?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

every camera store should have a room that is moderately lit and has no windows with some people dancing in it for you to take pictures in without a flash. that is the true test of your average affordable-ish digital camera.

alternately, a room full of kittens, since that's what people want to take pictures of anyways.

Tags:

Comments

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
soft_pieces
Jan. 5th, 2007 09:45 pm (UTC)
Hehehe!!
spleenless
Jan. 5th, 2007 10:40 pm (UTC)
Who would use their brand new moderately priced digital camera to take pictures of their cat? How lame!
crystalsage
Jan. 6th, 2007 12:08 am (UTC)
What? You mean there are OTHER things in the world to take pics of? Say it isn't so. :)

si1ent_hi11
Jan. 6th, 2007 02:33 am (UTC)
Nothing will prove you have a crappy camera quite like your own children and pets will. In four out of five pictures they look like they've seen The Ring. Using a flash is heresy, as anyone with an eye for proper photography knows. ^^
snidegrrl
Jan. 6th, 2007 01:07 pm (UTC)
hehehe!!

Using a flash is heresy, as anyone with an eye for proper photography knows.

exactly. and with my camera, you pretty much MUST USE THE FLASH to be able to see anything in the picture, unless you are outdoors and it is a sunny day. pfeh.
bjoneill74
Jan. 7th, 2007 05:52 am (UTC)
flashes are so un-natural.. yick.. ok for taking goofy pics of people though..

the flash on my new camera has actually surprised me a little
panicsyndrome
Jan. 9th, 2007 03:42 am (UTC)
Unfortunately, every average affordable-ish digital camera is going to fail that test with the flyingest of colors. But Canon's will probably fail harder than most.
snidegrrl
Jan. 9th, 2007 05:11 pm (UTC)
and now, i crai.

seriously? there is nothing you can do about it but spend a thousand dollars?

and they say this is the wonderful new world of technology. BULLSHIT!!
panicsyndrome
Jan. 9th, 2007 05:15 pm (UTC)
The technology has come a long way, but it's still got a long way to go; I still don't fully understand the problem since I never owned a proper film camera but it has something to do with the speed at which the image is captured and written to the flash as opposed to the speed at which light enters an aperture. Also, the "ISO speeds" on more digital cameras are not true ISO speeds as much as different algorithms the camera uses, or something, blah blah muckity muck. You can get some really COOL looking images, but in low to moderate lighting you will pretty much always get some kind of ghosting in case of movement.

Someone with more camera knowledge than I will probably step in now and correct everything I just typed, but this is the way I understand things. A good wiki-perusal will probably also explain it but I don't ("shouldn't") have time for learning right now.
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )