Popular photography culture and ease of use.

[Anbesol]

The other day i overheard a remark told to a man aspiring to be a professional photographer. This mans sister - a sorority girl, told him "There is a girl in our sorority who sometimes forgets to put a shirt on, and even she can get a good picture. So, what does that say about the career you are trying to get into."

This remark is the epitomizing quip of a prevailing disconnect between the understanding of photography amongst laypeople, and amongst the more proficient users - advanced hobbyists and professionals alike. I'm sure we've all heard similar remarks, I remember mentioning to somebody that "printing is not a simple, one button process", and they were surprised at my remark, insisting that printing is actually a simple one button process.

The idea of 'ease of use' has become so embedded in the laymen culture that people commonly disregard the quality of expertise required to produce good photography. As I'm sure we amongst a popular photography community are aware, good photography is not easy. So, why do so many people amongst common consumer culture seem to think it is?

Indeed, you can print something straight from the camera, and yes, sometimes a novice user can produce a good photograph. So what role does expertise play in the production of technically, and/or artistically good photography?

I need to write a paper for a class I'm taking, the subject has to be the quality of expertise. I am interested in pursuing this question in this essay. I am interested in starting a discussion on the subject with the community here, and would love to hear what you guys have to say about this topic, feedback or ideas. If anybody is aware of a good source that has an academic look into this field of research, please post. Thanks for reading.

[mwfanelli2]

Many will not like what I am saying...

All "ease of use" does is bring mediocre results to the masses rather than being the sole provence of pros. Most pros never created above average results, they just spent the time mastering complex equipment. Now, that is no longer necessary.

Only a very small group of pro photographers can be considered above average in the quality they produce. Most are just workaday photographers. This small percentage group could create magic with a throwaway camera, something most of us can not do on a consistent basis.

I have always said that talent wins out. By definition, true talent is relatively rare. That is independent of the equipment.

[OldClicker]

I think that it is a matter of what the real expectations are and what now can be produced.

First, what do people expect in a photograph? I see the choice as a continuum (though not all that linear) from a true work of art, through an excellent piece of craftsmanship, a beautifully captured memory to a snapshot that shows the memory (and down to crap, if that matters). The market for the well crafted photo is mostly competitions, event photography, commercial (which would be a whole other topic) and the county fair. The market for art (and someone has to think the work IS art) is even smaller. Most people simply want the snapshot that shows the memory and, at best, a well captured memory (if they can even tell the difference). So 99.9% of photography doesn’t have to be that good – even if it’s being sold.

Second, the technology HAS made it way, way, way easier to get an acceptable image (whatever acceptable may be).
- The image capturing abilities of modern cameras are outstanding. Even an idiot like me can, within just a few months, craft an image good enough to compete with the big boys in an association of clubs from a major city.
- The ‘automatic’ features on modern cameras are really good. They’re not going to get the hard shots, but if conditions are right, they can do very well.
- Anybody can chimp. Take a shot, look at it and, if bad, try again.
- Digital and the sheer number of images taken. Those who would have taken on roll of film now snap off thousands of images. If the ‘keeper’ rate is even close to the same, there are going to a hundred times more keepers.
- Digital (especial the web) and the sheer number of images published. If anybody can put up 1000 images on his web page that he thinks are quite good, there’s a good chance that at least one of them actually is.

Terry

[freygr]

With the digital cameras now even the worst photographer will get out door day time photographs which are correctly exposure and in focus, consistently. After the sunsets and indoors it's another story. The same with the photo printers, the computer does the color correction and prints the photo for you. Most will be very happy with the results, then there are the photographers which just purchase the most expensive equipment just to keep ahead of the Jones, but they only can get so-so photographs.

It's not the camera is the person using the camera. To get recognized as professional photographer you have to be able to sell your self or you don't make any money.

[Greg McCary]

I think that it is a matter of what the real expectations are and what now can be produced.

First, what do people expect in a photograph? I see the choice as a continuum (though not all that linear) from a true work of art, through an excellent piece of craftsmanship, a beautifully captured memory to a snapshot that shows the memory (and down to crap, if that matters). The market for the well crafted photo is mostly competitions, event photography, commercial (which would be a whole other topic) and the county fair. The market for art (and someone has to think the work IS art) is even smaller. Most people simply want the snapshot that shows the memory and, at best, a well captured memory (if they can even tell the difference). So 99.9% of photography doesn’t have to be that good – even if it’s being sold.

Second, the technology HAS made it way, way, way easier to get an acceptable image (whatever acceptable may be).
- The image capturing abilities of modern cameras are outstanding. Even an idiot like me can, within just a few months, craft an image good enough to compete with the big boys in an association of clubs from a major city.
- The ‘automatic’ features on modern cameras are really good. They’re not going to get the hard shots, but if conditions are right, they can do very well.
- Anybody can chimp. Take a shot, look at it and, if bad, try again.
- Digital and the sheer number of images taken. Those who would have taken on roll of film now snap off thousands of images. If the ‘keeper’ rate is even close to the same, there are going to a hundred times more keepers.
- Digital (especial the web) and the sheer number of images published. If anybody can put up 1000 images on his web page that he thinks are quite good, there’s a good chance that at least one of them actually is.

Terry

Robert Frank took 28000 pictures on his trip across America and only 83 made the book "The Americans".

[Anbesol]

Awesome, a lot of input on the subject.

Michael - at first I disagreed with what you said, but I think the disagreement may just be a semantic difference. Everybody has talent, it is by definition a relatively qualitative thing. If you were to take the average photograph from a person on this forum, and the average photograph from say a community of car mechanics, obviously our average would be a lot better, because the relative level of talent for photography would be a lot higher here. Its real, it is "true". What I think you are talking about are the purely exceptional talents, people with an exceptional talent for the craft, not "true" talent but "exceptional" talent.

The learning curve is still infinite, I believe.

I remember visiting a church with a portrait history on their wall, from the early 1900's to today, and each wall portrait became progressively worse after the 1950's, in production value and in following professional portrait conventions (which, do have their place I think). Was this a result of the average quality of product from a professional photographer decreased? Did the church become frugal and begin buying cheaper, less experienced photographers? I dont know the answer, but I think I see some contributing factors.

[maplestreet]

Speaking as someone who is in the midst of making the transition from novice point-and-clicker to something more, here are my two cents.

I have the same caliber camera as some pro's. My images are nowhere near as good. It's not just composition or equipment issues. There are post processing expertise that I have not even scratched the surface of.

Once I get past that there is the issue of composition, lighting, DOF.

Yea, I can go walk around by the river and take 200 pics and sure, I might get 1 or 2 that someone would say, WOW that's great! That doesn't make me a talented photographer.

My point is that it doesn't matter how far technology advances. We could give a group of novices $50,000 worth of equipment and while they may produce some high quality images in terms of clarity, sharpness, color, they wont consistantly produce the kind of images that people who know what they're doing will.

I would tell any amateur who think's it's easy this; 'ok if you think photography is easy, here is a top of the line DSLR and I want you to do three things:

1. Go to a wedding where people are depending on you to capture the biggest event of their lives, shoot away and look at how terrible your pictures are. Do you think the bride is going to be happy because you got one cute pic of the flower girl?

2. Go shoot portraits of your kids, go set up a shot out in the sun, get proper lighting, a good background and a natural looking pose. It's not quite as easy as it sounds.

3. Go find something in your area and take an abstract picture of it that would be considered 'professional looking.' Anyone can take a picture of railroad tracks or an old car. Is there anything unique or interesting about your picture other than the quality?'

The object is to illustrate how shooting with a purpose in mind is a lot different than taking 100 random pictures and accidentally getting 1 or 2 "good ones."

In the end photography is like anything in that it is subjective. Just because something sells or is popular does that make it good? For example in music, boy-bands, hot girls, generic country acts, and fake rappers sell millions more records than people infinitely more talented than they will ever be. Does that make they're music good? "Talent" is in the mind of the beholder but the consistancy of those who know what they are doing compared to those who dont will never be overcome by easy-to-use cameras.

Another good example of this is my other passion, golf. In the past 30 years technology of golf equipment has progressed light years from where it was. Clubs that were made out of steel and wood are now made of high density carbon, titanium and other space shuttle spare parts. Millions of dollars have been spent researching ways to help ameture golfers hit the ball longer, straighter and more consistantly. 30 years ago the true average score for a round of golf was about 100. Today? It's still 100. People still suck at golf as much today as they did in 1980, they just have nicer clubs.

There will always be people who dont look any deeper than surface level quality, but there will also always be those who have a deeper understanding and desire to get more out of photography than pretty colors, cuteness and high megapixels.

[mwfanelli2]

Awesome, a lot of input on the subject.
The learning curve is still infinite, I believe.

Yep, that is a key difference between us, I don't agree that the learning curve is infinite. I see talent as that last step that takes a person across the huge gap from ordinary to extraordinary. There is no way to "work hard" to get to the same place.

For example, contrary to what you may see here, I am an excellent writer, been published and so forth. People have said I am talented. But I know that no amount of hard work will ever turn me into the next James Joyce. For me, it is tough to reconcile myself to that fact. True talent wins out each and every time. What is the point if you can't be among the best? Well, it's simple: enjoy what you do and don't worry about it! It's the best you can hope for.

[Anbesol]

*edit - I deleted this original comment, being sort of improperly articulated. I interchange the definition of "talent" most similarly to "skill", but perhaps your understanding of the word implies a more exceptional quality. I think we just might be arguing semantics here. I agree that only a small percentage of people become exceptionally talented.

As for the learning curve, if that was the case who has ever finished this finite learning curve?

Maple - awesome golf analogy lol.

[Anbesol]

To explain what I'm saying, consider everybody you know and have experienced their cooking. Is everybody just a good, or a bad cook, or is there different levels of skills and talents, and specialties for cooking. I think its obviously the latter, which is why I must insist against the word "true" preceding "talent".

[jetrim]

So what role does expertise play in the production of technically, and/or artistically good photography?

I need to write a paper for a class I'm taking, the subject has to be the quality of expertise. I am interested in pursuing this question in this essay.

Expertise plays a huge role in the production of great photography, but sadly it plays an ever diminishing role in the business of photography. Artists of all types tend to suffer from the delusion that exceptional talent/skill/technical excellence in and of itself will make the world stand up, take notice, and come flocking to their studio door. The truly successful photographers have to be marketing geniuses first, savy businessmen second, and talented a far distant third. If you're not great at marketing and business, nobody is ever going to know how talented you are...

[Loupey]

maplestreet - I love your analogy to golf and while I don't golf, I used to sport fish before getting back into photography. Sport fishing is similar to golf and photography in that, if inclined, one can purchase equipment manufactured with high-tech space-age materials. My current inventory of rods and reels could easily be traded for a couple "L" lenses. Do they help me fish better? Perhaps. But definitely not proportionately better than the price would indicate. But they definitely make it more enjoyable to use.

...Just because something sells or is popular does that make it good?...

This one sentence stood out from your entire, well-written post. I've been thinking about it all day and can't quite answer it. I suppose it has to do with the definition of "good". We've all seen images or video that aren't technically "good", but the action, subject, and/or rarity makes it good. So doesn't that, in and by itself, may it good?

What makes your question even more interesting is that since "good" is often defined by social standards, different cultures may see a "good" image as "bad" and may not sell or be popular at all.

[Loupey]

...The truly successful photographers have to be marketing geniuses first, savy businessmen second, and talented a far distant third. If you're not great at marketing and business, nobody is ever going to know how talented you are...

I agree with this completely.

But hasn't this been the case with all art from the very beginning? Of the most renowned artists known today, didn't many of them live in obscurity and poverty during their lifetimes?

The cave paintings in Lascaux, France exist today because the caveman was exceptionally talented and a savy businessman

[GB1]

Anbesol - I run into a related issue at work when designing software user interfaces. Some people are not art people. They can't tell the difference between a good visual item and a bad one. I bet that gal was someone who would accept most anything that was put in front of her.

It reminds me of drawing, which I was really into when I was a kid. It was soooooo easy to impress family members, friends and general laymen. The real challenge is impressing fellow artists! If you're a real artist, you won't be fooled by uninformed praise when you know what you just put out is mediocre work. Artists are one of their own worst critics.

Another story - I took a Philosophy of Art class in college. It was a very challenging class, a lot of reading and interpretation and making logic arguments. One of the topics we discussed for about a week or two was "Is photography art?" One of the biggest hits against is that a novice can have no idea what they're doing and can occasionally, basically by accident, get a good shot. Not really so with drawing and painting. But the instructor concluded after much discussion that photography was indeed art and that it took skill and artistic vision to produce fine, consistent photographs.

Good luck w/ the paper. I may write more on this later.

[maplestreet]

Yep, that is a key difference between us, I don't agree that the learning curve is infinite. I see talent as that last step that takes a person across the huge gap from ordinary to extraordinary. There is no way to "work hard" to get to the same place.

For example, contrary to what you may see here, I am an excellent writer, been published and so forth. People have said I am talented. But I know that no amount of hard work will ever turn me into the next James Joyce. For me, it is tough to reconcile myself to that fact. True talent wins out each and every time. What is the point if you can't be among the best? Well, it's simple: enjoy what you do and don't worry about it! It's the best you can hope for.

I guess I kindof see what you are saying. I mean in sports you see it all the time. You can take two basketball players that are similar in size (6'6), they both work hard, they've both practiced they're whole life, the difference is that one is Michael Jordan, the other is Dan Majerle. They were both talented basketball players who got paid to play, but Majerle was just talented while Jordan was an exceptional talent.

That being said, and no matter what you are comparing, just because one is the greatest of all time doesn't mean the other isn't talented. So in your case just because your body of work isn't legendary like Joyce, doesn't mean you cant get inspired and write some great things.

Getting back to the original question posed by Anbesol, anyone can get lucky, but when you practice, when you work hard and when you have some level of talent, the odds of success and even the spectacular are much more in your favor. In other words, there's nothin wrong with bein Dan Majerle!

This one sentence stood out from your entire, well-written post. I've been thinking about it all day and can't quite answer it. I suppose it has to do with the definition of "good". We've all seen images or video that aren't technically "good", but the action, subject, and/or rarity makes it good. So doesn't that, in and by itself, may it good?

What makes your question even more interesting is that since "good" is often defined by social standards, different cultures may see a "good" image as "bad" and may not sell or be popular at all.

Thanks Loupey, I agree it's a bit of a conundrum. I guess the best definition of 'good' for me is something with exceptional quality but round and round it goes because as they say; "one man's trash is another mans treasure." I used Britney Spears as an example and even though I dont enjoy her music, obviously millions of people do so I dont know if that makes it good or not.

As it pertains to the question that was posed though, I have to stick by my belief that people who are knowledgable, well practiced and passionate about photography will consistently take better pictures than average joes and that difference will be noticable, even to those average joes.

[Anbesol]

Maple - is it possible that Jordan put in more practice and training than majerle? I'm curious how much of the difference of ability is innate and how much is practice. My guess is that the "innate" difference, whilst probably there, is not all that big.

Jetrim - you bring up an excellent point. I have had the desire to enter into the professional realm of imaging for a long time. Thus far I have a bit of an experience with lifetouch church directories, albeit a very introductory experience to the realms of professional photography, and the experience of photography classes at my local juco. The fact that the photo business is so much more about marketing and business cunning has been very discouraging for me. Part of pursuing this career is trying to battle with my own discouragement, to find the encouragement to keep pursuing. That is also why this place is like a haven for me, a place to find the inspiration and encouragement.

GB1 - I see what you mean. Its true, the non-artists interest in an image is quite like a knee-jerk reaction, they don't often look very deeply into the qualities of the image, just recognize the subject matter and scene. Not that it is a bad thing necessarily, when self-recognized. I know I don't understand music very well, my response to liking music is similarly knee jerk as well. I dont always exactly know why I like it (or don't), I just do (or don't). I don't know what goes into it, but I still enjoy it when I hear it. Perhaps its not about getting the layperson to understand what goes into it, but simply getting them to recognize that there is an artistic attention to detail (or, lack thereof) within every single photograph.

How often have you seen someone examine a really good picture, and express the sentiment - "wow, that must have been made with a really nice camera!"

Edward Steichen said at the onset of 35mm film that "35mm will turn photographers into bums, and bums into photographers". I think the sentiment he maintains in that statement has been even further exacerbated by the fusion of digital imaging in the photography realm. How often do we hear of the housewife who, weeks after she receives a rebel kit for a birthday present wants to go out and make money with her new hobby, so she offers her services for $40 a session and gives a jpeg copy of the images on CD to the client, she also uses automatic mode the whole time. Its a hypothetical situation that we are all I'm sure pretty familiar with, its a pretty familiar story amongst professional photography. Do people think that the quality they receive from this hobbyist can be comparable to someone who has dedicated years of their life to the mastery of the craft?

[maplestreet]

Maple - is it possible that Jordan put in more practice and training than majerle? I'm curious how much of the difference of ability is innate and how much is practice. My guess is that the "innate" difference, whilst probably there, is not all that big.

I agree 100%, you just said it better than I did. :thumbsup:

[armando_m]

I think modern equipment does helps a lot, a point and shoot can produce high quality images, and that's why I think the initial comment that anyone - with some luck - can take a good photo.

bout the level of goodness, what we qualify as good, to the no so enthusiast of photography, can look like an incredible good quality image.

To actually produce attractive photos more consistently does take practice, and enough practice brings anyone closer to mastery of whatever it is they are practicing.
To get to the michael jordan level of mastery , it takes thousand of practice hours.

One interesting thing about photography is that I find myself practicing viewing/composing, even if I do not have my camera with me ... I'm surviving boring meeting practicing portraits

[WesternGuy]

The other day i overheard a remark told to a man aspiring to be a professional photographer. This mans sister - a sorority girl, told him "There is a girl in our sorority who sometimes forgets to put a shirt on, and even she can get a good picture. So, what does that say about the career you are trying to get into."

This remark is the epitomizing quip of a prevailing disconnect between the understanding of photography amongst laypeople, and amongst the more proficient users - advanced hobbyists and professionals alike. I'm sure we've all heard similar remarks, I remember mentioning to somebody that "printing is not a simple, one button process", and they were surprised at my remark, insisting that printing is actually a simple one button process.

The idea of 'ease of use' has become so embedded in the laymen culture that people commonly disregard the quality of expertise required to produce good photography. As I'm sure we amongst a popular photography community are aware, good photography is not easy. So, why do so many people amongst common consumer culture seem to think it is?

Indeed, you can print something straight from the camera, and yes, sometimes a novice user can produce a good photograph. So what role does expertise play in the production of technically, and/or artistically good photography?

I need to write a paper for a class I'm taking, the subject has to be the quality of expertise. I am interested in pursuing this question in this essay. I am interested in starting a discussion on the subject with the community here, and would love to hear what you guys have to say about this topic, feedback or ideas. If anybody is aware of a good source that has an academic look into this field of research, please post. Thanks for reading.

Well, I thought I should throw my 0.02¢ in here, as I can relate to some of the things you are discussing...all opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone - I do not expect everyone will agree with them and I respect anyone's right to disagree with them - having said that I continue...

To begin with, I think the "ease of use" phenomenon is something that is part of the technology revolution...is it more obvious in photography than other places...I don't really think so...but I will concentrate on photography. If we step back about 15, 20, or even 30 years (for those of us who have been around that long...), how many of your friends, family and acquaintances had cameras that you knew of - I'm guessing maybe 1 in 10, or fewer...how about today...I'm guessing 1 in 3 or 4, or more...why...because todays' technology caters to the "instant gratification" so prevalent in todays society - digital cameras, specifically point and shoot, make it very easy for someone to shoot a bunch of images and then waltz down to the nearest Wal Mart, Costco, Best Buy, etc. and print off a bunch of images for their friends - thus printing becomes "a simple, one-button process" for the majority - does this mean they have "expertise" in digital photography, absolutely not...what it does mean is that they have gained enough of an understanding of the "consumer" end of the technology to be able to take pictures and produce copies of these for their friends and family, some have even gotten to the point where they know how to post these on social networks, such as Facebook, to share with the world. Compare this with racing cars, how many of us feel that we are fairly good drivers on the general open road around the city streets, highways and byways of our neighbourhood, come on let's see a show of hands...yet how many of us would think twice or maybe 3 or 4 times about stepping into an Indy car and going a few hundred miles an hour around a road that really goes nowhere???? - very few, is my guess...

Are these "snapshots" "good photography", probably not by the usual standards of composition and artistry that we like to use (although, sometimes a novice user can produce a good photograph), but they are "good enough for their purposes" and that is, in my mind, one of the keys to understanding this "one-button" mentality (the use of this term is not meant in any derogatory fashion, it is simply my way of compartmentalizing this part of the consumer continuum that is happy and content with the results that they get at this level). I think this is where part of the prevailing disconnect between the understanding of photography amongst laypeople, and amongst the more proficient users - advanced hobbyists and professionals alike can be found - people only get involved in something to the extent that the outcome is important to them, for example, how many of us cheer on the local team (hockey, football, basketball, etc) and only watch them on the tv and would not even think of buying tickets to a game (assuming we could afford them of course), because our "loyalty" does not go that far. How many of you voted in the last election in your city, state/province, country...

For those of us who think of ourselves as "proficient users" in photography, I do believe that there is something more driving us, than simply having snapshots for the family and friends. We have "heros", so to speak, for me, as a landscape and nature photographer I look to the works of Ansel Adams, Eliot Porter and George Weston and then to people like Galen Rowell, John Shaw, Freeman Patterson, Mike Grandmaison, and so forth. I do not do a lot of "people" photography", but when I think of it, people like Louis Cartier-Bresson and Yousof Karsh come to mind. ( I am sure to have missed a lot of names that should be here, but I think folks will get the idea...) This means that I have my own personal standards for achievement in terms of the type of images that I hope to be able to produce - will I ever attain those standards, maybe yes, most likely no, but maybe, just maybe, I will come close and I often think that this thought that I "might come close" is one of the things that keeps me going, pursuing technically and artistically "correct" or "good" images. I am not content with "snapshots", nor do I belong to the "one-button" sector of the photographic community - I am aware that "good" photography is not easy, but I do understand that so many people amongst the common consumer culture seem to think it is, probably because their exposure to our side of the community is limited, not only by the equipment they have (they don't know anything else), but also by the fact that, for them, our pursuit is a means to a different end.

This is where, in my mind, this "quality of expertise" comes into play - as we experiment more and more with the "rules of composition" (I know, not everyone likes this term..., but, you have to start somewhere...) and acquire new and different equipment that we all learn to use to the best of our ability...there is this effort and drive to improve beyond the "one-button" mode that, in my mind, separates the "snapshot" crowd from the "artistic" crowd...we are well beyond the "ease of use" thought processes and, I suspect, that a lot of us are very conscious of the image in the frame when we push the shutter release. What happens, I feel, is that our personal quality of expertise rises and grows as we learn more about what looks good (artistically) and we learn more about what works and what doesn't and the circumstances surrounding both situations.

I will confess that many, many years ago I was a snapshot producer - I mean you give a kid a camera and, guess what - he goes out and shoots "snapshots"- what else, but if the interest is maintained (all us Type A personalities), then at some point, there is a transition from "taking pictures" to "making pictures" and our ability to "make pictures" is going to depend, in large part, on the quality of our expertise - for some of us with a natural "artistic" skill set, this transition will probalby come sooner than later, for others, it may never come, or at least, never get to the point that we want it to.

I could go on and on and on, I suppose, but it is probably time to end this random walk through my thoughts...Anbesol, I do hope I have shed some light on your questions and given you something to think about for your essay.

Regards,

WesternGuy

[Loupey]

On the subjects of quality of expertise and ease of use, I think it is just as important to consider the topic of ease of distribution. The internet (and email to a lesser degree) and the digital camera go hand-in-hand. Without either, the other is significantly diminished.

In the past, millions upon millions of film SLR's, point-and-shoots, and instamatics were sold but there was no easy way to share the images and get them in front of people who might purchase them. I'm sure there were good and lucky photographers then as well. But no real way to compare, talk shop, and gain confidence like we do now.

The technical aspect of photography has gotten easier no doubt in my mind. Taking images with meaning takes more than just technical skills however.

[Don Schaeffer]

Unfortunately and embarrassingly, the quality of photographs is in the eye of the beholder and beholders are loaded with biases and opinions.

[Anbesol]

Westernguy - I see what you mean about 'acceptable results'. It probably irks me mostly because, at least in my perception of things, the standard used to be higher, even though the technology wasn't as sophisticated. Now, the technology is better, and the standard is lower. That is probably very much due to the so called "uber-noob" photographers integrating into the photo culture. Thank you much for your response, I need to make this damned paper 20 pages and I need all the thinking on it I can get!

Taking images with meaning takes more than just technical skills however.

Good call! But, sometimes, a simply meaningless photo that is only 'technically good' can still, in my mind, be a pretty pleasing image.

Don - this is true, but I think that a lot of the conventional wisdom regarding good photography has its merit, and needs to be attended to and considered before deviating from said conventions.

Point and shoots just have too much DOF for me, haha, I want narrow DOF! Could you imagine if point and shoots had as picky of a focus plane as a DSLR? Good thing for the novice user, the focus point is almost irrelevant on those teeny tiny sensors.

[RoxyRNAB]

My Dad was a Fantastic Photographer Back In The Day Of Film. He Looked for a camera for me about 9 years ago, digital times, And he purchased the Sony DSC-V1 For Me. It could go into manual mode and also lay it out really really well in presets too. I found that I mostly dealt with point & shoot easy to get shots, and that's just fine by me, I'm Not A Pro, But I Believe That I have produced some really interesting imagery.

The Wonderful Thing About Photography As A Hobby Is That You Can Only Get Better And Learn More

I Have Printed Everything Worthy Right On My Inkjet, And Found The Results Quite Nice. Canvas Goes Through Like A Dream And Produces Dreamy Painting Like Images, And As Soon As I Have Enough Money Will Purchase Some Other Neat Kinds Of Paper To Test On My New Printer~Nods~

There Is No Comparison To Having A Pro Shoot Your Photos, But With A Little Knowledge And Most Any Kind Of Camera, Anybody Can Get A Neat And Cool Photo To Show Off.

The Only Pro Photos I Have Never Liked Are School Photos...They Need To Come Up With A Better Way Of Shooting Nowadays!