[Closed] Taking photography to the 'next level'.....

Just like cycling, you can only be any good with the BEST equipment.

🙄

Seriously, what are you trying to improve? Most if it has **** all to do with equipment (as with cycling).

But you need to know some of the science in order to use manual control and certain techniques. But it's not difficult.

Night class all the way. Buying a new camera won't help you take better pictures, but sharing ideas and techniques with others will help you expand your own ideas further and learn new ways of seeing.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson ]Henri Cartier Bresson[/url] used a simple 35mm camera with just one lens for most of his career. No fancy zoom lenses or expensive flashguns, tripods, etc. And he was perhaps the Greatest photographer ever.

[url= http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OAh4Xl94vrU/S8HP7LnawkI/AAAAAAAASWA/YdYIPInUKqQ/s1600/Henri+Cartier+Bresson+france+1932.jp g" target="_blank">http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OAh4Xl94vrU/S8HP7LnawkI/AAAAAAAASWA/YdYIPInUKqQ/s1600/Henri+Cartier+Bresson+france+1932.jp g"/> [/img]
[/url]

Click piccy for more.

HCB took pictures that are "art" which is purely subjective. He certainly couldn't take pictures of F1 cars zooming round a circuit and who says they aren't good?
Photography is about getting things right subjectively and technically and so remember that and enjoy the hobby.

HCB took pictures that are "art" which is purely subjective.

Of course.

He certainly couldn't take pictures of F1 cars zooming round a circuit and who says they aren't good?

No-one. He chose to photograph subjects that appealed to him. My point was that he created countless amazing pictures, with very simple kit, proving it's all about having the eye, not the gear.

Equipment can be bought; skill is something that requires mental effort.

Buying a new camera won't help you take better pictures

Hmm - why do people bother buying expensive cameras then?

I appreciate the equipment is not the be all and end all but it can certainly help. I know my pics got a lot better when I bought a decent camera.

It's about getting the right tools for the job, Grum. For some jobs, expensive tools are needed. Like sports photography for example, where fast motordrives/sequence shooting capability and huge telephotos are needed. Reportage, where tough durable equipment is a must. Or scientific photography, requiring stupidly expensive macro lenses/special equipment etc.

But the range of photography that can be done with fairly simple kit is vast. Of course, good quality kit helps to produce sharper images with more accurate colours/less aberration etc, but to the vast majority of 'photographers', this is not important. It's the pictures that are. Getting obsessed with kit detracts from just getting on taking pictures.

Photography doesn't have to cost a fortune to be enjoyable.

People buy expensive cameras as the top DSLR's are like tanks and will take virtually any abuse thrown at them or by them! My D1s Mk3 weighs a ton but is sealed against the elements and will take being dropped, soaked with rain, works in freezing conditions etc and it allows you to control it on so many ways.
I totally agree with you Elfin as my daughter has a very good "eye" as they say and when she uses my compact the results are very very good as she definitely has an artistic eye so it proves she certainly doesn't need money thrown at her get a very good picture.

*sighs*

I am not against spending money on expensive things - its what i go to work for.

Personally, I like to buy the best thing i can afford - but I really don't mind if other people prefer so buy cheaper stuff - different strokes and all that...

I take quite good photos - friends thing I have 'an eye' for it and I'd like to push myself a bit further without going down the line of an SLR (not SLF - sorry Punk days coming thru there!)

SO I wondered whether something like a G11 would help me produce better results than my FZ-28....

but I really don't mind if other people prefer so buy cheaper stuff

Magnanimous to the last!

I use a Panasonic FZ-28 which is a bridge camera with an 18x zoom. I've been very happy with the camera but [b]would like to start taking better photos[/b].

What exactly is wrong with the pictures you take?

Personally, I would be upgrading to a DSLR, even though you say you don't want one. I can't really see a G11 offering you any significant advantage. Maybe something like a Panasonic GF1 which takes additional lenses, if you want something less bulky. The advantage DSLRs have is that you can of course use other lenses which tend to be better quality than found on most 'compacts', albeit bulkier.

Any camera you buy might give you shaper results, better colours etc, but it won't improve your photography. Training your mind to take better pictures will improve your photography. A night class will be far more valuable in this respect than a new shiny fancy camera. For the reasons I gave above.

One thing you can't buy Justa is an eye for a good picture - you will learn that in a class and for some it is something they naturally have. The G11 is a very very good camera and will certainly take excellent pictures and is easy to take with you when you go riding. If you get bitten by the bug then progress to the next level and get a DSLR.

One thing you can't buy Justa is an eye for a good picture - you will learn that in a class...

Don't bank on it.

I've been very happy with the camera but would like to start taking better photos.

How do you think the camera you have is limiting you, which of your pictures are you looking at and thinking that another camera would have yielded a better result? If you are hitting a particular barrier because of a limitation in the equipment you use then that helps define how upgrading would move you forward. If you're not sure where the limitation is then buying something else might not address that other than sometimes allowing you to make better pictures by accident.

Basically you need to define for yourself what 'better' is before you can move towards it.

Evening classes. Speak to others, get constructive critisism, see what equipment other people are using, play with it (if they let you), see what others are doing and what equipment they are using to do it.

[url= http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&message=9962403&changemode=1 ]What is it they say?
30% skill
30% equipment
30% luck[/url]

😉

I don't really want an SLF (they are just to big, heavy and complicated) as i am not really interested in the science behind it all !

The thing about a DSLR is that they're just so wonderful to use. Other cameras I've tried seem quite reluctant to actually take a photo - sometimes I've thought I've taken one but in fact nothing has happened beyond incontinent beeping. My Nikon D300 is just gagging to shoot and shoot and shoot at 6 frames a second (it can be quite hard to get a single shot if you don't concentrate on blipping the button). You don't have to hold it at arm's length to see the screen, and the viewfinder shows the actual light coming through the lens, not some battery draining pixellated version - I never turn my camera off, and usually have to change the battery about once a week. Yes it's a heavy lump, but these days I miss the weight if I don't have it with me (rare)

I bought a G11 a few months back for similar reasons. Agree with lots of the points above, that photography is more about having a good 'eye' for shots then having the most expensive kit, but the extra control something like a G11 gives you, combined with a willingness to experiment and take a lot of shots, can result in some pretty cool photos. The G11 isn't perfect, but it's smaller than a DSLR which means I have it with me far more than many of my friends who opted for bigger cameras.

I have the previous version - the G10 and really like it, chose it over a SLR as I didn't want to drag all that kit around with me (and probably break it). Sometimes wish it had a bit more zoom, otherwise fanatistic bit of kit.

If you are near swinley / south coast could meet up for a ride sometime and you could have a proper play with my G10 outdoors (rather than in the camera shop where it just isn't the same!)

The canon G11 is a good camera, I have a S90 which is similar but more pocketable.

It 100% takes better pics than my Ricoh GX100 and it's silly clip on viewfinder, this is down to a couple of reasons firstly the user interface is easier on the canon so find one you like or get on with. It also feels more solid meaning I'm happy to chuck it in a bag.

This all ads up to me taking more pics, which will hopefully make me a better snapper.

Yeah I'd say you are right to steer away from a DSLR if you think it will be a hassle to lug around - because they definitely are!

The G11 gets good reviews and is certainly more flexible than most compacts. It's probably the compact I'd buy (if I needed one and I shot Canon).

Be aware though that some things - like nice out-of-focus backgrounds, good low light shooting, fast shutter speed are physically linked to the size of an SLR, so a smaller camera must always compromise a bit on these areas.

Be aware though that some things - like nice out-of-focus backgrounds, good low light shooting, fast shutter speed are physically linked to the size of an SLR...

Do you mean that a DSLR has to be physically larger to perform well in those areas?

Do you mean that a DSLR has to be physically larger to perform well in those areas?

yes on the depth of field, perhaps on the low light, no on the shutter speed

yes on the depth of field, perhaps on the low light, no on the shutter speed

I'd say no to all three. Depth of field is determined by the lense focal length and aperture, not the camera. Would the same depth of field not be present even if the sensor was, say, half the size? I can understand that a larger sensor [i]could[/i] potentially be more sensitive, and thus giving better low-light ability, but given actual physical sensor sizes it doesn't automatically follow that a camera body must be made larger to incorporate it.

Would the same depth of field not be present even if the sensor was, say, half the size?

no, it depends on the size of the photosites

but given actual physical sensor sizes it doesn't automatically follow that a camera body must be made larger to incorporate it.

but keeping a constant number of pixels, a bigger sensor will have lower noise

a larger sensor could potentially be more sensitive

Larger sensors really do help. Once of the downsides of all of even the small cameras now being 12Mpixels is that there is just too much noise with them to sensibly work beyond iso 200 and even that can be pushing it. Sensor size can make quite a difference

no, it depends on the size of the photosites

I don't know what you mean by "photosites".

but keeping a constant number of pixels, a bigger sensor will have lower noise

I don't dispute that. What I said is that a larger sensor doesn't automatically mean that a camera body must be enlarged to fit a larger sensor.

Sensor sizes do affect depth of field - hence why I use a full-frame Canon 1Ds . Certainly your lens does too but the sensor issue is something that is now apparent with DSLR's. What the aperture does on your lens is allows you to control it.

I don't dispute that. What I said is that a larger sensor doesn't automatically mean that a camera body must be enlarged to fit a larger sensor.

*cough* GF1 *cough*

🙂

Larger sensors really do help. Once of the downsides of all of even the small cameras now being 12Mpixels is that there is just too much noise with them to sensibly work beyond iso 200 and even that can be pushing it. Sensor size can make quite a difference

I that case, while I agree, I would also say that sensor quality is an issue regarding noise. My EOS10d was unusable over iso400, while my EOS20d doesn't start having problems until iso1600. Same sensor size.
[url= http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/pixel_quality_01.htm ]A bit more here looking at pixels and other links to sensors.[/url]

What you are forgetting is that the effective focal length of the lens is determined by the size of the sensor but it's actual focal length isn't.

Take a 300mm lens on a 35mm sensor camera, the actual and effective focal length is 300mm.

Put the same lens on a DX sized sensor camera, the effective focal length is 450mm while, of course, the actual focal length is still 300mm.

This is because the smaller DX sized sensor only sees a small part of the total image area projected by the lens, effectively making it look like a longer focal length.

However the actual focal length and therefore DOF (for a set aperture) is the same in both cases.

Thus on the smaller sensor camera (the DX one in this case) with a longer focal length lens (effective) you have more DOF than you would on a larger sensor camera with the same effective focal length lens (a real 35mm sensor comparable 450mm lens with have a much narrower DOF than a 300mm lens).

So . . . small compact cameras with tiny wee sensors and very short focal length lenses have very large DOF's (as the shorted focal length the lens has, for a given aperture, the larger the DOF).

Thus, the larger the sensor the smaller the DOF you will have for the same effective focal length, with a giver aperture.

An example - the Canon S90 has a 28-105mm effective lens range, but an actual 6-22.5mm lens range, so you cannot really get shallow DOF . . . even with it's f2 lens . . .

Larger sensors are better in all respects apart from cost.

but keeping a constant number of pixels, a bigger sensor will have lower noise

not always true. that depends on sensor technology. the 22mpixel sensors used in phase/H/blad/leaf backs were near unusable at 400asa but canons 5d sensor at half the size was near noise free.
sony and olympus didn't exactly raise the bar with their noise performance compared to canon. Nikon were well behind until their current offerings became available.

I don't know what you mean by "photosites".

the individual light detectors on the sensor

However the actual focal length and therefore DOF (for a set aperture) is the same in both cases.

the DOF also depends on the "[url= http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm ]circle of confusion[/url]" which is related to the size of the sensor elements...

Would the same depth of field not be present even if the sensor was, say, half the size?

I have been away and edumacated myself ([url= http://photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/ ]this[/url] was helpful). Different size sensors can, and do, have an effect on depth of field; so that's me learned. However!! as per my response to the low-light ability, a larger sensor does not necessarily have to have a larger body.

Large sensor needs a physically larger lens to provide a large enough circle of light to cover the sensor area.

Large sensor = large lens = large body to carry it.

You could design a compact that had a large sensor and large lenses - this is what the Micro Four-Thirds stuff is all about. The result is smaller than an SLR (as there is no mirror assembly) but still a lot larger than what most people consider to be a compact.

See also the Sony NEX cameras for a more extreme version of this. Bigger lenses than mu43 but smaller bodies.

Well, not really . . . any 'old school' 35mm film compact has a large enough body and lens to work . . . so large sensor cameras could be reasonably small . . . however I don't see the market . . . state of the art sensor with crappy lens, low speed and quality AF and no viewfinder . . . why ?

Actually, you do get a compact FX sensor camera...not cheap mind.

Leica M9.

On a less techy note...

I've found that having a dslr has made me feel like I should pay more attention to the various settings etc whilst I'm still very point and shooty on my compact.

It's almost a mental trigger to do it properly. (i now take shit photos very professionally!)

See also the Sony NEX cameras for a more extreme version of this. Bigger lenses than mu43 but smaller bodies.

Sony NEX has the same size sensor as most crop DSLRs, but the lack of any external controls makes it just a fancy point and shoot really.

I'm wondering how a G11 would be in any way superior to the FX28 given that the latter has a bloody good lens and a great deal of flexibility. No way would I waste money on a G11 if I already had a camera like an FX28.

The natural progression from such a cam is something with high quality interchangeable lenses, such as a DSLR or something small like the GF1. Going to another 'compact' is a sideways step, surely?

Don't get bogged down in kit, anyway. Use your current cam to it's limits, and then learn what you really want in a 'better' camera. I started out using a cheap Vivitar 35mm camera, progressed eventually to a bunch of nice Nikons including the über-nice F5, but my photography improved because I improved as a photographer, and developed picture taking skills, not because I bought a more expensive camera.

Too many people compensate for lack of ability by spending money. The industry loves this, and wants to encourage such consumerist behaviour. It's simply not necessary.

my daughter has a very good "eye" as they say and when she uses my compact the results are very very good as she definitely has an artistic eye so it proves she certainly doesn't need money thrown at her get a very good picture.

Talent for taking good pictures is something you either have or you don't. Using expensive cams to take mediocre pictures is like putting lipstick on a pig. You can't buff shit.

Night classes FTW.

Good God justa, look what you've started!! :'(

Anyway, part of getting better is constructive criticism from others. Post up a few photos you think are good and we'll [s]rip them to shreds[/s] give you a critical assessment 🙂

I'm in a similar position to you BTW - I already have a DSLR though, but an old one and I feel I could take much better quality photos with something more fancy but don't think it would improve my eye for it one bit.

Also, I know it's sick and wrong etc etc etc but... *whispers* it's ok to buy shiny new things just cos you like shiny new gadgety things in of themselves.

It's a bit like IMO there's the hobby side of owning and maintaining a nice bike, which is a pleasure in itself separate to that of riding it.

Photography is about getting things right subjectively and technically

Hmm. Not sure I agree with that on the technical bit. I've seen some technically brilliant pictures that just leave me cold. In fact I've seen a lot more of them than I have of ones that I think are good. Anyone can buy a decent camera, point it at a nice landscape, a moving rider or whatever, press the shutter, then run it through Photoshop.
I've done it myself, and earned money from it. But out of my own shots, the ones I go back to look at, and print out and put in frames are the 'different' ones. I've got one sitting right next to me here, and another in the front room. One was a self timer shot and is nothing more than a holiday snap, but I can remember the place, how I felt right then, just by looking at it. The other one I was just lucky to look over a wall and see what I saw. I couldn't have staged a better pic to capture the scene if I had tried. As a friend once said to me "f8 and BE THERE!"

The best cycling pic, bar none, I've ever seen was taken by a STWer as it happens. On film I think, but not too long ago. I told him how good I think it is, maybe he'll read this and post it up?
🙂

thanks elfsinsafety - some good points there

Kit - blimey that would be scary - ok i'll have a look

I couldn't justify the cost of a full frame DSLR, but I picked up a top notch film camera and lens for less than £100, It means I can get nice wide angle shots, and I don't have to worry too much about damaging a grands worth of kit. It focuses your mind on setting up the shots properlly, and you learn a lot more about the process too.. Just an alternative approach.

Just uploaded a couple - let the ripping begin..

[IMG] [/IMG]
[IMG] [/IMG]
[IMG] [/IMG]
[IMG] [/IMG]

I like em 🙂

but I'd have straightened the verticals in the first and cropped out the top featureless bit in the last

, and I don't have to worry too much about damaging a grands worth of kit.

insurance 🙂

It focuses your mind on setting up the shots properlly, and you learn a lot more about the process too

it seems to me I've learned much more from taking a shitload more photos than I ever could have with film!

thanks simon - i hate straightening things as it blurs it slightly..

agreed about the last although at full size there is a nice redness to the sky

First pic: Framing includes too much extraneous detail. Would be better if you framed it up just so you had the two air ducts, with the feller sitting beneath. Less is more. Would be stronger in black and white too, I think.

Second one: Conversely might have worked better in colour, I imagine the light reflected from the walls would have lent it a lovely hue. Might have been stronger by framing things centrally and using the symmetry of the two windows. Maybe a wider angle lens to accentuate/distort the perspective.

Third one: Turn the camera to the left just a bit, so the church is just a little more off to one side, and the bit of left hand building formed a 'v' with the top edge of the arch bit. Lightings a bit flat, polarising filter may have darkened the blue sky just a tad, and lent a little more contrast to the scene.

Fourth one: Too much boring sky. It's too dark to really see any detail. The focus of interest is the little square the cars are driving round. Maybe zooming right in on just the crossroads on the left would have created an abstract image with the blur.

That's just my subjective opinion. But I'll tell you one thing; a new camera would not have improved any of those shots. Only you can.

One bit of kit that can really help to learn how to frame images better is simply two L-shaped bits of card, that you can move about to find the best crop.

Cost: free.

couple more

[IMG] [/IMG]
[IMG] [/IMG]

Nice pics, Justa. I wouldn't argue with most of the comments by SfB and elfinsafety. The mono shot I love, and in colour might work a bit better, but I really like it as is. The shot of Bath Abbey would benefit from a polariser, but could be tweaked in Photoshop a bit using curves and selective colour to increase contrast a tad and darken the sky, but I wouldn't fret about it. Judicious cropping would benefit them more, though Henri Cartier Bresson would have a calf at the thought. He always framed in camera exactly as he wanted the picture, and would never allow a picture to be cropped. Nice idea to aspire to, but not always practical, although I try to frame my pics in camera, to avoid phaffing around with PS.

Both nice. Top one maybe underexpose to make the 'Jesus' stand out more. Bottom one the lighting's a bit flat again, and again maybe a polariser would add a bit more contrast and saturate the colours more. Focus seems just a little soft.

Elfinsafety - Member

Night class all the way. Buying a new camera won't help you take better pictures, but sharing ideas and techniques with others will help you expand your own ideas further and learn new ways of seeing.

What he said, the [b][i]seeing[/i][/b] bit being the most important by far

Judicious cropping would benefit them more, though Henri Cartier Bresson would have a calf at the thought. He always framed in camera exactly as he wanted the picture, and would never allow a picture to be cropped. Nice idea to aspire to, but not always practical, although I try to frame my pics in camera, to avoid phaffing around with PS

Learning how to crop in camera is the way to go, but the two L-shapes I told you about can help to look at your existing pics in a new way. Don't worry about achieving instant perfection, but look to make small improvements all the time.

i hate straightening things as it blurs it slightly..

really ? Your eyes must be better than mine. I nearly always have to straighten as I'm incapable of holding the camera level, perhaps due to astigmatism...

Nice idea to aspire to, but not always practical,

[b]IF[/b] you always want your pictures to be the same shape...

Look at the work of other photographers. Check out your local library, and of course the internet is the perfect resource. [url= http://artblart.wordpress.com/2009/09/ ]Websites like this one[/url] are good for looking at a wide range of styles.

First things first if you feel you need lessons then go ahead but
also buy a couple of photography books with hints and tips and
go and use your camera and see if you need a new camera then good.

Ive gone through all formats even down to my medium format, so unless
your blowing past the A3 picture most good cameras will give a good
acceptable A4 print.

I recently bought a Canon G11 and is a blinding pro compact and so
easy to use, anyone can pick it up and take a pic.
this is down to the simple to use top plate, and has good features
I bought this for £ 347.00p off of the e-bay shop Digi-Good site all brand new and boxed.
I have the G11 in my camel back when riding and gone over the bars a few
times and stll all ok.

There are a couple on here with the Panasonic GF1 with its new Two Thirds
sensor. The Canon G11 matches the image quality upto ISO 200 then the GF1
beats it being the sensor is bigger than the G11
But you do get a good A3 pic from the G11 upto ISO 200.

Only draw back you may find is the cost of buying lenses for the GF1 and you dont have a movable screen and the optional view finder costs around £ 200 notes, other than that the GF1 is a good camera.
Do note that the G11 view finder is small and you do see the top of the
lens barrel, but has not caused me any problems.

.

Learning how to crop in camera is the way to go

is that a joke ? I suppose right enough you don't want to include more width or height than necessary, but I rarely find the shape of the sensor matches the subject matter.

simonfbarnes - Member
Learning how to crop in camera is the way to go
is that a joke ? I suppose right enough you don't want to include more width or height than necessary, but I rarely find the shape of the sensor matches the subject matter.

What he said.

Lovely shots justa. I disagree that a better camera wouldn't improve at least one of them though. I love the mono shot in the first batch, apart from the light through the arches looks extremely burned out - adjusting manual settings on a DSLR can improve or eliminate that.

Nice shots though.

adjusting manual
settings on a DSLR can improve or eliminate that

Good compacts, like the G11, have full manual settings as well - so he doesn't need a DSLR for that.

However a DSLR would usually offer a better sensor with a larger dynamic range, meaning it can cope slightly better with highlights like that especially when shooting RAW.

Learning how to crop in camera is the way to go

is that a joke ?

Hmm, no I don't think it is. It's very hard to actually do, granted, but it don't half save a LOT of time on the computer, and if nothing else it worth it for that!
Personally, I'm trying to get to a point where I'm as close as I can be to the ideal shot straight off the camera, for a couple of reasons - One, it's a challenge, and I think I'm improving as a result of it.
And two, I've just been asked to be 'official' photographer at an event for the second time, and if you've not done it, getting 500+ images renumbered and uploaded so people can find themselves in the set easily takes a lot of time! And even sending out the 40-50 pics I sold last time takes even more time when you don't have a website to do it automatically for you. So the closer I get to no editing off the camera, the better it is. 🙂

but it don't half save a LOT of time on the computer

only if you're in the Cartier-Bresson "all the same shape" school. I don't. Cropping is easy and quick on a computer

A couple of years ago I was snapping away at La Vuelta and got chatting to a pro photographer. He said that he had met Graham Watson a couple of times, he said that Waston was a nice enough guy, but you shouldn't, under any circumstances, criticise his work. Apparently he goes ballistic.

Funny people, photographers.

So the closer I get to no editing off the camera, the better it is

but you're talking about dragging photography down to a commodity, not raising the bar...

No fair point a picture doesn't have to conform to any specific dimensions, but the point was that people like HCB used the entire frame available to them. He didn't then go and cut bits out to strengthen a weak picture.

You can frame a picture however you like. It's just that the standard portrait and landscape formats have become accepted as the convention in art. Medium format cameras like Hasselblads shoot square images, but photographers still often crop the images to a rectangular format. Nothing wrong with going against convention though, no-ones stopping you. But as PeterPoddy says, it's much harder to get things right in camera, than sort them out after. There's also nothing wrong in using Photoshop etc to do things to a picture, but I think if you need to do that to improve weak pictures, then your photographic skills maybe aren't up to much.

Developments in software have made panoramic images much more attainable. Such images were only previously possible using very expensive specialist cameras. Cropping standard images meant that they had to be blown up much larger than they would normally, and therefore not have the same degree of quality. Stitching software allows us to shoot several pictures to form one large narrow panorama. So, that format is becoming more popular and 'accepted'.

but the point was that people like HCB used the entire frame available to them. He didn't then go and cut bits out to strengthen a weak picture.

you have that backwards. Any sensor/film mask is a compromise and of course unrelated to the subject matter. Even having it as a rectangle and not some other shape is purely a convention based on expediency.

Well whatever Simonfbarnes.

I don't really see what your point is, other than to challenge the conventions that photography and art in general has established throughout Human history. There's nothing wrong with challenging conventions. If you want to produce star-shaped pictures or whatever, go ahead. No-one's stopping you. HCB used the medium he had available to him to great effect. His philosophy of a picture 'happening' in a fraction of a second is evident in his work, and he is recognised as the master of capturing the 'moment'. I merely used HCB as an example to try to help the OP. You seem to be more intent on arguing the toss over something that isn't even really all that relevant.

I see a lot of current photography either being ruined by overuse of nasty effects such as HDR, or weak pictures being enhanced with judicious cropping and loads of Photoshop etc. I'm more a fan of the simple image as it's initially captured. I've nothing against new techniques at all, but I think there are very few people using them to any great effect. There's an awful lot of buffed shit out there.

You seem to be more intent on arguing the toss over something that isn't even really all that relevant

no, I'm saying things aren't always best portrayed in whatever shaped rectangle the camera produces, and that trying to force them to fit isn't necessarily useful.

or weak pictures being enhanced with judicious cropping

it's a ridiculous idea to suggest that a picture or scene is "weak" because it doesn't fit some shape

Elfinsafety - for someone who apparently knows so much about photography, I don't think I've ever seen you post any pics? 😛

if you are just taking travel pics and posting them on flickr then stick with your current camera and spend the money on travel.

unless you need the fast AF and short shutter delay for action you don't need a dslr.

i would ignore the aesthetic advice on here and take images that float your boat.

no, I'm saying things aren't always best portrayed in whatever shaped rectangle the camera produces

HCBs pictures were. I think that's generally accepted amongst those who appreciate photography. Maybe other people's work doesn't.

no, I'm saying things aren't always best portrayed in whatever shaped rectangle the camera produces

You misunderstand. I suggested that in my opinion, two of the OP's pictures could be improved by better framing. That's just constructive criticism, not saying he/she had to make their pictures 'fit a shape'.

Go and have a cup of tea and calm down.

Elfinsafety - for someone who apparently knows so much about photography, I don't think I've ever seen you post any pics?

I'm just trying to give advice based on my own experience and what I've learned from others. I don't claim to be any sort of authority on the matter.

To post pics I'd need a photo sharing account thingy, and tbh I can't be arsed with all the hassle.

I think that's generally accepted amongst those who appreciate photography

except different cameras produce different shapes, 1:1, 3:2, 4:3 etc etc. Which one is "right" ??

in the begining, when people attempted representational art, they used a the surface of a cave wall or a natural object like bone, stick or stone, yet their works often have great power and are not weakened by the absence of a frame. Later on when paper, canvas or boards were used, it was a purely practical matter to use a rectanglar shape, not related to artistic merit. The eye performs a real-time arbitrarily shaped cropping depending on attention...

slightly on topic. how are you getting on with photoshop SFB?
have you embraced it's failings and lack of usability or written your own program due to your frustration with it's lack of rational UI?

(Giggles)

how are you getting on with photoshop SFB?

I'm using it all the time now, with my misgivings on hold, though still present. For such an expensive program so many things don't work well. For instance, I created a button bar (panel in Adobe-speak), and every 3rd time I invoke the program it forgets how wide I set it and gets 3 times wider. It never seems to give up any memory it allocates, so after using it for a few hours it'll have 3GB even with no images loaded 🙁 I still don't understand how copy&paste works as it often has no visible effect at all unless you use "copy merged" or "paste special..."

I believe I could write some UI stuff as it supports ActionScript but I got bored with the copious documentation. The underlying tools are good. If it cost under £100 I would have few complaints.

To post pics I'd need a photo sharing account thingy, and tbh I can't be arsed with all the hassle

wrong: www.tinypic.com

so after using it for a few hours it'll have 3GB even with no images loaded

you need to 'purge'