Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Portraits with Non-DSLR digital camera

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 16, 2005 1:11:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Hi. I want to buy a Non-DSLR digital camera that is capable of shooting
good portraits of people. Can you suggest some models for me to check
into? Here is an example of the type of portraits I like:
http://www.lowgenius.net/cuz_u_care.htm

Thanks in advance for help. I'm new to digital cameras.

Wes






_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 1:11:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"Wes" <wes.bless3@example.com> wrote in message
news:T$R$284050@example.com...
> Hi. I want to buy a Non-DSLR digital camera that is capable of shooting
> good portraits of people. Can you suggest some models for me to check
> into? Here is an example of the type of portraits I like:
> http://www.lowgenius.net/cuz_u_care.htm
>
> Thanks in advance for help. I'm new to digital cameras.
>
> Wes

This may hurt, but that ain't the best portrait I've ever seen. I'd
consider that a snapshot. Just about any digital camera would do.

If you want portraits like these (just did a quick Google search) you're
probably going to want to up the ante a bit.

http://portfolio.kevinthom.com/portraits/lara_contempla...
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 1:11:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:
> "Wes" <wes.bless3@example.com> wrote in message
> news:T$R$284050@example.com...
>> Hi. I want to buy a Non-DSLR digital camera that is capable of
>> shooting good portraits of people. Can you suggest some models for
>> me to check into? Here is an example of the type of portraits I
>> like:
>> http://www.lowgenius.net/cuz_u_care.htm
>>
>> Thanks in advance for help. I'm new to digital cameras.
>>
>> Wes
>
> This may hurt, but that ain't the best portrait I've ever seen. I'd
> consider that a snapshot. Just about any digital camera would do.
>
> If you want portraits like these (just did a quick Google search)
> you're probably going to want to up the ante a bit.
>
> http://portfolio.kevinthom.com/portraits/lara_contempla...

I like that (Kevin Thom) Lara photo, but I don't think it is all that
great, either; or maybe he lost her nose on purpose.

I think the OP is looking for something that will make relatively
close-up pictures with recognizable characteristics of the people
whose representations he produces, not necessarily rising to the
definition of "portrait" as is conventionally and conveniently used.
Presumptuous, I know.

Here are a few from three cameras. Presumptuous again, to call the
album "Portrait", bu a good deal handier than "Pictures of peoples'
faces that may show a little of who they are in fewer than a thousand
words".
http://www.fototime.com/inv/446F91A7688BF04


--
Frank ess
Related resources
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 1:11:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <d_6dnfWe75mllBXfRVn-iQ@comcast.com>, Sheldon
<sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

> http://portfolio.kevinthom.com/portraits/lara_contempla...

Boy, I'm glad I'm out of the portrait business. It would drive me nuts
to have these kids coming in with their faces looking like they fell
face-down in a tackle box. :-)
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 1:11:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:

> Sheldon wrote:
>
>>
>> If you want portraits like these (just did a quick Google search)
>> you're probably going to want to up the ante a bit.
>>
>> http://portfolio.kevinthom.com/portraits/lara_contempla...
>
>
> I like that (Kevin Thom) Lara photo, but I don't think it is all that
> great, either; or maybe he lost her nose on purpose.
>
> I think the OP is looking for something that will make relatively
> close-up pictures with recognizable characteristics of the people whose
> representations he produces, not necessarily rising to the definition of
> "portrait" as is conventionally and conveniently used. Presumptuous, I
> know.


Is that a piercing *inside* her nose???! Maybe a reason to lose the tip
of the nose <g>.


>
> Here are a few from three cameras. Presumptuous again, to call the album
> "Portrait", bu a good deal handier than "Pictures of peoples' faces that
> may show a little of who they are in fewer than a thousand words".
> http://www.fototime.com/inv/446F91A7688BF04
>
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:35:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Hi Wes; There is an old saying among professional photographers "it
is not the camera , it's the photographer". I have seen some great photos
done with a pin-hole camera or an instamatic. If you learn composition,
lighting, and other dynamics ... as well as Photoshop, Photoshop Elements or
another good program, the camera will be less imporatant. One thing to
remember about the difference between point & shoot & SLR style ..... point
& shoot cameras have paralax problems. That means that you view through a
viewfinder & not through the lens. So what you see is not what get. Things
are not where you saw them in the viewfinder. So if you do buy a point &
shoot, make sure it has a lot of megapixels. You will need to back up and
not get too close because of paralax. If you do you can then crop in
tighter. Besides that, go for a camera with a fair amount of optical zoom.
Get one that has a tripod socket on the bottom so you can put it on a
tripod. I hope these things help. Craig Flory
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:35:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Craig Flory wrote:
> Hi Wes; There is an old saying among professional photographers "it
> is not the camera , it's the photographer". I have seen some great photos
> done with a pin-hole camera or an instamatic. If you learn composition,
> lighting, and other dynamics ... as well as Photoshop, Photoshop Elements or
> another good program, the camera will be less imporatant. One thing to
> remember about the difference between point & shoot & SLR style ..... point
> & shoot cameras have paralax problems. That means that you view through a
> viewfinder & not through the lens. So what you see is not what get. Things
> are not where you saw them in the viewfinder. So if you do buy a point &
> shoot, make sure it has a lot of megapixels. You will need to back up and
> not get too close because of paralax. If you do you can then crop in
> tighter. Besides that, go for a camera with a fair amount of optical zoom.
> Get one that has a tripod socket on the bottom so you can put it on a
> tripod. I hope these things help. Craig Flory
>
>
I have NEVER seen a P&S camera that doesn't have an LCD that shows the
sensor output. If you use a tripod (and for portraits, you should),
then it is ok to use the LCD for framing the picture, in fact, it is the
best way. For handheld shots, use the viewfinder, even with the paralax
issue, because you NEED the inertia of that heavy thing on your neck!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:30:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <Aa-dnY0-hryVuhXfRVn-qA@speakeasy.net>, paul-@-edgehill.net
says...
> Frank ess wrote:
>
> > Sheldon wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If you want portraits like these (just did a quick Google search)
> >> you're probably going to want to up the ante a bit.
> >>
> >> http://portfolio.kevinthom.com/portraits/lara_contempla...
> >
> >
> > I like that (Kevin Thom) Lara photo, but I don't think it is all that
> > great, either; or maybe he lost her nose on purpose.
> >
> > I think the OP is looking for something that will make relatively
> > close-up pictures with recognizable characteristics of the people whose
> > representations he produces, not necessarily rising to the definition of
> > "portrait" as is conventionally and conveniently used. Presumptuous, I
> > know.
>
>
> Is that a piercing *inside* her nose???! Maybe a reason to lose the tip
> of the nose <g>.

Yeah, she has two piercings in her nose, but it's still flawed
lighting.

Diane
May 16, 2005 5:46:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"Wes" <wes.bless3@example.com> wrote in message
news:T$R$284050@example.com...
> Hi. I want to buy a Non-DSLR digital camera that is capable of shooting
> good portraits of people. Can you suggest some models for me to check
> into? Here is an example of the type of portraits I like:
> http://www.lowgenius.net/cuz_u_care.htm
>
> Thanks in advance for help. I'm new to digital cameras.
>
> Wes
>
At least 3 MP and with a zoom that reaches 105 to 120 (35mm equivalent) will
do, the rest is up to you. What feels best Ect. For serious control being
able to select Aperture priority and maybe the use of off camera flash might
be more important. Or even does it look expensive if you charging for your
work.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:49:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <Jc6dnddePci7CxXfRVnyiA@pipex.net>, "Trev"
<trevbowdenATdsl.pipexDOTnet> says...
>
> "Wes" <wes.bless3@example.com> wrote in message
> news:T$R$284050@example.com...
> > Hi. I want to buy a Non-DSLR digital camera that is capable of shooting
> > good portraits of people. Can you suggest some models for me to check
> > into? Here is an example of the type of portraits I like:
> > http://www.lowgenius.net/cuz_u_care.htm
> >
> > Thanks in advance for help. I'm new to digital cameras.
> >
> > Wes
> >
> At least 3 MP and with a zoom that reaches 105 to 120 (35mm equivalent) will
> do, the rest is up to you. What feels best Ect. For serious control being
> able to select Aperture priority and maybe the use of off camera flash might
> be more important. Or even does it look expensive if you charging for your
> work.
>
>
>
For indoor portraits, off-camera flash is just about essential.
Sometimes you can get by with just a bounce, along with *something*
to fill shadows (reflector, maybe one that's built in to the
flash).

Indoors or outdoors, for portraits, lighting is more important
than the camera. Outdoors, you have to learn to read the light,
and learn to shoot with the light you've got. Indoors, you
have to create the lighting you want, which is harder, but will
give you tremendous range and flexibility. The camera has to
have the right flash sync connections to trigger your lighting
gear, and it needs a good lens to record the quality that you
want.

I have to agree with Sheldon; that's a snapshot, not a portrait.
Before picking a camera, try looking at a book on portrait
lighting, decide how far you want to go with it and what your
budget can support, then pick lighting and camera equipment
as a group. I like this book, because it shows a wide
variety of portraits by a number of photographers, and shows
how the lighting was set up:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/082306522...

Diane
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:04:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <ts0ie.1730$Lc1.1487@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Craig
Flory wrote:
> One thing to
> remember about the difference between point & shoot & SLR style ..... point
> & shoot cameras have paralax problems.

Only through their viewfinders, not with their LCD screens.

--

Roger
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:04:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <MPG.1cf26f0adb7bb08a989af8@news-server>, Diane Wilson wrote:
> For indoor portraits, off-camera flash is just about essential.

Or use available light. Jane Bown used to (see
http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column27 ), handheld, too.

--

Roger
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 10:14:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:56:16 -0500
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:


> >
> I have NEVER seen a P&S camera that doesn't have an LCD that shows the
> sensor output. I
>
My film ones don't. :) 

I had to shoot a digital P&S for a magazine insert (one of those annoying things that drops out
by the bucketload when you pick up the magazine) a couple weeks back. It had no LCD whatsoever.
But it was rather "made in China."
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:50:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <20050517061415.18c1c980.microwave@dodgeit.com>, Microwave wrote:
> I had to shoot a digital P&S for a magazine insert (one of those annoying things that drops out
> by the bucketload when you pick up the magazine) a couple weeks back. It had no LCD whatsoever.

No, that's a PoS.

--

Roger
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 1:58:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Microwave <microwave@dodgeit.com> wrote:

>
>I had to shoot a digital P&S for a magazine insert (one of those annoying things that drops out
>by the bucketload when you pick up the magazine) a couple weeks back. It had no LCD whatsoever.
>But it was rather "made in China."

Why not, inserts aren't fine art, Their only purpose is to make me
tear them all out and toss them into the trash before I begin to read
the magazine. If they have photos on them, I never see them.


To reply, please remove one letter from each side of "@"
Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.
!