I’m a “serious amateur” photographer, and just last year went from a traditional film camera (Nikon 8008s) to a DSLR (Nikon D90). My new photos just come alive in ways that the older ones rarely did. You can tell they were all taken by the same person (my style is very consistent), but just glancing at the photos you can immediately tell which ones were taken with the new camera . . . especially in tricky low-light situations without a flash.
So the answer to the OP is “both.”
My nephew is a photographer and professional photo conservator at a major museum. He has taken photos with disposable cameras that I couldn’t conceive of creating. Although he has cameras worth thousands of dollars he routinely carries around point and shoots in his pocket, and takes great photos with them.
He insists that good photography is mostly about composition, which is all about the elements of graphic design.
I take extremely decent amateur photos with my Canon point and shoot (I have the same one as Kyla). It’s because I have a decent eye. My husband has the fancy schmancy and he doesn’t get nearly as good photos as I do, though he’s far more technically proficient.
I did take photos for the newspapers I worked for years ago, so while I’m not a professional photographer, my pictures are definitely publishable. Plus I learned on black and white film, and that really helps your eye for light IMHO. A snapshot I took with good light.
Anyone have opinions on the “super zoom” family of point and shoots? Are they worth it, or should I just bite the bullet and go for an entry level SLR?
They are tremendous “vacation” cameras. I took absolutely stunning photos with my Nikon 5700. When I got a DSLR (a Nikon D70), a missed fewer shots, but if you compare the best images from both cameras, there’s no way to tell them apart.
For most people, a superzoom is all the camera they will ever need.
Here is a forum that will suit your needs, Kyla.
Photography is incredibly complex, once you venture out of the point-and-shoot comfort zone. Yeah, you could get a DSLR and use automatic settings and get some decent images, but once you decide to expand your skills a bit, you’re stepping out of the kiddie pool and diving into the Pacific.
And once you are a bit advanced, you’ll look back on your early shots - the ones you were so proud of - and you’ll see flaw after flaw after flaw.
So much to learn. The basics. The equipment. The processing software.
The good thing is, shooting 1000 digital images costs the same as shooting one. Additionally, just because you’ve invested in a DSLR that doesn’t mean you must devote your life to photography; you may stop at any level of competence you are comfortable with.
Best of luck to you. PM me if you have specific questions!
mmm
The Canon SX210 IS is an amazing compact 14x superzoom. My father in law got one and I was very impressed with the image quality and size, I thought the tradeoffs would be much more obvious.
Googling ‘photography tutorial’ will come up with any number of sites to find out some more about composition basics etc.
If you get keen then posting to forums and asking for feedback on shots is a great way to improve (or reading feedback about other peoples pictures) but you have to be potentially prepared for idiots stroking their egos as well as useful feedback.
Otara
See, this is what I’m talking about. I hope you don’t think I’m picking on you, Ellen, but I immediately see a number of flaws in your image, flaws that a skilled photographer (not necessarily a pro) would have avoided.
You called it a snapshot, and that’s exactly what it is. Nothing wrong with snapshots, of course, but they leave the impression that very little thought went into their creation.
That is one cute kid, though. 
mmm
Going back to the OP, I wonder if the photos you saw that he took with his DSLR were after he had processed them? I have a great camera/great lens combo (Nikon D300/Nikkor 80-400mm) but photos still need processing. Photoshop CS (particularly 4 or 5) can turn even a so-so shot into a gem. If you shoot in RAW format (which all DSLRs can do, not every point-and-shoot), you can significantly change the image values, which can make a huge difference. Even if you shoot in jpg with a point-and-shoot, chances are that your white balance is going to be off, and just correcting that can clearly improve the image. People have gone paddling with me and we both take identical photos of an egret, and they ask that same question–why does mine look so much better? Well…I processed it, they are looking at what came out of their (even DSLR) camera. My suggestion is to get the best camera you can afford and then learn to use good image processing software. You won’t be the one with tourist snapshots any more!
No, I mean at the time, looking at the screen on the camera, I was impressed.
I know he does some digital processing after the fact too, though.
Thank you for the link! I have bookmarked it.
BTW, here are a couple of pictures I took and particularly liked.
This one is at Charminar, in Hyderabad, India.
This one is in Donsol, the Philippines.
Looking at my photo albums on Facebook, it seems like I pretty much only take pictures when I’m abroad, or doing something out of the ordinary for me. Maybe I should make more of an effort to take good pictures of ordinary things, instead of focusing only on interesting locations.
Looking at images on the camera screen will only give you limited information. The screens are so small and until recently has so little resolution that pictures could look good there and look lousy on the big screen.
Ultrazooms and Superzooms (all-in-ones) are extremely versatile cameras, but generally are pretty poor in low light. Anything indoors or near dusk, or anything at full zoom requires lots of post processing to make reasonable unless you shoot on a tripod and set the ISO to 100. This is where DSLRs will shine. You have usable high ISO range and you can buy fast lenses. Ultrazooms are fantastic outdoors in good light however. They make for excellent travel cameras for that reason.
THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY (free from makeuseof.com) http://manuals.makeuseof.com.s3.amazonaws.com/MakeUseOf_Guide_Digital_Photography.pdf
You guys, thanks so much for your advice. I read some of the links you’ve provided and I’m feeling really enthusiastic about learning to take cool pictures even with my little point and shoot. I’ve learned some neat stuff just since I started this thread. For instance, I’ve always despaired of my camera’s ability to take pictures at night. I don’t like the effect the flash has (it takes away the shadows) but then the picture ends up being really fuzzy because I can’t hold my hand still enough. One of the blogs I was reading explained that I just need to raise the ISO. And voila - it looks much better!
I know you people who know what you’re doing with a camera are going “duh”, but I didn’t know that, so it’s exciting to realize just one little thing can help so much.
One type of photography might be mostly about composition, but I’d say photography is primarily about light, moment/emotion, and composition. The importance of each depends on the type of photography you’re doing, but for me the ideal photo is the intersection of the three. I’m sure other photographers can further define or refine my categories, but composition is but one element of photography.
I don’t think you understand what composition is since light is simply one of its elements. What he is saying is that ordinary photographers just see the reality of what they are photographing. Good photographers control the compositional elements of their photographs - line, shapes, spaces, color, light, grain, perspective etc - to enhance the message they are trying to convey with the photograph. I think he would agree with you that the moment/emotion is the first thing, what the photo is about, but would argue that after this it is graphic skills that separate the good from the bad.
That’s important to know, but on a P&S camera it will introduce a lot of noise to your images. On a small image on screen it won’t be as noticeable, but you will see it if you try to do anything else with the image (crop, print). This is where DSLRs shine, you can push the ISO and the images will still be noise-free.
I’m not offended! (Especially when you tell me my son is cute.) What could I have done other than not cut off his feet to make the photo better?
When I say “snapshots” I mean spur-of-the-moment pictures I take, with no beforehand planning. I try to put thought into composition, but everything else is as it is.
One thing that would improve it would be for the background to be less cluttered, e.g., without all those things on the bench top. (I know, it’s a snapshot, and if you took a picture right now of my kitchen, it would be equally cluttered – but it would make it a stronger photo.)
Two other things that I’d try:
(1) Get the camera down to the level of the boy’s eyes, or even lower, so that it’s more from his perspective.
(2) Move a bit further back, but at the same time lengthen the zoom so that the body still fills the shot. Of course, you can’t do if there’s a wall right behind you.
I’m not completely sure that either of there would improve the picture, but they would be worth trying, especially with a cooperative model who looks lkike he’s be happy to stand there for a minute or two while you try things out.
Compositionally, you are not supposed to have the subject right in the middle of the photo (the “rule of thirds”), so I’d also try to compose with the boy either a little to the right or a little to the left of centre. Which one you choose might depend on the background as well as on which way he is facing.
I’m pretty sure I do understand–I do this for a living, and I’m pretty confident I’m good at it. We may just be arguing semantics here, but lighting, in my experience, is generally taught as a skill separate from composition, and I think of it as a separate skill. Of course, light is used compositionally to draw your eye to the center of the subject, just like other techniques of photography like shallow depth of field, slow shutter speeds, etc. You can have good composition with bad lighting. You can have a bad composition with good lighting. Personaly, I don’t treat them as the same thing, otherwise you can argue everything about a photograph falls under the category “composition” (even moment/emotion) and then the term becomes meaningless.
