top digital camera on flickr

[scottvelez]

Maybe you've seen this before, but I thought it was pretty neat.
http://flagrantdisregard.com/flickr/topcameras.php

My camera is up to 12th spot already!!

[StuKen]

#10!

[Gimp Pimp]

15th:woot:

[DmR-DiRt]

8!!

[Nelson]

#64!

[eastcoast-mcneil]

#1 baby

[Rosscofat]

#1 baby

[Faithless]

4 4 Canon EOS 20D Canon

[Madman]

#67, my camera isnt cool :cry:

[BrockAnderson]

numero 11

[$$Chris*Ko$$]

They are so biased to nikons. bastards. #3.. =\

[Chief]

# 1 for shizzle

[scottvelez]

They are so biased to nikons. bastards. #3.. =\

LOL - wonder why that is....
Those Nikon guys must be crazzy :D

[Faithless]

LOL - wonder why that is....
Those Nikon guys must be crazzy :D

or cheap.

[billytalented]

...based on number of uploads, not perfomance

[NeRo]

my camera isn't on there... probably cuz it just came out

[eastcoast-mcneil]

They are so biased to nikons. bastards. #3.. =\
except top ranked company is canon...

[D1r7 R0(k]

cool, D50 is #1...did'nt know it was popular like that..

[.243racer]

or cheap.

shows how much you know.

#2

[jpi]

Where's my Pentax Optio 450 ???? And what about disposable kodaks?

[thebigchin]

WTF? Neither of my digi's made the top 100. They're less than a year old!

[Faithless]

shows how much you know.

#2


I've seen used d50 bodies go for 550. Nuff said.

[AnTi-TrAiL_nAzI]

#74! lol

[D1r7 R0(k]

I've seen used d50 bodies go for 550. Nuff said.

u can buy D50 bodys new for that price. they aint popular because of thier price...a D50 is the better camera in its class. tis why i chose it.

[frmstreetrider]

HAHAH NICE!!!

#100
jus squeezing in:)

[jayson]

92! is that good or bad?

[StuKen]

I've seen used d50 bodies go for 550. Nuff said.

Dude, just...stop.

[GeoffG]

Not even on it, but it will be soon:). D80:P.

[.243racer]

Dude, just...stop.

Truer words have never been spoken...

[Faithless]

You guys are blinded by your own stupid "trying to flame majin rage". It's probably one of the best cameras for the buck out there, and usually lures alot of new buyers into the DSLR market cause of

1) Price
2) Name/Advertising

Plus its one of nikons best High ISO performers.

So your saying that someone who is looking to buy a dslr who has no previous experience prior research will go to a camera store, and go for the cheaper one?

[Rosscofat]

baahahhahahahah!

Most smart people read reviews first before buying cameras not just finding cheep..

they GO buy BEST BUCK.. so it has every feature and everyone else loves it.. they will buy it. not cuz it has nikon.. if cannon made a D50 it would be ontop as well :) but they dont.. cuz they dunno how....

[eastcoast-mcneil]

You guys are blinded by your own stupid "trying to flame majin rage". It's probably one of the best cameras for the buck out there, and usually lures alot of new buyers into the DSLR market cause of

1) Price
2) Name/Advertising

Plus its one of nikons best High ISO performers.

So your saying that someone who is looking to buy a dslr who has no previous experience prior research will go to a camera store, and go for the cheaper one?
I have no desire to flame you for the sake of flaming.... but you're wrong man.

[Faithless]

I have no desire to flame you for the sake of flaming.... but you're wrong man.

Then prove me wrong instead of saying im wrong.

So its not nikons best high iso performer?

And its not the cheapest DSLR on the market?

And its not the best "bang for your buck" camera?

Personally I think it has unsharp results out of the box, its very small, no manual white balance (kelvin temp), not very ergonomic since it has 1 command dial, and the megapixels are quite low so incase i fuck up a shot and have to Crop something the remaining will look like crap, and no mirror lock up. I've used a d50 for 2 days before and I wasn't very impressed. Plus nikon lenses will cost you an arm and a leg.

[Faithless]

baahahhahahahah!

Most smart people read reviews first before buying cameras not just finding cheep..

they GO buy BEST BUCK.. so it has every feature and everyone else loves it.. they will buy it. not cuz it has nikon.. if cannon made a D50 it would be ontop as well :) but they dont.. cuz they dunno how....

Actually canon owns the majority of the market share.... at least in japan.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a1tNArNUlcUU&refer=japan

[trout]

I didn't know it was a contest.

[D1r7 R0(k]

Personally I think it has unsharp results out of the box,
proves how much you know. thats such an ignorant statemant. maybe if you knew how to use the camera, you could produce sharp pictures...2 days of use + your skill lvl doesnt cut it.


its very small
your on crack


no manual white balance (kelvin temp)
there is a custom WB setting. if your not down with that, shoot in RAW - all can be done in post production.


not very ergonomic since it has 1 command dial
Add $200 and u get a d70 with 2...IMO its complete bullshit...iv never had a ergo prob with my D50...


the megapixels are quite low so incase i fuck up a shot and have to Crop something the remaining will look like crap,
do the math...
D50 rez = 6.3 mega pixel (3008x2000)
20D rez = 8.2 mega pixel (3504 x 2336)

hears the differance

20D image at 8.2 mege pixel
http://i.pbase.com/o4/74/575474/1/65741026.MDS1I5EM.canon.jpg
D50image at 6.3 mega pixel
http://i.pbase.com/o4/74/575474/1/65741025.yBWyz1KB.D50.jpg

I try to get the shot right the first time.


and no mirror lock up.
use a tripod. makes no differance during long exposures.




I've used a d50 for 2 days before and I wasn't very impressed.
go figure


Plus nikon lenses will cost you an arm and a leg.
More BS. canon's high end lenses cost as much as nikon's.

[D1r7 R0(k]

I didn't know it was a contest.

its not...faithless makes it one.

[Faithless]

proves how much you know. thats such an ignorant statemant. maybe if you knew how to use the camera, you could produce sharp pictures...2 days of use + your skill lvl doesnt cut it

So your saying that the d50 produces sharper images than a d70s?


your on crack


Uh, I prefer bigger cameras as they are easy to hold, and plus there is no verticle grip option for the d50.


there is a custom WB setting. if your not down with that, shoot in RAW - all can be done in post production.

Yeah if i shoot in raw and still want jpeg images, then thats a problem because all the jpeg shots come out without saturation, sharpness or w/e applied.


Add $200 and u get a d70 with 2...IMO its complete bullshit...iv never had a ergo prob with my D50...


You get much more than that from a d70

do the math...
D50 rez = 6.3 mega pixel (3008x2000)
20D rez = 8.2 mega pixel (3504 x 2336)

hears the differance

20D image at 8.2 mege pixel
http://i.pbase.com/o4/74/575474/1/65741026.MDS1I5EM.canon.jpg
D50image at 6.3 mega pixel
http://i.pbase.com/o4/74/575474/1/65741025.yBWyz1KB.D50.jpg

I try to get the shot right the first time


So your saying that if you take a shot where its impossible not to crop something out that I should live with it?

Sorry no dice.



use a tripod. makes no differance during long exposures.


It does for one second exposures.



go figure


why? Should I be able to make a decision on a product from reviews on the net, while going into the store and seeing which cameras feel better to use?


More BS. canon's high end lenses cost as much as nikon's.

Then go find me a 18-200 vr used that wont sell for as much as it came out as.

I also find it funny that nikon even at iso 100 (with the d70 at least) isn't as silky smooth as any canon sensor.

[~mike*bodnaruk~]

My camera is up to 12th spot already!!


I have the same one!!

[.243racer]

Then go find me a 18-200 vr used that wont sell for as much as it came out as.

I also find it funny that nikon even at iso 100 (with the d70 at least) isn't as silky smooth as any canon sensor.

1) Thats because it is an amazing lens. one that replaces pretty much every single lens in a photographers bag. Heck, you find me a lens like it!
2) d70's don't have a iso 100 setting. I honestly can't see why you are complaining about noise at 100-200 iso... if you like "silky smooth" images run it though photoshops noise removal filter and soften the crap out of it.

[D1r7 R0(k]

So your saying that the d50 produces sharper images than a d70s?



Uh, I prefer bigger cameras as they are easy to hold, and plus there is no verticle grip option for the d50.



Yeah if i shoot in raw and still want jpeg images, then thats a problem because all the jpeg shots come out without saturation, sharpness or w/e applied.



You get much more than that from a d70



So your saying that if you take a shot where its impossible not to crop something out that I should live with it?

Sorry no dice.




It does for one second exposures.




why? Should I be able to make a decision on a product from reviews on the net, while going into the store and seeing which cameras feel better to use?




Then go find me a 18-200 vr used that wont sell for as much as it came out as.

I also find it funny that nikon even at iso 100 (with the d70 at least) isn't as silky smooth as any canon sensor.

just stop.

[Mr.Peanut]

just stop.


yeah faithless just cause his camera is better than yours , he is a better photograpeher than you, and is cooler than you makes him...uhh... 3 times better than you...

[D1r7 R0(k]

yeah faithless just cause his camera is better than yours , he is a better photograpeher than you, and is cooler than you makes him...uhh... 3 times better than you...

he has the better camera :ohthedrama:

[.243racer]

he has the better camera :ohthedrama:

because that means everything.

[D1r7 R0(k]

because that means everything.
of course!

[Rosscofat]

wow.. wow... hahaha all the points you made. dont make you a better photographer ... it just means more buttons to push to do alll the work for you.. sounds like you taking MORE skill outta your hands and putting it into a tiny camera... what happen to useing your brain?

[J-Dude]

w00t go Canon!

[Faithless]

Sad part is you guys hvan't seen my latest work. The funny part was also is I never said the nikon was ah horrible camera, but since all my points were valid the best thing you guys could come up with was "please stop".

What a joke.

[white ri0t]

Sad part is you guys hvan't seen my latest work. The funny part was also is I never said the nikon was ah horrible camera, but since all my points were valid the best thing you guys could come up with was "please stop".

What a joke.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

[Air Supplier]

Funny, Panisonic was rated 10th for the top manufacturers, but there are no Panisonic models in the top 100. Oh well, I still like mine.

[Mitch1616]

mines not even on the list, POS:crybaby:

[Faithless]

Funny, Panisonic was rated 10th for the top manufacturers, but there are no Panisonic models in the top 100. Oh well, I still like mine.

They have a leica style SLR coming out soon... Wonder how it will handle.

[Humbug]

Number 1, woop woop.

[Troup]

Fuck the numbers, Let's see your camerawork before I decide you're all a bunch of posers.

[.243racer]

Fuck the numbers, Let's see your camerawork before I decide you're all a bunch of posers.
oh shut up you dork.

[Mr. Charles]

all of you are a bucha twats, debating Canon Vs Nikon. You can find websites devoted to the matter.

i'm the only one on this board that posts nbr pictures, further amplifiying my opinion that all of you are a bucha twats.

[StuKen]

They have a leica style SLR coming out soon... Wonder how it will handle.

You couldn't handle a Leica.

all of you are a bucha twats, debating Canon Vs Nikon. You can find websites devoted to the matter.

i'm the only one on this board that posts nbr pictures, further amplifiying my opinion that all of you are a bucha twats.


ahahah, go copy vice some more.

[Faithless]

You couldn't handle a Leica.




ahahah, go copy vice some more.


YOU ARE SO HARDCORE

THATS YOUR STYLE SON

[Troup]

oh shut up you dork.You're the last person that should be responding to this like you are, Just post up your bloody photos - "ORIGINALS PLZ"

[.243racer]

You're the last person that should be responding to this like you are, Just post up your bloody photos - "ORIGINALS PLZ"

Contrary to popular belief, I actually don't HAVE to post any photo's if I don't want to. I could care less if you see them or not. I don't take them for you, I take them for ME.

[Troup]

Contrary to popular belief, I actually don't HAVE to post any photo's if I don't want to. I could care less if you see them or not. I don't take them for you, I take them for ME.Fair enough, Just thought you might like to share...I suppose you may be worried about fraud.

[Mr. Charles]

Contrary to popular belief, I actually don't HAVE to post any photo's if I don't want to. I could care less if you see them or not. I don't take them for you, I take them for ME.


actaully i am INTERESTED. Not out of some drive to prove you can't shoot, but just because you seem to think you can.

I only wanna see some cool shit. If i don't like it, whateves, i am not going to give a crap or make fun of you. Basically, if i am missing out on see some cool stuff, i'm bummed. Lemme see some what you got. no sense in keeping your shots under wraps. JUst curious. PM me a flickr site?

[Mr. Charles]

You couldn't handle a Leica.




ahahah, go copy vice some more.

what do you mean by handle a leica? like the recoil?

whats vice? what do you mean i am copying vice?

edit:
i just saw your site. You talking a lot of shit, stu.

I'm gonna go ahead and sack up and stat posting a photo every time i say something about photography.

http://static.flickr.com/78/200048245_b7767968fd_o.jpg

hell i'll post two.

http://static.flickr.com/61/223051830_03fcbcbda7_o.jpg

bash the shots. i don't care. That'll be way more interesting than this idle bickering.

[scottvelez]

http://static.flickr.com/61/223051830_03fcbcbda7_o.jpg

I really like this, what filters did you use?

[Mr. Charles]

isn't that shot sweet? i love the rusty colors. no filters. it's all white balance and a bit of color shift.

EDIT:
well there is a UV filter, i forgot.

[Bridges!!!]

YEAAAAA! Snapshot photography is totally not horribly played out

[Mr. Charles]

YEAAAAA! Snapshot photography is totally not horribly played out

Bridges, since you're on team Gnarwhale, you might be able to help. What did Stu mean by "copying Vice"?

and it's not a snapshot, as you say, i took that one, and then this one directly afterwards:
http://static.flickr.com/83/223051942_f713d4118a_o.jpg

whateves.

always liked this one too:
http://static.flickr.com/62/196492011_5f4ecd0d83_o.jpg

[Mr. Charles]

a little bit of people action.
http://static.flickr.com/67/223038810_0348f049cf_o.jpg

here's a "snapshot" of my friend john. it's also a perefect example of how to use a remote flash
http://static.flickr.com/91/223038126_f6321974ed_o.jpg

[.243racer]

here's a "snapshot" of my friend David Suzuki. it's also a perefect example of how to use a remote flash
http://static.flickr.com/91/223038126_f6321974ed_o.jpg

:lol:

[Faithless]

Fuck I shot 300 photos today a stop underexposed... didnt even relize it because i was in the bright sun.

[Bridges!!!]

Vice is a magazine that has alot of pictures of bands playing and people living thier lives in a blurry manner.

[burn it to keep warm]

Vice is a magazine that has alot of pictures of bands playing and people living thier lives in a blurry manner.

and totally sucks. piece of shit magazine for rich hipsters to get their nuts off to, which has spawned tons of medicore photographers with shows made up of photos of their friends running around naked, seen every tuesday in new york at any coffeeshop gallery between the neighborhood goodwill and 34th street.

i remember i read a totally sweet article about zimbabwe's crazy warlords and was all stoked on how hardcore their journalists are, but then i realized that it was fake.

[Mr. Charles]

Vice is a magazine that has alot of pictures of bands playing and people living thier lives in a blurry manner.

oh i get it. yer saying that I copy Vice because I... wait. Actually, I don't get it.

[Mr. Charles]

:lol:

here's another asian:

http://static.flickr.com/57/201195819_b28965a046_o.jpg

[Mr. Charles]

anyway, the point i'm making is that it's way more fun to actually see images than to argue about ones that don't even exist. I'm not saying that my photos are amazing--- i've been shooting for a for a very short time. Literally a matter of months. But i have fun with it, and i like throwing my shots out there (like now)... and also I love to see other's photography.

Not such a bad attitude to adopt, i'm thinking.

[jbazett]

Fuck I shot 300 photos today a stop underexposed... didnt even relize it because i was in the bright sun.

You should shoot them slightly underexposed. If you over expose the shot the information can't be retrieved from the image, You can correct underexposure in Camera Raw.

[Bridges!!!]

oh i get it. yer saying that I copy Vice because I... wait. Actually, I don't get it.
Well, in this thread you have pictures of people living with blurs all over the place, and I've seen threads where you have alot of pictures of bands. Seeing as you don't know what Vice is you can't really copy it, but the material is similar.

[Faithless]

You should shoot them slightly underexposed. If you over expose the shot the information can't be retrieved from the image, You can correct underexposure in Camera Raw.

I later learend that the shots were 4 stops underexposed, all of them are savable but they will show grain. Especially sad since I was shooting with my 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4.

I really didn't notice because i was shooting in the bright sun and I couldnt check the LCD screen and looking in the viewfinder i didnt notice where the dial was.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/AndreasSamaris/meet1.jpg

noise aint that bad, but some photos are really underexposed.

[Mr. Charles]

oh you mean the streaks... like this? this is about the only image i have like this. i have a few others, but i dont like them much. the kids are too silly looking.

http://static.flickr.com/82/223036901_00e0e17aa4_o.jpg

ANyway, thats a crystal clear image. the blur is from point sources of light. The shutter is open for about 6/10 of a second and after the flash blasts i drag the camera across any lights in the place quickly. you cna get very cool results. it's much cooler if there are lights everywhere, then you don't need to streak them uncontrollably across the image.


as for photos of bands, it's part of what i do. I take photos for the local venue here in exchange for free admission (plus one) and beer. It's fun for me anyway. Site is going to be up soon.

[Mr. Charles]

majin, you say some strange things some times.

[Faithless]

majin, you say some strange things some times.

Please explain. I'm saying the unedited photos are underexposed and me exposing it properly in photoshop is causing the photo to lose alot of quality.

[xy9ine]

anyway, the point i'm making is that it's way more fun to actually see images than to argue about ones that don't even exist. I'm not saying that my photos are amazing--- i've been shooting for a for a very short time. Literally a matter of months. But i have fun with it, and i like throwing my shots out there (like now)... and also I love to see other's photography.

Not such a bad attitude to adopt, i'm thinking.

that's a good philosophy & i'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. way too much posturing & emphasis on hardware. i'm going to have to dig out some of my 'work' shot on my state of the art 2.0 mp point & shoot.

nice pictures, btw mr. c.

[trout]

Thanks for the photos Mr. Charles.

[Mr. Charles]

Please explain. I'm saying the unedited photos are underexposed and me exposing it properly in photoshop is causing the photo to lose alot of quality.

it don't matter man... no big deal. next time get the exposure you want.

you know... if you are using your 20d's exposure meter, you know it has point metering right? and you can set it to all kinds of sweet metering modes? you can average the whole scene, or set it to just the center point, or have it center weighted... mine doesn't have that. not even close.

i mean if you are working in a fast setting or where you can't see, set it to aperature prioirty, and then all you need to think about is depth of field... just sayin'

[Faithless]

Oh no im talkinga bout the little bar

it looks like this

-2....-1....0....1....+2

I had mine set to -1.1 which is 4 stops :(

[burn it to keep warm]

Oh no im talkinga bout the little bar

it looks like this

-2....-1....0....1....+2

I had mine set to -1.1 which is 4 stops :(

-1 is 1 stop on your camera's meter g

[Faithless]

-1 is 1 stop on your camera's meter g

You sure, because To get to -1 I had to go through three scrolls.

The pics are really underexposed too. Maybe it was because I had a flash on.

[Mr. Charles]

Oh no im talkinga bout the little bar

it looks like this

-2....-1....0....1....+2

I had mine set to -1.1 which is 4 stops :(

that's one stop.

[Mr. Charles]

You sure, because To get to -1 I had to go through three scrolls.

The pics are really underexposed too. Maybe it was because I had a flash on.


so let me get this straight.

you set the camera's meter to -1.1. you are shooting in what? Manual? Auto?

if you are shooting in Manual, the -1.1 setting has no effect on the actual exposure. only the readout in the viewvinder. basically, it will show you have an exposure of 0 when it's actually -1.1. you can still set the shutter speed and Aperature to whatever you want.

1/20 f2.8 will give you the same exposure whether you are at -2, -1.1 or whatever. the change occurs when you 1) shoot in any of the auto modes and 2) when you look at the view finder's expusure meter.

[Faithless]

No I was shooting in (p) at iso 100. Regardless it really underexposed some of the important photos.

[Mr. Charles]

so that's it. P is shutter priority. Your set shutter speed too high for iso 100. I imagine some of your shots were at a very fast shutter speed. and with your f4 i am sure it couldn't get enough light. you should pay attention to these things dude.

in the day time, for casual stuff, I just shoot with A and ISO 200 and think about depth of field.

[jbazett]

No I was shooting in (p) at iso 100. Regardless it really underexposed some of the important photos.

You Really underexposed them right? thats what you meant to say? They should still be salvagable in Camera raw. :crazy:

[Faithless]

Not by much :/

All well lesson learned. Check all your settings :p

[Mr. Charles]

You Really underexposed them right? thats what you meant to say? They should still be salvagable in Camera raw. :crazy:

stop saying that. First of all, you need to shoot in RAW to use RAW. I don;t think he shot RAW, and a JPEG is always going to be a JPEG or worse.

Second, you are being misleading. There is no way to "fix" the "exposure" in RAW. The only freedom you have is how the file is extrapolated, or compressed.

In RAW, basically, every third pixel is collecting one of the three primary colors when you shoot photos. that means that two of every three pixels have no idea whether they are blue, purple, orange.... all they know is how much of the one primary color they are responsible for is hitting them.

TO get to a jepg the computer takes the data from the surrounding pixels and "guesses"... it does this for every pixel You can basically tell the computer how it should see "white" and what it should do with the three primary color layers, and how it should fill in the color matrix. Of course, with the three layers un-flattened (which is all raw is) you have greater control. You can't change the information contained with in the three layers, however, which is the exposure. In fact, the exposure is the only information you can't change.

part of the guessing is telling the computer how much of each primary color makes "white"... normally, an equal intensity of each color makes white. However, if you are in a club with blue lights, you can say "HEY there is way too much Blue in here mister camera, wo when you see a lot of blue (like on a white t shirt) don;t be fooled!! It's actually white!" So it will lessen then "importance" of the blue layer of the three primary colors when it guesses. This is why White balance is SO important. You know when you are shooting indoors in low light and all the photos turn out to be yellow? You can fix that. You can make it look like day time in there, or you can just tone it up a tiny bit.

Anyway, there are other settings that help the computer to guess. Sharpness, contrast... etc. Exposure is not one of them. Exposure IS the data contained in the image. when you shoot raw you apply none these settings to the data, and you simply store the raw data for each color. when you get home and open a RAW image you will come to a screen with the settings on the right and you can tweak them.

last, the exposure dial on the right is not exposure, and increasing it is not the same as taking a photo correctly. You are simply "amplifying" the data contained in the raw files. saturation and noise will result quickly.

woa.

[Mr. Charles]

i want to say that RAW is cool, but only if you are unsure about what's going on with the shots and you are in a hurry.... or if you are shooting a sort of unique situation (say a strange portrait, or something) and you want a broad range of control over the images on the big screen. REally, once you get your camera's settings dialed (saturation, color shift, sharpness) there is really no point to shooting raw and then going home and applying the same setting to every photo each time. The camera really does a fine job, and you save space.

it's easy as pie to adjust your white balance for every situation you enter... which is something you oughta be doing anyway.

[.243racer]

You should shoot them slightly underexposed. If you over expose the shot the information can't be retrieved from the image, You can correct underexposure in Camera Raw.

this is possible. But all the information in an image is in the lighter half.

you can underexpose, but you will not have any shadow detail, or highlight detail. why not just get it right?

[.243racer]

Oh no im talkinga bout the little bar

it looks like this

-2....-1....0....1....+2

I had mine set to -1.1 which is 4 stops :(

:lol:

jeeez louieeeeez

[burn it to keep warm]

You sure, because To get to -1 I had to go through three scrolls.

The pics are really underexposed too. Maybe it was because I had a flash on.

thats cause your camera goes in 1/3 stop increments. and yah, 1 stop makes a visible difference but you can usually pull it back in raw. if it was 1 stop on negative film it wouldn't matter but for digi and transparencies it does sir

[burn it to keep warm]

so let me get this straight.

you set the camera's meter to -1.1. you are shooting in what? Manual? Auto?

if you are shooting in Manual, the -1.1 setting has no effect on the actual exposure. only the readout in the viewvinder. basically, it will show you have an exposure of 0 when it's actually -1.1. you can still set the shutter speed and Aperature to whatever you want.

1/20 f2.8 will give you the same exposure whether you are at -2, -1.1 or whatever. the change occurs when you 1) shoot in any of the auto modes and 2) when you look at the view finder's expusure meter.

What? No man, everyones getting confused here! If you set -1 on your cameras meter, it will underexpose 1 stop from what it reads the scene as wether you do it in manual mode or some other exposure comp mode. you guys are thinking way too hard about this

[.243racer]

you guys are thinking way too hard about this

no kidding huh?

:ohthedrama:

[jbazett]

Thanks for the info Mr. Charles, You learn something new everyday. Perhaps you'll learn not to be a condescending prick tommorrow. Good luck with that.

.243 I agree completely with getting it right in the camera, but not with all of the information being in the lighter half of the image. That would depend on the image that your shooting wouldn't it??

[Mr. Charles]

What? No man, everyones getting confused here! If you set -1 on your cameras meter, it will underexpose 1 stop from what it reads the scene as wether you do it in manual mode or some other exposure comp mode. you guys are thinking way too hard about this

in automatic, yes.

but in manual, F2.8 and 1/20 is ALWAYS f2.8 and 1/20. (for example)

[Mr. Charles]

Thanks for the info Mr. Charles, You learn something new everyday. Perhaps you'll learn not to be a condescending prick tommorrow. Good luck with that.

.243 I agree completely with getting it right in the camera, but not with all of the information being in the lighter half of the image. That would depend on the image that your shooting wouldn't it??

lol... i was just correcting you and i got carried away with describing what RAW is. sorry dude.


.243 is right. he doesn't mean "half" of the photo, or any percentage or even location. he means simply that when you under expose the lighter parts still have the detail necessary to form the image. The shadows will just lighten up to grey noisey blobs (in the extreme cases).

still, even in the lighter parts you will lose image quality.

and finally, i didn't mean to be condescending, so sorry if i came across that way.

[synchro]

http://static.flickr.com/82/223036901_00e0e17aa4_o.jpg


the chic on the right, i'd hit it.

[Mr. Charles]

tell me about it.
http://static.flickr.com/82/216605824_2489b3a1d8_o.jpg

[burn it to keep warm]

in automatic, yes.

but in manual, F2.8 and 1/20 is ALWAYS f2.8 and 1/20. (for example)

dude, if you dial in f2.8 and 1/20 in manual and the in-camera meter is pointing at -1 it will be underexposed 1 stop. this has been the same on every camera since like 1623. im going to go dunk my head in some water because this thread makes my balls hurt

[Mr. Charles]

dude, if you dial in f2.8 and 1/20 in manual and the in-camera meter is pointing at -1 it will be underexposed 1 stop. this has been the same on every camera since like 1623. im going to go dunk my head in some water because this thread makes my balls hurt

hey man, we are not talking about the in-camera meter. we are talking about a setting in the camera where you can tell the thing to over expose or under expose automatically by one stop or two stops or 0.75 stops or by the width of your pained balls. Thats what Majin was talking about. Thats what i was talking about. That what we were talking about.

This has no effect on the camera's shutter or aperature if you are in manual. It simply says 0 on the meter when you are actually -1 (or whatever), there by telling you to under expose.

In automatic, the camera will automatically do the same thing. That is place the meter at zero, but actually being -1.

the setting is called exposure compensation, and it was not on cameras in 1623. In fact, nowadays, you can even tell the camera automatically bracket your photos. That is to take three pictures automatically at three stops: -x, 0 and +x... where you set X.

sorry to get into this crap, but you basically asked. if the thread bothers you don't come back.

in fact i'm going back to NBR. :lol:

[burn it to keep warm]

In fact, nowadays, you can even tell the camera automatically bracket your photos. That is to take three pictures automatically at three stops: -x, 0 and +x... where you set X.




thanks, you should be a teacher!!!!!!111!

[Faithless]

I think I know what the problem was. Since I had the flash on, the camera set a a really high aperature which made the picture really dark, instead of choosing one a bit lower.

[discowitch]

the chic on the right, i'd hit it.

Yeah, but that's about all you could do with that.

[Big_Fish]

So your saying that if you take a shot where its impossible not to crop something out that I should live with it?

Sorry no dice.


i'm going to speak up on this note. the entire point of photography is comp and lighting, subject and locatoin mean nothing.

if you can't get the shot you want without cropping try a different angle, and if your not willing to do that just give up. cropping should ONLY be used to eliminate negative space, and by that I mean empty sky, or solid black background.

[Jake the Trog]

i have a camera!

[burn it to keep warm]

cropping should ONLY be used to eliminate negative space, and by that I mean empty sky, or solid black background.

if see a photo that i want to take in horizontal but I've only got a square format camera, should i just forget about taking the shot and instead go to the store and buy a 35mm camera because you said I should never crop?
subject and locatoin mean nothing yeahhhhhh... Someone better tape a note to larry burrows grave because obviously subject and location mean nothing

you'd think this site was mastersofphotography.com

[Faithless]

if see a photo that i want to take in horizontal but I've only got a square format camera, should i just forget about taking the shot and instead go to the store and buy a 35mm camera because you said I should never crop?
yeahhhhhh... Someone better tape a note to larry burrows grave because obviously subject and location mean nothing

you'd think this site was mastersofphotography.com

Werd.