jessica_ulm3

I will refrain myself from posting my baby pictures with the 'house'

in the background.

<br><br>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?

bboard_upload_id=20012484">

<br><br>

<i>Posted once before, but fit too well to leave out

<br>

Looking out the window of Honda Suzuki of Opelika</i>

I am not expert, but I am farsighted as all getout. I have to say that I don't have much problem reading photo.net without my glasses, though I'm sure half an hour or less would make my eyes fall over gasping and I would not do it regularly. The Daringfireball site I can not make out a single word sans glasses. Maybe that's because I can scroll the text size up and down here and have it at about 12pt though.

Robert, what is wrong with SD? I'm considering the *ist DS and the only digicam I've ever owned has used CF. Feel free to pawn me off on a link.

<br><br>

The other thing to consider is that little digicams tend to noise up even at low ISO settings when using a long exposure. I was absolutely baffled when, after manually setting my Coolpix 4500 to ISO 100 shutter speed 8 seconds, I couldn't get a single shot that looked like it was shot at anything under 1600.

<br><br>

Yes, I know, the 4500 is old in digicam terms and cheap in digicam terms. Also, this may have improved in the last year or two, but I don't think it's something reviewers really test for. I've also noticed a tendency for digicams to blow highlights and blacken shadows worse than their bigger brothers, but maybe I'm just generalizing.

<br><br>

I understand the quest for a camera small enough to get used. That's why I bought my Coolpix 4500, and even though the quality is not nearly on par with 35mm, most of the photos in my portfolio now are from that camera for the simple reason that, well, it's in my purse right now, while my SLRs are on a shelf at home next to their big, pretty lenses.

<br><br>

I would look at the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistds/" target="_blank">Pentax *ist DS</a>. It is definately small:

<br><br>

<img src="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/PentaxIstDS/Images/inhand01-001.jpg">

 

<img src="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/PentaxIstDS/Images/inhand02-001.jpg"

<br><br><br>

I have been eyeing it since it was announced and it definately looks like a great quality/size/cost compromise. It is suppose to be about $1000 kit and out in November.

<br><br>

I hate to sound like I'm trying to steer you towards something you've said you don't really want (a DSLR) but 1)it's somethign to consider given the size and 2)I have zero experience with any digicam besides my ol' 4500. Hope I helped though.

<center><img src="http://www.apt131.com/lj/09a.jpg">

<br><br><i>Dublin, Virginia</i></center>

<img src="http://www.apt131.com/lj/09a.jpg"><br><br>

Dublin, Virginia

*Redefining <i>Naff</i> since blah blah yeah you get it...

<center><img src="http://www.apt131.com/lj/modDSCN2586.jpg"><br><br>

<i>Because the world needs more pictures of the Blue Ridge

Parkway ... </i></center>

I knew there was areason I loved this place - the Python jokes. I've seen 3 this week.

<br><br>

Brian, thanks for being so upfront. I asked once over at photographyreview.com if very common old cameras (Retina, K1000, ect.) could be added to the list of choices you had when posting to the gallery (there's no 'add' option) and never got an answer, though a few minutes after posting it I realized it was because their advertisers only sell <i>new</i> equipment.

Duncan,

 

I feel the exact same way. I mean, as photographers we're curious. I mean, the 'learn' section is great and all, but a great photograph is the culmination. You can read about ingrediants all day - that doesn't mean you don't want to look at other people's recipes (even if, in my case, my sugar is clumpy, milk is a bit skim, and stirring style is all wrong - which is why I'm here).

 

I try not to be that way. I actually just got done posting a link to site I got a neat PS Filter off of.

 

People can tell you about the technical aspects and reasons for different filters, but then you see your photo with the washed out sky and the other guys with the bold dramatic sky (with "ND Gradiant Filter" and it comes together a bit.

 

Néstor, I just wanted to your comment about photographers taking less than steller ratings an an insult. Those people have managed to scare so many of the knowledgables floating around pnet that I practically have to beg for honestly.

 

Ug.

A general theme, but I am interested in seeing where it will end up

(and how it will get there).<div></div>

<div></div>