elnoralouisa

<p>Wow, those are some interesting pictures, that's for sure, and I think the quality is great, but I think your buying audience would be very, very small. There aren't that many people that would want these pictures hanging on their walls.<br>

If you are interested in selling, unfortunately, it seems the only thing that really sells much in this economy is people pictures. People are willing to still buy pictures of the kids, weddings, senior high students, etc, but pictures just to hang on the wall of 'things' are becoming more of a luxury these days.<br>

Website: I would go with something like Smugmug, etc. Your front webpage is very difficult to read. Also, when I was in any of the pictures, I couldn't get back to the main page without using the Back key. <br>

It's great art, just don't see that there is much of a market for it.<br>

Good luck......</p>

<p>"looking to get a new website" Does that mean you already have one? What do you need exactly? Would something already done for you that you can personalize, (or not), like Smugmug work for you? That would work whether you are selling pictures or just displaying them. Also gives people the option to order your pictures. There are many cheap webhosts that doing a website isn't all that difficult. Paying to have someone do a website for you usually isn't cheap.</p>

<p>Yes, you can, just make sure it says Sigma for Nikon, or Tamron for Nikon, as they supply lens for each brand of camera. Your expense is going to be the VR. If you are going wide angle, you might not need it.</p>

<p>These are really nice dog pictures!</p>

<p>If you are into photography, and want people to look at your pictures as such, I would stay away from facebook and myspace where the whole world puts their snapshots. Nothing wrong with putting a link there. I like smugmug, and think it looks nice enough and is cheap enough. Also, if you decide to sell your pictures in the future, you can upgrade easily to the professional level.</p>

<p>I agree with you Rob. I hate that, "I have perfect skin" look. Removing pimples and smoothing out a bit is one thing, but so many of the programs available make the kids look totally unreal.</p>

<p>Sorry, I tend to disagree with using a flash for flower pictures. I have taken a flower photography class (no flash allowed), and spent too many hours in a local garden park, and don't see anyone using flash if just doing flowers. The picture attached is only cropped, colors are correct (the flower really is that bright). Also for flowers, you don't need to spend alot of money. Close-up filters which are cheap work well. At the park I go to, I can't usually get really close, so this was with a Tamron 70-200, at F11. The lens is under $200. If you use F11 for flowers, and F8 for buds, you should get the blur. If you want more blur, that is still possible with that lens, but then part of the flower starts blurring also.<br>

If you want a darker background, adjusting the shadows will usually do it. <br>

Also, the big thing is to not be in direct sun when doing flowers. You want shade, so plan on a cloudy day or early morning, or close to sunset.</p><div></div>

<p>You should be getting a bit of a blur with that lens. What is the apeture you are shooting at? If you have it down to 3.5 there should be some blur. I would go with a longer zoom. It would give you more of the blur you are looking for if you are shooting flowers, etc.<br>

Most pictures have at least gone through some editing program, even though your goal should be to get it as perfect as possible in the camera. If you aren't up for photoshop yet, you can try the free picasa program which will do the minor things. <a href="http://www.picasa.com">www.picasa.com</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>You should be getting a bit of a blur with that lens. What is the apeture you are shooting at? If you have it down to 3.5 there should be some blur. I would go with a longer zoom. It would give you more of the blur you are looking for if you are shooting flowers, etc.<br>

Most pictures have at least gone through some editing program, even though your goal should be to get it as perfect as possible in the camera. If you aren't up for photoshop yet, you can try the free picasa program which will do the minor things. <a href="http://www.picasa.com">www.picasa.com</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>First, they are VERY nice pictures, but I think you might be right about the 80's, 90's look.<br>

A few things I would change--they are all very posed pictures. I feel like I can see what their hobby is, but not what their personality is. I think you could change a bit without losing your style. My favorites are the ones with the lady and the red background. I can see her personality in those pictures. I think your backgrounds are too much on the other pictures. It's something anyone can do with a p&s now. Blurry or something with one item would be nice. I also like the couple on the bench because they don't look like they are posed, even though they probably are. For the couple by the tracks, maybe have them actually pretending to do whatever it is they are doing. Same with the guy with the boat oar. Take some pictures of him on the lake. For the couple on the bench, maybe have them walking and looking at each other. <br>

I would also have them looking not so directly at the camera. A smile here or there, like they are actually enjoying themselves would be nice too. Also tight cropping on a few face pictures would be nice.<br>

To get some more ideas, you might want to look at work of people that do senior (high school) pictures, as many of those are posed, but many still show the personality of the person. </p>

<p>I think backgrounds are ok, but either go totally blurred, or have a meaninful background. The one above is blurred, but your eye goes to the blur. The person that fixed it for you has the right idea.<br>

As far as your album, I like the one with her holding the fence and against the door It frames her. But how does road signs or a toilet add to anything? Would a picture of her on a toilet be something she wants to give her friends? Probably not. <br>

Also on a few of your outdoor ones, you have sun and shadow patterns across their faces. Either use a reflector or a flash when in the sun, and make sure patterns aren't there.</p>

<p>It's great, and should be a goal to get the best picture straight out of the camera, but knowing how to use photoshop is a real plus. <br>

Of course, if you are really changing items in a picture, best to use the digital alterations gallery.</p>

<p>I have a friend that makes cards with stamping. She sells them on the internet, so is looking for something that has good close-up. Right now, she has a low-end Kodak, but says the close-up isn't that great. Megapixel is no issue. She doesn't print anything large.<br>

Right now, I am into DSLR's, and not up to date on the small guys. Doesn't not have to be a small compact. Doesn't matter.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Don't forget you will now get the blurred background with a DSLR. That alone will make animals looks closer. <br>

If you are having a budget problem (and who isn't!), why not go with a brand that has in-camera stablization. Takes buying lenses so much cheaper.</p>

<p>Ok, don't die laughing here. I heard this from a well-known photographer. Use a diaper bag. The reason was, that people will not steal your bag. But really, it works great for a smaller camera, and has tons of pockets. No, you don't have to get one that is pink or blue or has baby written on it. There are ones that don't really look like diaper bags, and are padded. </p>

<p>Ok, you have two different creatures here. The 18-55 lens is a zoom lens. It will take pictures close to you or a bit further away (it's not that long of a lens). Most cameras have these kinds of lenses so you can get a bit closer to what you want.<br>

The 50mm will not zoom at all. If you want to get a closer picture of whatever, you have to use your feet to get closer to it :) The 50mm will work great in low light without a flash. <br>

If you are more of a beginner, go with the zoom lens to start, and add the other one later.</p>

<p>I like w3 the best, just because it looks like something :) W5 is probably the best as far as picture wise. Question would be which fits the description of what they are looking for.......</p>

<p>One comment though. If you are doing this for a client, you may want to show them some tilted pictures before taking a ton of tilted pictures for them. Some people absolutely can't stand tilted pictures (that would be me :) But really, whenever people post a bunch of tilted pictures, there will always be people that don't like them. Of course, the same is true with b&w or sepia pictures.</p>

<p>Are you using film? I have seen old, old videos of this being done, and I think it's mostly to see if there is enough lighting in the area. If you are digital, there would be absolutely no reason to do this. Add to that, it sure isn't cheap. If you are using film, and having problems with exposure, maybe buy a cheap digital that has manual controls, and play with it until you know enough about exposure. A good starting book is Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. He also has a website for his online school at <a href="http://www.ppsop.com">www.ppsop.com</a> His newsletter often contains exposure tips for strange situations.</p>

 

<p>Don't know about this 'school', but I would recommend <a href="http://www.ppsop.com">www.ppsop.com</a> </p>

<p>Spend a few minutes reading this forum. This topic has been discussed tons of times. We all have our opinions about the place, and you will have to decide if it's right for you :)<br>

Debbie</p>

<p>My opinion is about the course you want to take. The materials are good, but very basic. If you know anything at all about shutter speed, and how to use it, and also F-stops, printing etc., then I wouldn't take it. It's for someone who wants to do something more than press the button and get a picture. If that's where you are at, you would get a lot out of the course. It also includes composition. If you know all that stuff already, I would either go with the Professional course which is a lot more money, and unless they have really updated it, is WAY out of date. A lot of material, though.<br>

Another option is <a href="http://www.ppsop.com">www.ppsop.com</a> which has great courses. You get feedback quickly, which is more than you are going to get through NYIP, and you can communicate with other people and the teacher through a message board. I have taken several of the courses, and when my finances get to the point where there is a bit extra :), I will take another one.<br>

Debbie</p>

 

<p>Ok, I TOTALLY agree with you, but not sure about Canon forums, but other forums totally discourage posting of pictures. It must be like only one, and then for a good reason. Also, if you post a picture (on other forums), you better have a good spine because there will be nothing good left of what you thought was a good picture when they are done talking about.<br>

That would be why I have only posted one picture (duck discussion), because of my experiences on other boards. I have NOT participated in a Canon discussion, so don't know how they are. Have only owned a Canon for a few hours--it was enough for me!</p>

<p>Debbie</p>

 

<p>that was my exact thought (very scary!). I guess the photographer didn't have a release for the girl?</p>

<p>There is also <a href="http://www.lynda.com">www.lynda.com</a> which is $25 a month, and you can watch as many videos as you want in a month. Does have PS for photographers.</p>