re2st
Apr 12, 07:45 PM
Personally, I chose Verizon over AT&T simply because my new iPad 2 drops no calls. Love the reliability.
Um.. the iPad does NOT even make calls. How could it drop them to begin with? *duh*
Um.. the iPad does NOT even make calls. How could it drop them to begin with? *duh*
Jako7286
May 2, 04:04 PM
thicker thinner, is it really worth front page news? let us have news of obama bin ladens death!
Um... This is MacRumors. So... front page news = new news and... yes?
Um... This is MacRumors. So... front page news = new news and... yes?
AhmedFaisal
Apr 12, 02:19 PM
Most political interest groups or whatever you may call them tend to sooner or later be a hindrance to integration that a benefit. It is in their very nature as their mission is to watch out for the interest of their constituents. Sooner or later that will lead to trying to carve out special privileges.
Also most of these interest groups do not truly represent the majority of the people they claim to represent anyways.
Doesn't matter what group that is, racial, ethnic, religious, industry, social etc.. Politics would benefit most from banning all of them from the political discourse.
Also most of these interest groups do not truly represent the majority of the people they claim to represent anyways.
Doesn't matter what group that is, racial, ethnic, religious, industry, social etc.. Politics would benefit most from banning all of them from the political discourse.
tigress666
Jan 12, 03:34 PM
You know, I have had good enough experiences with Garmin that this app would have tempted me to consider buying despite the fact I already have Navigon (and am on a budget so I should just stick with what I have) but the fact you don't get downloaded maps is a total deal buster.
I can get that for free with Mapquest including voice instruction to tell me when to take the next turn. Sure, Garmin may have better routing, maybe their interface is better (don't know), but that's not worth 40 dollars more.
On top of that, if I am going to pay for a navigation software (since even if Mapquest didn't offer turn by turn for free I can at least use google maps that comes on my phone for free), one of its uses better be good for travel. And while Garmin's app probably would be fine for around town for me (as is the free google maps), trying to drive out of town would be an issue cause I live in a mountainous area... there will be plenty of areas around me without cellphone coverage that I might want to take a drive through. And I don't want to pay 40 dollars for a navigation app that won't help me in those areas. Especially when I can pay less than that (Navigon is now 35 for all of the US) and get a program that isn't crippled that way.
Personally, I think it was a *huge* mistake for Garmin to rely on downloading only. Even if you don't have a need for the maps to be on your phone, you can get the same function for free from other apps. And if you are willing to give up voice instruction, you don't even have to download any apps, you got google maps that comes with the phone. And from what I understand from reviews, this isn't download a map and it caches it, this is pretty much like google maps where you have to have cellphone connection to have a map.
I can get that for free with Mapquest including voice instruction to tell me when to take the next turn. Sure, Garmin may have better routing, maybe their interface is better (don't know), but that's not worth 40 dollars more.
On top of that, if I am going to pay for a navigation software (since even if Mapquest didn't offer turn by turn for free I can at least use google maps that comes on my phone for free), one of its uses better be good for travel. And while Garmin's app probably would be fine for around town for me (as is the free google maps), trying to drive out of town would be an issue cause I live in a mountainous area... there will be plenty of areas around me without cellphone coverage that I might want to take a drive through. And I don't want to pay 40 dollars for a navigation app that won't help me in those areas. Especially when I can pay less than that (Navigon is now 35 for all of the US) and get a program that isn't crippled that way.
Personally, I think it was a *huge* mistake for Garmin to rely on downloading only. Even if you don't have a need for the maps to be on your phone, you can get the same function for free from other apps. And if you are willing to give up voice instruction, you don't even have to download any apps, you got google maps that comes with the phone. And from what I understand from reviews, this isn't download a map and it caches it, this is pretty much like google maps where you have to have cellphone connection to have a map.
more...
AppleScruff1
Apr 23, 11:44 AM
2010 FXDB (Street Bob). Used to have a 2005 XL1200C (1200 Sportster Custom).
Very nice.
Very nice.
Dont Hurt Me
Oct 15, 01:55 PM
Boy I hope not. Unless they can get some cooler silicon off-board, giving up battery life for 12 FPS in Quake just isn't a good bargain for 97% of the market.
That is idiotic, there are plenty of low power graphics solutions that blow the doors off Integrated garbage, Almost like saying I hope they use the least expensive cheapist solution they can find that uses no power. A computer is a tool and for you to say 97 % dont need a GPU is a lie. In that case they could be using G3s with rage 128's. More spin from the fan club of crapo graphics. What they should do is offer a option for those people who expect a modern computer to be just that.
That is idiotic, there are plenty of low power graphics solutions that blow the doors off Integrated garbage, Almost like saying I hope they use the least expensive cheapist solution they can find that uses no power. A computer is a tool and for you to say 97 % dont need a GPU is a lie. In that case they could be using G3s with rage 128's. More spin from the fan club of crapo graphics. What they should do is offer a option for those people who expect a modern computer to be just that.
more...
PowerFullMac
Jan 15, 03:22 AM
I'll join the iChat :)
I didnt know you had a IRC, MacRumors! I'll add that, too!
Thanks :)
I didnt know you had a IRC, MacRumors! I'll add that, too!
Thanks :)
gwangung
Mar 25, 09:47 AM
Only thing worse than patent lawyers are people dissing the area, given that they know neither a) the law, nor b) the specific patent being dicussed.
Talk about being aggresively ignorant...
Talk about being aggresively ignorant...
more...
flosseR
Mar 29, 10:00 AM
Thatisme, please read this, and read it CAREFULLY...…
These are the complete comments to all your relevant posts:
"To the previous post about focal lengths, the difference in perceived focal length comes into account when you factor in the 1.6 cropped sensor. Since the sensor is physically smaller than a Full Frame or 1.3 crop sensor, it is essentially taking the image from the center portion of the lens.
So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens."
--INCORRECT on the same body you will get the EXACT same image
"Nikon also created a FULL FRame camera a while back that also had the ability to create a "cropped" image to increase it's rate of capture to achieve results in FPS that were similar to canon's 1D series bodies. Effectively if it captured less pixels per image, it could do so faster."
-- ALL Nikon Cameras can use ALL Nikon made lenses. And no, that wasn't the main reason to do that.
"YOU WILL GET DIFFERENT IMAGES IF YOU USE A 200mm EF Lens on a 7D (APS-C) and a 200mm EF-S lens on that same camera due to the FOVCF. on the EF lens, the 200mm assumes you are using the ENTIRE image circle of the lens, which you are not. You ARE using the ENTIRE image circle on the EF-S lens, which is a True 200mm for that camera. You have to use the ENTIRE image circle to get a true measure of the focal length. when you use only a portion of that image circle, you have to apply the FOVCF to get the EFFECTIVE focal length."
-- This is pulled out of you mind because it does not make sense at ALL and is so incorrect it's not even funny.. the lens is NOT adjusted to the focal length.. the length is the same.. the EFFECTIVE focal length (or Field of VIEW) comes from the sensor.. NOT the lens!!!
"ok. this is getting comical.
From your post, blasting me....
A canon 55-200 EF-s and a 70-200L lens at 200mm on a canon 7D will produce the exact same image...the same as if you would mount both lenses on a full frame body and crop the image by 1.6"
-- NO YOU WONT!!! what are you? a troll that needs feeding??
I compared BOTH lenses mounted on a 7d to BOTH lenses mounted on a 5d… if you crop the BOTH images from a 5d you have the same as BOTH from a 7d..
If you take BOTH shots from a 7d .. they are the SAME.. and they are the same if you shoot them both on a 5d..
GET
IT
IN
YOUR
BRAIN!
THE SENSOR MATTERS!!! NOT THE LENS..
geezz….
These are the complete comments to all your relevant posts:
"To the previous post about focal lengths, the difference in perceived focal length comes into account when you factor in the 1.6 cropped sensor. Since the sensor is physically smaller than a Full Frame or 1.3 crop sensor, it is essentially taking the image from the center portion of the lens.
So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens."
--INCORRECT on the same body you will get the EXACT same image
"Nikon also created a FULL FRame camera a while back that also had the ability to create a "cropped" image to increase it's rate of capture to achieve results in FPS that were similar to canon's 1D series bodies. Effectively if it captured less pixels per image, it could do so faster."
-- ALL Nikon Cameras can use ALL Nikon made lenses. And no, that wasn't the main reason to do that.
"YOU WILL GET DIFFERENT IMAGES IF YOU USE A 200mm EF Lens on a 7D (APS-C) and a 200mm EF-S lens on that same camera due to the FOVCF. on the EF lens, the 200mm assumes you are using the ENTIRE image circle of the lens, which you are not. You ARE using the ENTIRE image circle on the EF-S lens, which is a True 200mm for that camera. You have to use the ENTIRE image circle to get a true measure of the focal length. when you use only a portion of that image circle, you have to apply the FOVCF to get the EFFECTIVE focal length."
-- This is pulled out of you mind because it does not make sense at ALL and is so incorrect it's not even funny.. the lens is NOT adjusted to the focal length.. the length is the same.. the EFFECTIVE focal length (or Field of VIEW) comes from the sensor.. NOT the lens!!!
"ok. this is getting comical.
From your post, blasting me....
A canon 55-200 EF-s and a 70-200L lens at 200mm on a canon 7D will produce the exact same image...the same as if you would mount both lenses on a full frame body and crop the image by 1.6"
-- NO YOU WONT!!! what are you? a troll that needs feeding??
I compared BOTH lenses mounted on a 7d to BOTH lenses mounted on a 5d… if you crop the BOTH images from a 5d you have the same as BOTH from a 7d..
If you take BOTH shots from a 7d .. they are the SAME.. and they are the same if you shoot them both on a 5d..
GET
IT
IN
YOUR
BRAIN!
THE SENSOR MATTERS!!! NOT THE LENS..
geezz….
zephonic
May 3, 10:36 AM
Thanks for the link.
more...
peskaa
Jan 22, 10:19 AM
Bleh.
�229 is a fair chunk of change for a start, and certainly a long way off the current pricing of the DSi. I for one would certainly wait for some deep price cuts, but knowing Nintendo that's unlikely to happen any time this year. I can't see parents being willing to drop that much coin as well - I reckon DSi sales will continue to be strong.
Second, it looks old. The design hasn't changed since the DS, bar a few tweaks, yet other hardware looks sleek and slim in comparison - even the PSPgo! Nintendo have to realise they're competing with Apple as well, and Apple know how to make things small and look good too. It looks fat, pocket-unfriendly and not modern.
Personally, 3D is rubbish - but that's due to my own eyesight. Hearing multiple reports that it only works from one very narrow angle? Not so good - but I'll reserve judgement until the public gets hands on them.
Finally, the battery life. Oh my days. Are we regressing here? 3.5 - 5 hours? Is that it? My iPad far outdoes that...
Things I'd make better:
1) Modern casing, not a boring box
2) Battery life
3) Cost
4) Region lock
5) Capacitive touch and ditch the stylus
�229 is a fair chunk of change for a start, and certainly a long way off the current pricing of the DSi. I for one would certainly wait for some deep price cuts, but knowing Nintendo that's unlikely to happen any time this year. I can't see parents being willing to drop that much coin as well - I reckon DSi sales will continue to be strong.
Second, it looks old. The design hasn't changed since the DS, bar a few tweaks, yet other hardware looks sleek and slim in comparison - even the PSPgo! Nintendo have to realise they're competing with Apple as well, and Apple know how to make things small and look good too. It looks fat, pocket-unfriendly and not modern.
Personally, 3D is rubbish - but that's due to my own eyesight. Hearing multiple reports that it only works from one very narrow angle? Not so good - but I'll reserve judgement until the public gets hands on them.
Finally, the battery life. Oh my days. Are we regressing here? 3.5 - 5 hours? Is that it? My iPad far outdoes that...
Things I'd make better:
1) Modern casing, not a boring box
2) Battery life
3) Cost
4) Region lock
5) Capacitive touch and ditch the stylus
Illuminated
Apr 27, 04:25 PM
He's an empty windbag...
...worse than Bush.
...worse than Bush.
more...
toddybody
May 2, 02:31 PM
What is your point? If you have something to say, then say it, don't post useless links.
It's called sarcasm - some get it and some don't.
imagenes de corazones. imagenes de corazones de amor; imagenes de corazones de amor. andyjslin. Oct 20, 10:22 PM
more...
imagenes de corazones para dibujar. corazones para colorear,; corazones para colorear,. fs454. Jan 25, 06:35 PM. It definately did drop more than all
imagenes de amor para colorear
more...
imagenes de corazones para dibujar. Etiquetas: corazones para; Etiquetas: corazones para. twoodcc. Nov 30, 01:58 PM. i recently got a ps3 slim,
Dibujo de corazones y un oso
imagenes de corazones. corazones de amor dibujos. corazones de amor dibujos. ChrisTX. Apr 22, 08:08 PM
Reacent Post
It's called sarcasm - some get it and some don't.
MatP
Apr 1, 12:52 PM
Woohoo! I have always wanted to be able to watch C-SPAN from somewhere besides my living room. Nothing will help you to fall asleep on the train better than some C-SPAN. C-SPAN 2! and 3! even better!:D
more...
lincolntran
Nov 29, 11:22 AM
Baller, $280 for that though? And you gotta do all the work yourself? Weak.
Want everything to be done for you and hand to you on a silver plate? Weak.
Want everything to be done for you and hand to you on a silver plate? Weak.
NewSc2
Oct 10, 12:46 PM
1 new model? what, like a 12" macbook? like a core2duo in one of the macbook models?:confused: :confused:
more...
vancleef
Apr 15, 02:15 PM
Agreed we are spoiled. Unfortunately the U.S. has a horrible infrastructure as far as public transportation and such so many people live far from their jobs and have to drive everywhere.
I remember in New Zealand paying $4 something per liter :eek:
Here where I live at the Sheetz gas stations its $3.75.
Yes and that is the discussion here in Sweden. As you might know we have a big chunk of our population out in the woods far from any larger cities and these areas are slowly dying in favor of urbanisation. And without any communion service worth mentioning these people suffer from the high gas prices as you might guess.
Either way, didn't mean to offend anyone mattcube64 :)
I remember in New Zealand paying $4 something per liter :eek:
Here where I live at the Sheetz gas stations its $3.75.
Yes and that is the discussion here in Sweden. As you might know we have a big chunk of our population out in the woods far from any larger cities and these areas are slowly dying in favor of urbanisation. And without any communion service worth mentioning these people suffer from the high gas prices as you might guess.
Either way, didn't mean to offend anyone mattcube64 :)
iWonderwhy
May 2, 02:13 PM
The amount of scrutiny these devices go through is ridiculous.
Sydde
May 3, 09:35 PM
This is a democracy and in a democracy there are winners and losers.
I challenge both points, pedantically and pragmatically. Canada is no more a "democracy" than the US, though perhaps slightly less messed up. If it was, you would not be able to brazenly put forth the second assertion. In a real democracy, there are no winners. Debate results in compromise. Compromise leaves everyone disappointed but (usually) sanguine, because those other guys are also comparably disappointed.
The idea that we should have winners and losers is one of the biggest problems facing the US political system. The rollercoaster ride has been pushing the whole country apart from the inside. Failure is inevitable.
I challenge both points, pedantically and pragmatically. Canada is no more a "democracy" than the US, though perhaps slightly less messed up. If it was, you would not be able to brazenly put forth the second assertion. In a real democracy, there are no winners. Debate results in compromise. Compromise leaves everyone disappointed but (usually) sanguine, because those other guys are also comparably disappointed.
The idea that we should have winners and losers is one of the biggest problems facing the US political system. The rollercoaster ride has been pushing the whole country apart from the inside. Failure is inevitable.
leomac08
Jun 24, 11:36 PM
wow this makes my $499.99 40GB HDD PS3 look like ________ :o
Furrybeagle
May 5, 01:28 PM
Pre-ordered from Gamestop 3 days ago. Hope to receive the key by the end of this week!
You may have to go into a store to get it�
I preordered mine on Friday online and had yet to receive the key this morning, even though they say it�ll take up to one business day to send (it�s been closer to a week). So I just went into a store, told them I hadn�t gotten my key, and they printed a receipt with a key on it. Downloading as I write this. :)
You may have to go into a store to get it�
I preordered mine on Friday online and had yet to receive the key this morning, even though they say it�ll take up to one business day to send (it�s been closer to a week). So I just went into a store, told them I hadn�t gotten my key, and they printed a receipt with a key on it. Downloading as I write this. :)
RacerX
Apr 3, 01:43 PM
Great post. I've heard of Pages by Pages, but I didn't think that Apple's Pages was a direct descendant. While I took programming classes in college on a NeXT box, I never used the app and thought it was more of a classic word processor.
A lot of people didn't give Pages a try back then... it was a little expensive ($795), and I was using FrameMaker for papers on NeXT systems back then.
As for the rest of the discussion about comparing Pages to other apps...
I think it's absolutely fair to compare Pages to what else is out there...
What I see Pages as trying to do (again) is to define a new category.
I've seen the same thing happen with Create. When people try to do a toe-to-toe line up on some other app's specialty area, it is going to fall short. Compare Create to Illustrator in doing illustration and Illustrator wins... But it should, after all it is a dedicated illustration app, while Create is not. Compare Create to InDesign or QuarkXPress for page layout and those other apps win... But they should, after all they are dedicated layout apps. Further, all those dedicated apps cost far more than Create.
The problem is that most people hold up what is new to what they know. I think that if something like Create was held up to QuarkXPress looking at both apps illustration abilities, that would be just as fair. It is when we restrict these newer (to most people) apps to categories that they are not attempting to compete in directly that the comparisons fall far short.
I truly believe that apps like Pages and Create fill voids that exist in the software industry today. First, they don't cost as much as high end solutions. Second, they address some ranges of users which other companies try to force into high or low end apps. The gulf between the high end and low end has been getting larger over the years.
Pages lets people with little background make quality documents. Create provides a middle ground for people with experience that don't have the money or need for the top of the line professional apps.
Rather than pushing these into other categories, we should embrace these apps for filling these gaps in our (collective) software selection.
As I said, Pages, is not for me... but it is a solution for someone and I recognize that. And I sure don't need (or want) Apple to redefine it around my needs at the expense of those it is design to serve.
:rolleyes:
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that just because Pages isn't the app that some people want it to be doesn't make it a bad app or one that doesn't have it's place in the computing world.
A lot of people didn't give Pages a try back then... it was a little expensive ($795), and I was using FrameMaker for papers on NeXT systems back then.
As for the rest of the discussion about comparing Pages to other apps...
I think it's absolutely fair to compare Pages to what else is out there...
What I see Pages as trying to do (again) is to define a new category.
I've seen the same thing happen with Create. When people try to do a toe-to-toe line up on some other app's specialty area, it is going to fall short. Compare Create to Illustrator in doing illustration and Illustrator wins... But it should, after all it is a dedicated illustration app, while Create is not. Compare Create to InDesign or QuarkXPress for page layout and those other apps win... But they should, after all they are dedicated layout apps. Further, all those dedicated apps cost far more than Create.
The problem is that most people hold up what is new to what they know. I think that if something like Create was held up to QuarkXPress looking at both apps illustration abilities, that would be just as fair. It is when we restrict these newer (to most people) apps to categories that they are not attempting to compete in directly that the comparisons fall far short.
I truly believe that apps like Pages and Create fill voids that exist in the software industry today. First, they don't cost as much as high end solutions. Second, they address some ranges of users which other companies try to force into high or low end apps. The gulf between the high end and low end has been getting larger over the years.
Pages lets people with little background make quality documents. Create provides a middle ground for people with experience that don't have the money or need for the top of the line professional apps.
Rather than pushing these into other categories, we should embrace these apps for filling these gaps in our (collective) software selection.
As I said, Pages, is not for me... but it is a solution for someone and I recognize that. And I sure don't need (or want) Apple to redefine it around my needs at the expense of those it is design to serve.
:rolleyes:
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that just because Pages isn't the app that some people want it to be doesn't make it a bad app or one that doesn't have it's place in the computing world.
kallisti
Mar 19, 05:23 PM
In response to all the "Recommend Me a Camera/Lens/Editor etc" threads, I offer this. Comments or additions?
Never Show Your Work To Anyone
Read Only "Expert Photographer" Blogs, Articles, and Books
Leave Your Camera On Auto...:eek:...
Buy A New and More Expensive Camera Because It'll Make Better Pictures
Spend Too Much Time Mastering Photoshop
Mine is this: Fixate on one style of photography or subject.
Original stolen from PIXIQ... (http://www.pixiq.com/article/how-to-work-hard-at-photography-and-still-suck)
Dale
Oh my. I feel like I posted this myself. I would add one more to the list:
Get disgusted after spending a boatload of money on a DSLR setup and then spend another boatload of money on a rangefinder setup. Obviously the DSLR system didn't work for you, so the problem must still be a gear issue-- but in this case it's because you chose the wrong system. Time to start all over again, but this time with an artistically "proven" format.
Too funny. Always easy to point the accusatory finger for bad images everywhere except where it really belongs--at the photographer. Certain images can really require specific gear (including lighting gear), but often a bad image isn't about the gear but about the choices made by the photographer at the time of capture.
I somehow agree, at least as long as those others have nothing to show that they did that you clearly find impressive. The comments of others rarely help you improve your own work.
That certainly is better than reading Macrumors or other non-photographer blogs when photography is what you're interested in.
Actually, you should buy a camera that does not even have an "auto" switch. I strongly recommend something like an old (analog!) Pentax K-1000 as the first camera. There was a time when photography schools did not accept cameras with automatic features. With K-1000, you have to do EVERYTHING manually - and that is the best way to actually learn how to take photos.
Better gear does not make anyone a better photographer. HOWEVER, it can drastically improve the TECHNICAL aspects/results. If you want to make large posters of your pictures, then there are natural limits to what you can do with, let's say, a 6 MP camera.
Photoshop is a tool for graphics designers and the print business. For almost all photography needs, Aperture or Lightroom provide as much features as one will probably ever need. But none of those digital toys make you a better photographer.
I agree. And you probably shouldn't start with taking photos of models/people -- it's demanding and can easily become frustrating. Try mastering your camera and training your eye(!) first. Get a feel for what a photo will look like before you even begin processing/developing it. There's usually a big difference between what you see and what your camera sees; try to get your tool in sync with your eye and imagination. It requires a lot of practice, so shoot a lot. The beauty of digital photography is that you can shoot as much as like without depleting your bank account - analog photography was more expensive to learn.
I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with you Winni. What's more it is the first constructive post I have seen from you on this site. Most of your posts seem to fall into the curmudgeon category. This one is actually positive, helpful, and full of "win" :) I'd love to see more posts like this from you....
Never Show Your Work To Anyone
Read Only "Expert Photographer" Blogs, Articles, and Books
Leave Your Camera On Auto...:eek:...
Buy A New and More Expensive Camera Because It'll Make Better Pictures
Spend Too Much Time Mastering Photoshop
Mine is this: Fixate on one style of photography or subject.
Original stolen from PIXIQ... (http://www.pixiq.com/article/how-to-work-hard-at-photography-and-still-suck)
Dale
Oh my. I feel like I posted this myself. I would add one more to the list:
Get disgusted after spending a boatload of money on a DSLR setup and then spend another boatload of money on a rangefinder setup. Obviously the DSLR system didn't work for you, so the problem must still be a gear issue-- but in this case it's because you chose the wrong system. Time to start all over again, but this time with an artistically "proven" format.
Too funny. Always easy to point the accusatory finger for bad images everywhere except where it really belongs--at the photographer. Certain images can really require specific gear (including lighting gear), but often a bad image isn't about the gear but about the choices made by the photographer at the time of capture.
I somehow agree, at least as long as those others have nothing to show that they did that you clearly find impressive. The comments of others rarely help you improve your own work.
That certainly is better than reading Macrumors or other non-photographer blogs when photography is what you're interested in.
Actually, you should buy a camera that does not even have an "auto" switch. I strongly recommend something like an old (analog!) Pentax K-1000 as the first camera. There was a time when photography schools did not accept cameras with automatic features. With K-1000, you have to do EVERYTHING manually - and that is the best way to actually learn how to take photos.
Better gear does not make anyone a better photographer. HOWEVER, it can drastically improve the TECHNICAL aspects/results. If you want to make large posters of your pictures, then there are natural limits to what you can do with, let's say, a 6 MP camera.
Photoshop is a tool for graphics designers and the print business. For almost all photography needs, Aperture or Lightroom provide as much features as one will probably ever need. But none of those digital toys make you a better photographer.
I agree. And you probably shouldn't start with taking photos of models/people -- it's demanding and can easily become frustrating. Try mastering your camera and training your eye(!) first. Get a feel for what a photo will look like before you even begin processing/developing it. There's usually a big difference between what you see and what your camera sees; try to get your tool in sync with your eye and imagination. It requires a lot of practice, so shoot a lot. The beauty of digital photography is that you can shoot as much as like without depleting your bank account - analog photography was more expensive to learn.
I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with you Winni. What's more it is the first constructive post I have seen from you on this site. Most of your posts seem to fall into the curmudgeon category. This one is actually positive, helpful, and full of "win" :) I'd love to see more posts like this from you....
swiftaw
Nov 14, 09:50 AM
I fly between Manchester and New Jersey (Newark) a Lot, like 7 or 8 times a year for personal reasons :)
Me Too!! :)
Me Too!! :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment