Digital Artistic Photography?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hello,

I hope I am asking this question in the correct newsgroup.

I want to take up digital photography. I want to be able to take as many
types of artistic photographs as possible.

I would like a wide lens, and a very good zoom. I would also like to take
close up photographs. This would include flowers and insects. Does this
require a macro lens? I would also like to get that blur in the background
when I am taking photographs of people and things. What kind of lens does
this require?

I guess I am not only looking for a digital camera with a good zoom lens.
In addition to a good zoom lens, can anyone recommend a good digital camera
to purchase?

Will I need a digital camera with the option of different lenses to add on
to it? Is this very expensive?

Any help would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks for your help

 

[ECM]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You have a lot of general questions - it's a bit too broad to answer in
a few lines. I'd recommend you start by going to places like
www.dpreview.com , www.steves-digicams.com , and
www.imaging-resource.com and start reading about digital cameras. I'm
not trying to be critical of you, but I think you'll find about 2 weeks
worth of reading that'll really help with your questions.

>From what you've said so far, you really want a digital SLR with at
least 2 good lenses (a wide angle and a telephoto with macro for depth
of field) but - "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford
it" ;-)

ECM

 

[Stacey]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

song writer wrote:

> I would also like to get that blur in the
> background when I am taking photographs of people and things.

That is the only tricky one. The ultra small sensor "all in one" type
cameras have too much depth of field to produce these kinds of images very
well. You need something with a somewhat larger sensor and a FAST short
tele lens to get this effect. Also many zooms (and some primes) have an
ugly out of focus area that is too busy to be very pleasing.

It's another of the reasons to NOT rely on other peoples recomendations or
buying a camera cheap on line that you can't test yourself. Image "quality"
is very subjective and just because someone likes their's or they show you
200% crops to point stuff out doesn't mean =YOU= will like the final
results. I'd sugest you find a GOOD camera shop that will let you shoot
some test shots on a card and/or make a CD from them so you can have them
printed and see if they are what you're after. It's better to do this and
maybe pay 10% more for the camera than pay $1000 at a "deal" price for one
you don't like,

--

Stacey

 

[OGMarcel]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Also, you might say how much you want to spend for the whole thing. Cameras
and lenses can be quite costly.
Marcel

"ECM" <thedeepabyss@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:1106414486.597922.63640@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> You have a lot of general questions - it's a bit too broad to answer in
> a few lines. I'd recommend you start by going to places like
> www.dpreview.com , www.steves-digicams.com , and
> www.imaging-resource.com and start reading about digital cameras. I'm
> not trying to be critical of you, but I think you'll find about 2 weeks
> worth of reading that'll really help with your questions.
>
> >From what you've said so far, you really want a digital SLR with at
> least 2 good lenses (a wide angle and a telephoto with macro for depth
> of field) but - "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford
> it" ;-)
>
> ECM
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ECM wrote:
> You have a lot of general questions - it's a bit too broad to answer
> in a few lines. I'd recommend you start by going to places like
> www.dpreview.com , www.steves-digicams.com , and
> www.imaging-resource.com and start reading about digital cameras. I'm
> not trying to be critical of you, but I think you'll find about 2
> weeks worth of reading that'll really help with your questions.
>
>> From what you've said so far, you really want a digital SLR with at
> least 2 good lenses (a wide angle and a telephoto with macro for depth
> of field) but - "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't
> afford it" ;-)
>

I have lost the link, but there is a constellation of sites out there
where some very artistic work is displayed, _all_ of it created by "pen"
cameras or their near (1MP or so) relatives. Kind of thumbing their
collective nose at ... Well, you know.

All the most advanced equipment in the world doesn't make a
photographer. It's the eye ...


--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:KcGdnYmHSeE_CW_cRVn-tQ@giganews.com...
> ECM wrote:
> > You have a lot of general questions - it's a bit too broad to answer
> > in a few lines. I'd recommend you start by going to places like
> > www.dpreview.com , www.steves-digicams.com , and
> > www.imaging-resource.com and start reading about digital cameras. I'm
> > not trying to be critical of you, but I think you'll find about 2
> > weeks worth of reading that'll really help with your questions.
> >
> >> From what you've said so far, you really want a digital SLR with at
> > least 2 good lenses (a wide angle and a telephoto with macro for depth
> > of field) but - "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't
> > afford it" ;-)
> >
>
> I have lost the link, but there is a constellation of sites out there
> where some very artistic work is displayed, _all_ of it created by "pen"
> cameras or their near (1MP or so) relatives. Kind of thumbing their
> collective nose at ... Well, you know.
>
> All the most advanced equipment in the world doesn't make a
> photographer. It's the eye ...
>
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
I agree with Frank, he is quite right, you either have an eye or you don't,
most famous photographers attended some sort of traning and I always wonder
what happened to their contempories who didn't have an eye.
I would like suggest a suitable camera, to save you some money if you find
that you do not have what you consider to be an eye, and one that will do
all you want with ease, the Nikon Coolpix 995. You can buy them on eBay
quite cheaply, and if need be sell it on at very little loss.

I'm not suggesting this because I have one, I don't.

Jem

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <KcGdnYmHSeE_CW_cRVn-tQ@giganews.com>,
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>All the most advanced equipment in the world doesn't make a
>photographer. It's the eye ...

True, but that depends on what the subject is. If the subject is
realistic fine detail, you're not going to get it with a "pen camera".
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <KcGdnYmHSeE_CW_cRVn-tQ@giganews.com>,
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>> All the most advanced equipment in the world doesn't make a
>> photographer. It's the eye ...
>
> True, but that depends on what the subject is. If the subject is
> realistic fine detail, you're not going to get it with a "pen camera".
>

No doubt, but that is not excluded by my statement.

Somewhere we have to decide where is the line between "artistic
photography" and "art-like renderings in realistic fine detail". Or do
we?

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:fpb5v055kqht59c9d6plvfqfbeffalj8sh@4ax.com...
> In message <KcGdnYmHSeE_CW_cRVn-tQ@giganews.com>,
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
> >All the most advanced equipment in the world doesn't make a
> >photographer. It's the eye ...
>
> True, but that depends on what the subject is. If the subject is
> realistic fine detail, you're not going to get it with a "pen camera".
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Hmmm 'realistic detail' usually means a photograph taken by someone without
an 'eye' who looks at the quality of the image and not its content/subject,
it's odd, I can't think (and I have been trying) of a single example of a
photograph that I consider to be artistic that does contain realistic
detail. Perhaps it's a contradiction in terms.

Jem

Of course everyone is going to point to Ansel Adams, but can anyone honestly
summon an image of his to mind, without them all running into one.

I would humbly point anyone interested in the direction of; Paul Strand,
Andre Kertesz, Thomas Joshua Cooper and William Bishop.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jem Raid wrote:
> <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
> news:fpb5v055kqht59c9d6plvfqfbeffalj8sh@4ax.com...
>> In message <KcGdnYmHSeE_CW_cRVn-tQ@giganews.com>,
>> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> All the most advanced equipment in the world doesn't make a
>>> photographer. It's the eye ...
>>
>> True, but that depends on what the subject is. If the subject is
>> realistic fine detail, you're not going to get it with a "pen
>> camera". --
>>
>> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
>> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
>> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
>
> Hmmm 'realistic detail' usually means a photograph taken by someone
> without an 'eye' who looks at the quality of the image and not its
> content/subject, it's odd, I can't think (and I have been trying) of
> a single example of a photograph that I consider to be artistic that
> does contain realistic detail. Perhaps it's a contradiction in terms.
>
> Jem
>
> Of course everyone is going to point to Ansel Adams, but can anyone
> honestly summon an image of his to mind, without them all running
> into one.
>
> I would humbly point anyone interested in the direction of; Paul
> Strand, Andre Kertesz, Thomas Joshua Cooper and William Bishop.

And Weegee. _There_ was a guy who could show you some realistic detail.
But was it—any of it—Art?


--
Frank ess

Forecasting is difficult. Particularly about the Future.
—Deepak Gupta

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

anyone4tennis@hotmail.com wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I hope I am asking this question in the correct newsgroup.
>
> I want to take up digital photography. I want to be able to take as many
> types of artistic photographs as possible.
>
> I would like a wide lens, and a very good zoom. I would also like to take
> close up photographs. This would include flowers and insects. Does this
> require a macro lens? I would also like to get that blur in the background
> when I am taking photographs of people and things. What kind of lens does
> this require?
>
> I guess I am not only looking for a digital camera with a good zoom lens.
> In addition to a good zoom lens, can anyone recommend a good digital camera
> to purchase?
>
> Will I need a digital camera with the option of different lenses to add on
> to it? Is this very expensive?
>
I can recommend the Fuji S7000.
It has a 6x optical zoom (equivalent to 35-210mm for 35mm)
A macro lens focusing to 1cm. - approx area 50mmx35mm
6.3 megapixels (with interpolation to 12.6) means you can crop heavily and
still print big.
Jpeg, TIFF or RAW output.
Modes include shutter priority or aperture priority.
Fuji does sell wideangle and telephoto add-on lenses.