markjordan

<p>Use your credit card to get some of the decent equipment and then try to use this good equipment to make some money to pay off the cards and then buy more. Very little in photography is affordable if you want good, or even just decent, equipment, let alone to frame a few photos! It's easily one of the most expensive hobbies around. I have yet to frame anything because I can't afford it, even doing it myself. I know this hobby has put me into several thousand dollars of credit card debt a few times! Luckily Photoshop came along, because truthfully you can take average photos and sometimes make them amazing using it. so I invest more in software now to correct the photos I take with my Mediocre equipment! Seems to be the cheaper way to go as a beginner.</p>

<p>Gettysburg, Pa. just a few weeks ago</p><div></div>

<p>I too use ViewNX and Capture NX2 as well as Photoshop Elements. I wouldn't be without either. I find they are the perfect complement for the photographer who is not very interested in graphic arts but needs tools a photographer would use to improve a photo or fancy one up via filters, textures, etc. Never needed 90% of what CS4 or CS5 offered, especially at that price! To me NX2 is unbelievable what it can do. Can't wait for the next version. The entire NIK line of products is top quality.</p>

<p>Strange that this was just on here. The nurse in the famous WWII kiss photo in NYC(?) just died today (6/23/2010)</p>

<p>I've been an avid fan of these races for years and watch all of them!</p>

<p>Incredible. I AM amazed that digital hasn't caught up to film, of all types, yet! Maybe I switched too soon. But it's the price we pay for convenience. Although someday it will catch up once the noise problem is resolved. Its just a matter of time.</p>

<p>Not real bad in the layout, but a little too simplistic in the article wording. There are thousands of sites with this info and so it will be impossible to ever rank above page 10-20 on Google. Don't expect much traffic. I've done internet marketing for years and made little $$ (in very specific niches too). I assume you are targeting the key phrase 'Easy Basic Photography'. Hit that and hit it hard, making sure every article has that phrase at least twice. Buy Google Adwords using that phrase only too. Find other's photo articles and re-write them in your own wording. Put them on your site, again with your key phrase 'Easy Basic Photography' in them.</p>

<p>Use Capture NX2. You can do that there.</p>

<p>Street Scene</p><div></div>

<p>Man..I'll take $500 for 9 hours of shooting! I'll do 10 for that! But than again I work full time out of photography and would love to make any amount of money on it!</p>

<p>After many years of intensely studying photography and shooting (maybe not as intensely) I still haven’t a clue as to why some photographers became famous and most have not. It almost seems to me it is more about the marketing of yourself as opposed to some extraordinary skill of composition or color. I see dozens of photos by amateurs on Flickr that are some of the best photos I have seen anywhere (at least they look that way on the computer). I also see the beauty in shots by the world famous photographers and recognize their skillful eye. But, there are thousands of photographers of equal technical and visual skill, yet only a handful become famous. Is there any way to sum up why this is? Is it really just down to being able to market and sell yourself? I even see some full time photographers making a living who really only have average visual work. How did they make it? If all this is, is having some technical skill, but the bulk is being a marketer, is being a photographer really all that impressive? Do you really want to mostly be a salesman? Is that enjoyable to you?</p>

<p>Nikon D50<br>

Tokina 50-135 f2.8</p>

<p>For whatever reason anytime I used the ProPhoto colorspace I got very de-saturated photos. I quit using it as I never could figure out the problem. I was using it in NX2, so not like you were, but it could be a clue.</p>

<p>A little fella in Washington DC</p><div></div>

<p>Personally I have never looked at any nude photo of a female, whether partially nude or fully nude, artistic or in a magazine ad, and NOT had a sexual thought of some kind. I am a heterosexual man and they were women. These are just the facts of nature. If one denies that, they simply have no understanding of nature or the human male. The photos in men's magazines are more nude than lets say photos on here due to brightness of the studio lights and positioning of the model. As well, many of those photos display all of the female body. Other than that I don't see any other thing that would make one nude more nude than another. When the female body is in subdued lighting or partially covered so there is mystery involved than it is actually more sexually attractive than a full nude in bright light. Does that mean it is more nude in the mind? Is that what we mean here? A female in a bikini is always more provocative than one fully nude walking around. Not that I am actually contributing anything to this discussion, but these are some things to consider when you have a particular goal in mind with nude photography. What is it you want the person viewing to feel?</p>

<div></div>

<p>thanks..now I have that song stuck in my head and Deano singing it....</p>

<p>Better late than never. Air Force One over my house</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>This banter cracked me up! I do agree that I see many posts on here that, to me, are like snapshots or seem to have been taken as the photographer fell into a pothole. I think many people are trying to show some kind of feeling or emotion that the photo brought out in them or a memory of the event. Blurry photos sometimes have this effect, but usually not. Everyone is using that technique. We live in a moving world and many are trying to show the motion with a device meant to take still pictures. The trouble is that as an outsider looking at someone else's photo it is very hard to feel what that photographer felt. I know people who take hundreds of photos when they are on a vacation but most of them are just boring photos of people they are with in various settings. I simply don’t get this at all. Here's John and Mary in a store. Here's John and Mary on a beach. Here's John and Mary in front of a planter. Don’t get me wrong, snapshots have their place and are necessary to record things. I take them too. The thing that is needed is to get odd angles and juxtapositions that are out of the ordinary to create an interest. I say throw out the rest.</p>

<p>Listen to Raymond Thompson, above. He is correct. You can't be in fear of giving photos away on a CD/DVD. You will just have to make a package that includes that. Think of it as an easy way to make money but still be a good photographer. You have no hassle of printing but when the bride and groom see the quality of photos on the CD they will refer you like crazy!</p>

<p>Harpers Ferry from the old church</p><div></div>

<p>NIK SILVER FX is excellent. I have found nothing else close so far to getting a good variety of film like B&W. Its also just great fun to work with.</p>

<p>Creativity is pure instinct. However you can use techniques as an un-naturally creative person to get better at being creative. For instance try copying (as a drawing) a picture upside down instead of right side up and I can bet you will do it much better. This is a common method in teaching drawing to the not so natural artist. Observing kids you will obviously see that some are more naturally creative than others. This cannot be denied. Those creative kids will grow up to be more creative adults. Pure genetics (which is very mathematical of course).<br>

So, as a natural person you can increase the creativity you have with practice and training but you will never achieve the pure instinct creativity of someone born like that. If a creative person does not use his or her talent than it is as good as not being present. If you have moderate talent but you work hard to get better and then use it, then you have achieved more than the other person even though you are not naturally creative. <br>

Is it rationalism that kills creativity I don't know? I do know that the people I associate with who are rational thinkers tend to be the type less willing to take chances or experiment. </p>