Badmovies.org Forum

I'm still around, in case someone wondered.  I think many of you can relate to getting your life interrupted by work and special projects. So part of my destress ritual involves photography. I love it, although I may not be that great at it, it's definately something I enjoy doing. And, when I save up some money I'm going to upgrade my camera. I love it, but it's nothing like an SLR with attachable lenses..lol  I don't use my old SLR anymore simply because it's not digital. So it sits in my closet collecting dust.

For anyone interested I've been putting my pics in an online Gallery (http://smvgrey.redbubble.com/)  I wouldn't mind turning a buck or two but I don't see that happening. I considered the online stock photography but I think they look for more advertising friendly formats vs the stuff I like taking pics of.

It doesn't mean I haven't been watching movies. I saw "IRON MAN" last nite. Thought it was great! I was suprised I liked robert downey in it, but it worked. And after the credits, there is more.  Anyone seen anything in theaters worth checking out or anything good coming out? It's been a slow year.

I'm going to watch White Fang and Call of the wild 2 after a bit.  Also I recommend "THE MAN FROM EARTH". This is one of those talking films but with a sci-fi twist. I LOVED it!! And strangely I see no mention of it here. Check it out

I knew there was a lack of Rick Rolling on the board.  Good to hear from you...um whats your name again?  :wink:  Awesome photo work by the way.   :thumbup:

HI Susan, good to see you.  I Love the Gummy Bear picture.  But all are very nice.   
-Ed

lol thanks. ;-p  Sometimes i'm just a lurker around here but lately i've been diverting my attention elsewhere. There's always a place in my heart for here and i always come back in full force eventually.  Thanks for the comment.  If you like those you might like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE0NUmME0oo)

thanks geez, i almost took a pic of the gummy's doing bad things but decided i didn't have time to stage that..lol Then again I have my CLUE game with all the weapons...

I'll make this quick as I got to go.


First
 
 (http://5g8.net/smileys/tongue-047.gif) (http://5g8.net)


Secondly, I'll offer just a little criticism.

Do some reading and practice on the rule of thirds.

You have a tendency, like we all do (no matter how many photographs we have taken, we still do this) to put things in the center of the frame.

That being said, though, sometimes that works. It doesn't mean not to ever put things in the center, but some photographs can be improved by framing them differently.

Some of your nature shots could have been improved by this, but some are just fine as you have them.

Your sunrise shot, perhaps inadvertently, follows the rule of thirds, if you'll notice the horizon in it. The sun is almost dead center, but that doesn't matter as it looks good that way and the other elements work to frame it. A shot straight into the sun like that is difficult to get anyway; I hope you can still see after that.

Despite working on the rule of thirds, you have an eye for form and texture, and that works well toward your composition.

I think the shot of the girl sleeping is well framed while the shots of the necklace and the coffee cup show a eye for creativity. There are many more good shots, I am just using those for examples.

Good work. :thumbup:


You can check out my photography articles on my site An Instant in Time (http://aninstantintime.com). Those are some articles I wrote primarily dealing with film photography, though there may be some use still in them. Despite what it says about new articles coming, there won't be.

Gummy Porn!!!! :teddyr:

lol! Well, coulda been gummy zombies too ;-)

Most of my shots believe it or not don't have the main subject in the dead center. IThe other weekend I went bananas with the sunflower pics and most of them were off center or even at odd angles. I just thought those pics were too strong in the color contrast i didn't upload them. I always take the best family photos tho..heh  i find myself getting in all kinds of weird positions, lying on the ground even. And I absolutely HATE pictures of people that are posed, I love candid shots. Which is why I hate having my pic taken, it's always "ok, look at the camera and smile". ugh

Most didn't make the upload because those were older shots before i started taking higher resolution pics.  Right now i've been out of it for awhile, i do it off and on around the house but i'm trying to get out and see more with my camera and that can be challenging...especially in my town. If ONLY i had taken photography back in school, I never did and basically I just wing it as I go. In any case it's fun for me, it's an outlet, and maybe in 40 years or so i'll actually be good at it..lol  I appreciate the criticism, I always do. That's one reason i put my pics up, while I don't think any would actually sell I like to hear others comments. I also like those sites because you get a chance to see other photography in the rhelm of amateur, beginner and pro.

Right now i'm trying to get out of my blur phase. I tend to seek a blurred effect on my pics and I know that's not always appealing.  I'll check out your site

and maybe if i get more gummy bears..

1. Hi!

2. The pictures look professional quality to me

3. I'd be careful taking advice from Menard.  I halfway suspect he goes around telling every photographer he meets to put their subjects off center, then advertises his own photos with the phrase, "Have you ever noticed how annoying it is when so-called 'professional' photographers can't even center their photos?  Buy from Menard's, where the pictures are perfectly centered every time!"

4. I second the vote naughty pictures of gummi bears.  That could be your niche...

lolol

Aren't rules meant to be broken? ;-)

Hmm, i'll have to give the gummi bear idea more thought when I go buy some Habiro. might be funny to stage a murder scene

Photography is a great hobby.  My old SLR suffered what yours seems to be dying of: digital fawning.  I had a very trusty Nikon with a Tamron 28-200 lens that went everywhere until digital matured.  Once I noticed that it was just collecting dust, because I always reached for the less capable buy easy to use and free to snap alot digital the SLR went on Ebay.

What you can do with a few good lenses and a solid tripod is pretty impressive.  Your pictures look great, even if you feel like you are "working with what you have."

It's sad, but then digital brings something wonderful: Instant results. No running out of film, no developing issues or the COST..my god the cost. Whether you had them developed or your own lab it wasn't cheap. I still love my old SLR, i hate to get rid of it, but i've been thinking of selling it. I don't know where. I am going to hold on to it, it's a canon rebel G. I plan to get a digital canon and maybe i can fit the lens without an adaptor. Wouldn't that be great!

I have an unused tripod in the closet someone gave me that smells like cigarettes and looks to be 40 years old. So when i got my camera stuck on it I decided if i use a tripod I better buy one myself. The camera i have, while fun and pocket sized, needs a bigger and more mature companion. plus it has a small chip on the lens, another crappy aspect of these automatical/manual digital cameras where the lens goes back into the camera is when the lens is out it's completely exposed - no filter! Now I probably could have bought an attached lens for it but I never did. Until i can shell out the money for a new cam i'll have to make due with this canon a620. I've seen fantastic pics taken with a brownie cam so I can't be picky

 :teddyr:

 :teddyr: :teddyr: Karma to Rev Powell for that.  :thumbup:

Lovely pictures, Susan: that picture of Buddah with the candle is my favourite.

One thing I always stress to anybody interested in photography is that the equipment you have is meaningless. A photograph is only as good as the photographer taking it.

Keep in mind that a Pulitzer Prize winning photograph was taken with a disposable film camera that cost less than $10.

My regular wedding lens cost a total of $25. Of course, that's largely because it is a common 50mm lens (for 35mm photography) which has been made in such abundance that it is easily available, cheap, and it has the lowest distortion and highest resolution due to its focal length.

Going onto photography forums can leave a bad taste in a would be photographer's mouth. On many of them, though they will deny measuring a photographer by the equipment they use; they do exactly that. I simply like to beat down such so-called photographers who will look down on others who can't afford the Nikons and Hasselblads they use; not to mention that reminding them that according to the IRS, in this country, the only distinction between an amateur and professional photographer is what percentage of one's income comes from photography, and not what camera they use, their schooling, or anything else.

Perhaps an interesting footnote: I've run into more snobbery in photography from so-called amateur photographers than professional photographers. Myself and other professional photographers with whom I have worked don't make a distinction between amateur and professional; you are simply a photographer.

Right. I have a bit of that in my bio. Years and years ago I saw a show that was stressing that point. People were saying of course those famous photographers take fantastic picturse, look at all that fansy expensice equipment! So they armed them with digital cams and gave expensive ones to regular novices to see what happened. It showed it's not the brush that makes the painting great but the artist. It's their eye

Naturally a nice brush gives you more flexibility, however..lol  I have that giant photography book and have always looked at old photos (and i mean OLD) to study what is it about that photo that stirs emotion. I'm not into that new modern photography where they might take a picture of plastic manniquins broken into pieces in the desert to portray some kind of a point.

i'm trying to really play with the camera i have (it's not cheap but it's no slr). I've argued with a friend who also is trying his hand at this and lives in an amazing country with beautiful landscapes that I have nothing to photograph around here! It's true, i live in a place where surburban houses span miles, and the city is nothing more than endless shopping centers of subway and geico. So when we run our challenges, i feel that i am more challenged..lol  Although i have to admit i've always wanted to take really good pics of people, candid shots. Everyday life, walking the streets kind of shots.

But you just can't capture that at the local walmart..lol

i've also found that being a woman limits me a bit, just as being a man might in other aspects. While men might get a weird look if they start photographing people on the streets (becasue i know here where i live if you're a male and your taking pics that in any way involve children your going to end up on the news), I as a woman have another issue. I've found myself predawn in a desolate area by a creek or something. I got carried away with my adventures that I realized it's probably not a good idea as a woman to be alone in such a place so I had to get the hell out of there. We got all kinds of wackos around here, i'm not in the thick of the country where you're not likely to run into anyone.

My first comment may seem a little harsh, but take it for what you think it's worth:

Stop making excuses for yourself.


First of all, you have two things that make for a good photographer: a good eye (by that, I mean seeing something in a photographic sense, not a measure of your vision); and enthusiasm.

I don't have that kind of enthusiasm. It may surprise you, but a lot of working photographers, at least several that I know, do not carry their cameras with them everywhere they go, and some not at all; photography is something that is done at work, and often left at work outside of family get-togethers or something like that.


Secondly, I'd rather be in the city than in the country when it comes to photography. The city is brimming with life, in people and in the objects surrounding and created by people.

One photographer I read made a contrary recommendation to another photographer who wanted to get close-ups of people in the streets. The one photographer wanted to get a telephoto lens so they could get close-ups of people's faces without having to get so close. The other photographer recommended buying a wide angle lens instead as this would force them to lose their fear of people and interact with them; as they would have to get even closer for close-ups.


Urban sprawls change by the minute. Someone painted graffiti on a wall. A child walking down the street is happy with the ice cream cone they have, but if the ice cream falls off, they are very sad. Every moment where there are people around is an opportunity for dozens of photo ops, if not more; whether this is in the people themselves or their surroundings.

I disagree with you; you have far more opportunity for photographs in a city where architecture, people, animals, shapes, lines, and emotions are abundant, and different by the minute compared to beautiful landscapes that, save for weather and seasons, don't change much.

I take it back.. the gun is good, the Menard is not *entirely* bad.

An interesting discussion.

I agree the city is a great place. But not my city..lol I've been to cities that had life, like in boston. every turn brought you to new 'characters' and architecture and people interacting with their environment. People lived on the streets. It's different where I live. The "city" is nothing more than a series of shopping malls. There's no hustle and bustle on the streets, in fact kids don't even play outside hardly at all.  I don't live downtown where you might have more luck at running into people outside, mostly homeless at that. If I drive around the corner to a populated area, all i'm going to see is a big Kohl's and a soccar mom hauling in her kids. Not much life is brimming on the streets where I am. No graffiti or bridges, trains, vendors, people eating outside or parks with people lying on the grass of flying a kite. It's literally miles of surbuban homes and parking lots with target and tom thumb stores. There is no real character here. Now with that said, I have to drive quite a bit to get to the seedier areas of town that ARE interesting.

I think that's the disappointing thing about the direction many cities are taking in america. We do less stuff outside, we're tearing town buildings that are older and replacing them with a giant bank of america. Our corners are littered with mcdonalds and kfc's. Kids stay inside playing their wii, and homes are cookie cutout with generic neighborhoods. I'm saying this from a perspective of where i have lived and travelled. The most interesting buildings around me i've photographed are a MOTEL! lol  Everything else is 1 story shopping centers made of concrete

So with that said, it's not excuse but simply fact. I could hang out at target and find an interesting shot but that is not what interests *me*.   :smile:

*ahem*


It's always somewhere else outside of our familiarity where the interesting stuff happens. People downtown don't see the character in old dilapidated buildings they have to look at every day; but the big, fancy, new mall...now that's something. If you have to see the big, fancy mall all the time, the old brownstone looks much better.

Regardless where you are, there is something, perhaps in familiarity, and getting tired of looking at it, might be an opportunity to see something different; not always seeing the same thing.

I'll sit out in front of a Walmart store and see an abundance of people coming and going. A stray cat or dog hangs around the parking lot or seeks the shade of a tree. There's an unfinished road under construction in which someone decided to apparently put up the road sign that shows a left turn and straight through lane; too bad the straight through lane goes right into an embankment due to the road not being finished yet.

Just a guess, but I'm fairly certain that you didn't have to travel far for a coffee mug and gummy bears. One of the wonderful capabilities we have is, if nothing is there, the ability to create.

You've certainly shown the ability to see something in just a coffee cup and a necklace, and force gummy bears into sexual acts ( :buggedout:).

As much as there is writer's block, there is photographer's block. As much as a page can remain blank, so can a landscape, a city street, and people's faces.

If you feel photographer's block at any point, rather than walking around with your camera looking for something, which you are likely not to find, set yourself a task of just getting out to different places close at hand or a little further down the street, but don't take your camera; often without a camera we will find reasons we wish we had a camera.

There's something there. There's always something there; but don't let your facts get in the way. :tongueout:

I'm going to agree with Menard on this one. Susan, you have a good eye; I was impressed with the composition and quality of the photos you posted. While I acknowledge that architecture is lacking in the character that it once had, there are good photo opportunities everywhere. They are just usually easier to see when the subject matter isn't something we see every day. Got a shiny new McDonald's? Photograph a homeless person, shabbily dressed, outside of it for the contrast (then run before he hits you up for money. Or buy him a burger for letting you take his picture). Juxtapositions often make for great photos. If I recall, you are in the Dallas area. Tall buildings are always good subjects, even if they are unexciting architecturally; the magic happens in the composition, coloring, etc.

I suffer from the same "there's nothing good to photograph around here" syndrome, but when I genuinely try, I can usually find something interesting. I'm not really all that good, but I do enjoy photography, and every once in a while I turn out something nice. It's a rewarding feeling to create something beautiful out of something mundane, and I can see from your work that you can do that. Stay with it; it's a rarer talent than you think.

I see the point everyone is making because I'm with you. I just don't want to photograph a mcdonalds. But that's ALL i'm surrounded by. Miles and miles and miles and MILES of surbuban homes and every so often you run into a shopping center with Target, Walmart, Kohls, Home Depot and every fast food chain on the moon. I don't live in Dallas either, I'm a county north of it. But also it's worth noting that there are few tall buildings in dallas, the downtown area pops into everyones head but most of dallas is flat. We have a few tall banks and that's about it. The older sectors are further south and quite a drive from me. My immediate town is new (meaning no old buildings or structures), very wealthy and nothing but houses. It's worth noting we don't have any vagrants or homeless people (not in dallas but my city) wandering around. I'm in the richest city per capita in the US, which means it's rather boring unless you want to buy a 3 million dollar home and shop.

I spent 2 hours out today driving and 90% of it was driving through very long tedious stretches of road with wall to wall homes. And I mean wall to WALL (surrounded by a wall at that) i marvel sometimes how many houses cover this area. All new, all look alike.

Then after wasting a half a tank of gas, I found a 7-11 and got a slurpee! lol It's hard to explain, you'd have to visit here to see what i mean. And when there aren't a vast sea of a jillion houses there's huge fields of open spaces of absolutely nothing but dead grass. My biggest problem is i can't just go around the corner and find something interesting, an old building with character or a place crawling with people or even a PARK! Our parks are nothing but a paved trail over freshly mowed grass that actually go under Pylon towers. My frustration comes in that i have to drive quite a ways to get anything near what will have my camera snapping.

So i do try, today i went out and the only thing that I managed to photograph was a mexican cantina that shut down, apparently restaurants don't do well in my neck of the woods unless it's called Chili's or appebee's. It was right next door to chuck e cheese so i was trying hard not to get that damn mouse into my shot.

Derf do you do anything with your photos or are they for your own collection? Lately, the ones i've taken of family i've given to them as gifts in a nice frame. I'm about to start printing out some of the stuff I like that is mine and decorate my apt. :)

Hey...here's an idea...take a picture and show us what you mean. :tongueout:

LOL!

i can do better than that. I made a video of my drive to work (http://www.vimeo.com/754167)

That's what it looks like around here

Wow, I didn't know it was already snowing in Texas.

That much activity, that much real estate, that many people, and there's nothing to photograph?

That town is huge compared to the redneck town I live in. Along the way to work, you passed by several photo ops, including the guy walking past on the sidewalk, the underpass, and the railroad crossing (which you framed the billboard with it anyway :tongueout:).

The Muse? You're your own inspiration? You need your own Muse; get yourself a girlfriend (http://5g8.net/smileys/lol-065.gif) (http://5g8.net).

I could never disagree that it is the photographer's ability to recognize a shot, and then take that shot that matters the most.  However, having good quality gear can make actually getting the shot a lot easier (or even possible, depending).  It can also keep you from getting frustrated.  When I got my SLR, it was so I could have a single camera, with a variable focal length lens, that could snap pictures as quickly as I needed.  I only ever had a 50mm lens and that 28-200 for the camera.  They covered the bases I needed to cover.  I had the 35-80mm that came with the camera and such, but never used them.  I did use filters and polarizers, and having a good set of those can be fun to experiment with and give you some neat results.

If you are doing action photos, then sometimes you need a lens that has a low f-stop.  If not, you have to shoot on higher speed film, and you really can tell the difference between 100 speed and 400 speed once it is enlarged.  The 50mm 1.4 is almost a godsend in that respect.  It's the best lens you can get for the money. The only detracter is that it is fixed at 50mm.  However, somebody once gave me some good advice.  They told me to practice by using the 50mm for everything.  The lens has a great f-stop, that that did not limit me.  What I had to do was see and position myself for the shots, based on the focal length.  Actually, that person gave me great advice.  When I finally get back into photography, I'll probably do the same thing for a few weeks.

A quick and reliable autofocus, and a fast photo-taking rate are also very helpful if you are doing action, sports, or wildlife photography.  Being a snob about someone's equipment is silly.  The equipment is just a tool.  The photographer is the important part.

I took it back in march. And the billboard, i meant to zoom on commercial stuff like the mall, dickeys , subways and such. The video was taken all while i was driving, hence the choppiness but i actually took it to show to a friend of mine just how dull it is here..lol.  I have to say i've tried my hand at railroads and i'm not that good at it. While the photos interest me i could never get interested in taking that type of photo. I may need a muse, but i could also use a nice SLR

And a giant bottle of rum!

I also enjoyed your rant about dog owners and could not agree more. Dressing up a dog is a fundamental betrayal of the trust the animal has placed in someone. Dogs don't like the clothing, are unnerved by it and are confused by the whole affair, wondering what it was they did to deserve such treatment.

I've taken photos for a brochure and sold one photo for a calendar, as well as some photos for business cards and such (I worked for a long time for a print shop). Mostly, I just take pictures for my own enjoyment. I like to do landscape and extreme closeup photography for the most part, and, as I said, I've gotten some good shots (and a whole lot of mediocre/poor shots). My wife just got a nice Nikon digital slr, but she hasn't really let me play with it much  :bluesad:. She has aspirations of doing portrait photography and has done some nice work. I don't have anything posted on line at this point; it's all just for me to play around with and learn from. My problem is that I have too many interests and not enough passion to pursue any one of them hard enough to turn it into a money-making venture.

As for other locations for you, I know that there are a lot of old cemeteries in East Texas--if there are any near enough to you, the old statuary always makes for some cool, spooky photos. I say this because I'd love to do some of this type of photography, but there are no cemeteries like that around here.

I know, that's one of my peeves is that peope have taken away the dignity of animals by treating them like human children. Halloween costumes, sunglasses, shoes, the whole affair has gone to the dark side

Most every shot I do can be done with a single focal length lens.

Zooms, telephotos, and wide angles come in handy. Anybody wanting to be a photographer, however, should learn with a single focal length. Being that this is difficult anymore, as they are not made for anything other than high end professional cameras, my recommendation is to set the zoom at about a, for its range, normal focal length, and learn to move closer and farther from the subject. This is simply learning perspective which someone is likely not going to learn by sitting on their ass and zooming in and out.

I would carry three lenses for wedding shoots, using 35mm equipment: a 50mm normal lens; a 35mm wide angle lens; and a 100mm tele lens. 90% or more of a wedding, sometimes even 100%, was shot on the 50mm; my form of zoom was called two legs. I only used the 35mm if my back was against a wall and I could not move back any further* or I needed the depth of field. The 100mm was only used for when I was at the back of a church or as a portrait lens and when I wanted less depth of field.


*I once was shooting portraits in a Catholic church, actually attached to a monastery, in Cincinnati. I had about an hour or two left to go when I realized that my zoom had stuck and would not go any wider than 135mm (using a 75-150mm zoom with 70mm film; about the equivalent of a 35-70mm zoom on 35mm film).

Hoping against the odds of a large family coming up didn't work as my next to last group was a family of 12. I had to be creative in getting 12 people posed and still had myself all the way back and standing in the window to take the shot. The posing additionally had to be creative to overcome a narrower depth of field with a large family than what being zoomed out to 75mm would have afforded.

Having worked my way up from an old SLR I bought at a pawn shop, which had a single 50mm lens, I had to learn how to use that to its best advantage, even if a tele or wide angle would have been more convenient because I could not afford them (different times well before the internet when used equipment was not that easy to find and camera shops warned you about buying out of magazines, but would be more than willing to sell you the same equipment for two or three times as much...hmm).


I don't tell people not to expand their equipment if that is an affordable option for them, but I do tell them that does not make them a photographer; only doing the best you can with what you have, and doing a good job at it, does.

I was not afforded that advice when I started in photography, and often made to feel that I needed certain equipment to be a photographer. Learning better over the years, I do give that advice to others, especially in the face of other photographers, or so-called brand junkies, giving them bad advice.


Certain specifics to your post, Andrew.

The 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 are silly money. At one point they afforded that extra bit for someone who needed it and, other than for someone who needs a narrow depth of field or who shoots constantly in low light situations, it does not afford advantages commencerate with the added cost. The additional increase in exposure latitudes alone had lessened the need for such fast lenses. I don't own such a lens myself.


I did know someone who worked for a small local paper taking shots at school football games. They only provided him with a manual 35mm SLR, with a 50mm lens. He succeeded in getting the shots, but on more than one occasion he was one of the bodies in a sideline tackle.

Football, basketball, Nascar, Motocross; these are all specialized events and those who make a living at it use specialized equipment for it. If someone has an interest in this type of photography, they need to be looking at a lens that can get them closer to the action while providing wide enough of an aperture to give them good shutter speed if they need it, and that will keep their body at a safe distance.

In addition to the equipment, though, they need to learn the basics of dealing with speed in their subject and how to move with the subject to reduce motion blur, which increases with the use of a long lens. Following a subject with a lens longer than 200mm (35mm) is truly a mastered art.

Wildlife photography uses specialized equipment. Not just for the safety of the photographer, especially when photographing predatory wildlife, but for maintaining a calm with wildlife where too close will cause many animals to scatter.

Wedding photography can be done with a standard SLR and lens, but it is best to accessory lenses if available, and an absolute must to have a backup camera, and preferably a backup photographer. Wedding photography leaves zero room for screw ups. This is a one time event at which you have only one shot, and if you screw it up, well...I'll let everybody finish that for themselves.


These are specializations in photography and are not where a photographer starts, but where a photographer may find they are heading with their photography. They don't need to be looking at possibilities for equipment just starting out. Any equipment they have is just fine and all of the aforementioned subjects can be done with the basics so long as they learn to step back when necessary, run when necessary, and never never ever say to someone 'I have a camera; I'll shoot your wedding' unless they have a backup, and backup on top of backup, and have read my article.

They may find that they are happy just where they are; though, there is nothing at all wrong with wanting someone more in a camera or lens, and, even if it's silly, if one has the money and wants it, go ahead.

That must have been tough. Kind of like tying a string to your nads and yanking real hard...huh? :tongueout:

Wha...??? Did I leave my web cam on again? Dang it!!!!!!   :teddyr: :twirl:

 :buggedout: but also  :teddyr: :teddyr: :bouncegiggle:

I liked the dog owners rant, too, Susan.   And ya opened and closed it to my favorite ELO song.    I was expecting a Texan accent, for some reason, surprised me that you basically have no accent.  (to someone like me who basically grew up in the Midwest.)

I have seen one cat that would probably tolerate having clothes put on him... one.  He was a very unusual cat.  His owner could brush his teeth (I've never seen that before, and my cat is a Ragdoll and will tolerate almost anything).   Regarding the tolerant cat, though, his owner would never have tried to dress him up, fair to say.

Oh, the juggling to Abba was pretty funny, too.  Haven't heard that song in a long time.

Obligatory post content relevant to thread:  I totally, totally suck at photography.  But having a good camera has made me at least capable, by brute force, of catching a good image once in a while.  With plain film I wouldn't be able to hammer away enough images to luck upon something decent.  =)    My wife, though, has a pretty good eye for composition.

I get that a lot about my lack of accent, people here ask where i'm from and i've lived here since i was 10. I guess it's because i grew up all over prior to that age. Same with my brother. My dad has no accent and grew up in new orleans, my mom has no accent anymore, but when she talks to her family her arkansan accent quickly comes back. I can easily talk with an accent if i want to but maybe i never aquired it because i don't like southern accents..lol  I still use southern slang, like 'ya'll.

The videos up there were mostly when i discovered i had a video feature on my cam. I created a vlog for fun basically and i haven't done it in awhile. I did a few cooking skits because a friend of mine put up cooking challenges, clearly i'm no cook..lol

My cat won't let me brush her teeth but she'll brush her teeth on her hairbrush. Go figure. She'll also get in the bathtub, even when i'm in there..which i don't tolerate..lol

PS: ELO rocks!

btw i agree that the equipment won't make someone a better photographer. But it does give you more flexibility. There are different things you can do with different cameras and lenses. I have fun with my A620, but having used the Canon rebel G years ago I know what i'm missing. I finally put one on my wishlist, if i can't find any deals around here i guess i'll go through amazon. At least there's no sales tax

One thing I wish I did have is photoshop, i can't afford it. I would also need a class on how to use it because i tried the trial version and got frustrated in specific things i wanted to do. I use GIMP but that is equally frustrating. For instance i had a pic that produced a glare, i managed to clone out the glare but the touchup is not flawless so it's rather disappointing because I like the shot otherwise.

You don't have to buy a photo editor to do much of what you can do in Photoshop. There are plenty of freeware alternatives, of which the best is Magix Photo Clinic (http://www.download.com/Magix-Photo-Clinic/3000-2191_4-10576631.html?cdlPid=10576632). Obviously it's not going to compare to photoshop for advanced features, but for day to day photo editing it will provide the tools most any digital photographer can use.

I have a fairly extensive list of free photo editors and plugins that I will put up on my site for anyone who is not aware that you don't have to spend $600 on software to edit digital photos.

If you feel better spending money ( :lookingup:) check out Paint Shop Pro and PhotoImpact (PhotoImpact is my preferred editor, though I mostly use it for web graphics, while Paint Shop Pro seems to be a little better oriented to digital photographers).

I have posted the list on my G8 forum here (http://5g8.net/forum/index.php?a=vtopic&t=7).

Hi Susan, I admit I'm very glad I didn't buy photoshop, though I have yet to find the solution that's right for me.  I haven't been around much myself these days. 

know any good freeware? LIke i said I use GIMP, i also use the canon software that came with my camera but it doesn't remove glare - that was something specific i wantd to do. I definateyl at this time do not want to pay for one because right now the camera on my wishlist is expensive enough and i don't like to do all that extensive editing. The great thing about my A620 is the camera features have a lot of options that you would otherwise use in an editing program. i'll be more back to basics with the new cam i'm eyeballing :)

photoshop is like the same price as buying a camera, to me that's just not worth it. BUT, i have a coworker who offered to give me a free copy. The thing is, i tried the trial version and to me..it wasn't user friendly. I'm the type of person where i hate reading instruction manuals, i like to figure things out for myself and usually i'm pretty good with that. Except with photoshop.

people who have photoshop act like they're in a cult or something. I guess that's what spending $600 will do to you.

Ahem

I already posted this, but here it is again. :lookingup:


http://5g8.net/forum/index.php?a=vtopic&t=7

I used Photoshop for a number of years at my last job, so I hope I don't sound too "cultish"  :tongueout:. There's a reason Photoshop is at the top of the list for professionals: it works better in subtle ways. I've used several of the alternatives, and Photoshop is definitely better for those who depend on graphics for a living. That said, most people don't need it. If all you are looking to do is simple color corrections and such, there are better, simpler programs such as Picasa (http://picasa.google.com/) and Irfanview (http://www.irfanview.com/) (my personal fave for just looking through mass numbers of pics). I agree that Gimp is not very user friendly; I've been having trouble with it since I downloaded it. But if you are looking for something more along the lines of Photoshop (i.e., to go in and manipulate images, adding or subtracting elements, putting yourself into other photos, etc.), it is one of the more powerful freebies out there. I glanced through the list of programs on Menard's site, and there look to be some good possibilities there, too; I'll have to look into them when I have more time.