katie_clarke1

<p>Thanks Ann, I'll give it a whirl.</p>

<p>What would be the advantage of 45 mp for the vast amount of users. For me, I would have photoshop files that easily go over 1 GB and some approaching 2 GB or more with the type of work I do. Even with a Macbook Pro with lots of RAM and a very good processor would have difficulty moving some of the files. I would have to go to a desktop just to support my camera. Would anyone see a difference in resolution looking at a 16X20 print from the Canon 5D Mark III and the Nikon D800 or a 45mp camera. Is there really that much difference?</p>

<p>Thanks Ann. I tried to download the files but they would not open. I wonder if this zip files are for a pc instead of a mac.</p>

<p>Sorry, maybe my question wasn't clear enough. I want to digitally add blood to the photo. I tried painting it in but it looked sloppy. </p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>K.C.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I am trying to add blood as an element for one of my photographs without actually using real blood. Can anyone help me to figure out how to create blood with dripping patterns.</p>

<p>Thanks----K.C.</p>

<p>I wound up purchasing the Panasonic, LX5 from Amazon at about $365.00. It seems like a nice little camera and weighs only 9.8 oz. Thanks very much for all your help, it was invaluable. K.C.</p>

I like that thought Brad. I've taken shots with a 3 year old Sony Cybershot 8mp and was disappointed with

the results when I wanted too print them as compared to my canon lens. I hope these newer models are

better but I agree with you on having in essence the vision first as more important then the equipment.

Not to minimze the value of good equipment though depending on what you want to use it for. K.C.

<p>Thank you Leslie, Ariel and everyone else. I have to look at some of the specs more closely. Being that I shoot with Canon L glass, I'm going to be disappointed with any p&s in comparison but I'll have my camera with me at all times. K.C.</p>

<p>I'm surprised that the Panasonic LX5 is compared well to the Leica D-Lux 5. The Leica comes with Adobe Lightroom 3 which is a $300 program but I have photoshop cs5. My interest is the camera, not the software. I would like to shoot raw images. I like the idea of having a camera that can shoot at f2.0 if I need that at times.</p>

I am looking primarily for a camera with good

optics. I realize this will be limited as

compared to good glass from Canon or Nikon

etc. The other features are less important. If

one camera has better color fidelity or a wider

ev range, that would be important as well but

perhaps those differences are not so big with

the better p&s cameras. Megapixels is less

important as anything above 8 works perfectly

for me. Thank you. K.C.

<p>I'm looking for the best point and shoot on the market. What I mean by that is I'm looking for a camera I can take with me anywhere which has the best optics. I will take my bulky SLR on field trips but for tooling around town, I'd like to have a point and shoot. I realize there are many posts on various subjects regarding what is best but I just wanted a more up to date response. Thank You Much! K.C.</p>

<p>Landrum, me too. I thought you would find it amusing more than anything. I think you are very good contributor to this site and appreciate you finding and commenting on this thread.</p>

<p>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=423641">Landrum Kelly</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 24, 2011; 06:08 a.m.</p>

 

<p > </p>

<blockquote >

<p >I think Edward Weston had an affinity for the female form.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Well, Katie, if that were enough, there would sure be a lot more spectacularly good photographers in this world!</p>

<p >--Lannie</p>

 

</p>

<p>Landrum, I hope you can appreciate my humor, understand my sarcasm and not take things so literally. </p>

<p>I think Edward Weston had an affinity for the female form. You see it in various ways including some of his signature shots such as the Nautilus. His choice of women was interesting, if I remember correctly, younger women, is anyone really surprised. Weston was a good looking man and certainly could charm others. His work is very sensual and it parallels his interests. I believe, he took what was inside of him, what he was passionate about, what he felt very deeply and made art and experienced life in that way. I would hope to do the same. K.</p>

<p>Michael, it appears that some photographers can effectively put their feelings into the background, it doesn't mean that they're not there, as people here have alluded. But doing that DOES allow for a fullness of experience, it does not deny feelings, it just puts them in their proper place. I think some of the respondents nailed this question.</p>

<p>As i think about it, maybe it's not arousal but some other form of interest. You can find beauty in the human form and that may be in part why people photograph the nude. Where that interest comes from can be sexual/erotic but maybe an appreciation of beauty is also in play. I take a look at some photographers here that do nudes and many are tasteful and imo respectful of the models. I can't qualify that statement, it is just a feeling that I get compared to those photographs that just show someones jugs. Maybe that is artistic or beautiful but I have a hard time seeing it that way.</p>

<p>You do bring up an interesting point Robert. K.</p>

<p>Mikul, although the photographer can be considered a worker-creator, there appears to be other facets to this work. Not everyone chooses to make a living taking nudes and even those who do, are choosing this work because it is satisfying in various ways. Is that not true? K.</p>

<p>Mikul, although the photographer can be considered a worker-creator, there appears to be other facets to this work. Not everyone chooses to make a living taking nudes and even those who do, are choosing this work because it is satisfying in various ways. Is that not true? K.</p>

<p>I agree Warren. I think you cannot be detached from the feelings and emotions that your subject inspires, especially when it comes to nudes. There is a beauty that comes from taking nudes, that can be sexy, erotic or otherwise. Why would people have to deny it or minimize the effects it has on the photographer. To do so would appear to deny yourself the fullness of the experience. My question in part has to do with how do we allow ourselves to be honest with what we feel and how this effects the art.</p>

<p>Steve, I think maybe it's fine to be aroused. Maybe it's just human. Maybe that's in part why some photographers prefer the nude. There is the technical aspects that Richard mentions but can arousal make for better art and why shouldn't it. K.</p>

<p>Mukul, good point but can you realistically compare a male gynecologist to a photographer who is studying the female body and form, attempting to make a work of art out of the experience? Cannot art be erotic and if so, how does the photographer relate to the eroticism. Let's hope male gynecologists don't see their patients as works of art in the sensual sense at least by looking at their groin.</p>

<p>I just wanted to pose a question about nude photography. Is it possible to take nude photographs and not get aroused. And if you are aroused, how does it effect the relationship with the model and the photograph. Yes, its a broad question. Maybe it needs to be narrowed but I pose it as a thought to consider. Thank you. K.</p>