Digital Artistic Photography?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by song writer, Jan 22, 2005.

  1. song writer

    song writer Guest

    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
     
    song writer, Jan 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. song writer

    ECM Guest

    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
     
    ECM, Jan 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. song writer

    Marcel Guest

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

    "ECM" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    >
     
    Marcel, Jan 22, 2005
    #3
  4. song writer

    Frank ess Guest

    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
     
    Frank ess, Jan 22, 2005
    #4
  5. song writer

    Stacey Guest

    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
     
    Stacey, Jan 22, 2005
    #5
  6. song writer

    Jem Raid Guest

    "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Jem Raid, Jan 22, 2005
    #6
  7. song writer

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Frank ess" <> 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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jan 22, 2005
    #7
  8. song writer

    Frank ess Guest

    wrote:
    > In message <>,
    > "Frank ess" <> 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
     
    Frank ess, Jan 22, 2005
    #8
  9. song writer

    Jem Raid Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <>,
    > "Frank ess" <> 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 <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><


    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.
     
    Jem Raid, Jan 22, 2005
    #9
  10. song writer

    Frank ess Guest

    Jem Raid wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In message <>,
    >> "Frank ess" <> 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 <>
    >> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

    >
    > 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
     
    Frank ess, Jan 22, 2005
    #10
  11. song writer

    stewy Guest

    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.
     
    stewy, Feb 2, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Pearls-b

    Digital Artistic Images

    Pearls-b, Dec 22, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    391
    Pearls-b
    Dec 22, 2003
  2. Marvin Margoshes

    Artistic photo editing

    Marvin Margoshes, Feb 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    722
    Mike Kohary
    Mar 2, 2004
  3. Pearls-b

    The Digital Artistic Images

    Pearls-b, Jun 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    348
    Pearls-b
    Jun 30, 2004
  4. Chef!

    Artistic B/W shots

    Chef!, Aug 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    359
    Tom Nelson
    Aug 18, 2004
  5. colors4

    The Digital Artistic Images

    colors4, Jul 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    367
Loading...

Share This Page