On 27/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/27/07, Nick heligolandwp@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.