Lens - camera DSLR v Compact- composition

Hope no one minds but there doesn't seem to be a discussion thread on the above.

Taking the second part first DSLR v Compact cameras, both have their good and bad points. A compact camera is fantastic for carrying around in a pocket for example and can take really good pictures, to my mind the drawback is that you a limited to the lens that comes with it. They are great for ordinary photos but when it comes to specialist photos -as in my moon shots - they just can't manage the range.
As For DSLR and my preferred choice , yes you can just use them in auto mode, if one wants to go the next step and start using different lenses and have more versatility with the photos then a DSLR to my mind is a must.
By getting A DSLR and slowly using the different modes one by one for me at least gives a greater pleasure being able to have a greater control with what I take. I would not judge one make of camera against another make, as it it up to the user to see which suites best. I would say get the best you can afford , may seem obvious, but from experience I have found that even if, at the present time, the features on the camera you think you will never use, 10 to 1 somewhere down the line you will be glad you have them. A passing shot 6 meg pixel DSLRs are on the way out so some really good bargains are out there to be had.

Ok back to point one

Lenses Yes Pro DSLR camera lenses are extremely expensive especially in the f2.8 range and dedicated camera makers lenses are even more so, but obviously can take a more pin sharp picture.
This is where 3rd party makers come into their own with the consumer standard lens, ok first they are a loads cheaper and buying from the far east ie Hong kong-Japan-China can save you a fortune on UK prices. For the average photographer they can produce great pictures which can still be inproved on within an editing suite . If buying a lens it pays to read reports on the lens, there are many web sites which give lens owners reports, as different makes do the same job but the results can be so different.

Lastly Composition

When I first started taking photos I didn't realise how important composition was, you must have seen people framing a view with their hands first and I thought how stupid. The rule of thirds men't absolutely nothing to me and I happily just took a picture without giving it much thought. Ok there is the occassion whereby a snap photo has to be taken or the moment is lost which I think everyone understands, but with static photos such as views when time can be taken then it is worth spending a few minutes trying to see what would look the best.
We have all taken pictures of people with a tree or lamp post sprouting out of the back of the head, I know I have, but by moving slightly to one side ore the other this can easily be avoided. With digital photography it is so easy to take photos of the same place from different angles without incurring developement costs as with film cameras that there is really no excuse for producing the above error or the like.

Finally ending my rambling I am not a great on in post manulative alteration in an editing suite, unless the aim is to produce a special effect. To my mind a picture should reflect what the eye sees and be as natural as possible, others may disagree, I was once told by a professional photographer that the better the photo taken the less time in post production, and it still holds good for me .

Hopefully other members may want to add their own comments on the above
and I welcome it, but please do remember it is my thoughts so please be kind in any criticism.

Bazza

To me, a photograph is art and as such, each to their own HDR, Orton and Selective colouring for example are obviously altered pics for an artistic llok of one sort or another ....doesn't make the original pic a bad one , it just means it doesn't show what the artist wanted it to show I suppose it is like the difference between this:



and this



Both are beautiful landscapes, one looks like a photo and one doesn't but it doesn't devalue the second IMO

Quote

" unless the aim is to produce a special effect."

Unquote
Bazza

I think photography can be an art too - and like paint brushes are used to capture an image for artists, cameras are the photographers tool

Exactly my point

Ill say it again, photography is what YOU want it to be!

IMO it is a bit of a waste to buy a DSLR and then to only shoot in Auto mode. There are so many options available to you.

I agree with you here Bazza

Mel - that first image is lovely, the second ... (that is only my opinion though - I know others might like that type of Art ).

I prefer the first as well but it shows that, like with photography, beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Couldn't agree more But then why buy a DSLR if you think that you SHOULDN'T take advantage of photo manipulation IF you want to May as well buy a film camera lol

(playing devils advocate here )

Purely for the fact you have the advantage of instantly seeing how the image has turned out and if you aren't happy with it you can delete the image and re-shoot It's also easier to show them to friends and family online/over email without having to scan prints in