Dreaming To Be A Famous Photographer

[six_feet_deep]

meron na po ako cam... tnx sa tulong ng mga veterans!!!!! sana matulungan nyo po ako pano matutunan to... eheheheheheheheheheheheheheh talaga zero ako magsisimula....

Edited November 29, 2008 by six_feet_deep

[Missionary]

Honestly, the only people who insist that you HAVE to learn film first to be a professional photographer are the oldies who resent the younger generation for having it too easy. I started getting interested in photography while in college, and back then it was mostly film as the high-end digital cameras only had 2MP. And I nearly quit because as college kid, i didn't have enough money to buy and develop the many rolls of film needed to learn the craft. If it wasn't for digital, I think I would have given up soon after. Not everyone has the time and money to waste on several bad rolls of pics before they learn what works and what doesn't. On a digital camera, you can instantly see the exposure and cropping, allowing you to immediately see where you went right or wrong. On film, you had to wait several hours to see if you got the picture right, and more often than not, you'd forget the settings you used for that particular shot.

 

BTW, you forget that most SLRs in the 90s already had an "automatic" mode that decided the settings for you. It was always the person's choice whether or not one would use the "A" setting or switch to manual mode. The same applies to DSLRs.

 

My first job was working for a magazine publication. Our oldest and best photographer used either a Leica rangefinder or Hasselblad for nearly all his commercial work. But at the end of the day, he'd be using a Canon G3 to take different snap shots. He loved film, and the quality and detail it gave. But he loved photography even more, and with a digital camera he knew that he could take as many pics as he wanted without worrying about wasted shots.

 

Agree. At the end of the day, at least for me (non-pro) what matters is the quality of the picture I got, I really dont care if a film camera or a cutting-edge dslr took it. To me, subject is prime... comparing hardware is manly and ego-boosting, but photography ought to be about the art aspect - light, color, composition, expression and how they all come together in a frozen picture. These things are learned quickly when using dslr. I think once one learns these things, one realizes that film photography can offer the leap of quality that no dslr can yet get to. Digital has a long way to go before it compares to medium and large format film. So learn with digital, then if youre good enough (or rich enough)...go film. At least...that's my plan hehe.

[Phrozhen.Khold]

eh boss etong unit na ito ok ba sa price na 72,000? o maxado mahal?

Canon Digital SLR Rebel XTI 10.1

 

eto yung kasama nya:

(1)Canon EOS 400D Rebel XTI SLR Camera

(2)Full Battery grip w/ vertical controls

(3)Extra Battery w/charger

(4)Canon Zoom Lens EF28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS

(5)Tamron Zoom Lens AF17-50mm f2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical w/hood

(6)Quantaray Zoom Lens AF 70-300mm f4-5.6D w/hood

(7)Canon Speedlite 430EX External Flash(new)

(8)8 Rechargeable batteries w/charger

(9)Ultraviolet Lens Filter 72mm

(10)Ultraviolet Lens Filter 67mm

(11)Circular Polarized Lens Filter 72mm

(12)Circular Polarized Lens Filter 67mm

(13)2GB Compact Flash

(14)Quantaray Full camera Kit Bag

(15)Tripod Stand

(16)Photoshop LightRoom 2 software

(17)Guide to EOS Cameras and techniques-book

(18)Canon Zoom Browser and EOS Utility Software.

(19)USB & RCA cables

 

This is a really good deal. If you have the money then go for it. Of course being it your first camera... you wouldn't need all the other stuff right away. You may ought to keep them for a while then use them when you need to.

 

Honestly, the only people who insist that you HAVE to learn film first to be a professional photographer are the oldies who resent the younger generation for having it too easy. I started getting interested in photography while in college, and back then it was mostly film as the high-end digital cameras only had 2MP. And I nearly quit because as college kid, i didn't have enough money to buy and develop the many rolls of film needed to learn the craft. If it wasn't for digital, I think I would have given up soon after. Not everyone has the time and money to waste on several bad rolls of pics before they learn what works and what doesn't. On a digital camera, you can instantly see the exposure and cropping, allowing you to immediately see where you went right or wrong. On film, you had to wait several hours to see if you got the picture right, and more often than not, you'd forget the settings you used for that particular shot.

 

BTW, you forget that most SLRs in the 90s already had an "automatic" mode that decided the settings for you. It was always the person's choice whether or not one would use the "A" setting or switch to manual mode. The same applies to DSLRs.

 

My first job was working for a magazine publication. Our oldest and best photographer used either a Leica rangefinder or Hasselblad for nearly all his commercial work. But at the end of the day, he'd be using a Canon G3 to take different snap shots. He loved film, and the quality and detail it gave. But he loved photography even more, and with a digital camera he knew that he could take as many pics as he wanted without worrying about wasted shots.

 

I agree. We used to have a film slr camera before and having to wait for the film to be brought to a lab is kind of frustrating. I really wanted to have my own darkroom back then but I couldn't afford it as well as tons of film. Digital made sourgrapes of out 'purists'.

 

If you let the electronics define your exposure for you, you are not practicing PHOTOGRAPHY, you are simply picture taking. A world of difference that is. As wide a diff as Henri Cartier-Bresson (with his Leica M1) and the once ubiquitous 'letratista' at the Luneta with his China-made Sea Gull twin lens reflex (a Knock-off of the Rolleiflex TLR camera using 120 film.

 

By the way, those Sea Gull cameras are almost as good as the real thing except that in the hands of a 'letratista' you would not really know.

 

That may be true. But I shoot RAW and MANUAL unless when I'm shooting events... that's when I use AP. Technology is advancing every second. Its only a matter of time when digital cameras catch up with film.

 

I guess I can't be a professional photog as I learned all the Fundamentals of photography using a Digital SLR?

...Just teasing! :upside:

 

A correction may be in order here po as a DSLR has full manual capability like any other 35mm SLR and not just Auto or Program. One can go purely Manual and control focus and set all the necessary paremeters for good exposure like Aperture, Shutterspeed, Film Speed (Oops ISO equivalent pala), White Balance and even control how metering is done and a whole lot more other tweaks for the neat-picker type photgs out there

 

For me the only difference is the medium where the image is recorded.... Digital uses a cmos sensor to capture light and stores this info on a memory card while old school uses film. In the hands of a capable artist both will undoutedly result in beautiful images.

 

Plus having the capability (or what others may call instant gratification) of seeing your photo right away helps in shortening the learning curve and saves ton's of frustration from the wait only to find out that a roll of film yielded no keepers.... Or likewise missing a crucial shot while reloading film

 

Also, with respect to durability and robustness, I believe the life span and useability of equipment depends more on how it is used if properly and with due care.

 

My three centavos worth po Cheers!

 

No matter how good the equipment is... if you don't know how to use it... its useles

 

meron na po ako cam... tnx sa tulong ng mga veterans!!!!! sana matulungan nyo po ako pano matutunan to... eheheheheheheheheheheheheheh talaga zero ako magsisimula....

 

Nobody starts a 'pro'

[boomouse]

I guess I can't be a professional photog as I learned all the Fundamentals of photography using a Digital SLR?

...Just teasing! :upside:

 

A correction may be in order here po as a DSLR has full manual capability like any other 35mm SLR and not just Auto or Program. One can go purely Manual and control focus and set all the necessary paremeters for good exposure like Aperture, Shutterspeed, Film Speed (Oops ISO equivalent pala), White Balance and even control how metering is done and a whole lot more other tweaks for the neat-picker type photgs out there

 

For me the only difference is the medium where the image is recorded.... Digital uses a cmos sensor to capture light and stores this info on a memory card while old school uses film. In the hands of a capable artist both will undoutedly result in beautiful images.

 

Plus having the capability (or what others may call instant gratification) of seeing your photo right away helps in shortening the learning curve and saves ton's of frustration from the wait only to find out that a roll of film yielded no keepers.... Or likewise missing a crucial shot while reloading film

 

Also, with respect to durability and robustness, I believe the life span and usability of equipment depends more on how it is used if properly and with due care.

 

My three centavos worth po Cheers!

 

I agree with you that just because you use a digital camera (not necessarily a DSLR), you cannot be a photographer. You don't have to use the term "professional" in a manner that implies competence. While professional may be accepted to refer to a person who has gained competence in a particular activity, its stronger definition is that of an individual who is paid to exercise a chosen profession.

 

A photographer is someone who takes photographs--the act of preserving a scene in time in a manner that is pleasing to the eye to a point where it evokes certain emotions from the viewer.

 

I know people like phrzhen.khold fulfills both conditions.

 

A photograph is always a picture but not all pictures should be considered photographs. I know that if you check the dictionary, you will find cause to argue with me--which is why I am explaining myself here before carrying on.

 

Good photographers can turn out good work even with a fully automatic point-and-shoot be it a digital camera or its earlier version, the 'instamatic' even a pinhole camera will do.

 

What I have a bit of contempt for--and this is just me being a snob, are indivduals who, by virtue of having the good fortune of being able to afford expensive equipment (digital or otherwise), proceed to take picture in full automatic mode and see that as a short cut to achieving 'photographer' status.

 

Why am I like this?

 

Because it denigrates the work of the great photographers of our time. The wonderful landscapes of Ansel Adams, the expressive visual commentary on the human condition by Henri Cartier Bresson, a moment of history unfolding captured by the journalistic eye of Eddie Adams, the grating intrusion into our sensibilities and biases by the likes of Robert Mapplethorpe.

 

This thread is after all predicated on the desire to be a famous (or infamous?) photographer. Becoming one invariably requires inspiration from someone already on the pedestal.

 

Can we be one using digital equipment? Conventional wisdom provides an answer in the affirmative. But in the same way that artists who paint on oil and canvas have turned up their noses at artists who paint with light on sheets of light-sensitive material, I now find myself struggling to not turn up my nose at someone trying to paint with light on a piece of light-sensitive semiconductor.

 

Why is this?

 

I guess (which means I am not really sure) that it all has to do with the amount of craftsmanship required (which according to conventional wisdom, implies the need for a larger amount of skill--not necessarily talent).

 

In a painting, the painter must be able to translate what is in his mind's 'eye' into hand and arm movements to convert it into something on canvas. An analogue photographer must be able to take how he sees a photograph in his mind and translate that to an image on film and paper. He does this by knowing the difference between how his eye sees a scene and how film sees the same view. Then he considers the limitation of how much light he has to paint with, and the limitations of his film medium. And because it is troublesome to get from clicking the shutter to seeing the final product, he has to be able to do all of this correctly the first time. Up to this point, there is no talent or crestivity involved. This is purely craftsmanship--the ability to use tools effectively and efficiently. This, I respect greatly.

 

A digital photographer is greatly relieved of the burdens of 'craft' and is given more time and convenience to be able to concentrate on bringing his talent to the fore by forgetting the mundane craftsmanship issues and concentrating on composition and style. Some good digital photographers--the ones who are not lazy, make an effort to understanding the limitations of his photo sensor. What it lacks in dynamic range in certain lighting conditions, the 'bendy corners' of cheap wide angled glass, etc… the speed of capture of the sensor, the artifacts you get shooting in a lossy codec, the digital interaction of "bokeh" in a photo sensor as against bokeh on film to name just a few.

 

Unfortunately, most digital 'picture-takers' simply do trial and error and while this is sad, even sadder is the fact that unlike less intelligent beings who learn from trial and error, they seemed to have eschewed learning from the difference of a good and bad picture because they simply discard the bad and shoot anew until they get something they are satisfied with often not knowing and understanding how they got there. Where is the craftsmanship in that? With them, spouting exif information is just another opportunity at braggadocio. The learning curve is usually disregarded or has lain uncomprehended. Hopefully, this does not apply to you. You would then be more an exception to the norm.

 

Phrozhen.khold sees this as a lot of sour-graping at the excuse of being a purist. The ramblings of an old man who resents that you younger chaps have it "too easy". Well, I have news for you. Taking good photographs has not been made easier. Perhaps taking well-exposed pictures have been made easier. there is a difference. I try to share my thoughts with you guys not to put you down, but to help you avoid finding yourself in that all too easy tragic state of laziness and complacency that is mistaken for the confidence afforded by technology. I have chosen to work with film so I try to evangelize on the beauty of film as a medium. You are free to disregard my words. But bear in mind that by responding to them in whatever form, you tell me that I have touched a nerve. That is very gratifying and makes me smile. Someone, whether he likes it or not, is learning something. Somehow.

 

I love technology. I use it all the time. I have most of the tools and more. But our most personal of undertakings, the ones we would like to put our names on, are given more meaning when we are able to complete it with the least amount of electronic intervention. Sure it is a very romantic and emotional attitude, but romanticism and emotion are the hallmarks of work at the most personal level. You see, taking a good photograph is like writing well. No amount of dictionaries, thesauri, grammatical guides will ever turn you into a good writer. In the same way, no amount of electronics will turn you into a good photographer. These aids, if we understand them and how they work, will help us produce notable work.

 

Only then will our work well and truly say: "this is who I am, and this is what I want you to see."

 

Now you tell me, does this really sound like I resent young people using digital technology?

 

------------------------------------------

 

Just to illustrate what I mean, this is Ansel Adams:

 

 

 

This is Henri Cartier-Bresson who is considered the father of photojournalism:

 

 

 

This is Eddie Adams, a war photographer who won the Pulitzer for these pictures:

 

 

 

And this is Robert Mapplethorpe who decades back jolted the world with his work:

 

 

 

=======================

 

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2008 by boomouse

[Charlemagne2008]

Ibong ligaw.

 

[sha79]

one of my favorite photographer prof once told me that There are a lot of people of just grab a DSLR and thinks and they’re the master of the art. If a person really knows what he or she is doing, the result would be a great photograph.

 

IMHO...i realize that who cares about the medium?What if you really like it that way? What if that’s your personal sense of style?

it could be the crudest of matchbox pin hole camera or a Hasselblad worth millions. If you got what you want then the photo is worth more than anything.

 

It’s not about the camera, it’s about the one using the camera. actually who cares if you post processed?or lomographers?or noobs or experts?..I think it depends on what story you want to tell, or how you want that story to be told.

 

To each his own, I guess.

[boomouse]

one of my favorite photographer prof once told me that There are a lot of people of just grab a DSLR and thinks and they're the master of the art. If a person really knows what he or she is doing, the result would be a great photograph.

 

IMHO...i realize that who cares about the medium?What if you really like it that way? What if that's your personal sense of style?

it could be the crudest of matchbox pin hole camera or a Hasselblad worth millions. If you got what you want then the photo is worth more than anything.

 

It's not about the camera, it's about the one using the camera. actually who cares if you post processed?or lomographers?or noobs or experts?..I think it depends on what story you want to tell, or how you want that story to be told.

 

To each his own, I guess.

 

This is just an excuse for not understanding how a camera works. A camera is a tool. To take good photographs, you must understand how the tool works. This is because a photographer must be able to take consistently good pictures. Otherwise, the good pictures you have taken are simply flukes. Strokes of luck. Chamba.

 

Do you know why a lomographer insists on using a certain color of filter on a certain kind of camera? because he needs to understand--if he doesn't already, how the filter will exaggerate or dilute the color of his subject. And if he likes the output, he makes a note of it so that he can repeat the effect in the future.

 

Who cares if you cross-process or not? Your audience does because a knowledgeable audience will want to know how the photographer got there. That is why you have a thing called "exif". By the way, every photograph that is printed is POST-PROCESSED. That is a generic term and there is no escaping it.

 

A photographic work is always about the photogrpaher working with the camera. It always is and always will be. A picture-taker would not care about the camera only about whether he or she was able to capture a pretty picture. It would have to be a rare and unique picture because he would not know how he managed to take such a picture if he did not care about the camera. And that is the tragedy of pseudo talent.

Edited December 2, 2008 by boomouse

[Missionary]

This is just an excuse for not understanding how a camera works. A camera is a tool. To take good photographs, you must understand how the tool works. This is because a photographer must be able to take consistently good pictures. Otherwise, the good pictures you have taken are simply flukes. Strokes of luck. Chamba.

 

Do you know why a lomographer insists on using a certain color of filter on a certain kind of camera? because he needs to understand--if he doesn't already, how the filter will exaggerate or dilute the color of his subject. And if he likes the output, he makes a note of it so that he can repeat the effect in the future.

 

Who cares if you cross-process or not? Your audience does because a knowledgeable audience will want to know how the photographer got there. That is why you have a thing called "exif". By the way, every photograph that is printed is POST-PROCESSED. That is a generic term and there is no escaping it.

 

A photographic work is always about the photogrpaher working with the camera. It always is and always will be. A picture-taker would not care about the camera only about whether he or she was able to capture a pretty picture. It would have to be a rare and unique picture because he would not know how he managed to take such a picture if he did not care about the camera. And that is the tragedy of pseudo talent.

 

I think she meant "it doesn't matter what kind of medium was used" not "i don't care about the technicalities..." ... at least that's how i got it. One can still be a master of one medium and appreciate all media...pwede naman diba? And in IMHO, there's nothing wrong with "rare unique pictures you dont know how you managed to take"... such "tragedies" are actually what got us into photography in the first place. Maybe master boomouse was born talented, but most of us who love photography started out as this ... "pseudo-talents"...tama ba spelling saer? wala po sa vocabulary ko to eh.

 

There's a fine line between artistic refinement and elitist/exclusivist attitude. I think those of us who know better should teach others to be better, there are more constructive ways of teaching than labeling derogatory terms to others who are obviously trying to appreciate the art. let's try to help each other out, not try to put each other down. my two cents lang po....peace!! l

Edited December 2, 2008 by Missionary

[six_feet_deep]

first shot ko po, ano po ba mali... hehehehe... ok yung cam... pero kailangan ko pa mafamiliarize yung settings... nakakatulong din youtube... dami sila tutorial...

[fire_breather]

... You are free to disregard my words. But bear in mind that by responding to them in whatever form, you tell me that I have touched a nerve. That is very gratifying and makes me smile. Someone, whether he likes it or not, is learning something. Somehow.

 

Sir, my nerve was not just touched, it got pummeled. Seriously, I take every thing you said by heart. It inspires me to become better at this second love of mine and hopefully be good enough to leave my mark one day. Thank you very much!.

Edited December 3, 2008 by fire_breather

[boomouse]

I think she meant "it doesn't matter what kind of medium was used" not "i don't care about the technicalities..." ... at least that's how i got it. One can still be a master of one medium and appreciate all media...pwede naman diba? And in IMHO, there's nothing wrong with "rare unique pictures you dont know how you managed to take"... such "tragedies" are actually what got us into photography in the first place. Maybe master boomouse was born talented, but most of us who love photography started out as this ... "pseudo-talents"...tama ba spelling saer? wala po sa vocabulary ko to eh.

 

… sure, take on its own, there is nothing wrong with rare unique pictures you don't know how you managed to take. Except in a thread where you might be DREAMING TO BE A FAMOUS PHOTOGRAPHER in which case, you will have to know because you will have to be able to repeat your successes if you are to realize your "dream."

There's a fine line between artistic refinement and elitist/exclusivist attitude. I think those of us who know better should teach others to be better, there are more constructive ways of teaching than labeling derogatory terms to others who are obviously trying to appreciate the art. let's try to help each other out, not try to put each other down. my two cents lang po....peace!! l

 

How can you say there is a fine line? The two ideas are not even correlated. There can be a world of difference or there may be not (in which case there might be a fine enough ine). Elitist and exclusivist? That can also be the province of someone who is artistic, not necessarily refined. You are the one you attached the labels as in "elitist/exclusivist." Besides, this thread is not about art appreciation. Go somewhere else for that. This is about discussions of how someone might realize a dream of being a famous photographer someday.

 

If you think I was trying to put anyone down, read my post again and concentrate on the comprehension and then perhaps post another reply. Something that would be worth two cents this time. Please.

[arrow]

In a painting, the painter must be able to translate what is in his mind's 'eye' into hand and arm movements to convert it into something on canvas. An analogue photographer must be able to take how he sees a photograph in his mind and translate that to an image on film and paper. He does this by knowing the difference between how his eye sees a scene and how film sees the same view. Then he considers the limitation of how much light he has to paint with, and the limitations of his film medium. And because it is troublesome to get from clicking the shutter to seeing the final product, he has to be able to do all of this correctly the first time. Up to this point, there is no talent or crestivity involved. This is purely craftsmanship--the ability to use tools effectively and efficiently. This, I respect greatly.

 

I may not fully agree with you but this particular perception is well said.

Cheers to the great oldies!

 

 

 

Merry xmas guys..just to lighten up.

[Wyld]

Ive been a casual picture taker (not a photographer) using a digicam for the past 2, maybe 3 years.

 

 

I feel that at this point, im ready to graduate to a "real" camera, much like one graduates to a big school after kindergarten.

 

 

I use the school analogy because I am basically a student of the art of taking pictures. One that aspires to take photographs at some point.

 

 

I was thinking of buying the Canon Rebel EOS Xs. Its reasonably priced and seems easy to use. I was also looking at the Nikon D40 basically because I cant afford anything more than that.

 

 

Someone told me to go out and try holding these 2 cameras to help me decide.

 

 

May I get some feedback from y'all about these 2 cameras?

 

 

This is one of the pictures ive taken -- using a Casio Exilim, no edits, no Photoshop, just a resize using the Preview function of my Mac. I want to take better pictures than this.

 

 

Thanks.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Wyld

[Missionary]

… sure, take on its own, there is nothing wrong with rare unique pictures you don't know how you managed to take. Except in a thread where you might be DREAMING TO BE A FAMOUS PHOTOGRAPHER in which case, you will have to know because you will have to be able to repeat your successes if you are to realize your "dream."

 

agree. i had some pictures i got years before with a simple casio exilim that i keep trying to do again with my newer dslr...somehow i never managed to do it again. i checked and matched whatever specs i could, but never did manage to duplicate the technique ... yet (i'm still trying). Though in retrospect, I did learn a lot while trying to take that original picture apart - i studied the lighting conditions, i got into the nitty gritty of how a casio exilim processes images, and had to compare that with the nitty gritty of how a nikon dslr processes images. its tough complicated stuff, just to find that technique and i believe i'm not even halfway there.

 

so, i guess to further explain my point that is what's priceless in that first photo "that you dont know how you got" - the sense of wonder and curiosity you get that would keep you going and going for decades. that's why i raised that point.

 

How can you say there is a fine line? The two ideas are not even correlated. There can be a world of difference or there may be not (in which case there might be a fine enough ine). Elitist and exclusivist? That can also be the province of someone who is artistic, not necessarily refined. You are the one you attached the labels as in "elitist/exclusivist."

 

I apologize if I rattled nerves...I wasn't labeling sir boomouse. Hear me out....Id like to explain how these two "labels" are related. I have been in the arts and education industry for a fairly long time (not necessarily photography though) and to what i have seen, there are people who truly know their medium, maybe painting sculpture, dance, acting, etc....and they bring their medium to an extraordinary level when THEY are performing. In this respect, how they approach their art does not matter, their motivations and biases are not relevant to the outcome(at least, to those who are looking - to them of course it is).

 

However, when given the opportunity of passing on the knowledge, or teaching others (with talent, of course) some of their attitudes become a hindrance. Some are so competitive that they see their students as competition and try raise unnecessary levels of tests and social platforms that would exclude those students from being at par with them. This is what I meant by the term "elitist/exclusivist". So these "masters" are artistically refined given their knoweldge and achievement, but given another objective - to teach, they become exclusivist to the disadvantage of the poor hungry talented souls of their students.

 

A point was debated years ago that this kind of environment, however unfavourable to the student would only lead him (if he is truly passionate enough) to excel more and exert more effort in trying to meet the master's requisites. Out of that debate there was no consensus. I was on the side that these were unnecessary emotional and mental pressure that should be better focussed on other more constructive efforts.

 

It may seem that knowing something, it would be easy to pass that knowledge on to someone else, but as said, there are attitudes to be considered. This is the fine line I was referring to.

 

… sure, take on its own, there is nothing wrong with rare unique pictures you don't know how you managed to take. Except in a thread where you might be DREAMING TO BE A FAMOUS PHOTOGRAPHER in which case, you will have to know because you will have to be able to repeat your successes if you are to realize your "dream."

 

Besides, this thread is not about art appreciation. Go somewhere else for that. This is about discussions of how someone might realize a dream of being a famous photographer someday.

 

Apologies for another different point of view. Does this mean that to be a "Famous Photographer" you don't need to appreciate the art of photography? Now this is new and shocking to me...because to me "appreciation" doesn't necessarily mean "praise" but a deeper understanding of what is going on behind the artwork. I guess...yeah one can be famous by being friends with famous people and media personalities...but i dont think this is what we came here for....

 

If you think I was trying to put anyone down, read my post again and concentrate on the comprehension and then perhaps post another reply. Something that would be worth two cents this time. Please.

With all due respect sir, your previous post was so condescending to the point of insult, well, at least to me. I felt that I belonged to the "tragedies" you labeled as pseudo-talents - and I wasn't even the one you were replying to! Now I understand and respect great artists like you (photographers included) but I truly do not appreciate that kind of attitude, and so does a lot of people. So, please, I dont want to reply to this again. Ive said my point as respectfully and explained my side as plainly as I can. I don't really care what my post is worth to you, but if you really care about not stepping on other people, you would at least give it two cents worth. With all due respect, sir....

Edited December 5, 2008 by Missionary

[Missionary]

Ive been a casual picture taker (not a photographer) using a digicam for the past 2, maybe 3 years.

I feel that at this point, im ready to graduate to a "real" camera, much like one graduates to a big school after kindergarten.

I use the school analogy because I am basically a student of the art of taking pictures. One that aspires to take photographs at some point.

I was thinking of buying the Canon Rebel EOS Xs. Its reasonably priced and seems easy to use. I was also looking at the Nikon D40 basically because I cant afford anything more than that.

Someone told me to go out and try holding these 2 cameras to help me decide.

May I get some feedback from y'all about these 2 cameras?

This is one of the pictures ive taken -- using a Casio Exilim, no edits, no Photoshop, just a resize using the Preview function of my Mac. I want to take better pictures than this.

Thanks.

As a nikon user, I'm biased to point you off to the nikon d40. Check out Ken Rockwell's site for useful advise on everything on photography gadgets. He's also biased for the nikon d40, and has written a good article espousing the joys of using the little thing. happy shooting maam!