Portraits with Non-DSLR digital camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wes, May 16, 2005.

  1. Wes

    Wes Guest

    Hi. I want to buy a Non-DSLR digital camera that is capable of shooting
    good portraits of people. Can you suggest some models for me to check
    into? Here is an example of the type of portraits I like:
    http://www.lowgenius.net/cuz_u_care.htm

    Thanks in advance for help. I'm new to digital cameras.

    Wes






    _________________________________________
    Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
    More than 120,000 groups
    Unlimited download
    http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
    Wes, May 16, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wes

    Sheldon Guest

    "Wes" <> wrote in message
    news:T$R$...
    > Hi. I want to buy a Non-DSLR digital camera that is capable of shooting
    > good portraits of people. Can you suggest some models for me to check
    > into? Here is an example of the type of portraits I like:
    > http://www.lowgenius.net/cuz_u_care.htm
    >
    > Thanks in advance for help. I'm new to digital cameras.
    >
    > Wes


    This may hurt, but that ain't the best portrait I've ever seen. I'd
    consider that a snapshot. Just about any digital camera would do.

    If you want portraits like these (just did a quick Google search) you're
    probably going to want to up the ante a bit.

    http://portfolio.kevinthom.com/portraits/lara_contemplation
    Sheldon, May 16, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Wes

    Frank ess Guest

    Sheldon wrote:
    > "Wes" <> wrote in message
    > news:T$R$...
    >> Hi. I want to buy a Non-DSLR digital camera that is capable of
    >> shooting good portraits of people. Can you suggest some models for
    >> me to check into? Here is an example of the type of portraits I
    >> like:
    >> http://www.lowgenius.net/cuz_u_care.htm
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance for help. I'm new to digital cameras.
    >>
    >> Wes

    >
    > This may hurt, but that ain't the best portrait I've ever seen. I'd
    > consider that a snapshot. Just about any digital camera would do.
    >
    > If you want portraits like these (just did a quick Google search)
    > you're probably going to want to up the ante a bit.
    >
    > http://portfolio.kevinthom.com/portraits/lara_contemplation


    I like that (Kevin Thom) Lara photo, but I don't think it is all that
    great, either; or maybe he lost her nose on purpose.

    I think the OP is looking for something that will make relatively
    close-up pictures with recognizable characteristics of the people
    whose representations he produces, not necessarily rising to the
    definition of "portrait" as is conventionally and conveniently used.
    Presumptuous, I know.

    Here are a few from three cameras. Presumptuous again, to call the
    album "Portrait", bu a good deal handier than "Pictures of peoples'
    faces that may show a little of who they are in fewer than a thousand
    words".
    http://www.fototime.com/inv/446F91A7688BF04


    --
    Frank ess
    Frank ess, May 16, 2005
    #3
  4. Wes

    Paul Furman Guest

    Frank ess wrote:

    > Sheldon wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> If you want portraits like these (just did a quick Google search)
    >> you're probably going to want to up the ante a bit.
    >>
    >> http://portfolio.kevinthom.com/portraits/lara_contemplation

    >
    >
    > I like that (Kevin Thom) Lara photo, but I don't think it is all that
    > great, either; or maybe he lost her nose on purpose.
    >
    > I think the OP is looking for something that will make relatively
    > close-up pictures with recognizable characteristics of the people whose
    > representations he produces, not necessarily rising to the definition of
    > "portrait" as is conventionally and conveniently used. Presumptuous, I
    > know.



    Is that a piercing *inside* her nose???! Maybe a reason to lose the tip
    of the nose <g>.


    >
    > Here are a few from three cameras. Presumptuous again, to call the album
    > "Portrait", bu a good deal handier than "Pictures of peoples' faces that
    > may show a little of who they are in fewer than a thousand words".
    > http://www.fototime.com/inv/446F91A7688BF04
    >
    >


    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
    Paul Furman, May 16, 2005
    #4
  5. Wes

    Craig Flory Guest

    Hi Wes; There is an old saying among professional photographers "it
    is not the camera , it's the photographer". I have seen some great photos
    done with a pin-hole camera or an instamatic. If you learn composition,
    lighting, and other dynamics ... as well as Photoshop, Photoshop Elements or
    another good program, the camera will be less imporatant. One thing to
    remember about the difference between point & shoot & SLR style ..... point
    & shoot cameras have paralax problems. That means that you view through a
    viewfinder & not through the lens. So what you see is not what get. Things
    are not where you saw them in the viewfinder. So if you do buy a point &
    shoot, make sure it has a lot of megapixels. You will need to back up and
    not get too close because of paralax. If you do you can then crop in
    tighter. Besides that, go for a camera with a fair amount of optical zoom.
    Get one that has a tripod socket on the bottom so you can put it on a
    tripod. I hope these things help. Craig Flory
    Craig Flory, May 16, 2005
    #5
  6. Wes

    Trev Guest

    "Wes" <> wrote in message
    news:T$R$...
    > Hi. I want to buy a Non-DSLR digital camera that is capable of shooting
    > good portraits of people. Can you suggest some models for me to check
    > into? Here is an example of the type of portraits I like:
    > http://www.lowgenius.net/cuz_u_care.htm
    >
    > Thanks in advance for help. I'm new to digital cameras.
    >
    > Wes
    >

    At least 3 MP and with a zoom that reaches 105 to 120 (35mm equivalent) will
    do, the rest is up to you. What feels best Ect. For serious control being
    able to select Aperture priority and maybe the use of off camera flash might
    be more important. Or even does it look expensive if you charging for your
    work.
    Trev, May 16, 2005
    #6
  7. Randall Ainsworth, May 16, 2005
    #7
  8. Wes

    Diane Wilson Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Frank ess wrote:
    >
    > > Sheldon wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> If you want portraits like these (just did a quick Google search)
    > >> you're probably going to want to up the ante a bit.
    > >>
    > >> http://portfolio.kevinthom.com/portraits/lara_contemplation

    > >
    > >
    > > I like that (Kevin Thom) Lara photo, but I don't think it is all that
    > > great, either; or maybe he lost her nose on purpose.
    > >
    > > I think the OP is looking for something that will make relatively
    > > close-up pictures with recognizable characteristics of the people whose
    > > representations he produces, not necessarily rising to the definition of
    > > "portrait" as is conventionally and conveniently used. Presumptuous, I
    > > know.

    >
    >
    > Is that a piercing *inside* her nose???! Maybe a reason to lose the tip
    > of the nose <g>.


    Yeah, she has two piercings in her nose, but it's still flawed
    lighting.

    Diane
    Diane Wilson, May 16, 2005
    #8
  9. Wes

    Diane Wilson Guest

    In article <>, "Trev"
    <trevbowdenATdsl.pipexDOTnet> says...
    >
    > "Wes" <> wrote in message
    > news:T$R$...
    > > Hi. I want to buy a Non-DSLR digital camera that is capable of shooting
    > > good portraits of people. Can you suggest some models for me to check
    > > into? Here is an example of the type of portraits I like:
    > > http://www.lowgenius.net/cuz_u_care.htm
    > >
    > > Thanks in advance for help. I'm new to digital cameras.
    > >
    > > Wes
    > >

    > At least 3 MP and with a zoom that reaches 105 to 120 (35mm equivalent) will
    > do, the rest is up to you. What feels best Ect. For serious control being
    > able to select Aperture priority and maybe the use of off camera flash might
    > be more important. Or even does it look expensive if you charging for your
    > work.
    >
    >
    >

    For indoor portraits, off-camera flash is just about essential.
    Sometimes you can get by with just a bounce, along with *something*
    to fill shadows (reflector, maybe one that's built in to the
    flash).

    Indoors or outdoors, for portraits, lighting is more important
    than the camera. Outdoors, you have to learn to read the light,
    and learn to shoot with the light you've got. Indoors, you
    have to create the lighting you want, which is harder, but will
    give you tremendous range and flexibility. The camera has to
    have the right flash sync connections to trigger your lighting
    gear, and it needs a good lens to record the quality that you
    want.

    I have to agree with Sheldon; that's a snapshot, not a portrait.
    Before picking a camera, try looking at a book on portrait
    lighting, decide how far you want to go with it and what your
    budget can support, then pick lighting and camera equipment
    as a group. I like this book, because it shows a wide
    variety of portraits by a number of photographers, and shows
    how the lighting was set up:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0823065227/

    Diane
    Diane Wilson, May 16, 2005
    #9
  10. Wes

    Mulperi Guest

    Mulperi, May 16, 2005
    #10
  11. Wes

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Craig Flory wrote:
    > Hi Wes; There is an old saying among professional photographers "it
    > is not the camera , it's the photographer". I have seen some great photos
    > done with a pin-hole camera or an instamatic. If you learn composition,
    > lighting, and other dynamics ... as well as Photoshop, Photoshop Elements or
    > another good program, the camera will be less imporatant. One thing to
    > remember about the difference between point & shoot & SLR style ..... point
    > & shoot cameras have paralax problems. That means that you view through a
    > viewfinder & not through the lens. So what you see is not what get. Things
    > are not where you saw them in the viewfinder. So if you do buy a point &
    > shoot, make sure it has a lot of megapixels. You will need to back up and
    > not get too close because of paralax. If you do you can then crop in
    > tighter. Besides that, go for a camera with a fair amount of optical zoom.
    > Get one that has a tripod socket on the bottom so you can put it on a
    > tripod. I hope these things help. Craig Flory
    >
    >

    I have NEVER seen a P&S camera that doesn't have an LCD that shows the
    sensor output. If you use a tripod (and for portraits, you should),
    then it is ok to use the LCD for framing the picture, in fact, it is the
    best way. For handheld shots, use the viewfinder, even with the paralax
    issue, because you NEED the inertia of that heavy thing on your neck!


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, May 16, 2005
    #11
  12. In article <ts0ie.1730$>, Craig
    Flory wrote:
    > One thing to
    > remember about the difference between point & shoot & SLR style ..... point
    > & shoot cameras have paralax problems.


    Only through their viewfinders, not with their LCD screens.

    --

    Roger
    Roger Whitehead, May 16, 2005
    #12
  13. In article <MPG.1cf26f0adb7bb08a989af8@news-server>, Diane Wilson wrote:
    > For indoor portraits, off-camera flash is just about essential.


    Or use available light. Jane Bown used to (see
    http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column27 ), handheld, too.

    --

    Roger
    Roger Whitehead, May 16, 2005
    #13
  14. Wes

    Microwave Guest

    On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:56:16 -0500
    Ron Hunter <> wrote:


    > >

    > I have NEVER seen a P&S camera that doesn't have an LCD that shows the
    > sensor output. I
    >

    My film ones don't. :)

    I had to shoot a digital P&S for a magazine insert (one of those annoying things that drops out
    by the bucketload when you pick up the magazine) a couple weeks back. It had no LCD whatsoever.
    But it was rather "made in China."
    Microwave, May 17, 2005
    #14
  15. In article <>, Microwave wrote:
    > I had to shoot a digital P&S for a magazine insert (one of those annoying things that drops out
    > by the bucketload when you pick up the magazine) a couple weeks back. It had no LCD whatsoever.


    No, that's a PoS.

    --

    Roger
    Roger Whitehead, May 17, 2005
    #15
  16. Wes

    Doug Warner Guest

    Microwave <> wrote:

    >
    >I had to shoot a digital P&S for a magazine insert (one of those annoying things that drops out
    >by the bucketload when you pick up the magazine) a couple weeks back. It had no LCD whatsoever.
    >But it was rather "made in China."


    Why not, inserts aren't fine art, Their only purpose is to make me
    tear them all out and toss them into the trash before I begin to read
    the magazine. If they have photos on them, I never see them.


    To reply, please remove one letter from each side of "@"
    Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.
    Doug Warner, May 19, 2005
    #16
    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. Al Browne

    Camera choice for home portraits

    Al Browne, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    544
    Don Coon
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. arfam4
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    486
    Paul Riemerman
    Jan 11, 2004
  3. zxcvar

    Non DSLR digital camera for low light photography

    zxcvar, Feb 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    607
    zxcvar
    Feb 16, 2004
  4. Mike
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    3,332
    Skip M
    Jun 21, 2004
  5. Guest
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    1,383
    Patrick Boch
    Mar 18, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page