yes I would, because Im trying to improve, unlike you who simply wanted to be told how great he is
seems to me that your shots did more to make the 18-55 look poor than to make it look good. If I was considering that lens as a new shooter and I saw that crap that you posted and didnt know it was your lack of skill as a photog I'd be inclined to think its the lens.
The shots you posted show at least one negative trait sometimes attributed to the 18-55 lens: They're not sharp. Whether that's because the lens isn't sharp, your technique was inadequate, or a combination of both is a question best left unanswered.
I offered you advice which would have resulted in a much better shot than what you posted, even with an inappropriate lens like the 18-55. It is a detriment to your own photographic development that you are totally uninterested in even considering that the photos you posted might not be as good as you think they are. They aren't. Have fun taking crappy snapshots with your 18-55 lens.
Yea, clearly someoen who sees PART OF THE PICTURE out of focus, and the FRONT in focus, something called "DOF" which nearly every single person switching to dSLR considers "cool" would find that a HORRIBLE example WAY better if I try to copy as much the look of a point and shoot shit shot where the thing sits there flat and plain but "perfectly in focus"
I could of posted a 1/60th sec F5.6 "flash photo" of the god damn thing from 5 feet away, nailed it all in focus and posted that crap and said "here a sample" and gotten the SAME crap everyone sees on every review board and said "Wow duh I can do that with my 99$ kodak"
Here is your "boring look at what my point and shoot can do" for you all.
Feel free to continue bitching about the slight hair, the slight out of focus nature of the back diamonds, the fact the back backing could of been posistioned at a better angel et al. I'm sure those looking seeing if 18>55 is worth the extra few $ are throwing it into their 75,000$ setup studio lights and submitting images to NY times.
talexander wrote:
Yea, clearly someoen who sees PART OF THE PICTURE out of focus, and the FRONT in focus, something called "DOF" which nearly every single person switching to dSLR considers "cool" would find that a HORRIBLE example WAY better if I try to copy as much the look of a point and shoot shit shot where the thing sits there flat and plain but "perfectly in focus"
point and shoots take shit shots and you have a DSLR so you are "cool" ? IWas that the point you were trying to make there ?
Yes CLEARLY that was my point, it wasn't it COULDN'T of been that most people looking for a dSLR particularly and expressly want to do things like create area of an image out of focus or create more artisitic and less "look, its approved for use in the JC Penny catalog" pictures. No your right CLEARLY I was intending to say "dSLRs r cool dude" not pointing out what us "non professional PJ's and higihest standards of photographic world" might be interested in over the NY Times cover photo.
