield. Whether you are using film, digital, point and shoot or SLR cameras there are products that help you get the best shots out of your gear.

A tool I find indispensable for my DSLR is the Magic Lantern Guide from lark Books:

http://www.larkbooks.com/mlg

the guide for my Pentax K10D is not listed on their site but a quick google search reveals several copies to be bought. If your dslr is not listed on the Lark Books site do a google search for it.

A good magazine for all is the Digital Photography Magazine:

http://www.dpmag.com/

At last there is the Post Processing software. There are many of these programs available and I have used several of them. My two favorites are ACD SEE Photo Manager as a basic quick processing program:

http://www.acdsee.com/

and my absolute favorite is Corel Paint Shop Pro Ultimate Photo X2:

http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satelli...1&tabview=tab0

I have used some of the high end Adobe products and while they have some really nice features I found the Corel program more to my liking. The Corel program does everything I want it to do, has tons of features I have yet to even use, has a more intuitive user friendly interface than Adobe and at that price you probably won/t be able to beat it! I.M.H.O. Adobe makes a very good product but it is way overpriced.

I prefer the Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras but my next purchase will be the Pentax Optio W80. However, no matter the make, the advances in the point and shoot categories have been awesome. I am truly impressed by some of the results posted here by those of you using these cameras. These cameras fill a nice niche in our sport where the size and weight of our gear is critical.

One more thought. Before you think that the most expensive of every piece of gear is the best consider these shots from my K10D:







The lenses used were a Richo and a Pentax totaling 60 dollars. I used the above mentioned Corel program to do the Post Processing.

Camera Body Pentax K10D $399.99
Lenses Richo and Pentax $60 dollars for both
PP Software Corel PS Photo Ultimate $54.99

total $514.99 and I have hundreds more photos better than those.

[branhap]

To be fair, as a web programmer... sometimes graphic designer, Photoshop isn't over priced. It's meant to do more than just post photo processing.

It would be extremely difficult to layout and build a website using PSP.

For photo processing, I definitely recommend PSP or Adobe Photoshop Elements (which is ~$60) and is meant to do only post photo processing.

Paul

[nighthawk]

To be fair, as a web programmer... sometimes graphic designer, Photoshop isn't over priced. It's meant to do more than just post photo processing.

It would be extremely difficult to layout and build a website using PSP.

For photo processing, I definitely recommend PSP or Adobe Photoshop Elements (which is ~$60) and is meant to do only post photo processing.

Paul

Good point about Adobe however I am not talking from a web designers point of view. To really be fair you must realize that I am speaking strictly from the point of view of a photographer. Most of us are not web designers and do not have a need for their tools. Now do we want them, well, that is something to consider.

My opinion about Photoshop is just that. My opinion. So I will tell you that for my purposes Photoshop is overpriced. Spend the extra cash you will save on a better lens or a point and shoot with more megapixels/higher optical zoom. You will get more bang for your buck.

[branhap]

PSP and Photoshop Elements cost the same.

[rtidd]

GIMP

Can you spell Free?

It won't do as great a job for magazine layouts or selecting around hair and stuff, but it is oh so powerful.

I have Web Premium CS4 and that contains the full photoshop which I use all the time now. But every so often I don't know how to do something in photoshop that Gimp can do so I go back to it.

[Cold]

To you experienced photographers:

I've been doing alot of reading, comparing, learning, etc. about photography and the equipment that goes with it. Right now, for my budget and desires, I was thinking a 'bridge' camera would suit me well, allowing me the convenience of point-and-shoot and an automatic setting while having the 'guts' and advanced options to keep up with my learning and experimentation with things like Aperture and shutter priority and other options.

Is there anything I should be leery about with the bridge cameras?

Specifically, I was looking at a Canon model (SX20IS), a Pentax (X70), and especially the Panasonic FZ28.

Anyone use these or have anything to say about them?

[Normand]

Spend the extra cash you will save on a better lens or a point and shoot with more megapixels/higher optical zoom. You will get more bang for your buck.

dont be swayed by more megapixels

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/te...ogue.html?_r=1

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

[lastchance]

Hi Normand: In most circumstances megapixels don't really matter, but there are times, as the NY Times article stated, that more pixels can mean better quality. I can provide an example of my own. I inadvertently shot some digital photos on TV mode when I was on vacation. In that mode there are a lot less megapixels than in normal 10MP mode. It is readily apparent that the resolution is very poor. But, on the average, shooting in the normal mode is all that is necessary for quality reporoductions.
Bruce

[Kerry Stratton]

From my point of view most image editing software is going to be more than enough for the average shooter. Gimp, Irfan, even Picasa (the freebees) have more features than most of us will use or even learn to use. I personally use Lightroom which was designed to follow the workflow used by most photographers. For me that bit of structure is worth the extra dollars it may cost. Your mileage may vary. I have Gimp and Irfan loaded on my laptop to use while in the field when needed.

Also most cameras today (including the P&S cameras) have more features and capabilities than most of us will ever use or again learn to use. I just purchased a new DSLR and from my readings on the camera over the past week it has way more capabilities then I will ever be able to learn and put to use. I bought it because of some particular types of photography I want to do and some situational photography I will be doing. The new camera has certain features that address these two areas where my previous camera did not. I looked long and hard at the different models out there and settled on one in the middle. I may have been able to purchase less of a camera and certainly could have bought more of a camera to do what I wanted but the one I settle on is a good compromise for me and offers features that will make it easier for me to get the shots I want.

I think for most of us photography is like our fishing; a hobby and pastime that bring us enjoyment and in my case some level of peace of mind and a release from the pressures of the everyday world. My goal is to enjoy photography and if I happen to shoot something that induces a positive response from others I have exceeded that goal.

Don't get hung up on all the techno babble. Go out and take some pictures.

[Normand]

Hi Normand: In most circumstances megapixels don't really matter, but there are times, as the NY Times article stated, that more pixels can mean better quality. I can provide an example of my own. I inadvertently shot some digital photos on TV mode when I was on vacation. In that mode there are a lot less megapixels than in normal 10MP mode. It is readily apparent that the resolution is very poor. But, on the average, shooting in the normal mode is all that is necessary for quality reporoductions.
Bruce

what is "TV mode" and how does it relate to megapixels. i googled and cant find a camera with "TV mode"