PDA

View Full Version : Introduction to Advanced Photography


stevesarich
04-19-2005, 04:44 PM
Welcome to the Advanced Photography forum. My name is Steve and have been a professional photographer for 35 years. My work has been published in Penthouse and numerous other publications. I'm also a legal med patient in Washington State. Enough about me.

I'm here to help you take better pictures of your grow. I'll cover everything you need to know before you invest in a digital camera, or how to use the one you have. What works just fine for taking snapshots of the kids, may not be well suited for taking close-ups of your buds.

I'll discuss lighting, both indoors and outdoors. We'll talk about filters, tripods, lenses and just about everything you'll need to improve your photo skills.

We'll even touch on some of the tools in Adobe Photoshop for enhancing your pictures, sharpening and resizing them for the net.

You'll learn a lot of new terms. You won't need to memorize them all, they'll all be here in case you forget them.

All questions are welcomed, whether you've a total newbie or an advanced photographer. I'll try to explain everything as simply as possible. Always feel free to PM me if you prefer.

Believe it or not, you can take better photos than what you see in rags like High Times. I don't have a grow of my own at the moment, but I will shortly and I'll be posting the pics here.

Fire away with any questions you have while I work on the first lesson.

http://www.420-genetics.com/gallery/files/2/Christo6Print.jpg

Sparky
04-19-2005, 05:12 PM
Sweet :ebert:

Got my digi and tripod ready SIR! :animbong:

Oh wait....twas the lil guy standing at attention.....my bad. :D

stevesarich
04-19-2005, 05:19 PM
First advice here! Get a larger tripod :eek: :D :p

Sparky
04-19-2005, 05:30 PM
Stupid me had the extentions retracted.... :o

stevesarich
04-19-2005, 06:09 PM
That's a very important item ...It will give you a much firmer hold :p

Stupid me had the extentions retracted.... :o

Tiberon
04-19-2005, 06:28 PM
A penthouse photographer?
I wanna shake your hand.
My first skin mag I saw was penthouse....think it was 85 or 87....madonna was the covergirl. Yes yes...those were the days :D

Sparky
04-19-2005, 07:25 PM
Not sure about the 'firmer hold', but it sure keeps things level and steady. :p

mistical
04-19-2005, 11:31 PM
LMAO@ at you guys

ok steve heres a quick question for ya dude,i currently own a kodak dx3700 3.1 megapix with macro feature,theres no zoom feature at all, i cant seem to get much closer than 10-12" with the macro switched on,then the shots are a bit blurry,
now a friend of mine has suggested getting a cam with a zoom facility, he says to avoin the digital zoom types and to go for the optical zoom, most cameras that ive seen around my budget {200 UK} have digital and optical zoom, can you explain what this zoom thing is all about?

i just want to be able to get nice close up shots of my buds

Kiwi
04-19-2005, 11:48 PM
thats funny shit, i got a Kodak Dx3900 3.2mb with zoom, close to yours mysti. I have to turn off the flash though to get close ups not to be blurry.

stevesarich
04-20-2005, 06:13 PM
Ahhhh....some great questions. First, you've caught me a little short....I'm still working on the digital camera shopping checklist, but we'll get your questions answers and I'll post the complete shopping list shortly.

For the sake of simplicity I'm going to divide digital cameras into three categories:

1. Point and shoot. These are relatively inexpensive consumer "snap-shot" cameras. They have very little in the way of user control options. The disadvantages to these cameras would take up a whole thread. Unfortunately, both of these Kodak cameras fall into this category. If you want to buy a camera to shoot quality pictures of your girls, stay away from the point and shoots. Warning: you can't judge a "point and shoot" by price...some of them are quite expensive.

*Note: STAY AWAY from digital zooms! Even if your camera has one...don't use it. You only want to buy a camera with optical zoom capabilites.

2. Mid-price cameras. This category is the one that most of you will end up buying. They're usually described as cameras for "serious amateurs". In this category we're talking about cameras in the $450-$850 range. They'll have more megaspixels, optical zoom and preferably have capability to shoot in RAW format, have custom white balance capability and be capable of firing an external flash. More on these things once I post the checklist. I'm currently doing research into which of these mid-range cameras I feel are best buys and match my checklist for feature. Please be a little patient on this one. There a TONS of these cameras and my expertise is mostly in professional digitals so I'm have to read a lot of reviews...many of which you can't trust and you have to know how to sort out the bullshit. Many of these "reviews" are taken directly from the camera company's website :eek:

3. Digital SLR's. The first choice would be a digital SLR if you have the cash. The low end of these are called "pro-sumer" cameras. This will be the easiest list for me to put together since I've owned or used just about all of them. Don't be fooled by the title "pro-sumer". I know plenty of pro's using these cameras on a daily basis. The easiest way to distinguish a digital SLR from the mid-price camera is that it will accept interchangeable lenses. This is a BIG plus. You don't need a macro function...you just buy a macro lense. Of the cameras in this category I can recommend either the Nikon D70 or the Canon Digital Rebel. Both are around the same price. Of the two, I think the Nikon has more usable features....but both do a wonderful job and turn out professional quality photos.

Mistical....to answer your question about what to buy I'd like a little more time, but there's one camera that I've found that meets all of my criteria in the mid-range category. It's a little more than your budget if you buy it retail, but I've looked on E-bay and I've seen some that are easily within your budget and they were new. Dealer pricing is in the $450-$500+ range.

The camera is the Fuji Finepix 7000. It's got a 6.3 megapixel sensor...same as the pro-sumer cameras. Optical zoom that ranges from 35-210. It will shoot in RAW mode. It has external flash capability. It will macro focus down to 1 cm! It even has a custom white balance setting (we'll get into that later). The only negative things I've found in any reviews on the camera were very petty and insignificant. That said, all of my recommendations on mid-range cameras come with a disclaimer. I won't have an opportunity to shoot them myself. All I can do is analyze all of the available information on them and sort out the wheat from the chaff.

As far as the point and shoots...I won't be able to help you. There just aren't enough controls on them and the lenses really do suck. Sorry.

Tiberon
04-20-2005, 07:05 PM
Excellent info steve. Im glad I dont have a point and shoot. I have many options on mine....but i bought it like 3-4 yrs ago. Its a Fuji finepix 2600z, optical zoom 3x, and many of the bells and whistles you state.
I know you will prolly cover this....but I was wondering if you might be able to cover the EV settings and White balance and how exactly they work.

stevesarich
04-20-2005, 08:03 PM
Excellent info steve. Im glad I dont have a point and shoot. I have many options on mine....but i bought it like 3-4 yrs ago. Its a Fuji finepix 2600z, optical zoom 3x, and many of the bells and whistles you state.
I know you will prolly cover this....but I was wondering if you might be able to cover the EV settings and White balance and how exactly they work.

Let me first deal with EV (exposure value). I'm working on a good explanation of white balance that everyone can understand and I'll post it shortly. I'm going to talk to our webmaster and hopefully set up an FAQ in the not too distant future.

Exposure value compensation allows you to manually control the light values in your exposures. For example, if you were shooting in program/auto mode, your camera will automatically average the brightest part of your image with the darkest part of your image and try to give you what it thinks is the best setting for the picture. Sometimes this works and sometimes it will give you terrible results. Sometimes you want a picture darker or lighter than what the camera thinks is ideal. The attached photo is a good example of a photo that would have fooled the auto function. The camera would have automatically set off the flash to fill in the dark fisherman or it would have blown out the sky in order to make the fisherman's face visible. Neither would have given you the desired result.

I'll give you another example of when it's appropriate to alter the exposure value. I have a camera that always shot 1/2 stop too dark for my tastes. All I did was set my EV for +1/2 and the camera automatically lightened all the exposures by 1/2 stop. Many cameras have a bracketing feature. If I've got a tricky lighting situation I can set my camera to take three quick shots in a row. One at -1/2 stop, one at what the camera thinks is right and one at +1/2 stop. One of them should be spot on. It truth, I'm very careful with my lighting and rarely have to resort to this, but in the bad old days of film, I did this regularly on magazine layouts where a reshoot wasn't an option...it had to be right the first time.

Without going into a thorough explanation of white balance, I will tell you where you are most likely to use it. You know all those really yellow/red photos that you see of buds taken under high pressure sodium lights? Custom white balance settings will correct that BEFORE you take the picture. That's why this is an important feature to have if you're shooting buds under your lights. More on this later.

Keep the questions coming!

http://www.420-genetics.com/gallery/files/2/Fisherman.jpg

Tiberon
04-20-2005, 08:25 PM
Nice man...thx.
That about summed most of it up.
Another Q though....I have a Quality setting too that Im not really understanding.
2m
1m
VGA
they all have there own seperate settings. The 2m is Basic-Neutral-Fine

1m fine-normal

VGA- Normal

Is there a lamens explanation on these?

stevesarich
04-20-2005, 08:42 PM
Nice man...thx.
That about summed most of it up.
Another Q though....I have a Quality setting too that Im not really understanding.
2m
1m
VGA
they all have there own seperate settings. The 2m is Basic-Neutral-Fine

1m fine-normal

VGA- Normal

Is there a lamens explanation on these?

Worry not...this isn't some standard designation that you should know....this is strictly camera specific for the 2600. What you will ALWAYS want to set the camera on is "2M" (the highest resolution for that camera 1600x1200) AND "Fine".

The "1M", "2M" and "VGA" all deal with the resolution. The "Fine", "Normal" and "Basic" deal with the amount of jpeg compression the camera is using to store the files.

Hope this helps!

Sparky
04-20-2005, 08:47 PM
I have the Fugi 2800 Tibs and love the camera. The quality settings are simply how many pixels you wish the picture to have vs. how many shots you get on one card. 2M being 2 meg. and so on. As you change the values you will notice you can either take more or fewer shots given the value setting.I run mine on 2M fine for most indoor shots I take, but if I am going somewhere and taking lots of pics I go to the lowest setting and can take a shitload of pics, but at a reduced quality. That help any?

Tiberon
04-20-2005, 08:58 PM
I understood that perfectly. Thanx man...im done pickin your brain now.

mistical
04-20-2005, 09:43 PM
just been checking out the fuji 7000, this cam looks and sounds the buisness :smoke2: its a little over my price range but theres a few nice examples on e-bay at a fraction of retail cost, let you know as soon as ive got one steve

stevesarich
04-20-2005, 10:07 PM
For the money I think the 7000 is the shit! I found a new one on E-bay for $300. You'll pay more than that for a Nikon lense alone. They even have them retail for $444.

Be sure and let me know if you buy one! Do you have Photoshop?

just been checking out the fuji 7000, this cam looks and sounds the buisness :smoke2: its a little over my price range but theres a few nice examples on e-bay at a fraction of retail cost, let you know as soon as ive got one steve

Tiberon
04-20-2005, 10:10 PM
I have the Fugi 2800 Tibs and love the camera. The quality settings are simply how many pixels you wish the picture to have vs. how many shots you get on one card. 2M being 2 meg. and so on. As you change the values you will notice you can either take more or fewer shots given the value setting.I run mine on 2M fine for most indoor shots I take, but if I am going somewhere and taking lots of pics I go to the lowest setting and can take a shitload of pics, but at a reduced quality. That help any?

Missed that herb.....good info though. That coupled with what steve wrote....that makes perect sense. 4 yrs later and Im still learnin the ropes of my cam. Handy lil SOB itll be now....cant wait till my light is on :D

Sparky
04-21-2005, 01:10 AM
No worries Tibs....I hadn't seen Steve's reply so I thought you were talkin to me. :D

smotpoker
04-22-2005, 09:29 AM
steve,

I dont know anything about quality camera's. Basically i need a camera that will fit easily into a backpack on long trips and mountain bike trails. The pictures need to be quality. macro budshots are in mind for someday. and last, i'll spend max 400 on it.

sorry to spring this on ya man, but you seem to be knowing whats going on.

smot

stevesarich
04-22-2005, 05:56 PM
steve,

I dont know anything about quality camera's. Basically i need a camera that will fit easily into a backpack on long trips and mountain bike trails. The pictures need to be quality. macro budshots are in mind for someday. and last, i'll spend max 400 on it.

sorry to spring this on ya man, but you seem to be knowing whats going on.

smot

I'd have to gave you the same recommendation that I gave Mistal earlier in this thread. The Fuji Finepix 7000 should fit you needs perfectly. It weighs just over a pound.

There are MUCH smaller cameras out there, but they fall into the "point-and-shoot" category and they will NOT give you quality results.

The street price on the camera is around $440. You can find them cheaper on Ebay...I've seen them around $300. You can get a demo camera from Abes of Maine for $364.

Here's a complete description of the camera. It's multi-page. Just keep clicking the "next" button at the bottom of the page.


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms7000/page2.asp

Just let me know if you have any other questions!

Tiberon
04-28-2005, 06:24 PM
Without going into a thorough explanation of white balance, I will tell you where you are most likely to use it. You know all those really yellow/red photos that you see of buds taken under high pressure sodium lights? Custom white balance settings will correct that BEFORE you take the picture. That's why this is an important feature to have if you're shooting buds under your lights. More on this later.

Keep the questions coming!

I was hopin I could get you to cover on this a bit more. I have a few settings when it comes to WB. Im curious as to which one and when to use them.

What do ya say Steve? :D

stevesarich
04-28-2005, 06:32 PM
Let's try to make this as painless as possible for you. First let me know what make and model of camera you have and I'll do a little research for you on my end and give you an answer. Also...does your camera have a threaded hole in the bottom to attach the camera to a tripod?

http://www.420-genetics.com/gallery/files/2/Beauty03copy.jpg

Tiberon
04-28-2005, 06:41 PM
Excellent info steve. Im glad I dont have a point and shoot. I have many options on mine....but i bought it like 3-4 yrs ago. Its a Fuji finepix 2600z, optical zoom 3x, and many of the bells and whistles you state.
I know you will prolly cover this....but I was wondering if you might be able to cover the EV settings and White balance and how exactly they work.

^^^^Thank you steve....and yes...it is tripod mount cam

stevesarich
04-28-2005, 07:36 PM
I've gotta head out for a some errands, but I promise I'll get you an answer as soon as I get back. :bongdude:

stevesarich
04-29-2005, 02:26 AM
White Balance Simplified (hopefully)

When taking pictures, whether you use film or digital, you run into a wide variety of different types of lighting. The most common types of lighting are daylight, cloudy, flourescent, and tungsten. Each of these light sources have a different color spectrum that we need to adjust for.

In the "bad old days" of film we compensated for the various color differences by using compensating filters on the front of our lenses. While cool white flourescents look white to your eyes, they give off an unpleasant green cast unless you compensate for it.

With digital there's no need for these compensating filters. In a digital camera there are individual settings for the most common lighting situations, daylight, flourescent, etc. These setting are preprogrammed to take the raw data from the sensor and automatically adjust the color for you. That's good news as long as you're only shooting under the lighting conditions that are preprogrammed into your camera at the factory.

For those of us who have to shoot under high pressure sodium lighting, these preset color compensators don't work. The HPS lights are extremely high in the red spectrum, which is why many of the pictures you see posted have that ultra-warm cast to them and your plants don't look green.

There are a couple of ways to overcome this and get color-correct images. Many, but not all, digital cameras have a couple of handy features.

The first feature is called "custom" white balance. Instead of using one of the preset color adjustments, the camera allows you to create a new white balance setting for high pressure sodium, metal halide or any other lighting situation. Since all cameras have different directions that are camera specific, I can't give you one set of directions that will work for all cameras, so you'll still have to RTFM (read the fucking manual). What you will do, while you are in your camera's custom white balance mode, is to shoot a picture of a white card (white paper will work fine) under your HPS lights...then you'll save this custom setting following the directions in your manual. Since your camera is very smart, it "knows" what white is supposed to look like and adjusts your color according. Voila...perfect green under your HPS lights.

The other slick feature offered by many digital cameras is the option to save in a file format called RAW. Unlike most file formats, RAW is not an abbreviation. A RAW file literally means "raw", as in uncompressed as opposed to a compressed file format like a jpeg. A RAW file contains the original pixel information as it comes off the sensor, prior to the camera doing any processing on it. You do all of the processing of the RAW image in your PC with special software that either comes with your camera or with an image processing program like Photoshop. Photoshop is excellent for this.

When you set a custom white balance, all you are doing is telling your camera how to process the raw data to give you the correct color balance. With a file shot in RAW format you can perform this function outside of the camera. RAW allows you to do a LOT more than just adjust the color, but I'll get to that in another post.

Some cameras have both of these features, especially the higher end cameras. Some cameras may only have one of them. You're set to go with either feature. Unfortunately, a lot of the low price digital cameras, or older digital cameras, may not have either of these features. In this case, the only thing you can do is take your images into an image processing program and color correct it as best you can. You can make it look 100% better, but it will still have a color cast to it. I've attached a side by side image showing color correction using Photoshop. Like I said...better, but not that great either.

Hopefully I've explained this well. If you have questions please post them. I'm working on my digital camera guide for growers. It'll give you a checklist of all the "must have" features you should be looking for when you're shopping for a new camera.

http://www.420-genetics.com/gallery/files/2/Mad3.jpg

Tiberon
04-29-2005, 06:06 PM
Excellent steve.
That was very easy to understand. I appreciate the time you spent on that. After reading that I feel I have a good comprehension of how the WB works. I will test out some shots later when my lights come on. I hope my cams WB settings can compensate for the 1K.
Thanks again ;)

stevesarich
04-29-2005, 06:16 PM
Excellent steve.
That was very easy to understand. I appreciate the time you spent on that. After reading that I feel I have a good comprehension of how the WB works. I will test out some shots later when my lights come on. I hope my cams WB settings can compensate for the 1K.
Thanks again ;)

Don't you hate it when someone posts a "simple explanation".....and then rambles on forever? :D :D :D

Tiberon
04-29-2005, 06:22 PM
The more you ramble...the more I learn.....dont stop.

marymaryquitecntrary
04-29-2005, 10:54 PM
yep, your classes are very interesting. :smoke2: and we can smoke in class, too!

Heath_Bogenreif
04-30-2005, 01:34 AM
I saw one of the pics with a star filter on it and thought I would post one of the few ones of mine.

http://www.420-genetics.com/gallery/files/2/StarFlame.JPG

stevesarich
04-30-2005, 03:30 AM
Thanks MaryMary and, yes you can definitely smoke in my class. :bongdude:

Welcome to the next installment. I'm going to try to cure another common problem for you.

A good percentage of the cannabis photos I see on the various forums are blurry or out of focus. Some are really bad, some just slightly off. There are a few, very different, things that cause blurring issues. If you look at an image and part of it is in clear focus and part of it is blurry, what you are seeing is a limited depth-of-field issue. Understanding depth-of-field is really important, but it's also not very easy to explain the words alone. To explain it to you I'm going to have to shoot a special series of images for you to look at while you read the explanation. So ya gotta wait on that one...sorry.

Another cause of out-of-focus pictures is simply a focusing problem. I'm assuming that everyone is using an auto-focus camera. If you're not, just let me know (I use both). There are numerous reasons why your camera won't focus properly. While it could be a hardware issue with your camera, it's more likely either human error or your camera's auto-focus just isn't very accurate. Even more common is that the camera can't see well enough to focus. Most auto-focus cameras, even pro level cameras, have problems with low light situation.

If you think you have a focusing problem, please let me know and we'll work on the problem. Fortunately, focusing is not the most common cause of blurry, out-of-focus, pictures.

A more common cause of blurry images is referred to as motion blur that is caused by camera shake. When you see an image where nothing is in focus, chances are this was caused by motion blur. This is nothing more that you moving the camera a little. This problem is most likely to happen when you aren't using a flash setting. If the light is lower than daylight, what your camera does is to slow down the shutter speed. The longer it keeps the shutter open, the more light it lets into the camera's sensor. So...the less light there is, the slower the shutter speed. Usually your camera will automatically want to use the flash, but not always. This is especially true if you have your camera on manual mode without the flash selected.

Here's where the problem comes in. The slower the shutter speed the easier it is to suffer from motion blur. Sometimes there's just no way to hand hold the camera and avoid blur. I've had to shoot in such low light situations that I've had to use an infrared remote for my camera because simply pressing the shutter button on the camera will cause blur. You won't be shooting that slow, but simply pressing the shutter button can move your camera when you are hand holding it. It may not cause a motion blur, but frequently it moves the camera enough to mess up the auto-focus. We'll talk more about auto-focus in a different lesson.

There's good news and bad news. The good news is that you can prevent motion blur very easily. The bad news is that you're going to have to spend a few bucks. You really should purchase a tripod...especially if you're shooting indoors under your lights. A tripod will not only eliminate the motion blur caused by the camera shake, but you'll find that it's easier to compose your pictures. It will also improve your camera's ability to auto-focus. Like shopping for anything else that you don't normally buy, it can be a little daunting. If there's any interest, I'll do some research on some inexpensive tripods.

Raise your hand if you have questions :D

stevesarich
04-30-2005, 03:32 AM
I saw one of the pics with a star filter on it and thought I would post one of the few ones of mine.

One of mine.
http://www.420-genetics.com/gallery/files/2/DeannaHager21.jpg

Heath_Bogenreif
05-01-2005, 03:16 AM
Nice pic. I like the cropping of the mirrored star reflections. Gives that geometrical positioning feeling to it. The subjects pretty sweet too. ;)

Just wondering if youve had a chance to sample Nikons new image stablilization feature on their new coolpix 8800? The claim is it lets you shoot three stops slower without the motion fuzz.

stevesarich
05-01-2005, 05:56 PM
Nice pic. I like the cropping of the mirrored star reflections. Gives that geometrical positioning feeling to it. The subjects pretty sweet too. ;)

Just wondering if youve had a chance to sample Nikons new image stablilization feature on their new coolpix 8800? The claim is it lets you shoot three stops slower without the motion fuzz.

First, I haven't shot the camera so I can't comment on how well this particular image stabilization feature works. That said, I don't own a single lens with image stabilization and I've see very little use for it when I have tried it...on both Canon and Nikon pro level cameras.

I should also point out that I shoot off a tripod at least half the time I'm shooting. This eliminates the camera shake problem....without stabilization. In my opinion, this is a much better solution.

This camera has one "feature" that I really couldn't live with. When set on telephoto, the camera has an unacceptable f-stop range of f-5.2 to f-7.4. That's no range at all! Most of my lenses go from f-2.8 to f-22.

Considering the price of this camera, I'd highly recommend spending just a few more bucks and buying the D70. It's an outstanding camera that gives you all the pro level features and the ability to use a wide variety of lenses.

Heath_Bogenreif
05-02-2005, 05:19 PM
I guess it makes all the difference if you are trying to make a purchase or make an investment. The 8800 would be a nice purchase but if I were going to make an investment I would probably go the extra mile and get a D2X.

stevesarich
05-02-2005, 06:48 PM
I guess it makes all the difference if you are trying to make a purchase or make an investment. The 8800 would be a nice purchase but if I were going to make an investment I would probably go the extra mile and get a D2X.

No offense Heath, but that's silly. I'm not sure why you would make that differentiation. There not much of a price difference between the Nikon 8800 and the Nikon D70. The "street price" on both camera is the same ($899). With the D70 you do need to purchase a lense. The D70 "package" with a really nice zoom lense is only $300 more. So the difference between the two cameras is only $300. But the difference in capabilities between the two cameras is huge.

$300 is hardly the difference between a "purchase" and an "investment". The D2X, on the other hand, is $5000...with no lense. That's five times the price of the other two cameras. We're not even in the same ballpark here. I'm not sure what your point is, Heath.

Heath_Bogenreif
05-03-2005, 07:05 PM
My point of view was just on the need for additional purchase of lenses [ does anyone just get one lense for their SLR? ] with the D70. Not a big deal if you already have the lenses but after shopping for some accessories Ive come to learn Nikon parts dont come cheap. Im also probably not going to drop any more funds into a digicam where the CCD cant be easily replaced as dealing with hot/dead pixels suck and Nikon isnt the best when it comes to owning up to them.

stevesarich
05-03-2005, 08:23 PM
Actually, a Nikon 105mm macro will give you everything you need to shoot your crop, including closeups. Now you seem to be knocking Nikon in general. I don't think you have enough experience to make that kind of general claim. Nikon shares the pro market along with Canon. I've shot with Nikons for 35 years and I've found that they're as responsive as any of the other manufacturers. You say that you don't intend to buy another digital camera? They why ask the questions? I'm a little puzzled. You won't buy another digital camera until they sell one where you can replace the CCD in your garage? Don't hold your breath.

You asked for an opinion and I offered one. If you don't like the opinion....just ignore it. It won't hurt my feelings....I promise! :rolleyes:

Heath_Bogenreif
05-03-2005, 10:41 PM
Actually, a Nikon 105mm macro will give you everything you need to shoot your crop, including closeups. Now you seem to be knocking Nikon in general. I don't think you have enough experience to make that kind of general claim. Nikon shares the pro market along with Canon. I've shot with Nikons for 35 years and I've found that they're as responsive as any of the other manufacturers. You say that you don't intend to buy another digital camera? They why ask the questions? I'm a little puzzled. You won't buy another digital camera until they sell one where you can replace the CCD in your garage? Don't hold your breath.

You asked for an opinion and I offered one. If you don't like the opinion....just ignore it. It won't hurt my feelings....I promise! :rolleyes:

Sorry Steve, didnt mean to ruffle any feathers. I just had a simple question about the coolpix 8800 image stabilization feature and should have left it at you didnt have any experience with it. Im pretty sure alot of photographers would agree that a digital SLR is an investment rather than a purchase and even if they didnt agree they probably could respond without taking potshots at someones experience level or calling others opinions silly. I look forward to placing an honest vote towards your bud of the month pics. Peace man. HB.

stevesarich
05-04-2005, 12:13 AM
Sorry Steve, didnt mean to ruffle any feathers. I just had a simple question about the coolpix 8800 image stabilization feature and should have left it at you didnt have any experience with it. Im pretty sure alot of photographers would agree that a digital SLR is an investment rather than a purchase and even if they didnt agree they probably could respond without taking potshots at someones experience level or calling others opinions silly. I look forward to placing an honest vote towards your bud of the month pics. Peace man. HB.

Worry not, Heath. I old enough that my feathers don't get ruffled all that easily. :bongdude: I suppose that the differention between "purchase" and "investment" is highly subjective. There have been lean months when paying the rent seemed like an investment to me :D

I'll definitely be posting some bud pics in the future, but I probably won't be entering the contests. You're welcome, however, to critique anything I post.

herbgrower
06-09-2005, 03:10 PM
Unfortunatelyi have one of the lesser point and shot Kodak EasyShare CX 7300 3.2 mega pixel's,explain's some of the crappy shot's that i have sent ! :o
I do have a coupla q's in regard's to the crappy shot's and as to what you would recommend as to what Nikon(?) brand to purchase. :D
What i have found in some of the pic's is like UFO's in the distant,a friend did tell me it was more than likely moisture trapped in the len's,um,is there any safe way of removing this? :thumbsup:
Hope to hear from ya! ;)
:animbong:

herbgrower
06-09-2005, 03:12 PM
I did read the entire thread and will look into the Fuji Finepix 7000 & the Nikon 105mm macro.
Just thinking of finance's!
:animbong: