Now i understand.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Grace Frehley, Oct 1, 2003.

  1. I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only get
    a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
    pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow you
    must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
    oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very few
    out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
    now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
    object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok but
    not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
    pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a good
    one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
    Grace Frehley, Oct 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Grace Frehley

    W6DKN Guest

    "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
    news:tbueb.2769$...
    > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only

    get
    > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
    > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow

    you
    > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
    > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very

    few
    > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me.

    I
    > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
    > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok

    but
    > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
    > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a

    good
    > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
    >
    >


    Strange, my D100 gives me consistently excellent images from a technical
    point of view. However, from an artistic point of view I become much more
    critical...

    = Dan =
    W6DKN, Oct 1, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in
    news:tbueb.2769$:

    > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and
    > only get a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic
    > photographers take 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a
    > photographer tell someone on pit road in Michigan this year that he
    > shoots 100 rolls of film to get a couple good pics. I wondered why?
    > The person he was talking to said "wow you must suck" he said no i'm
    > very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive toting around 3 SLR and
    > DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my oly. c-750 that day
    > was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very few out of 250
    > pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've taken 450
    > pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I now
    > understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
    > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were
    > ok but not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will
    > take a great pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun
    > to try to get a good one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick
    > with the Oly C-750 it nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.


    I can't believe you're serious.
    Constantinople, Oct 1, 2003
    #3
  4. "W6DKN" <> wrote in message
    news:3f7a7200$...
    >
    > "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
    > news:tbueb.2769$...
    > > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only

    > get
    > > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    > > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone

    on
    > > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    > > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow

    > you
    > > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    > > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with

    my
    > > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very

    > few
    > > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    > > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me.

    > I
    > > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the

    same
    > > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok

    > but
    > > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a

    great
    > > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a

    > good
    > > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    > > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Strange, my D100 gives me consistently excellent images from a technical
    > point of view. However, from an artistic point of view I become much more
    > critical...
    >
    > = Dan =
    >

    Well i see your point there, the 300D will give me "good" pics technically
    but if i wanted "great" pics i would have to spend the time tweaking them in
    some kind of photo software. Or spend $1000 - $5000 for a great lens.
    Where the Oly will give me "great" pics right off the bat. No tweaking
    needed and for $600 bucks thats a bargain.
    Grace Frehley, Oct 1, 2003
    #4
  5. Grace Frehley

    W6DKN Guest

    Grace Frehley wrote:
    > "W6DKN" <> wrote in message
    > news:3f7a7200$...
    >>
    >> "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
    >> news:tbueb.2769$...
    >>> I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and
    >>> only get a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic
    >>> photographers take 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a
    >>> photographer tell someone on pit road in Michigan this year that he
    >>> shoots 100 rolls of film to get a couple good pics. I wondered why?
    >>> The person he was talking to said "wow you must suck" he said no
    >>> i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive toting around 3
    >>> SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my oly.
    >>> c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very
    >>> few out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new
    >>> ballgame. I've taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that
    >>> were acceptable to me. I now understand LOL. I did a test today and
    >>> took about 10 pics of the same object (a vase full of flowers)
    >>> using all different combinations of settings. I even used a light
    >>> meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok but not nearly as good
    >>> as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great pic, so its
    >>> pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a good
    >>> one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly
    >>> C-750 it nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Strange, my D100 gives me consistently excellent images from a
    >> technical point of view. However, from an artistic point of view I
    >> become much more critical...
    >>
    >> = Dan =
    >>

    > Well i see your point there, the 300D will give me "good" pics
    > technically but if i wanted "great" pics i would have to spend the
    > time tweaking them in some kind of photo software. Or spend $1000 -
    > $5000 for a great lens. Where the Oly will give me "great" pics
    > right off the bat. No tweaking needed and for $600 bucks thats a
    > bargain.


    What I was referring to is the quality of the composition and overall
    subject presentation. This is what separates a snapshot from a photograph.
    And the type of gear used to produce one or another makes no difference -
    it is the guy pressing the shutter... be it on a point-and-shoot or a
    D-SLR...

    In other words, the more experienced you become, the fewer shots you take
    will be "keepers" because you will develop a more educated/critical opinion
    of what constitutes a "great" shot.


    = Dan =
    W6DKN, Oct 1, 2003
    #5
  6. Grace Frehley

    Agent Lemon Guest

    "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
    news:tbueb.2769$...
    > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only

    get
    > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
    > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow

    you
    > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
    > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very

    few
    > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
    > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
    > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok

    but
    > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
    > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a

    good
    > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
    >
    >

    This first bit of this thread is very interesting! I'm a relative newbie
    who's always looking out for info like this.

    The other night, I took my camera out on a boat trip, reportage style, and
    took about 180 pics over about 8 hours. My friends thought that was
    excessive (but I bet it's not to you guys!).

    Only a handful I'd say were good - many were spoiled by capturing people
    with eyes closed/hands in front of face whilst gesturing, grimaces while
    talking. You know the kind of thing.

    I suppose a lot of this is due to me not anticipating shutter lag and so
    forth, but how many photos would *you* take in an evening to ensure you
    capture those priceless moments? Any thoughts?
    Agent Lemon, Oct 1, 2003
    #6
  7. Grace Frehley

    Bowser Guest

    After reading this post, I'm stunned that Ansel Adams, using his "one shot
    at at time" view camera ever produced anything worthwhile.

    Seriously, NG photographers do shoot a ton of film/frames. But that's not
    the only way to get decent shots. Pre-visualizing the shot, planning the
    shot, and waiting for the right light works, too. And one press is all it
    takes. ;-)

    "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
    news:tbueb.2769$...
    > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only

    get
    > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
    > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow

    you
    > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
    > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very

    few
    > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
    > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
    > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok

    but
    > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
    > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a

    good
    > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
    >
    >
    Bowser, Oct 1, 2003
    #7
  8. "Bowser" <> wrote in message
    news:zvzeb.647295$Ho3.134542@sccrnsc03...
    > After reading this post, I'm stunned that Ansel Adams, using his "one shot
    > at at time" view camera ever produced anything worthwhile.
    >
    > Seriously, NG photographers do shoot a ton of film/frames. But that's not
    > the only way to get decent shots. Pre-visualizing the shot, planning the
    > shot, and waiting for the right light works, too. And one press is all it
    > takes. ;-)


    When Adams died, his vault held 40,000 negatives, of which only about 2000
    had been printed...

    (Actually, your point is well taken, but Adams was primarily a medium format
    photographer the last 25 years of his life.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 1, 2003
    #8
  9. > After reading this post, I'm stunned that Ansel Adams, using his "one shot
    > at at time" view camera ever produced anything worthwhile.
    >
    > Seriously, NG photographers do shoot a ton of film/frames. But that's not
    > the only way to get decent shots. Pre-visualizing the shot, planning the
    > shot, and waiting for the right light works, too. And one press is all it
    > takes. ;-)


    That's always been my approach.
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 1, 2003
    #9
  10. Grace Frehley

    Dickbo Guest

    Ansel Adams claimed 2 per year was good.

    "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
    news:tbueb.2769$...
    > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only

    get
    > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
    > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow

    you
    > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
    > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very

    few
    > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
    > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
    > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok

    but
    > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
    > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a

    good
    > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
    >
    >
    Dickbo, Oct 1, 2003
    #10
  11. The more photos you take, the better you get at seeing what makes one better
    than another. Composition, lighting, *especially* backgrounds. By
    backgrounds, I basically mean clutter... you're trying to capture an image
    of something, and to *you* it's right there, it stands out because you are
    *mentally* focusing on it, but whoever's looking at your photo later on
    needs more help.

    Another problem with taking photos comes in action shots. People want to
    both experience what's happening *and* take photos. My experience is that
    you can do one or the other, but not both. To get the really great shots,
    you need to anticipate what's going to happen and set up for it, *not*
    excitedly watch as events unfold. Excitement works against you.

    And finally, there is some truth to the idea that, if you take enough
    photos, you'll "accidentally" get a good, possibly even great shot from time
    to time. The trick is learning how to go through them and spot those
    photos, again without getting too excited from the memories of the subject
    matter.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


    "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
    news:tbueb.2769$...
    > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only

    get
    > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
    > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow

    you
    > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
    > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very

    few
    > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
    > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
    > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok

    but
    > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
    > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a

    good
    > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
    >
    >
    Mike Jacoubowsky, Oct 1, 2003
    #11
  12. Grace Frehley

    NJH Guest

    "Agent Lemon" <> wrote in message
    news:ble1km$...
    >
    > "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
    > news:tbueb.2769$...
    > > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only

    > get
    > > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    > > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone

    on
    > > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    > > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow

    > you
    > > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    > > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with

    my
    > > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very

    > few
    > > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    > > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me.

    I
    > > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the

    same
    > > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok

    > but
    > > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a

    great
    > > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a

    > good
    > > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    > > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
    > >
    > >

    > This first bit of this thread is very interesting! I'm a relative newbie
    > who's always looking out for info like this.
    >
    > The other night, I took my camera out on a boat trip, reportage style, and
    > took about 180 pics over about 8 hours. My friends thought that was
    > excessive (but I bet it's not to you guys!).
    >
    > Only a handful I'd say were good - many were spoiled by capturing people
    > with eyes closed/hands in front of face whilst gesturing, grimaces while
    > talking. You know the kind of thing.
    >
    > I suppose a lot of this is due to me not anticipating shutter lag and so
    > forth, but how many photos would *you* take in an evening to ensure you
    > capture those priceless moments? Any thoughts?


    "As many as possible" is the general rule as far as I'm concerned. There are
    so many things you can't avoid, like the flash shot catching someone's
    eyelids at half-mast, etc. And anyway the more pix you have to choose from
    after the event, the better. If you took 180 over 8 hours or thereabouts I
    think you're doing the right thing. I don't take anywhere near that many at
    family get-togethers (conversation, eating and drinking get in the way), and
    ALWAYS come home kicking myself for not having taken more shots.

    Neil
    NJH, Oct 1, 2003
    #12
  13. Grace Frehley

    Bowser Guest

    "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message news:<tbueb.2769$>...
    > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only get
    > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
    > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow you
    > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
    > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very few
    > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
    > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
    > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok but
    > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
    > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a good
    > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.


    Grace, your 2 cents is not worth 2 shits. Any idiot who would think
    that a point and shoot digicam is better than a DSLR clearly has no
    brain. You were probably too cheap to spend any money on a good lens
    for the 300D. The kit lens that comes with that camera is a piece of
    shit. And you bragged so much that the C-750 came in number one on PC
    World. Big fucking deal. If you look carefully you will see that it
    was only rated as 4 stars where other cameras were rated higher...such
    as the C-5050 or the Canon G5. Stupid bitch. You don't understand
    shit.
    Bowser, Oct 1, 2003
    #13
  14. Grace Frehley

    Bowser Guest

    "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message news:<tbueb.2769$>...
    > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only get
    > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
    > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow you
    > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
    > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very few
    > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
    > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
    > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok but
    > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
    > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a good
    > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.


    Grace, your 2 cents is not worth 2 shits. Any idiot who would think
    that a point and shoot digicam is better than a DSLR clearly has no
    brain. You were probably too cheap to spend any money on a good lens
    for the 300D. The kit lens that comes with that camera is a piece of
    shit. And you bragged so much that the C-750 came in number one on PC
    World. Big fucking deal. If you look carefully you will see that it
    was only rated as 4 stars where other cameras were rated higher...such
    as the C-5050 or the Canon G5. Stupid bitch. You don't understand
    shit.
    Bowser, Oct 1, 2003
    #14
  15. > Grace, your 2 cents is not worth 2 shits. Any idiot who would think
    > that a point and shoot digicam is better than a DSLR clearly has no
    > brain. You were probably too cheap to spend any money on a good lens
    > for the 300D. The kit lens that comes with that camera is a piece of
    > shit. And you bragged so much that the C-750 came in number one on PC
    > World. Big fucking deal. If you look carefully you will see that it
    > was only rated as 4 stars where other cameras were rated higher...such
    > as the C-5050 or the Canon G5. Stupid bitch. You don't understand
    > shit.


    You're the one reading PC World and believing what they say.
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 1, 2003
    #15
  16. Grace Frehley

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <tbueb.2769$>,
    says...
    > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only get
    > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
    > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow you
    > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
    > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very few
    > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
    > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
    > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok but
    > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
    > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a good
    > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.


    You are apparently under the mistaken impression that a camera takes
    quality photos. In fact, the photographer does.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
    Todd Walker, Oct 1, 2003
    #16
  17. Where is the 10D on that list?

    I can take the same picture with the same settings and print them and the
    picture with the 750 will be better than the 300D. I'm NOT using the junk
    lens kit lens either. I got a Tamron that takes great pictures but there
    very soft and need sharpening and tweaking. I dont have the money to invest
    in a 2000.00 dollar lens right now that will compete with the point and
    shot. LOL..... Do you have an Oly 750? It produces the sharpest clearest
    images i've seen so far and i've had professionals in my area in awe over
    the pics. Whatever dude.


    >And you bragged so much that the C-750 came in number one on PC
    > World. Big fucking deal. If you look carefully you will see that it
    > was only rated as 4 stars where other cameras were rated higher...such
    > as the C-5050 or the Canon G5. Stupid bitch. You don't understand
    > shit.
    Grace Frehley, Oct 1, 2003
    #17
  18. "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <tbueb.2769$>,
    > says...
    > > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only

    get
    > > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    > > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone

    on
    > > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    > > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow

    you
    > > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    > > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with

    my
    > > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very

    few
    > > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    > > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me.

    I
    > > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the

    same
    > > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok

    but
    > > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a

    great
    > > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a

    good
    > > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    > > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.

    >
    > You are apparently under the mistaken impression that a camera takes
    > quality photos. In fact, the photographer does.
    >
    > --

    Agree'd Todd i have taken many photo's with the 750 that if you didnt know
    what it came from you couldnt tell the difference between it and a dslr.
    Infact most would say it was from a slr or dslr. I've been told by
    professionals i am very good. What i was saying basically was to get
    excellent pics with a dslr you better take alot of pictures or have the time
    to tweak them.
    Grace Frehley, Oct 1, 2003
    #18

  19. > Agree'd Todd i have taken many photo's with the 750 that if you didnt know
    > what it came from you couldnt tell the difference between it and a dslr.
    > Infact most would say it was from a slr or dslr. I've been told by
    > professionals i am very good. What i was saying basically was to get
    > excellent pics with a dslr you better take alot of pictures or have the

    time
    > to tweak them.


    OR have alot of cash for lenses. You want that for $600.00 get the C-750 but
    you wont look as professional that way LOL.
    Grace Frehley, Oct 1, 2003
    #19
  20. Grace Frehley

    jeff liss Guest

    "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message news:<tbueb.2769$>...
    > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only get
    > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
    > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
    > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
    > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow you
    > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
    > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
    > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very few
    > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
    > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
    > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
    > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
    > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok but
    > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
    > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a good
    > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
    > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.


    ===============================================================================
    I find that with digital I tend to shoot more pics than with film.
    When I shot only film, I think I may have been more careful, walking
    around more to shoot the subject "perfectly." The reason for me was
    cost. It isn't cheap to buy and process a roll of film to get only one
    "good" shot. I forced myself to be more selective than I am now. With
    digital, I shoot a subject from many different angles, many different
    settings, all to achieve the good shot. And without the high cost of
    processing, I take my one of twenty and print it. The other out takes
    are hurled into space, leaving me with no shoe boxes filled with
    inferior prints or slides.
    Jeff
    jeff liss, Oct 1, 2003
    #20
    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. Joh
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    8,841
  2. Julien

    Configure & understand radius

    Julien, Jun 7, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    536
    Julien
    Jun 7, 2004
  3. maxxot2004
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    748
    maxxot2004
    Sep 10, 2004
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    420
  5. Bluuuue Rajah

    Now I Understand

    Bluuuue Rajah, Dec 20, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    80
    Views:
    2,269
    stermen
    May 6, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page