[Photos] Memories of College. - Page 3

On January 10 2010 15:37 NeverGG wrote:


Um it's called bokeh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

I'm using a DSLR so my photos obviously don't turn out like a cheap digital camera. Also if you bothered to read the notes you'd see that I was photographing in very awkward conditions not using my external flash unit (because I didn't own it back then.) Please don't complain when I explained myself in the notes. ~_~ It puts me off taking more photos when people say things like that.

TLDR: Read the notes and don't bitch. I'm doing my best to learn and practice so obviously I'm not going to be some award winning photographer after only a couple of months using my new camera.

On January 11 2010 01:31 Piste wrote:

lol I'm not bitching. I like the pictures nevertheless and would like to use one as desktop picture but the blurriness is not something i like. cheap digital camera picture would be better in this case -.-
I was only asking the reason and not demanding sharper pictures Ms. Serious

On January 11 2010 20:32 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Wish I had photographic talents... or even doodling talents...

On January 18 2010 16:19 phosphorylation wrote:
i am sure a semi-decent point and shoot on macro mode would have resulted in very similar quality photos for this subject -- at least in this resolution
hardly "shitty"

edit: ok except for that candid pic of guy.. looks like that requires a longer lens than usual

On January 19 2010 09:31 phosphorylation wrote:
obviously dslr is better than point and shoot
all i am saying that for this type of photos-- close range macro with not the most remarkable bokeh--point and shoot would do almost as well, at least without pixel peeping
i doubt this was in "almost complete darkness"
even with the fastest lenses, (around f1.4) on wide open, handheld shots would be impossible
tldr: for these types of pics (not your usual work) a point and shoot would do 90% as well for less than 10% of cost

On January 19 2010 20:05 NeverGG wrote:


Were you there with me at this location? No. So don't assume to tell me what the lighting conditions were like. Basically, it comes down to this - I don't want some piece of crap cheap digital camera and I *know* that one would not have been able to cope with this lighting. End of story, get out of my blog thank you very much.

On January 19 2010 20:28 meeple wrote:


lol... is it just me or have you been somewhat grumpier of late?

On January 11 2010 12:56 NeverGG wrote:


A cheap digital camera would have caused flare and over-exposure due to having to use flash. So no, it wouldn't have been better unless you wanted a shitty photo which wouldn't have even been large enough to make into a desktop.