I'm gonna wade outside my comfort zone and share a little DIY-decorative painting technique illustrated with photos by yours truly. See, last weekend at the Gift Show Jamie got all up in my craw about sharing more of this (winning, effortlessly sunny) personality with you fine people. "You should take a picture and post about that!" Like the bowl of Grape Nuts I ate this morning? No, just stuff I come across ... stuff I like.Sounds great, but my big excuse -- aside from sheer laziness -- is photo quality. I drool over blogs like this one where the candids look ripped from a J. Crew catalog while my circa '99 digicam is bigger than Zack Morris's cell phone and yields photos unfit even for Craigslist. Perfectionism isn't strong enough a word for my condition, so I asked (whined) around. Tim came to my rescue: "The Dooce lady, this is what you're looking for, trust me. TRUST ME FOR ONCE."
Thanks, A Canon 5D, awesome. THOSE COST 3500 FRIGGIN' DOLLARS.
It was back to square one until I finally traded in my flip phone (seeing an archaic tech trend here?) for a snazzy, if corporate-feeling, BlackBerry that has a decent camera AND a memory card. Scott Schuman and Bruce Weber, your jobs are safe. Learning to let go.
But in the meantime, if you have any Consumer Reports or recommendations on digital cameras, please give 'em up. (See, Mimi, I asked!) Is there a huge gap between the 300 and 3000 buck range? How does my idol get those warm colors and sharp edges? Enquiring, insanely jealous minds want to know.
Posts
Is there a difference between 300 and 3000? Yes. Is it worth stressing over? No.
ReplyDeleteI'm not an expert and don't really pretend to be, but this is the info experts have passed down to me:
-In general, stick with Canon and Nikon
-How much do you care about having the background blurry (shallow depth of field)? That can only really be achieved (decently) with an SLR. If you figure most of your shots will be interior, you could get a lower-end SLR and the kit 18-55mm lens and be good to go. One lens is probably good. You could get all of this on eBay or new for 400-500 bucks.
-Most of your shots will include non-moving objects, no? Do you see yourself ever using a tripod, or just don't care that much? A tripod will basically lead to clearer shots, esp. if it's a little dark.
-Most $200 point and shoots take great photos if you don't take them in bad light and don't use the flash. Don't let people tell you otherwise.
Canon PowerShot. Figure out your $ limit and buy the model that comes closest to that amount.
ReplyDeleteTurn off the flash.
I keep my setting on "Auto" 99 percent of the time and get great results. Far better results than I deserve.
Thanks guys! This is a HUGE help!!
ReplyDeleteI also use a Canon Powershot; just learned the turn off the flash secret and I do think it makes a world of difference.
ReplyDeleteWell, if you really want to make your photos look awesome then you've gotta sharpen up on your photoshop skills. Trust me, all the great bloggers just run a few actions on their photos. (you don't even have to be a techie to do this- it's as easy as clicking a button.) Voila! In like 2 seconds you will get the photos you want. My husband and I have a $300 cannon and we get great shots-- I mean, I would like something more profesh- but who has the extra cash these days??
ReplyDeleteCheck out these pics from our latest trip to Italy and you can see the quality of the photos is pretty great. I ran NO actions on these, this is just straight up camera.
http://zionbaca.blogspot.com/2010/01/italy-pics.html
Closter to the $300 end of things - get the
ReplyDeletePanasonic Lumix DMX LX3. It runs around $400-450 and takes fantastic shots even in lowish list. Good wide angle lens and it has a hot shoe so you can upgrade the flash - which is huge, but without the bulk of the DSLRs. It's not a canon or a nikon, true, but it really is one of the best options you can get for your money *and* it'll happily fit in your coat pocket so you can share all the wonderfulness with all of us.
Hey Nick,
ReplyDeleteI have a Nikon d40x, which I bought when the model first came out a few years ago. It's an entry level digital SLR, and, while some pros have sniffed at its lens limitations, I love it. I'll never go back to point-and-shoot. Looks like the current point of entry is about $400-$500.
I also agree with the comments above: good light + no flash is where it's at. And don't stress about Megapixels; once you get above a certain point it's impossible to tell the difference.
You want a CANON REBEL, which is the cheapest DSLR on the market. It gives you depth of field (i.e. pretty levels of focus in shots) and snaps real quick. It's also easy to use. I got one for $300 on Amazon a few months ago. I know nothing about photography at all and I think my shots come out pretty nice!
ReplyDeleteCheck it out:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45883805@N02/
I know exactly what you mean. I have an Olympus that is about two years old, and it does a good job outside. I blame my crappy lighting for poor photo quality.
ReplyDeleteGood luck! It seems like these commenters know what they're doing. I'm appreciating the advice as well.
You've probably already seen this post by decorno with Paul Costello's tips for taking interior shots, but just in case you haven't:
ReplyDeletehttp://decorno.blogspot.com/2008/03/paul-costello-wants-you-to-take-better.html
Try using Picasa to edit your photos if learning Photoshop is too time-consuming/doesn't appeal to your lazy side (I'm in the same boat as you on this). I read this on another blog and found it pretty useful: http://www.centsationalgirl.com/2009/12/picasa-is-m-friend/
ReplyDeleteIf you're shooting interiors, get a Nikon D40. Pair it with a cheap tripod, natural light, and a bit of knowledge, and you'll be Paul Costello in no time.
ReplyDeleteIf you just want a pocket rocket, then a Canon Powershot will do the trick, but it's not gonna do interior shots justice.