Cameras....

[rawr_bowzer]

No problem! I don't help to get thanks. I help to help.

[atomicgrrl]

Alright... where do I begin?
My P/S is a $180 Minolta. All of my pictures featured here:
atomicjade's deviantART gallery
Were taken with this camera. I highly recommend it. Contrary to popular belief megapixels are not a big deal, the differences from 6 and up are so minute that it's more statistics than any visible difference. This camera has 3.2 (the later models have even more, probably around 6) and yet it still prints nicely. The most important thing you want when dealing with P/S is optical zoom, don't even bother with digital zoom, this particular model was 10x optical and I believe later models have 12x. It is very easy to use, auto takes nice photos, but if you want there are other different modes and even a manual option.
As far as improving aspects of your photography, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to conclusively disagree with a lot of what has been said. You said you were interested in macro, and depending on how "close" of a close up you want will really determine the factor of needing an SLR or a P/S. Here's an example of say my camera on macro.

Keep in mind there was also ample light. Lighting makes ALL the difference in photos, and no you do not need a LOT of light for a good photo, it all depends in what kind of effect you want to achieve. But here's an example of a macro lens with an SLR.

No matter HOW good someone is, there is just no comparing the quality between expensive glass and a P/S. And if there wasn't a difference, photography enthusiasts and professionals would shoot with P/S and not spend thousands of dollars likewise. I would LOVE to post pics I've taken with my Nikon but alas it is a 35mm and no scanner in sight!
I'll also have to go ahead and disagree that SLR's take worse photos than P/S on auto. Kit lens are not the best but they are not bad and every SLR I have tried out shoots decently, if not better, than a P/S on auto, even with just the fact the photo period is of higher quality.
Sharpness isn't important? Maybe if you're going for a blurred or soft effect, sharpness doesn't effect just your printing it affects how the entire picture is, it dictates whether your photo is in focus or not, and just how much.
And I'm sorry to say stalk but those are some sorry examples of photography. I'd classify those as snapshots, at best. There is absolutely no rule of thirds, no particularly fascinating captures, unimpressive angles, and overall just not much skill or thought put into these pictures. They're fine for being snapshots of course, but certainly not something I'd ever classify as "photographic quality".
I also have to disagree that these photos are lacking in quality simply because of your camera being a "P/S". My photos were all taken with a P/S, and a less expensive one than most.
My advice to the poster, I'd suggest getting an inexpensive but quality P/S and learn how to use that and the basic principles of photography. For snapshots and even more, cameras like mine are perfect. If after that you decide photography is really something you're into, then invest into an SLR and perhaps take some classes too. However if you want to jump right in and dive into the SLR world, well I have confidence you will be just fine.

[rawr_bowzer]

I don't think kit lens are that bad. They're not the best, but they're not the worst either. They do have a tendency for chromatic aberrations though, and sometimes comes out underexposed, but not a problem most of the time, if you use it between min-max focal lengths.

[stalk]

Originally Posted by atomicgrrl

And I'm sorry to say stalk but those are some sorry examples of photography. I'd classify those as snapshots, at best. There is absolutely no rule of thirds, no particularly fascinating captures, unimpressive angles, and overall just not much skill or thought put into these pictures. They're fine for being snapshots of course, but certainly not something I'd ever classify as "photographic quality".

That's funny, because the criticism I received from Photographers have been completely different. The opposite, actually. I looked at your gallery and had much the same impression as I have of my own pictures. A lot of them were, to put it simply, boring. In the ones I found interesting, the subject was more interesting than the photo itself (the pictures of the females.)

I have a ton of errors in mine, and if you scroll up I said as much. But your criticism is so far off that you sound more like someone that's been reading too much photography and not experiencing enough. Take a harder look at this photo, for isntance:



You imply lack of thought and unimpressive angles, and not fascinating? When, of course, I had to drive 6 hours, hike 10 miles in the snow, spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to include the mountain in the photo with Ollie. I had to figure out how to hide his leash, and at what angle I had to do so while keeping the mountain, blue sky, and clouds in the view.

I ended up finally finding a place. And I was able to take this picture, it took me about 45 minutes to do so. Now, this picture is not perfect. The colors are somewhat washed out. While both subjects (mountain and dog) are interesting to look at, the eye is drawn away from Ollie. I learned a lot from this one and improved it for next time.

Don't get me wrong, I take plenty of snapshots. You speak of rule of thirds, but what exactly are you looking at?



This incorporates the rule of thirds. Still, it is not perfect either. The horizon is not level, and the mountain to the left is too dark. It makes for a nice black and white photograph, though.

It sounds to me more as though you are parroting a very common criticism of photos that many people show. Not to mention that I even threw in a bad one (the sunset) where I implied a DSLR would be better. There's no way a point and shoot could have taken a picture like that.

Angles?




I'm well aware of deviantart and it's kin. It sounds like a dose of elitism going on! I could give you criticism of your photos, but you appear the type to not want to hear it

And lastly, my point never was that a SLR wouldn't take better quality pictures. But snapshots are snapshots, whether it's high quality or low quality. You won't take any impressive shots with a SLR unless you learn something. As such, I would never recommend a SLR over a digital for a person only interested in taking snapshots. That's a total waste of money.

And one other thing. I did not show my best photos, only what I found in the few minutes I searched for it. I did not expect that someone would waltz in and decide to criticize my photos and have a ego-stroking competition. I mean, I am at least confident enough that no snapshooter could match my pictures. A professional, someone who went to school, etc? Sure.

[rawr_bowzer]

You have to remember a rule of thirds isn't a must, it is more of a guideline. My Canon DSLR takes worse photos on auto than my Olympus, but the quality is much better in manual. But then again, my DSLR has been defective for a while.

[stalk]

Originally Posted by rawr_bowzer

You have to remember a rule of thirds isn't a must, it is more of a guideline. My Canon DSLR takes worse photos on auto than my Olympus, but the quality is much better in manual. But then again, my DSLR has been defective for a while.

No disagreement here.

[rawr_bowzer]

You must also remember photography isn't ALWAYS about picture quality. It is about the subjects, and how the photographer manipulates the environment to work to the camera/photographer's advantage. There have been many pictures that won the World Photography Award where picture quality wasn't always the best.

For example, the Assasination of Inejiro Asanuma, where the photographer managed to get a quick "snapshot" of the Japanese leader being disemboweled with a wakizashi.

[walmart]

Pentax w30 is what I have. Works great easy to use. AWESOME close ups. I bought for taking pictures of close ups of corals, and it is outstanding.

[Stigma]

cool..thanks walmart...could u maybe post some examples of the closeups u have taken?? what did yer cam cost u???


i think im gonna have to end up buyin a new cam..this one i have just aint cut out for takin pics..its for vids...

[atomicgrrl]

-sigh- It's ok. You're right. I'm not attending a world renown art school or majoring in photography or anything. It's cool.


Stigma, good luck with whatever you choose and like I've said before, if you ever have any questions don't hesitate to ask!