File :-(, x, )
Danielle Anonymous
A photo of flowers in my sisters yard during a flood.
What can I do to make it better
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S3 ISCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:02:06 23:58:05Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1581Image Height2108RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Oh yeah, here are some specs on the photo...

Model: Canon PowerShot S3 IS
Shutter Speed: 1/79 second
F Number: F/4.0
Focal Length: 6 mm
Date Picture Taken: Jan 31, 2007, 4:44:40 PM
>> Anonymous
>>37005

We can read the EXIF file, thank you.

Pretty nice, at least it's keeping me from saying "ho hum, it's another picture of a fucking flower". I like the way you tilted the camera too :)
>> Anonymous
>>37013

Yes. Generally cliches make Anon angry. This one is well done.
>> Anonymous
>>37005
oh f'n unreal. i have been trying to get someone who owns an s3 is to show me what it can do. i even made a thread about getting one for my b-day. you made my day.

MOAR.
>> Danielle Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>37050
Anon gives.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S3 ISCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:03:07 18:48:51Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/4.0Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1419Image Height744RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeLandscape
>> Danielle Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
MOAR

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S3 ISCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:02:01 22:38:33Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/2.7Lens Aperturef/2.7Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, Auto, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1100Image Height567RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Danielle Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
FROG!

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S3 ISCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution5 dpiVertical Resolution5 dpiImage Created2007:03:07 19:29:29Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.7Lens Aperturef/2.7Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width988Image Height695RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>37123
>>37125
>>37127
again, unreal. this camera's capable of more than my highest expectations. I'm a real photo noob and this will be my first camera aside from nonserious party cameras (i have a casio exilim ex-s2 right now, total joke for aestetic purposes, but it fits in my wallet). i'm excited to get this camera now, my b-day is sooooooon.
>> Anonymous
>>37138
it's usually not the camera thats incapable of taking a nice looking picture, but the photographer.

as for>>37005
i dont think anything is really in focus there, so its not really that appealing to me. Also, it looks like its rather grainy for whatever reason.
>> Anonymous
>>37144
i guess i shouldn't have expected anyone in /p/ to be less than a condescending pretentious cock. i very clearly expressed interest only in what the hardware could do. neither i nor any reasonably intelligent human being would assume that buying something expensive automatically makes you good at using it. this is not the first time i've had to explain this on this board. try looking up the canon S3 IS and the casio exilim EX-S2 and understanding why i'd be excited about the difference between them. keep in mind, for example, what i'd be able to experiment with and learn using the former rather than the latter.
>> des
>>37145
I don't think he was being pretentious, don't be so defensive.
"it's usually not the camera thats incapable of taking a nice looking picture" is far cry from "shitsuxfag"
>> Anonymous
>>37147
you forgot the other part

>, but the photographer

that's a direct implication that i'm not a good photographer and conveys the attitude that i'm naive enough to expect a nice piece of equipment to make up for low skills. i'm definetely overreacting to this one comment but i'm sick of hearing that same thing again and again on this board, so he gets all that built up indignance.
>> Anonymous
>>37158
Okay, let's look at what you've said in this thread:
>I'm a real photo noob and this will be my first camera aside from nonserious party cameras
Okay, noted. Now:
>that's a direct implication that i'm not a good photographer

*You* said you weren't a good photographer. So you can't get in a huff if someone else implies that you're just a beginner.

Now, further, the guy you're ranting at *didn't* say you weren't a good photographer--didn't even imply it--he just pointed out that a good photographer can get good pictures out of even a crappy camera.

You said "this camera's capable of more than my highest expectations." The guy you're ranting at was simply pointing out that the remarkable thing is the skill of the photographer, not the particular camera he used.

Let's take a look at the tech specs on >>37129. It's ~1 megapixel image at f/4.0, 1/800th of a second. It's a sunny day, so a low ISO could be used for a clear image. And according to the EXIF data, it's in auto-exposure mode, so he didn't even need to use the manual controls to take it.

Just about any digital (or film) camera could have taken this picture. Hell, a moderately good cell phone could do that. The skill was in knowing where to point the camera, not having a specific camera to point.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>37172
I just said i was a noob, not that i was not good. there's absolutely no reason for so many people to tell me that it's the photographer and not the camera that takes good pics, other than pretentious cockery.
if you look at my thread about pics i took while mowing lawns you can look at the only setting that my current camera has and what it can do. it really doesn't stimulate me to go out and work on improving my skills when every single photo i take comes out looking like a mess like that. every single photo i've ever taken with it disappoints me. it's absolute crap in low light and night shots, and for some reason when the flash doesn't go off (which i can't control) pics are unrecognizably blurry. maybe it changes the exposure time or something. honestly if i'm so clueless that any one of you could tell me how to use that thing to take some acceptable quality photos i'd love to hear it.
my point is that people here seem to like to remind me that a better camera won't necessarily take better photos. it's insulting and annoying when i'm just looking for people who know about cameras to talk with me about them so i don't get something I don't want.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>37182

I like people going "It's the photographer that takes good pictures, not the camera". It's much better than the turds who'd go "LOL your photo sux because you used a P&S. I use a Canon 5D with L lenses and a carbon-fiber manfrotto and blah blah blah blah expensive gear blah blah shitsuxfag".

My suggestion on how to make the most out of your camera: know its limitations and try to work around it. I have an old cybershot and it's a piece of shit. No manual settings, no swivel lcd, no image-stabilization... but pictures still come out decent.

No swivel lcd? Learn to compose a pic without looking at the lcd. No image stabilization? Try taking pics in bursts. Picture too noisy with weird color casts? Learn basic post-processing skills.

pic related

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-L1Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:03:05 11:34:22Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.10 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width480Image Height640RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>37185
i have no LCD at all actually it's b0rkt. i have a really hard time excluding things from the shot with the worthless viewfinder on it too. that and no matter what i do with the cam itself it just won't take pics at night or in dark rooms. i want more versatility.
>> Anonymous
>>37182
>I just said i was a noob, not that i was not good
It's funny, 'cause you follow this up by explaining how you're not good...

>if you look at my thread about pics i took while mowing lawns you can look at the only setting that my current camera has and what it can do.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the specs on the Casio EX-S2 as compared to the picture in 37123:
37123 is roughly 1MP. The EX-S2 can do 2MP.
37123 was taken at f/4. The EX-S2 can do f/3.2
37123 was taken in automatic exposure mode. The EX-S2 shoots primarily in automatic exposure mode.
That's right--the EX-S2 could have taken picture 37123. It's totally within its capabilities.

>honestly if i'm so clueless that any one of you could tell me how to use that thing to take some acceptable quality photos i'd love to hear it.
First off, R the proverbial FM. Page 37, for example, will explain to you how to set the flash for never-fire, always-fire, or automatic mode (as well as red-eye reduction mode).

Next, understand the limitations of your current camera. Yeah, it's gonna suck for low-light shots without flash. Most cameras do. The S3 IS will be a little bit better, but it's still gonna be blurry if you don't know what you're doing. Go read some remedial photography books or websites. /p/ is generally not the place for remedial photography help, especially if you're going to be a jackass about it.

And finally, the *key*, the *absolutely most important thing to remember* if you want to take good pictures with your camera? Point the camera at things that make good pictures, with appropriate lighting, and hit the button. It will make good pictures. Pointing an S3 IS, or even a 1DS Mk III at a lame scene, or a scene that's poorly lit, is still going to produce a crappy picture.
>> Anonymous
>>37182
FURTHERMORE (stupid comment-too-long thing)
Here are some pictures I just found on Flickr taken with the same model camera that you own now:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/89579026@N00/134412055/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ibumohd/413255672/
(Damned sunset, but a pretty damned sunset)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/96177229@N00/220386925/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/riadd/5219817/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/libellula/65681916/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cpzhao/296524465/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/47947524@N00/270008843/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yandle/103080488/
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>37188
it's too bad 37123 is gone. did you save it? can i see it?
>> Anonymous
>>37172
>And according to the EXIF data, it's in auto-exposure mode, so he didn't even need to use the manual controls to take it.
"He" meaning, of course, "She". Sorry, Danielle, for presuming your gender without actually bothering to look at the name attached to the pictures.
>> Anonymous
>>37190
Er. It's still there for me...

It's the one of the rocky outcropping with all the foliage on it, which balances really nicely in a sort of yin-yang configuration with the blue sky and clouds on top.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>37192
wtf?

>>37123

that is not a hyperlink for me. it is green.
>> Anonymous
>>37187
Some of the greatest pictures ever made have been made without the aid of through-the-lens viewing. Look up Henri Cartier-Bresson, for instance. He shot primarily with a Leica M3, which was a rangefinder camera.

The S3 IS will give you more versatility if you learn how to use it properly, but it won't automatically make you a better photographer.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
ok ok i can see 37123 now. i dunno what happened there.

um that photo was taken with the camera that i am going to get. could someone explain why i'm apparently being told i can take an image that quality with my ex-s2? faraway things come out consistently lower quality than in 37123.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>37194The S3 IS will give you more versatility if you learn how to use it properly, but it won't automatically make you a better photographer.

you see what I mean? every single one of you feels like you have to tell me this just because i want a nicer camera. i want to get the S3 and learn to take pictures with more variability than just flash on in dark, flash off in light.
>> Anonymous
>>37195
Hah! Focal length 6.00mm, says the EXIF. Which means she was way at the wide end of her telephoto range, equivalent to 36mm on a 35mm film camera.

Go ahead, just *go ahead* and guess what the 35mm-film-camera equivalent field of view of your EX-S2 is.

Didja guess 36mm?

If you did, you win a prize, because when she took that picture, she was at exactly the same amount of telephoto that your camera can do.

The reasons I'm telling you you can take an image like that with your camera is because you can. Or, rather, Danielle could, if she'd been using your camera instead of S3 IS at the time. The technical specs of that shot are well within the EX-S2's capabilities.
>> Anonymous
>>37197
Fair enough, but keep your EX-S2 as well. Once you learn all about the technical side of photography, you're gonna have to work on the really hard parts. I.e., composition and seeing good pictures around you. And for that, you might actually find that the "less capable" camera works better because you're not as distracted by technicalities.

Back when I had a shitty Kodak DC3200 (which makes your EX-S2 look like a digital SLR), I didn't know dum diddly do about photography either. I started learning once I moved to a PowerShot A95, which had full manual control options. So your plan has merit. But for the past few weeks, I've been taking a bunch of pictures using a Minolta Hi-Matic 7s mechanical rangefinder camera from the 1960s because it makes me concentrate more on my composition and less on aperture and shutter speed (because the knobs for those are sticky, so I just leave it in autoexposure mode) and ISO (because it's film, so it's stuck at 400).

When M. 37144 said
>"it's usually not the camera thats incapable of taking a nice looking picture, but the photographer",
you jumped all over him. It was in reference to you saying
>"this camera's capable of more than my highest expectations"
The point he or she was trying to make, and the point I've been trying to drive through your head, is that THE CAMERA YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW is capable of more than your highest expectations.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>37199
so then how come mine look like such blurry crap? no one has commented on my thread yet with the nicer of my lawnmowing photos. i liked them a lot but i can never get any sharpness on them short of shrinking the photo size.
>> Anonymous
>>37201
Because you suck as a photographer.

Where are these lawnmowing photos?
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>37202
lower down on the first page.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>37202
>>37163
to be specific.

sorry i murdered your thread danielle.
>> Anonymous
>>37203
Yeah, some of that's the camera. Tiny lens and tiny sensor means not much resolving power. But the main problem with those shots is that, well, you're taking pictures of well manicured lawns. The subject is so dull that people on 4chan--*4chan* for God's sake--don't even care enough to mock you for it.

I'm sorry, I'm being way harsher than I'd normally be, but you pissed me off by going on a tear in your original "Blah blah don't imply that I'm not a good photographer blah blah" rant against a guy who really wasn't trying to denigrate you in any way, combined with the fact that it's about 3 and a half hours past my bedtime right now.

I'm cranky.

I need to take a nap.

Goodnight.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>37205
i thought they were really nice properties. they're like 4 million dollar houses with helipads and shit. i hadn't developed an interest in photography by the time these photos were taken, and when i was organizing my photo library i thought some of them just plain old looked nice for shots i snapped off in between weedwacking. i wasn't really focusing on subjects back then.

anyway the fact that you said some of it is the camera is all i ever fucking wanted.

and also that guy was totally ripping on me.
>> Anonymous
>>37194

and Garry Winogrand, who had to shoot from the hip. I'm not telling you guys to disregard the viewfinder or LCD completely, but it would help if you can at least learn how for those times when can't use it.
>> Anonymous
To keep this argument short: A "better" and more expensive camera with more features will not necessarily give you better pictures, but they will definitely make your photography easier.
>> Anonymous
Not that the fellow didn't overreact, but to say that one can get a good photo in any situation with a feauture-less camera isn't exactly true. It's not just a matter of whether the camera is technically capable or not- if the thing only shoots in automatic exposure mode, it is impossible sometimes to get it to do something needed to make the picture good, or even not overly dark.
>> Anonymous
to make the pic better now... crop it in half. fuck the house off. simple
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
*fixed

or near enough

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S3 ISCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:02:06 23:58:05Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1581Image Height1090RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardUnique Image ID9a09fe79ff60331c852a2057b4d14904
>> Anonymous
>>37238
Pfft. Ruin'd more like it, amirite?

With the house, the picture leads somewhere. It's a small slice of beauty within a flood, and the house in the distance balances the flower in the foreground (and corner-corner in addition to foreground-background) for some really good composition.

Without the house, it's just another fucking picture of a flower.
>> Anonymous
>>37242

then bring the house into focus and intend it to be there.
yes it can be done
>> Anonymous
>>37244
no he's right. it did lead somewhere.

and how can it be done?
>> Anonymous
>>37244
The focus (not, like, literal light-rays focus, but focus of the picture, although both are true) is not on the house, it's on the flower. The house in the background, out of focus, adds to the composition.

If it were in focus, it'd just be a shitty angled picture of a house with some distraction in the foreground. Despite what you may have learned from Ansel Adams, you don't always want to shoot at f/64.
>> Anonymous
>>37246
>Despite what you may have learned from Ansel Adams, you don't always want to shoot at f/64.

Truth. In practice, I find that lower f-stops tend to make more interesting photographs. I only resort to the high ones when shooting outright landscapes and large, far-away scenes. Without counting, I'd guess f/5.6 would be what I most commonly use.
>> Anonymous
>>37272
Me, I tend to use f/1.8 or f/2.0 because I've found that small depth-of-field makes the unwary think my photographs are better than they actually are.

Suckers!