Author |
Message |
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 3:21 pm
I bought myself a new digital camera yesterday from Best Buy online. It's a Fuji something lol. Said it's red but it looked hot pink on the screen.
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 4:10 pm
That's awesome Mocha!! If only it showed up in aubergine! LOL Jimmer, so with the 1.5, I would shoot at 200mm, with at least a 1/300 shutter speed?
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 4:50 pm
That's right as a general guideline. Of course, if you are really steady you may be able to shoot at slower shutter speeds without camera shake. Let us know more about your new camera when you get a chance, Mocha.
|
Karen
Member
09-07-2004
| Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 5:04 pm
Jimmer and Eeyore, do you guys know about Worth 1000? Most people know it as a photoshop contest site, but they have photography contests, as well. I linked to the photography page directly. If you submit a photo to a contest, you're guaranteed to get comments and critique on how you could improve the lighting, focus, composition, etc. I get lost there for hours looking at some people's images. And somewhere in there are tutorials, too.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 5:34 pm
That is a great website Karen. I enjoy looking at it! Most photographers will argue (and I agree) that it is by far best to start with good images. Having said that, some people's PhotoShop work is nothing short of amazing. They can enhance a great image and sometimes make something out of nothing.
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 6:39 pm
I know Eeyore! Lol.
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 2:59 pm
SO is a teleconverter like a poor man's zoom? I already want to get a faster aperture lens for shooting sports, but the big 400mm VR lenses are like the price of a new car. So would one use a shorter zoom fast lens, and add a teleconverter to get in closer?
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 7:02 pm
One of my first ever photos....I'm testing this tutorial on shrinking file size for the web, so here goes nothing:
This is part of my walk to work. My work is just on the other side of the beige slanted roof buildings....I think this was on auto setting though. I'll share some more in a bit....
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 7:52 pm
OK here are a few more of the skyline...

|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 8:09 pm
And then this is where I tried to be artsy-fartsy, with the boat mast thingys, etc. Again, nothing that special...

|
Landileigh
Member
07-29-2002
| Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 11:13 pm
what lovely pics eeyore! and obviously under the file limit!
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 7:14 am
Those are very good Eeyore!
|
Spitfire
Member
07-18-2002
| Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 7:16 am
I love pics!! Great job Eeyore....keep em coming.
|
Sisalou
Member
07-12-2002
| Monday, December 31, 2007 - 5:29 pm
Hello!
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Monday, December 31, 2007 - 6:11 pm
Hello Sisalou! Do you do any photography yourself?
|
Sisalou
Member
07-12-2002
| Monday, December 31, 2007 - 6:45 pm
Hi Jimmer! I just got a digital camera for christmas and have been snapping pictures of my animal friends like crazy. It has been so long since I have posted pictures that I am having a hard time remembering how to resize and then upload. I am bound to figure it out sooner or later.
The reason I even posted in here was because I was trying to upload and it showed up as an error and so I didn't want to edit the post with just a period. (I don't know if that makes any sense!)
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Monday, December 31, 2007 - 7:43 pm
That sounds great Sisalou! Well to post here at TVCH, the file size has to be less than 60k. We also generally ask people to keep their images less than 600 pixels wide so that they fit nicely in the threads without stretching them. So to get them that way you can generally use a software program (two great free ones are listed at the top of this thread) to resize and then save your resized images under a different name (so you don't lose your precious originals). Reducing them to 600 pixels wide (for landscape images) and saving as a medium quality jpg usually gets them down to the right size for posting here. Once it is resized, you just click on upload attachment and find your image file and upload it. Let us know if you have any questions about the process. Looking forward to seeing some pics from you! 
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Monday, December 31, 2007 - 8:29 pm
Sisalou, here is the tutorial I used. I just replaced THEIR values with the 60K and 600 pixel width. http://www.worth1000.com/tutorial.asp?sid=161115
|
Sisalou
Member
07-12-2002
| Monday, December 31, 2007 - 8:38 pm
Thanks ya'll. I am going to go check those sites out. (In between keeping an eye on my kittens tonight)
|
Cinnamongirl
Member
01-10-2001
| Friday, January 04, 2008 - 12:19 pm
I'm in the market for a new camera. I have a Canon Powershot 3.2 right now and want to upgrade.. Its between these two (I think) I just want easy to use, nice pictures... Does anyone know which would be better or are they relatively the same. I'm not a photographer by any means.. just easier the better for me Canon vs Nikon
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Friday, January 04, 2008 - 12:49 pm
They look pretty similar to me. Both are good brand names so you won't go wrong there. The main differences that I can see are: The Canon has a significantly longer zoom so you can zoom in closer when taking pictures of things that are far away. The Nikon uses a special battery and charger (included with the camera) but if you want to buy an extra battery it will cost a little more than a regular battery. The Canon uses two AA batteries and you will want to buy rechargeable NiMH batteries plus a charger which will cost a few extra dollars (and probably make up the price difference). They both look like great little cameras.
|
Cinnamongirl
Member
01-10-2001
| Friday, January 04, 2008 - 1:38 pm
Thanks Jimmer!! So really its just a matter of look and price then...I will check out the battery situation and then decide. thanks SO much! 
|
Landileigh
Member
07-29-2002
| Friday, January 04, 2008 - 10:21 pm
i just bought a canon 570IS and love it! it's very easy to use. the only real difference between my camera and the one you are looking at is an extra mega-pixel.
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Saturday, January 05, 2008 - 1:23 am
From what I've seen from friends' cameras, Canon takes AWESOME pictures in their compact cameras. With that said, I think that Nikon would be GREAT for sticking in a back jeans pocket, and heading to a party or bar or something. The Canon doesn't have a good shape for carting around. You'll always have to be carrying a bag or purse for it. I used to have a bigger camera, and I would always keep it in my purse, and I'd have to REALLY want to take pics, to make me pull it out. I'd never just carry it. It was an ordeal. Then I got a little Casio EX-Z850, and it fits in my back pocket, so I take literally hundred of pics at parties and outings, because it really is just SO easy to whip out an click away. I vote for the Nikon, because of the shape alone. The Canon one is just too formally shaped for it to be a casual carryable camera.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, January 05, 2008 - 10:46 am
That is an excellent point Eeyore. It depends on how and where you want to use it and how much effort you want to put into it. The reality is that the bigger bulky cameras will allow a knowledgable photographer to get better results, especially under more difficult conditions. However, you pay a penalty in portability and if you find your camera too hard to bring with you a lot of the time, you will miss pictures. Of course, it is all relative. Both of those cameras are tiny, compared to what I am used to using.
|