What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
40 Comments
- tankko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3$2500 for a camera? Huh? Being a professional photographer isn't about your camera, it's about your talent. All of the problems mentioned in this story are about skill and knowledge, nothing about your camera.
- myskja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well...Here's my step by step...: The article won't make you professional. Only TONS AND TONS of practise and serious talent will. A step by step guide won't weigh up for that. Even if it ends up a little prettier a crappy sunset will still be a crappy sunset even if its created with a guide. And beware, following a guide like a robot tend to take away whatever creativity you had going for you in the first place.
- shooby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1incredibly informative thanks!
- OregonTrail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I learned alot, thanks
- SparQy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
Aye, tankko, but I think the point is that the skill and knowledge you get from the article will improve your shots on even a cheap point + click.
+digg - topato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Awesome, that was very informative
- mrblaq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This should be titled "How to make a good product shot for eBay" It doesn't really have any other uses. There's already tons of articles on the web that cover the basics of aperture, focus, flash, etc.
- Wolfbeta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Misleading title, this won't make you a professional photographer.
It just teaches you all the basics of your camera (which can be found in your manual, so RTFM!)
The other half of this just seems to go on about how to use photoshop, which is more of a step-by-step on how to start doing digital manipulation.
If you ever want to have the flexibility to make your ideas a reality in photography, you will need to eventually shell out a good amount.
Also if you ever become a professional, just try presenting yourself to clients with a point and click. - Philbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Very interesting. When I went to school for photography there were no digital cameras and very little Photoshop use, so it's interesting for me to see some teaching based on digital photography. Actually come to think of it on our last day of class we all went out drinking and the teacher brought his new amazing digital camera and nobody had seen one before. It was about the size of two bricks! lol
- robotplague, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This should be a photoshop tutorial, not a photography lesson. Misleading title.
- velocipenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"good advice for beginners. especially about the tripod. even a crappy tripod is better than no tripod."
Amen to that.
"Oh BTW, flash can be okay if you have a detachable one and hold it off to the side."
Flash is useful, but direct flash always looks horrible. If you have an external flash unit and aim it so that the light bounces off another surface before hitting the subject, you'll get much better results. - jswaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm new at digital photography, and everything I've seen in this article was either in the manual for the camera, or in a photoshop tutorial/book/video. no digg from me. sorry
- Molnies, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, this has nothing to do with photography. This isn't something new, or something special. Tutorials about this have been around for ages. Anybody that is interested in Photography should have seen something like this already.
No digg - solusdotipse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, you do need a very expensive camera to be a good professional photographer. Anything short of an SLR will never work. You need the heavy ammount of megapixels and customization. No one wants small, noise filled photos.
- Philbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh BTW, flash can be okay if you have a detachable one and hold it off to the side. I cut up a plastic milk jug and taped it over thefront of my flash to diffuse the light, worked pretty well.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Photoshop step by step is more like it. You don't need a $2500 camera to take professional shots. All you need is a basic understanding of photography and lighting.
here's a shot of i took of a homeless guy with a 3mp camera.
[url]http://www.aguynamededdy.com/crea8/issue7.html[/url] - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0whoops.
http://www.aguynamededdy.com/crea8/issue7.html - forgeflow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0good advice for beginners. especially about the tripod. even a crappy tripod is better than no tripod.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0if you're shooting small product shots, you don't need a 12 megapixel camera. If you know what you're doing that is. If you're doing landscape, fashion or large product photography then yes, you'll need all the megapixels you can afford.
- egorgry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it should be mentioned that save to web in photshop will strip out the EXIF data of your digital shots. Otherwise good beginner advice.
- lavawalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Shoot RAW.
- stisev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0RAW? Can you even do that with a Canon SD200? o_O
Anyways, good article. Being an absolute n00b to photography, I learned a little. - sastian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1come on! if you took the photo right in the first place you wouldn't need to touch it up for an hour. this has little to do with photography and everything to do with how to doctor a bad shot.
no digg - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0bahh nothing i dont know.........by the way i ***** own you linuxrocks lets see your work
- Riggs54, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good god...
This guy shouldnt have to do all that in photoshop...jeez...
Check out my work, all I do is Add a few points of contrast and add the frame. takes 30 seconds!
www.crazy54.deviantart.com - pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Seems like a lot of work for a single image O.o
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Cool :) but too much work.
- glitchbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0that is stupid he saved the image as jpeg if you know anything about images you know to use a lossless format such as PNG. Whether the loss detailed is noticed or not, if you re-edit it and save you will lose more and more detail.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0imagine that. it went from pink, to pink!
there needs to be an undigg feature or "bury" because that was too long to make the picture a little bit lighter - Julian_Photo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i wouldn't call this professional either. Yes the image looks good in the end but look at all the work he had to do to get there. With proper lighting and shooting in raw mode this could be done in just a few seconds.
Its fine to take your time if you have just one image to do, but when you have 40 it becomes very important to do it right in camera - bragpig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting learn about.Good for amature like me.
- punx45, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i dont care how good you are, you still need a good lens - which point and shoots dont have. and they cost alot.
- Gardenhead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@sabarsky.
Waaay too contrasty, and that light post, what the hell. Eh. Not the best photo. Good tips I guess, a little past that. - dxxb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0useful for auction pic, but too much work. +digg
- kagayaki1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@sabarsky
What? No privacy for homeless people too? - dmoffitt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> This should be a photoshop tutorial, not a photography lesson. Misleading title.
agreed, and still product shots != pro photography. no digg. - Linuxrocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I had to learn all this crap in Photography class.
- Filoviridae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice for PS work but I prefer no photoslop...Photography these days is less photographic and more image creation.
- wingzinco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Just picked up my first dSLR. Helpful, indeed.
- frem001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"So after I read this I'll be "qualified" to use Aperture?"
huh? this is photoshop.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is