Is a Canon S2IS good enough for learning ?

I am a beginner. I have a Canon S2 IS. Is it good enough to start, for a photography enthusiast.

Just now i am learning about adjusting the Aperture, Shutter Speeds and ISO. I tried a few shots and ended up in

fairly good exposures. But i do not get the colors, i get to see in the photos in this site. I used a photo editor and

changed the contrast and Sharpness. Then the image looked great.

Are most of the images in this site digitally enhanced ? (or) Will i get it on experience ? (or) Do i need a better

camera ?

The S*IS are good cameras and they have plenty of features to keep you busy while you are learning

the ropes. Don't worry too much about getting a new camera until you feel you're getting the most you

can out of yours. There are lots of amazing photos on this site that were done with cameras that are not

as good as an S*IS. A lot of photos are indeed enhanced, but I believe the ones that amaze you have

more than just contrast and sharpness adjusted. Experiment, take lots of photos, be self critical, ask for

critiques, and don't get upset over ratings (you can ask just for critiques).

Good luck!

I think you are asking two different questions.

Firstly, IMO there will be limitations you will encounter learning the craft on a Canon S2 IS.

That is not to say that good Photographs cannot be made with your camera, nor that you can not learn many things

about photography with it, especially composition basics and natural / hot lighting basics.

But, whilst not wishing to get you thinking negatively, I do think that you will be hampered with the following issues:

1. Shutter delay: this could be good and bad. You will need to anticipate the shot, especially for any action, like

sport and that can be very frustrating.

2. Flash: I believe you have the option of an add on flash as well as the pop up, but not the option of a dedicated

system flash, which allows you to advance with Flash Fill Techniques for outside work: pursuits like Flash Fill

Portraiture, are difficult for you.

3. Manual Focus: is quite cumbersome.

4. View through the viewfinder: is not a simple line of light and true TTL (through the lens - like a telescope) but it is a

screen. This is workable but not really efficient: which leaves you with more accurate composition using the fold out

screen, which is OK but can be difficult at times, especially in bright light.

5. Absence of RAW capture: you will only be able to work on the JPEG, which is not bad in itself, but may be

limiting, should you wish to develop your PP skills, and is not really as flexible, if Post Production interests you

greatly.

6. Low Light capture: I think if you work in any low light, and at higher ISO (like 400 and 800 etc you will (may) be

frustrated within the noise you acquire.

I am not suggesting you run out and dump your PS 2 IS and get an expensive DSLR, but I am suggesting that a

DSLR will most likely be a very quick step for you, should you want to develop your skills and understanding of

photography, beyond simple composition and if you wish to extend creative capture of subjects beyond those mainly

outdoor and static.

And also, I am saying that learning about Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO, Composition and Lighting, is easier on a

DSLR than on your Powershot 2 IS.

I have two PS 5 IS, and carry one almost everywhere: I think this type of camera is a very useful tool, and it will

produce very nice results, but I do think more can be got from it once the basics are learnt, and learning the basics

on it is not impossible, but certainly more time consuming and perhaps more wearisome, than what achievement can

be made with a relatively inexpensive DSLR, a kit zoom lens, a fast, budget prime, a good flash and some reflectors

and the like.

One of the reasons I carry a PS 5 IS, nearly everywhere, in my pocket, is because it has a great zoom range and

allows captures like this, with relative inconspicuous status, and IS.

http://www.photo.net/photo/7302834

Shooting Details: Powershot 5 IS; 72mm; F3.5 @ 1/30 @ ISO 200; Manual Ex; Pattern Metering, H.H. (IS assist)

Available Light.

***

The second question your are asking is about post production and getting the colours and contrasts from your

Powershot.

Well, firstly, I took a great deal of time customizing the parameters of JPEG capture in my PS 5 IS, and those

parameters were set after many trial captures, under various lighting conditions.

I have three main set of JPEG parameters, for the Powershot which I use in the Custom Mode, depending upon the

ISO I need, and the Lighting Conditions of the scene or subject.

These are the starting points to get good colour and contrast from any type of camera when you want to use the

JPEGS, IMO.

Also, I have a passion (which some think crazy) to use JPEG direct from the camera with very little or nil post

processing.

Now I strive to get those results from my 5D and 20D also, using the JPEG file(s) with minimal post production, and

on those cameras I set the JPEG capture parameters to suit the shooting conditions also: and I have arrived at those

parameters with similar testing in various conditions.

The shot below is at ISO80 and with my Custom Parameters set the way I like them for a Sunny Day and low ISO.

I have cut the RED (slightly) (because of Reflections on the Bronze Fence) and boosted Contrast slightly (+2), in

Post Production . . .

Other than that, it is basically a JPEG straight out of the Powershot 5 IS with my Custom Parameters set to give a

good Contrast and Colour, IMO.

WW

<div></div>

> I tried a few shots and ended up in fairly good exposures. But i do not get the colors, i get to see in the photos in this site. <

I had a look at your work last night, and one picture took my eye.

With your indulgence, please have a look at the comparison below.

It is my opinion that your original of this scene was underexposed.

It is a scene with great contrasts: both shadow and light areas and also contrasts of strong colours, especially greens and reds.

The scene has a wide EV (light) RANGE, but note in your shot, there is very little detail in the green shadow area, on the far shore.

I boosted GREEN in the shadows, and overall, increased the BRIGHTNESS.

Doing that I lost some of the impact of the RED, which I boosted in the midrange and highlights and just adjusted the HUE of the red, slightly.

I think the result brings out more the DYNAMIC RANGE of the scene and with the emphasis on the green, gives the image overall more ``punch``.

Perhaps, it is the ``punch`` you were alluding to in your original question.

I do not wish to critique your work, as such, but I thought you might like to understand how someone else ``views`` an image, with which you are intimately familiar.

***

Having said all that, I restate, I think the key to the whole exercise is that you were a bit underexposed in the original capture: shooting this scene at F6.3 @ 1/1000 or even 1/500 most likely would have been better than the F6.3 at 1/2000 you used. Exposing the scene a liuttel more would have meant you had more detail to play with ion the far shore and therefore more latitude to play with the dynamic range of the scene.

Perhaps, if you were able, you could have dropped the ISO one stop instead, but for some reason I cannot read what ISO you used.

WW<div></div>