File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
how do you get photo quality
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern862Focal Length (35mm Equiv)25 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:05:05 00:58:45Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceCloudy WeatherFlashNo FlashFocal Length17.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width712Image Height1072RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
By doing the correct things when taking a picture.
>> Anonymous
lemme make a little bit of a fluxogram

you gotta have a nice and decent looking model
you gotta have the idea for the photo
you gotta have the correct lighting for your idea
you gotta have a nice camera (5d's and up)
you gotta have a decent lens (forget that cheap 50mm f/1.8 ii you got)
you gotta know the settings of your camera
you gotta know hot to photoshop your lighting in a way it makes it even better

so all you have to do is, have a nice model, know how to setup lighting, know how to setup your exposure, aperture etc which is your camera settings, and you must know how to photoshop it to make it even better

pretty simple huh?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
READ THE MANUAL
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>87985
If you can't take a decent picture with a 50mm f/1.8, the problem is not with the lens. The 50mm f/1.8 is just about the sharpest lens that $MANUFACTURER sells.
>> Anonymous
>>87989
50mm f/1.8 it's just the sharpest lens above f/2.8, the guy don't wanna test anything, we want a cookbook, on how to light, take picture and photoshop, i was kind enough not to tell him why not to go kill himself, the problem is not with me, I'm fine with that
>> Anonymous
>>87985
5D's and up? Please. As long as one isn't shooting in low light or making large prints to be viewed at close distance, a point and shoot, let alone an APS-C DSLR, will do more than fine.
>> Anonymous
>>88006
I really wanna see a picture from you that looks as good as the op's with a point and shoot
and you can spend whatever you want in lighting
>> Anonymous
>>88010
All it takes is ISO 100, or whatever the lowest ISO is, and getting one that actually has a decent lens, like the Powershot G series or Panasonic's Lumix line.

I'm away from my hard drive with all my processed shots on it right now, including all the ones I've taken with a point and shoot. But you know that Joey Lawrence guy everyone is excited over? He just recently bought a 5D, but up until then, everything he shot was with a a 1/2.5" sensor superzoom.
>> Anonymous
>>88012
well I honestly can't say it's impossible but

it takes a HELL of a thinking about lightining, setup and such, I say with a point and shoot is very hard to get these results, but not impossible, but if one is spending so much time and money in lighting and photoshop, why not invest in a DSLR? that's the main point you know? you can do it with a prosummer quality cam but, why would you?
we get xti vs d40x everyday here, it's at least very affordable...

and with the mentioned 50mm f/1.8 lens, which are the cheapest in line, you get a hell of a help in your portraits and shots

why would you stick with a point and shoot?

Someone told me that about joey lawrence but the guy smells too fishy for me...
you know? the guy make an hell of a equipment for lighting, studio and stuff, and have a point and shoot? for me it's like a attention whore photog, he wants us to say like "aww that's a pro, even with a point and shoot we can pull something cool off"
I'm being a internet hate machine instance, it's just... logical
>> Anonymous
>>88014
For shots when one can set up, you're right, there's no reason to use a point and shoot over a DSLR. (There's also no reason to use a DSLR over a view camera, which is why I'm seriously considering purchasing one of those. That and that there seems to be something grand about the idea of photographing some portraits of my friends and giving them contact prints as a gift.)

But as a daytime walkaround camera, a point-and-shoot is great; you've just got to buy the right one. Silent leaf shutters, lightweight, great handling on some of them, and if it's a superzoom, a handheld 400mm+ lens.

I'm digressing, though: the point is that at normal print sizes and for web use, cameras with much smaller sensors than a 5D can get great results. You don't need a 5D to print a nice portrait.
>> Anonymous
>>88017
yeah..
I personally have a bad lens point and shoot in my opinion, I got an s3is an a xti, and I can't even compare results... takes a hell of post processing to get a almost decent picture in daylight situations... it's very limited in some levels... but if you know what you can do and can't, yes, point and shoots can impress that gear fan, i'm personally into that less is more strobist motto
but s3is's, xti's, and 5d's are different steps in quality, disregard what we say, what we can and can't, and if you can buy the better camera you can afford, you should do it

it's boring to walk around with a dslr body and a tele, everyone gives you that "he's a photog" look, if you are carrying more compact stuff, you get a little more loose attention, sometimes you want that =)
but I quite get the point
no need for a hueg 5d sensor to show a 1072x712 picture on the web
>> Anonymous
Fuck yeah,Kipi!!
>> ??? Anonymous !!berMjJjLJ4j
     File :-(, x)
>>87969
LIKE THIS

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)25 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2007:11:02 22:02:23Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceCloudy WeatherFlashNo FlashFocal Length17.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
Picture was made with a wide angle lens creating distortion that makes the extreme effect; that is out of the question on compacts. They go up 28mm (35mm equiv) at the wide end at most, whilst most compact cams go from 35mm and up.

Good cameras (DSLRs) have a much higher dynamic range that allows for a lot of fine-tuning while post-processing. This picture has beautiful, soft, perfect lighting that would be hard to achieve straight out of the camera.
>> Anonymous
i don't think i can achieve this clarity with a compact digi camera but is it possible to get this kind of image with a canon powershot g9?
>> Anonymous
How do you get the blurry affect (where the background is blurred) with a digital camera? Is it only possible with a dslr?
>> Anonymous
>>88202
wiki bokeh. There is good and bad bokeh, which has some correlation to the number of blades there are in the lens. Also, lurk more.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>88202
First off, don't listen to>>88203. He doesn't quite understand what he's talking about.

It's possible to get a narrow depth of field (which is what's going on with the blurred-background effect there) with a digital camera. The depth of field is affected by three factors:
1. Aperture. Wider aperture (i.e., lower number) gives you a shallower DoF
2. Focus distance. If you're focused closer to the lens, you'll have shallower Dof. More telephoto = shallower DoF too.
3. Imaging surface size. This is why it's way easier to get a narrow DoF on a digital SLR or film camera than on a small digital camera. Bigger imaging surface gives you a shallower DoF.

So if you want to get a narrow depth of field using your little point & shoot camera, zoom in to the telephoto end of your lens and open your aperture as wide as possible.
>> Anonymous
>>88353
No,>>88203does know what he's talking about. Bokeh is Japanese for "blur," and is used as a term for the appearance of the out-of-focus areas of an image. Lenses with more aperture blades will typically produce bokeh more in lines with what is typically considered "good."

Your point two is a little off, though. Focal length does not affect depth of field. There's some illustration of this on the Luminous Landscape. However, the way people use more focal length has the same effect as getting closer to the subject. In effect, when you increase your focal length, you're "walking closer" to the subject in an optical way, and whatever the effect it is that reduces depth of field when one focuses close is what is at work when a big telephoto seems to have zilch depth of field.

(I'm not 100% sure I nailed explaining that, or understanding it, but I know I have the basics down: focal length doesn't affect depth of field; if one were to step up so close to a person so that an 21mm lens would give the same perspective as a 200mm, their depth of field would be the same.)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>88405
>Bokeh is Japanese for "blur," and is used as a term for the appearance of the out-of-focus areas of an image.
He asked how to get a shallow depth of field. Bokeh describes how the out-of-focus elements look. They are related concepts, but not the same thing. A lot of the posters on /p/ think they're the same thing--they're not. As evidence: Note that the Wikipedia article on Bokeh doesn't have any information about how to get shallow depth of field.

(Hence "doesn't *quite* understand what he's talking about)

>Your point two is a little off, though. Focal length does not affect depth of field.
Valid criticism. I always get confused about that one myself.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>88408
Can someone clarrify something for me then.

If i have a 50mm prime and a 100-300mm telezoom, if i have them both at f6 (for example) so long as ive framed the subject in the same way the DoF fallof is going to be identical for 50,100 and 300mm or does it change?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>88412
Yes

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>88413
Yes is not an answer to choose A or B.

Thanks for the link, DoF DOES work that way!
>> Anonymous
>>88408
Ah, okay. Wasn't paying attention, sorry.

And yeah, optics is a much stranger technical aspect of photography than, say, "ISO 1600 on 1/2.5" sensor BAD!" I wish someone would just let digital stuff be for a while and make a site explaining optical theory in a straightforward manner.
>> Anonymous
>>88417

optical theory is all calculus equations, so 1) no one would understand it, and 2) it's all QED math, so people are either right or wrong. there's no fun in arguing that 2+2 = 5. unless it's 4chan.

god i hate this place.

on the plus side, you can pick up optics 101 from say, amazon or an online college textbook supplier and it'll learn you more than you could ever imagine.
>> Anonymous
>>88444
lol 2+2=4 retard
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>88415
Sorry, didn't see the 'or does it change'. I fail at reading comprehension. But at least the link I posted actually answered your question. :)

>>88445
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS
>> Anonymous
>>88445
There are those who don't think in doublethink, then there are those who don't think in doublethink.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>88444
I got taught the basics of optical theory at A-Level (16-18yo) and it wasnt that complex, its certainly not high level calculus.
>> Asian adult website hot babes
www.hotbabes2go.com