stormchaser

The only time I've ever seen anyone use a ringflash is for dental photography. I wouldn't get one, personally; just get a studio flash and softbox.

For children and family? Are we talking professional/hobbyist, or just-wants-photo-memories?

If the former, a good cheap DSLR should be good - maybe an Olympus.

If the latter, any medium-end point-and-shoot should work. Check out the Powershot series.

<div></div>

The most important thing you can do is adjust levels. Then it's usually pretty easy to remove distracting elements by blurring them out or using the stamp tool.

They need to be backlit. I'd suggest a black background, with a light

against it but just out of the shot.

Good lawd, how many of these threads do we need? A photo is light recorded on a sensor or film, sometimes digitlly manipulated. Simple as that.

The equipment and technology I never found difficult; mostly it's just the way it takes pictures differently. It can be hard at first, but thee's another litany of ways in which its easier.

Has it ever been any better? That was always my experience.

With almost all my photos, I adjust the levels for more dynamic range. I also like just making cool looking animals by changing their eye colour and stuff like that.

<div></div>

Ah, right. As soon as he's dead, he had a "bright future" and was "very promising". While he was alive, I'd bet thirty bucks that he was just "bright".

Just what makes you think you need an apostrophe in "iPods?"

 

Just use them like you would a pen drive - copy the photos into the drive seen in My Computer. If you want to be able to view them on your iPod, copy them into the Photos folder.

Infinite, as long as they don't get scratched or dusty.

My Olympus Evolt E-500 does.

The f/2. Smaller f/number is always faster.

Meh. The forums still rock, the alterations and nudes are stupidly popular but it doesn't affect us, and many people rate but not critique, and that's to be expected on any photo site. I've only been on this site for a few months, but I love it. The community is great, and my photos get seen. What's wrong?

Viewfinders let you see the scene the scene more realistically, while most LCD screens are crap. However, I find them easier to use, and sometimes they can lay the "rule of thirds" chart over your image to help with composition. I'd want a camera with a viewfinder, but they're not necessary.

It's beause they're nudes. Much of the time, they're badly taken and uninteresting, but ooh, she's hot.

Back to the sun? Never. That's called backlighting and it makes for huge detail loss.

Flash? No need. Even on overcast days, there's always enough natural light.

Polarizer? It darkens the skies, which looks nice, and it reduces reflections. Go for it.

You can never get a straight answer on better or worse in photography. It all depends on what you want.

You're underexposing it. If you're using the meter reading, go over what it says.

It's good for advertising, yeah, but there's no revenue directly from the site.

Mitsubishi? The hell? They're a car company.

 

Meh, to an extent I like motion blur. This is none too exciting.

You know what? Once I switched from SLR to DSLR, I found the same thing.

The solution I found is digital editing. Adjusting the levels gets you the same great saturation and contrast you get with film. It's discouraging at first, I can attest.

Washed out? The simplest solution is underexposure, but that may not help. A polarizer will darken the sky, but will also reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor - which may actually be good, if too much light is making your pictures look washed out. You could also try a lens hood. If all else fails, adjust the levels with a photo-editing program. It works wonders for my washed-out photos.