Some Oly C3030Z shots

[lunatique]

My gallery: http://www.pbase.com/lunatique/gallery_1

Edit: My original post might have read a bit like a confrontation, which it wasn't meant to be.

[minoltaman]

I agree for the most part and you do have some vere nice girl pics in your gallery. Nice work indeed.

[rsilfverberg]

Might also be that many 'real' photographers find it important to be able to gain full control of the image in camera and not in photoshop...

Also if its 'the camera and not the photographer' then why the statement on your profile:

"and I feel I've already grown beyond the camera's capabilities. I'll be upgrading to a professional camera system in the near future. "

[minoltaman]

I disregarded all of the text when I checked out the images. "real" photographers use ps heavily.

[lunatique]

So Ansel Adams never processed his images? Most of my images aren't heavily tweaked in post. A lot of those shots came out of the camera exactly as you see them.

And of course I want to upgrade to a better camera. Why shouldn't I? My point was merely that I see many people obsessed with spending money on expensive lenses and cameras, but not enough time on actually learning about contrast, color, values, composition..etc.

[rsilfverberg]

I thought your original post was, the one you just deleted.., was that
"it's not the camera - but the photographer", and
"look at my photos they are with a p&s camera and so much better than so many others photos taken with more expensive cameras - cameras that you dont need anyway"?

Or something along those lines.

And Ansel Adams spent a lot of time in the darkroom. You may want to read the third book in the series the camera-the negative-the print.


* The above not actual quotes but what I remember as 'points' in the original post.

[minoltaman]

I have to agree with Richard. I detected the sort of tone and tenor that he described in your original post lunatique. When I read your post before I thought you were dogging some pro's and their equipment and bragging yourself up.

I did'nt wory about the banter, I just looked at the pics. Talk is cheap and the pics do tell the story.

BTW...not to be critical, but I did notice a few pics that had some pretty heavy blurring that was pretty obviously done with ps.

On the other hand the following quote is pretty accurate as I see it.

My point was merely that I see many people obsessed with spending money on expensive lenses and cameras, but not enough time on actually learning about contrast, color, values, composition..etc

Good day.

[scotthop]

Your first post did seem a little harsh, but I didn't sound intentional. So no harm no foul

I looked at your work, you have some awesome stuff, some of you higher key pictures are very nice.

I also like the Tina Blue series...I would love to know how you exposed the scene and how the lighting was to get the light skin tones. Very good job


Scott
http://www.pbase.com/scotthop

[lunatique]

rsilfverberg- Those are things that OTHER photographers have told me--not MY opinions. I was surprised to find out that's what other people felt.

minoltaman- Like I said above, those were not my thoughts, but of other photographers.

scotthop- For the Tina Blue series, I had one 200 watt light bulb with a white umbrella, and another 200 watt light bulb bouncing off the wall/celing. I think I had a reflector leaning against the pillows right next to her too.

And as far as the whole post-processing issue goes, here are some opinions on the subject: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/50499/0#417871

[scotthop]

Thanks for the info...