Photography turning into a "fad"? - General

I'd get into photography if I had a decent camera. I'm getting a flip ultra HD for my birthday, september 30th. Would that be enough to get some good pictures with? It captures video/pictures in 720p.

[QUOTE=BmB;24567062]Most consumer cameras don't capture RAW's, even so adjusting the white balance on the spot can be really important in preserving the atmosphere as it appears right there and then.[/QUOTE] Consumer cameras = not DSLR. But the topic is pretty much DSLR camera whores. But yes, of course, you should always take the photo as close to perfect as you can and then just do the tiny adjustments in post-processing that you need to make it just right. [QUOTE=BmB;24567202]I really don't like editing pictures at all. Especially not if it involves the absolutely mediocre image rape that is your average digital photo manipulation software.[/QUOTE] Must edit: [list]Adjust the exposure (through RAW converter or Levels, or both) to not have anything over and under exposed[/list] [list]Sharpen the image since digital cameras add small amounts of blur to the images.[/list] Should edit: [list]Cropping to get the perfect composition, but don't take pictures with cropping possibilities in mind[/list] [list]Colour adjustments to get it look like it actually looked in real-life, or to remove the grumsy washed away colours that it probably has (If you want to do it B&W then use the Black & White adjustment tool, not hue and saturation.)[/list] And that's all you really should do unless you have some specific themes or ideas in mind.

[QUOTE=Dutchlike;24566569] Also, some more blurry, analog goodness for this thread:[/QUOTE] what goodness? all I see is a shitty picture taken by somebody with an irrational hardon for film. [editline]11:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=dgg;24575167]And that's all you really should do unless you have some specific themes or ideas in mind.[/QUOTE] photography's an art dude, get off your fucking high horse

They're called camwhores, they'll grow out of it.

[QUOTE=Xenoyia v2;24573985] I'm getting a [b]flip ultra HD[/b] for my birthday, september 30th. Would that be enough to get some good pictures with? It captures video/pictures in 720p.[/QUOTE] Lol'd

[QUOTE=nath2009uk;24575824]Lol'd[/QUOTE] Thats what I thought but I wasn't totally sure since I am still getting into all of this. glad I got something right.

[QUOTE=mrcsb;24575762]Photography's an art dude, get off your fucking high horse[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=Xenoyia v2;24573985]I'd get into photography if I had a decent camera. I'm getting a flip ultra HD for my birthday, september 30th. Would that be enough to get some good pictures with? It captures video/pictures in 720p.[/QUOTE] My camera takes pictures in 3008p... [url]http://a.imageshack.us/img21/5539/dsc0047ut.jpg[/url]

[QUOTE=Ridge;24577016]My camera takes pictures in 3008p... [url]http://a.imageshack.us/img21/5539/dsc0047ut.jpg[/url][/QUOTE] That's relatively lowres. 5 Megapixels isn't it?

[QUOTE=Ridge;24577016]My camera takes pictures in 3008p... [URL]http://a.imageshack.us/img21/5539/dsc0047ut.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE] 2000p Horizontal.

How the hell is photography funny?!?, unless, you take a pic of something funny, like horses chasing ducks, its funny.

For those who say photography isn't an art...whatever it maybe, if it has been created to look beautiful and/or give a statement, it sure as hell is art

I've wanted to do it for a while, but I don't wanna look like a hipster....

[QUOTE=orbitrek;24577457]I've wanted to do it for a while, but I don't wanna look like a hipster....[/QUOTE] That is where I am stuck at. I know I shouldn't let it stop me but I just DETEST being grouped with them while carrying around a camera when around my friends if we go somewhere unique. I JUST HATE IT! I think I hate hipsters more than emo now... hipsters actually ruined something that I was interested in.

you're really stupid if you hold off doing something you want to do because of others hipsters haven't ruined anything are you fucking stupid or what?

[QUOTE=dgg;24577133]That's relatively lowres. 5 Megapixels isn't it?[/QUOTE] Yeah. My Droid can has 8 megapixels :P [editline]10:09PM[/editline] [QUOTE=chesseylol;24577219]How the hell is photography funny?!?, unless, you take a pic of something funny, like horses chasing ducks, its funny.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/89Sunbird/stupid/shun1shunth128536395386577398.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Star Son;24578565]That is where I am stuck at. I know I shouldn't let it stop me but I just DETEST being grouped with them while carrying around a camera when around my friends if we go somewhere unique. I JUST HATE IT! I think I hate hipsters more than emo now... hipsters actually ruined something that I was interested in.[/QUOTE] Or, you could continue what you like to do, and maybe not think about people who are also into it? [editline]04:12AM[/editline] Sorry that other people are interested in photography, no matter how shabby you [I]think[/I] their work is.

[QUOTE=Ridge;24580827]Yeah. My Droid can has 8 megapixels :P [editline]10:09PM[/editline] [IMG_thumb]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/89Sunbird/stupid/shun1shunth128536395386577398.jpg[/IMG_thumb][/QUOTE] Megapixels aren't everything. And that macro is terrible and you should feel terrible

why didn't I friggin' post the FAQs from my camera thread earlier [quote]Q: What are megapixels, and why shouldn't I get the biggest number possible?[/quote] A: it refers to how many pixels there are, times a million. my old OLD 1.3 megapixel camera took pictures that were somewhere around 1280x1024, which is about as much as your average point-and-shooter really ever sees when dumping things to their online galleries or keeping stacked up in their 'My Pictures' folder. Larger mp means you have a bigger picture, and there are two reasons this is useful- cropping out smaller parts of a picture and blowing them up, and [b]printing[/b]. The larger the picture, the larger you can print at a set DPI. Refer to the below image for mp needed for different print sizes at 300dpi. [img_thumb]http://www.design215.com/toolbox/images/megapixels.gif[/img_thumb] it's telling you that if you don't have a photo printer that prints on something bigger than normal 8.5x11 paper, you will never need more than 8 mp. Here's a sample of the 12.1 mp put out by my D5000, ask yourself if you need this much detail, [i]ever[/i]. [img_thumb]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2797/4278623854_6343e82aef_o.jpg[/img_thumb] (2848x4288, click the thumbnail... Try and figure out her name looking at this, I dare you) [quote]Q: This cheap-ass point-and-shoot says it does 12.1 pixels. Why should I spend $900 on a camera like yours if $100 will get the same size photo?[/quote] A: QUALITY. Why should I waste two minutes slowly toasting toast in my toaster, when soaking it in kerosene and tossing a match on it gets it crispy in seconds flat? because the result is NOT the same, despite it being the same size of toast... er, image. The sensors are not big, the lenses are not so fine-tuned, no exposure controls, ISO levels (sensor's light sensitivity) are so high that you get grain and discoloration out the rectum... and aperture? Good luck. [quote]it isn't the camera it's the artist[/quote] Artistic talent is necessary for art, yes... but bringing a portfolio of cameraphone or point-and-shooter snapshots to a job interview at the local studio will get you nowhere... likewise, if you take emo self-portraits of yourself in the bathroom mirror or at arm's length NOW, not much will change when you dump the better portion of a thousand dollars on an SLR, except now it's hard to hold it at arm's length and take a picture at the same time. [quote]it isn't the artist it's the camera[/quote] Stop whining about being too cheap to buy a bigger camera. Good photographers have better equipment because they require the quality to get even farther in their lines of work. It does not in any way shape or form grant them sudden art-vision.

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;24577194]2000p Horizontal.[/QUOTE] That's 2k not 2000p. Oh wait you meant the 3008 was horizontal. Still, p, why? I didn't know pictures could be interlaced. [editline]06:29AM[/editline] [QUOTE=johan_sm;24570197][QUOTE=Dutchlike;24569999]Some more analog goodnes though : took 2 extremely average point and shoot pictures of our garden but i did not wind the film properly, behold! [IMG_thumb]http://i53.tinypic.com/b3jy4k.jpg[/IMG_thumb][/QUOTE] There is nothing good about this though.[/QUOTE] It's pretty funny. [editline]06:39AM[/editline] [QUOTE=dgg;24575167]Must edit: [list]Adjust the exposure (through RAW converter or Levels, or both) to not have anything over and under exposed[/list] [list]Sharpen the image since digital cameras add small amounts of blur to the images.[/list] Should edit: [list]Cropping to get the perfect composition, but don't take pictures with cropping possibilities in mind[/list] [list]Colour adjustments to get it look like it actually looked in real-life, or to remove the grumsy washed away colours that it probably has (If you want to do it B&W then use the Black & White adjustment tool, not hue and saturation.)[/list] And that's all you really should do unless you have some specific themes or ideas in mind.[/QUOTE] Digitally adjusting the exposure usually means fucking with the gamma curve, which unless it's seriously fucked up isn't really worth it. If you know of a better way I'm ears. I'd rather just snap a couple of different exposures and see which one looks best. I r linear person. Cropping usually isn't necessary unless it's like an action shot or a portrait or something. I'm not a composition nazi and I'm okay with it being a little imperfect or whatever. And as for colour correction, sure if you need to normalize the colour over multiple shots of the same subject. But usually there's nothing you can do to improve the accuracy, by the time you're sittting in front of the colour tool in photoshop the vivid memory of the exact colours is long gone. At least for me. Which is why I try my darnedest to get it just exactly right on the spot. Which is insanely hard with point and shoots and camera phones. :/ Sharpening however... ugh, never needed. It burns me deep within my soul to even hear it suggested. If you want it less blurry, scale it down (gamma accurately pl0x). Sharpening can only rape the natural detail of the image, it can never add actual detail. The reason digitals blur a little is usually because of the way the CCD works, by having the different colour sensors in a mosaic, and then the three channels have to be interpolated to fill every pixel. Which causes some blurriness. There's very few if any digital cameras that don't do this. And from what I've seen they aren't just expensive, they're plain ridiculous. There's only so much detail, you can never regain any more. You might be able to make up more, but it can never be regained. Sorry about that rant.

I bought myself a DSLR camera because I was looking for a new hobby, something to get into away from video games. I was really interested in Video cameras and shit way back when, but when I wanted to do something most people ditched and I couldn't get what I needed to get :P

Yeah I've seen plenty of terrible 'photographers' watermarking their facebook photo's :geno:

Why even watermark it if you aren't using it commercially? Just distracts.

I'm starting to get compliments now that I should become a photographer but I'm horrible with cameras. :\ Most people that i know that watermark their photo just believes that in case their original pose gets stolen they know who it is, or in case someone tries to pose off as them they'll see the persons name there. just i don't remember if I still have them on my friends list, but you know those "SEXXii" labels? One person I knew was a photographer and had those labels along her pictures regardless of her own camwhoring or actual pictures. ugh

Well, knowing how little you know is the first step on the way to actually knowing something.

[QUOTE=BmB;24582647]Well, knowing how little you know is the first step on the way to actually knowing something.[/QUOTE] Einstein said something to that effect, regarding how the greatest knowledge is knowing how little you actually know.

It is becoming a fad. I had some chick send me a picture saying she thought it was a good picture and had meaning. It was her friend doing the capt'n morgan on a tree.

I have a family member who this thread remind me of. She had a super nice camera. I think it was like $800 or so. Her boyfriend got it for her, and all she did was take pictures of herself with it.

[QUOTE=mrcsb;24575762]what goodness? all I see is a shitty picture taken by somebody with an irrational hardon for film. [/QUOTE] It's about 80-100 times cheaper, hardly irrational, also i don't have to pull al my pictures into adobe lightroom to get the colours right, i just prefer the color representation on my Analog SLR and my full manual analog compacts. (To be fair, we only have one of those digital compacts and the only experience i have with DSLR photo's is editing the washed out/under/overexposed photo's a friend sends me. ) Do get where your coming from though, it is outdated and not that practical anymore, composing is also harder. The thing is, i love that excitement of "wonder how that's going to turn out" and am giggling like a school girl getting them back from the shop (wel not really, but you get the idea). What i'm trying to say is, the gratification it gives [I]me[/I] is enough for me to keep shooting analog, but i get why others don't feel the same.

With the spread of cheaply available [insert object/talent/occupational tools here], it becomes more widely available, so not just the professionals have access to it. It's true with everything. Fortunately, most people have the ability to tell a nice photograph from something a teenage girl photographed and upped the contrast in Photoshop.