19 Apr
2004
19 Apr
'04
7:22 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Zane H. Healy once stated:
You raise very valid points (that I've cut), however, the photo's I'm
talking about are the ones you don't have time to compose. The ones
where you might have time to quickly grab the camera and shoot the
picture, but only if you're lucky.
Heh. I've found it simply impossible to get a clear picture of a kid on a
digital camera---the camera is simply too slow, which is one of my major
complaints about digital cameras. Due to that, I've found that unless I'm
taking a picture in bright light (or using the flash, which isn't always
desireable) then a tripod is mandatory.
Oh, that, and strapping the kids down if I want a picture of them (or
cats, but they're a bit more ornery when I'm strapping them down).
Another
factor is cost, for a parent with a young child a digital
camera is great because you can afford to shoot tons of photos. In
NO!. Many times I've read letters and articles in photographic magazines
that point out that because you can take dozens of pictures with a
digital camera and not worry about the cost, then delete the duds later, A slightly off-key counter argument to this might be
that a Digital
Camera can be a good learning tool for a person, in that it doesn't
cost anything to learn what does work well. Thus allowing them to
shoot better pictures with both digital and film cameras (the problem
with this argument is that film cameras react differently).
That is true, and the first thing I do when i get a digital camera is take
a picture with each possible setting (the same picture, by the way) to get a
feel for what the camera can do (say, pictures of fireworks [1]). Also,
because it's digital, I'm open to attempt really silly things, like taking
pictures of the moon through a telescope [2].
-spc (Who has never deleted a picture he took, even if it was bad ... )
[1] http://boston.conman.org/2003/7/4.2
[2] http://boston.conman.org/2004/04/05.2