«

I have a small question about what is possible with my camera, any help
would be greatly appreciated.

I recently bought a point-and-shoot camera, at the urging of some of my
friends and with a curiosity about photography. My grandpa is a professional
photographer, my mom is a gifted amateur, and some of my friends are really
good (amateur) photographers. So in the name of curiosity, I bought a Kodak
Easyshare LS443 digital camera. It's a good, solid camera, 4 megapixel, a
couple of nice bells and whistles, but it's a point-and-shoot, with no
manual controls to speak of. As soon as I got the camera I started to really
become interested in photography, and realized an SLR might have been a
better choice. My question is this: Do you think one can really take good
photographs and develop and mature as a photographer with a point-and-shoot,
or is it necessary to have an SLR?

David L wrote:
> I have a small question about what is possible with my camera, any help
> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> I recently bought a point-and-shoot camera, at the urging of some of my
> friends and with a curiosity about photography. My grandpa is a professional
> photographer, my mom is a gifted amateur, and some of my friends are really
> good (amateur) photographers. So in the name of curiosity, I bought a Kodak
> Easyshare LS443 digital camera. It's a good, solid camera, 4 megapixel, a
> couple of nice bells and whistles, but it's a point-and-shoot, with no
> manual controls to speak of. As soon as I got the camera I started to really
> become interested in photography, and realized an SLR might have been a
> better choice. My question is this: Do you think one can really take good
> photographs and develop and mature as a photographer with a point-and-shoot,
> or is it necessary to have an SLR?
>
>
You can learn the basics of composition with any camera. I have seen
some very good pictures taken with point and shoot cameras. Once you
have developed your photographic vision to a certain point (and you will
know when that is), then you will probably want to "step up" to a camera
with more creative control.

"David L" <> wrote in message
news:...
> My question is this: Do you think one can really take good
> photographs and develop and mature as a photographer with a
point-and-shoot,
> or is it necessary to have an SLR?

Take good photos, yes, develop and mature - probably needs a more mature
camera.

Gary Eickmeier

David L <> wrote:
> better choice. My question is this: Do you think one can really take good
> photographs and develop and mature as a photographer with a point-and-shoot,
> or is it necessary to have an SLR?

Any accomplished photographer can do wonders with any camera, as long as
the camera works. Without much manual control, you have some limitations,
but since most of what goes into a nice photograph is the composition and
lighting, your camera's capabilities are well down on the list of concerns
for taking nice photos. I suggest you concentrate on composing your
photographs first, then when you get good at that (it takes a lot of time
and practice), look at a more sophisticated camera.

Joseph Meehan wrote:

> I agree with Bill. You can do just find with what you have. You can
> learn a lot. You can learn many of the most important parts of photography.
>
> Photography is an art. Many photo artist work with all the manual
> controls they can to control every single part of the image. Others choose
> to use a more automatic camera like the one you have

Not quite, although they might use aperture or shutter priority, and at times
use an offset from that. I often use aperture priority, and sometimes use
an offset.

> and learn to use that
> camera to produce what they want preferring to devote more of their effort
> on the subject and less on the equipment. Both are artist and both can
> produce great images.
>
> If you find you are restricted by your camera, then it is time to
> consider another. Don't let someone else's needs make your decisions for
> you. That said, I do recommend that you spend at least some time learning
> the workings of digital imaging. That way you will know what the
> capabilities of the media is and what your tools can do.
>
> Good Luck
>
> --
> Joseph E. Meehan
>
> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
>
> "David L" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > I have a small question about what is possible with my camera, any help
> > would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > I recently bought a point-and-shoot camera, at the urging of some of my
> > friends and with a curiosity about photography. My grandpa is a
> professional
> > photographer, my mom is a gifted amateur, and some of my friends are
> really
> > good (amateur) photographers. So in the name of curiosity, I bought a
> Kodak
> > Easyshare LS443 digital camera. It's a good, solid camera, 4 megapixel, a
> > couple of nice bells and whistles, but it's a point-and-shoot, with no
> > manual controls to speak of. As soon as I got the camera I started to
> really
> > become interested in photography, and realized an SLR might have been a
> > better choice. My question is this: Do you think one can really take good
> > photographs and develop and mature as a photographer with a
> point-and-shoot,
> > or is it necessary to have an SLR?
> >
> >

Joseph Meehan wrote:

> I agree with Bill. You can do just find with what you have. You can
> learn a lot. You can learn many of the most important parts of photography.
>
> Photography is an art. Many photo artist work with all the manual
> controls they can to control every single part of the image. Others choose
> to use a more automatic camera like the one you have

Not quite, although they might use aperture or shutter priority, and at times
use an offset from that. I often use aperture priority, and sometimes use
an offset.

> and learn to use that
> camera to produce what they want preferring to devote more of their effort
> on the subject and less on the equipment. Both are artist and both can
> produce great images.
>
> If you find you are restricted by your camera, then it is time to
> consider another. Don't let someone else's needs make your decisions for
> you. That said, I do recommend that you spend at least some time learning
> the workings of digital imaging. That way you will know what the
> capabilities of the media is and what your tools can do.
>
> Good Luck
>
> --
> Joseph E. Meehan
>
> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
>
> "David L" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > I have a small question about what is possible with my camera, any help
> > would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > I recently bought a point-and-shoot camera, at the urging of some of my
> > friends and with a curiosity about photography. My grandpa is a
> professional
> > photographer, my mom is a gifted amateur, and some of my friends are
> really
> > good (amateur) photographers. So in the name of curiosity, I bought a
> Kodak
> > Easyshare LS443 digital camera. It's a good, solid camera, 4 megapixel, a
> > couple of nice bells and whistles, but it's a point-and-shoot, with no
> > manual controls to speak of. As soon as I got the camera I started to
> really
> > become interested in photography, and realized an SLR might have been a
> > better choice. My question is this: Do you think one can really take good
> > photographs and develop and mature as a photographer with a
> point-and-shoot,
> > or is it necessary to have an SLR?
> >
> >

David L wrote:

> I have a small question about what is possible with my camera, any help
> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> I recently bought a point-and-shoot camera, at the urging of some of my
> friends and with a curiosity about photography. My grandpa is a professional
> photographer, my mom is a gifted amateur, and some of my friends are really
> good (amateur) photographers. So in the name of curiosity, I bought a Kodak
> Easyshare LS443 digital camera. It's a good, solid camera, 4 megapixel, a
> couple of nice bells and whistles, but it's a point-and-shoot, with no
> manual controls to speak of. As soon as I got the camera I started to really
> become interested in photography, and realized an SLR might have been a
> better choice. My question is this: Do you think one can really take good
> photographs and develop and mature as a photographer with a point-and-shoot,
> or is it necessary to have an SLR?
>
>

Yes, this is a good place to start. You can use the P&S camera to learn
the basics of composition and style, and to see if you have any talent
in this area. If not, then you aren't out too much money. If you do,
then you can move to a camera that allows more 'creative opportunity'
after you learn all you can with this camera. With all those
photographers in the family, you shouldn't have too much trouble getting
good advice.

And, as an added bonus, while you are learning the basics with your point
and shoot, the price of the slr's are going to be dropping like a rock. I
have my purchase penciled in for two years from now, and in the meantime I
have a lot of fun with composition and leaning photoshop. I have found, for
myself, most of the shots I want are opportunistic, and I leave my coolpix
in auto mode, only occasionaly switching to manual when I have time and a
subject that stays put.
Marggi
"Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
news:naQ%a.33962$. ..
> David L wrote:
>
> > I have a small question about what is possible with my camera, any help
> > would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > I recently bought a point-and-shoot camera, at the urging of some of my
> > friends and with a curiosity about photography. My grandpa is a
professional
> > photographer, my mom is a gifted amateur, and some of my friends are
really
> > good (amateur) photographers. So in the name of curiosity, I bought a
Kodak
> > Easyshare LS443 digital camera. It's a good, solid camera, 4 megapixel,
a
> > couple of nice bells and whistles, but it's a point-and-shoot, with no
> > manual controls to speak of. As soon as I got the camera I started to
really
> > become interested in photography, and realized an SLR might have been a
> > better choice. My question is this: Do you think one can really take
good
> > photographs and develop and mature as a photographer with a
point-and-shoot,
> > or is it necessary to have an SLR?
> >
> >
>
> Yes, this is a good place to start. You can use the P&S camera to learn
> the basics of composition and style, and to see if you have any talent
> in this area. If not, then you aren't out too much money. If you do,
> then you can move to a camera that allows more 'creative opportunity'
> after you learn all you can with this camera. With all those
> photographers in the family, you shouldn't have too much trouble getting
> good advice.
>
>

You do have some manual controls with the LS443 take the time and learn how
to use what you have. I have seen award winning photos taken with a point &
shoot camera. You need to develop that instinct of what is a good picture
and how to get it. What a better tool than having a digital camera where you
can see the results only moments after you take the exposure. Search old
photo books many of the rules and techniques still apply. Do you know what
type of photographer you want to be? what types of subjects you want to
shoot? these questions may help you decide what camera to use.

Good luck

Gary
"Marggi" <> wrote in message
news:OvQ%a.103798$...
> And, as an added bonus, while you are learning the basics with your point
> and shoot, the price of the slr's are going to be dropping like a rock. I
> have my purchase penciled in for two years from now, and in the meantime I
> have a lot of fun with composition and leaning photoshop. I have found,
for
> myself, most of the shots I want are opportunistic, and I leave my coolpix
> in auto mode, only occasionaly switching to manual when I have time and a
> subject that stays put.
> Marggi
> "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
> news:naQ%a.33962$. ..
> > David L wrote:
> >
> > > I have a small question about what is possible with my camera, any
help
> > > would be greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > I recently bought a point-and-shoot camera, at the urging of some of
my
> > > friends and with a curiosity about photography. My grandpa is a
> professional
> > > photographer, my mom is a gifted amateur, and some of my friends are
> really
> > > good (amateur) photographers. So in the name of curiosity, I bought a
> Kodak
> > > Easyshare LS443 digital camera. It's a good, solid camera, 4
megapixel,
> a
> > > couple of nice bells and whistles, but it's a point-and-shoot, with no
> > > manual controls to speak of. As soon as I got the camera I started to
> really
> > > become interested in photography, and realized an SLR might have been
a
> > > better choice. My question is this: Do you think one can really take
> good
> > > photographs and develop and mature as a photographer with a
> point-and-shoot,
> > > or is it necessary to have an SLR?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes, this is a good place to start. You can use the P&S camera to learn
> > the basics of composition and style, and to see if you have any talent
> > in this area. If not, then you aren't out too much money. If you do,
> > then you can move to a camera that allows more 'creative opportunity'
> > after you learn all you can with this camera. With all those
> > photographers in the family, you shouldn't have too much trouble getting
> > good advice.
> >
> >
>
>

I am going to offer you my ywo sense, as an amateaur photographer like
yourself.

You may have made a mistake choosing the camera you did, not because it
isn't and SLR, but because it lacks manual controls. You would probably have
been happier with a camera like the Canon G3 or something similar, which
offers all the funtionality of an SLR minus the interchngalble lenses and
abilty to use ISO ratings over 400 or so. That said, you sure as hell can
have fun with any reasonably good quality digicam.

As for buying a digital SLR, in my opinion, unless you are a porfessional
photogrpaher, or simply have deep pockets, now is not the time to buy.
Digital SLRS are still very expensive, and thouge the Canon 10D has
pehonmenal image quality, even at ISO 1600, it is still an immature product,
with crop factors et al. The Olympus E-1 was supposed to be the first
solution to this, but so far it looks like it is a little overpriced for
what it offers (and it offers a lot, just not as much as the price commands)



"David L" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I have a small question about what is possible with my camera, any help
> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> I recently bought a point-and-shoot camera, at the urging of some of my
> friends and with a curiosity about photography. My grandpa is a
professional
> photographer, my mom is a gifted amateur, and some of my friends are
really
> good (amateur) photographers. So in the name of curiosity, I bought a
Kodak
> Easyshare LS443 digital camera. It's a good, solid camera, 4 megapixel, a
> couple of nice bells and whistles, but it's a point-and-shoot, with no
> manual controls to speak of. As soon as I got the camera I started to
really
> become interested in photography, and realized an SLR might have been a
> better choice. My question is this: Do you think one can really take good
> photographs and develop and mature as a photographer with a
point-and-shoot,
> or is it necessary to have an SLR?
>
>