On 27/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 9/27/07, Nick <heligolandwp(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
> I just need a camera that I can change the ISO
settings, shutter speed and
> other stuff on.
Maybe. But I found as soon as I learned about that
stuff and did get
a camera that can change ISO settings, shutter speed, and aperture
(most low-cost digital cameras can do this), within a few weeks I
realized why that cheap camera was so cheap. It gets to be an
expensive hobby pretty quick.
Big time. I keep an ultracompact in my pocket at all times (a Canon
Ixus 50) and it's good for lots of things ... but even an entry-level
SLR has advantages like, ooh, a sensor bigger than a speck, and ISO
above 400 that isn't complete rubbish.
(On the latter subject, I recommend:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/
- the only compact that can do high ISO as of May 2007 that isn't a
lie is the Fuji F30/F31. Now I just need one of those to carry
everywhere.)
As my obligatory on-topic section to this post, if
someone *can*
manage to create [[Image:Jonquil flowers at f5.jpg]] from
[[Image:Jonquil flowers at f32.jpg]] using photoshop (or some other
image manipulation software), the manipulated image and a description
of how it was made would be a good addition to [[depth of field]].
That would basically require selecting bits of the image according to
where in the field you think they would be, then blurring each a given
amount. This is pretty artistic as image fakery goes.
About the most work I put into an image is framing it properly.
Shallow depth of field is the same - there's no substitute for just
taking the shot that way.
- d.