Pictures with only a 3.2 megapixel cam

[PiMpIn SmUrF]

yup thats right.... Only taken with a nikon coolpix 3200 (3.2megapixel)
Im buying a Canon EOS Rebel XTi 10.1MP SLR Digital Camera within 2 weeks so I will be taking WAY WAY better photo's. I also already know all my basics on camera's. Ya im pretty excited haha

anyways here are my recent crappy pics from the 3.2



















ya i know there crappy but i think they came out good for the kind of camera i was using

[Palmiros]

they look good!

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Nothing wrong with 3.2MP. I'm looking at upgrading to a camera with a whopping 4MP next year. I currently have a camera with 6MP.

[Weapon_R]

what program do u use to get the borders?

[PiMpIn SmUrF]

photoshop 7.0

[streetarab]

dont knock 3.2 megapixels, all my pics are in 3.2

[EK 2.0]

I have an 8 MP camera...but only ever shoot as high as 5...I mean what I am learning thanks to all the questions I ask everyone here...

Yeah your camera can sometimes be limiting...not a "hot enough ISO available", or sometimes just not enough zoom...but its not much about the camera but the composition and lighting and such...

[Canmorite]

Lenses are usually the #1 factor.

[djayz]

those pics just go to show that its the camera man not the megapixels

but usually something around 5 seems to do it for me.

[FiveFreshFish]

I'm not a fan of tilted perspective photos. The other ones are good.

[PiMpIn SmUrF]

yup the reason why i really want a new camera so i can get really good Lenses for it, the zoom on this camera sucks ass.

also thanks for the comments.

[streetarab]

the zoom on my cam is INSANE, but dont even bother with low light, i quit while im ahead by not trying

[Gurpy]

Cool, but I realllyyy dont like the tilted shots, just my opinion though.

[turab16]

does anyone know how to keep lens open for like longer time and then take picture with digital camera??

with the cool effects!!

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by turab16
does anyone know how to keep lens open for like longer time and then take picture with digital camera??

with the cool effects!!

Are you asking how to use a slower shutter speed? If so, check your camera's instruction manual to see if you have shutter-priority mode in your camera.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by PiMpIn SmUrF
yup thats right.... Only taken with a nikon coolpix 3200 (3.2megapixel)
Im buying a Canon EOS Rebel XTi 10.1MP SLR Digital Camera within 2 weeks so I will be taking WAY WAY better photo's. I also already know all my basics on camera's. Ya im pretty excited haha

anyways here are my recent crappy pics from the 3.2
ya i know there crappy but i think they came out good for the kind of camera i was using

Originally posted by Canmorite
Lenses are usually the #1 factor.

No, the photographer is the #1 factor. The camera has little to do with the quality and the finished look of ANY photo.Megapixels are largely tied only into the size overall size you can print it at. You should see some of the incredible photos people like Ben and Ekliptix pulled off with crappy point and shoot cameras before they upgraded. You'd be utterly surprised. Equipment usually is the LAST factor in a good photo.

Sorry for the tangent, I'm just sick of people saying "Look at all the cash I just dropped on this, now I can take some SAWEEEEEEEET photos!" When they clearly have no idea what they're doing and only bought an expensive cam based on what the pros or their talented friends are using. Megapixels is not what gives you nicer, or better looking photos. Holding a $2000 piece of equipment does not somehow magically turn you into some pro star photog.

[EK 2.0]

Melinda...dont forget about those ISO's...hahaha...

[FiveFreshFish]

Originally posted by Melinda
Sorry for the tangent, I'm just sick of people saying "Look at all the cash I just dropped on this, now I can take some SAWEEEEEEEET photos!" When they clearly have no idea what they're doing and only bought an expensive cam based on what the pros or their talented friends are using. Megapixels is not what gives you nicer, or better looking photos. Holding a $2000 piece of equipment does not somehow magically turn you into some pro star photog.

Can is the key word. Does not mean they will be a good photographer.

A beginner with high-end equipment has the means to explore the techniques used by professionals. One who buys expensive equipment, uses it, and tries different things will be better than if he were to stick to a point-and-shoot.

Don't look down at novices with pro equipment unless they're true poseurs; you don't know how talented they'll be and how quickly they'll get there.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by FiveFreshFish


Can is the key word. Does not mean they will be a good photographer.

A beginner with high-end equipment has the means to explore the techniques used by professionals. One who buys expensive equipment, uses it, and tries different things will be better than if he were to stick to a point-and-shoot.

Don't look down at novices with pro equipment unless they're true poseurs; you don't know how talented they'll be and how quickly they'll get there.

If you read the original post, he does state that with this better camera he WILL be taking better photos. I dont look down on novices, everyone is one at some point. I am simply commenting on the 'photographers' who think that the camera and lenses they use magically makes them good. I backed that up by commenting on how good people like Ben and Exliptix became on "non pro" cameras when they first started posting on beyond. They did not need high quality dslr cameras to get amazing results just from playing around with what they had.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

OK, this is probably going to be a bit harsh. I am not going to sugar coat this, like I normally do these sorts of things, because I think it needs to be said.

Originally posted by PiMpIn SmUrF

Im buying a Canon EOS Rebel XTi 10.1MP SLR Digital Camera within 2 weeks so I will be taking WAY WAY better photo's.

No, actually. You won't. You will be taking sharper photos. You will be taking bigger photos as well. But better? That's something different entirely.

I also already know all my basics on camera's. Ya im pretty excited haha

Actually, to be dead honest with you, you don't know all the basics. Composition is a very, very basic component of good photography, and your photos' composition is rather lacking. Subjects dead center in the middle of the frame, randomly tilted shots, that sort of thing. Have you ever heard of a basic photographic element called the Rule of Thirds?

Will a brand spankin' new Rebel XTi fix your composition? Not in the least. Will it somehow infuse originality into your images? Not a chance.

However, all is not lost. There are a million tutorials, examples, workshops, classes, Internet sites, forums, and magazines to give you a lifetime's worth of good examples to learn from.

http://photoinf.com/General/AGFA/Photo_Composition.html

There's a basic page on photo composition, found in about 0.1 seconds using Google. Photographers aren't born, they're made - so you've got some learning to do.

anyways here are my recent crappy pics from the 3.2

As you said, the pics are pretty poor - but it's certainly not the camera's fault.



But all I've said isn't just nebulous opinion - I can give you some concrete examples of how getting awesome equipment will not make a person's pictures instantly awesome.

Here's one person's equipment.


In case you're wondering, I've done a quick price check and the basic elements of that setup cost him a staggering ~$7050.00, which is not even including his "Soon to buy" list of $4000.00, which I'm sure he's bought already.

It's quite a collection.

Now, let's see an example of what he considers a good picture!



Is it sharp? Absolutely! Are the colours nice? You bet, Photoshop is great! Is it a good, well-composed photo? Not even close!

Now, this photo isn't just a random shot of a nice car parked on the side of the road - this was part of a full photoshoot of the vehicle, and the photographer had complete control over placement of the vehicle.

And yet, he takes a picture of a car with a garbage can growing out of its ass. With random tree branches protruding into the frame.




So, after that, he has the car moved to the opposite side of the street, so he can get a dead on shot of the rear quarter panel! Sharp? Yes! Good exposure and colour? Yes! Original? Possibly. Eye-catching? Nope. Creative? Nope. Interesting? Not at all.



So, what I'm trying to say is that the best equipment in the world can't and won't help you if you don't know how to use it for its intended purpose. Any of the above shots, if printed in a magazine or hung on a wall, would look like rubbish. They'd be sharp, the Megapixel count means you could blow them up to cover the side of a building, but they'd still be subpar pictures.

So do yourself a favour - before you drop a thousand bucks on a new camera, go and learn from the people who know what they're doing. Pick up a few photo mags and see what the professionals do to make things look interesting. Discover what you need to do to get your shots the way you want them. If you think your shots are "crappy", it's probably because they are.

I'm not trying to harp on you individually, but there's a lot of people that think a new camera will instantly transform their snapshots into photographs, and they're very, very wrong. Before I got into photography more seriously, I thought that as well. But the more I talked to people like Melinda, Ben, Ekliptix, D'z Nutz, and other people who take a lot of excellent shots or even shoot for a living, the more I realized how untrue it is. The #1 key component behind every shot is the mind of the person taking it, and the most important thing is how well that mind knows what it's doing. Cameras don't take pictures. People do.