Recently whilst talking to a freind i was told that my digital camera was not capable of taking decent landscape shots. And for me to get decent landscape shots i would have to buy a camera along the line of a Fuji fine pix 602 or any Digital SLR. My camera is a Epson PhotoPC 3000z with 3.3 mega pixels. Here are some images taken with this camera with evening sunlight, f4, 1/60th sec. so here is the question ...... Is it me who doesnt know how to use the camera properly and too its full advantage, and with no education in photography? Is it that my friend is right and that my camera isn't capale of taking decent landscape shots ? and finally would it be worth investing in one of the digital cameras mentioned ? Please give me your honest comments and thoughts, it would be greatly appreciated. with thanks.

here is another

and one more .

I use the Sony DSC-F707 and I have similar problems. The foreground is dark. I doubt its the camera or you. It is what you need to do afterwards to your images. If you are using Photshop or a similar program, you can mask out the sky and then adjust curves and levels to bring up the details in your landscape. Another way to fix it straight from the camera is by using Spot metering if you camera has that feature. Even without it if you meter on a dark area the change to POV so the brighter area is at the metering point your shot will come out lighter. The problem there is the fact that you can over expose and wash out your sky. I am not familiar with the Epson PhotoPC 3000z but if it is a decent Prosumer camera you should have the features. Yur shots show that you know how to shoot and that your camera is able to catch the images, it may just be the knowledge you have of your camera! Study the manual again and see if you missed anything. I re-read mine like once a month! I even went out and got the PDF version so I can read it online if I need to! Magick Michael aka zhounder

I thought those pics looked fine. What constitutes decent landscape picture? In ANYONES opinion? You took these at dusk, have you tried dawn and mid day? Bsteph

Especially the first one looks pretty decent to me. Maybe should think about getting better friends? Learning to use whatever equipment you have well, in a creative manner, is much more important than details about the equipment. I'm not familiar with the feature details of any of the digital cameras, so I cannot comment on what your particular model may be lacking, or not. Certainly at 3.3M pixels there is enough resolution for anything you would possibly look at on a computer screen, or for a reasonable size print. You mention an f-setting and shutter speed, so I'm guessing you have some control over this? And perhaps some control over focus? That's all you really need in order to get to a point where the final image looks like you want it to look. Even without "manual" controls, most of the goodness is in the photographer's mind, not in the equipment. The second in this series is less exciting than the other two, IMO, because a lot of (important?) detail is lost in the darker bottom. ANY camera will have this characteristic. It is up to the photographer to decide how to expose properly, (or manipulate in the darkroom or in photoshop), in order to make the image that the photographer wants to achieve. Good luck, DtD, and welcome to this Forum.

Camera looks fine to me!!! I'd advise hanging out here with your new friends, and asking a bunch of questions. It is a good idea to get some sort of digital image manipulation program. The "pros" all use photoshop, but this pricey program has a lot of pre-press features that none of us will ever use. Adobe, Microsoft, Corel, Jasc... all have Windows programs in about the $60 to $100 range for photo touchup. [Anyone have other recommendations? GIMP for Linux is free...]

As Misha said, the art is in the eye, not the machine. It has been my experience that digital cameras have a narrow exposure latitude, but so does slide film, and to a lesser extent color neg film. If the exposure is set for the highlights the shadows will go to black, if set to retain detail in the shadow, highlights will get blown out. The trick is to expose someplace in-between, without turning the whole thing into mud. Of course you can always tweak the levels and curves in the software, but the detail has to be there first. To say that a decent digital cannot take a good landscape is BS. Learn to work with the camera and within its limitations, you have to do this with any camera, digital or film, $300 or $2,200. Just my two cents worth, BTW my favorite is #3. I especially like the way you caught the sun rays through the clouds. If you had kept the detail in the ground it would have distracted from the image.

Go to Dp review and check out the galleries that have been taken with midrange to decent prosumer digital cameras. I think you'll find many shots that are simply stunning. Then, show your friend the same pictures.

One of the things I've noticed that holds true for both digital and film cameras when landscapes are taken is that it really helps to use filters on your lens. I'm not a landscape guy, but the ones that I know who are swear by split neutral density filters. They allow you to get decent exposure on the land/foreground and the sky without getting totally underexposed land or blown out skies. Many also love using a polarizer with a warming filter (like an 81A). Many of todays consumer digital cameras have filter threads on the lens. Even those that don't, companies like Cokin make filter adapters that fit on any camera with a tripod mount on the bottom. Filters can help you to decrease or eliminate haze and give you more dramatic skies with better color. -=>Donald

Misha has pretty much covered a lot of ground here. I think the photos are decent. I used to play around with a really sucky old Mavica, but that didn't stop me from taking pics. Hahaha... ;-) (*

Yes, Misha HAS covered a lot. I'll try to add a few more comments, though. The first comment being something that Misha touched on...friends. I suspect, as with the encroachment of any new device upon a traditional device, some people object and find faults any way they can. Now, on to technology. I'm not a digital camera encyclopedia. I DO know that a lot of the quality ones (not talking about the professional "circa" $1,500 - $3,000 varities) have an option for "mimicking" film speed. The shots you made above were all sunset or daybreak...a bit more demanding on any type camera. One advantage film cameras have over digital is the ASA, or film speed. The higher the film speed, the less tonal range it has. To me (an old fart), one of the best all around films ever made was Kodachrome 64 (great during the day...25 could be a bit slow). But, you don't walk out to capture a sunset with a film speed of 1000. Not enough range. How does that relate to digital? Their are adjustments for filmspeed. One advantage we DO have using a digital camera is being able to change that ASA on the fly. So, if you have it, use it. Also, you mentioned landscapes. Take a look at giancarlo or danob. They do a lot of landscape and it is rarely done at sunset or daybreak. I don't know what they are using, but you have only shown examples with tough lighting conditions. Something a film photographer would have trouble with, too. Don't let the comments get you down. (just my 2 cents worth)

Hello DustTillDawn. We have the same camera as you do and it's a great instrument. There are two things important here. 1: Get another photofriend because the one you'v got does'nt know what he is talking about. The people on this forum do!! 2: Study the manual because this camera has a lot of features that are very useful. So stick to this camera and get the most out of it!

You all mentioned using photoshop or any other manipulating programs. I have these programs, but just wanted to give you the original images. Thank you all who commented, your knowledge is very valuable and obviously its something i need to build on. Maybe taking a sunset cloud shot wasnt the best place to start........ so i guess i will be sitting swatting over my manuals and finding out as much as possible. Thank you to everyone.

One way could be to use a incident light meter, that is at the moment your camera TTL meter mesusers light reflecting off the subject. If you spot meter of the land that will expose right and the sky will be overexposed, meter off the sky and the land is underexposed. using a incident light meter mesusers the light falling on the subject and should give you good overall exposure, unless you shoot into the sun in which case you should use you camera meter to mesure the exposer, one good use for a incident meter is when there is snow covering the ground, if you use reflective metering your camera would under expose 1 1/2 to 2 stops under and the secne would come out a murky gray mess, where the incident meter would not be fooled and would give you the right exposure. Plus I have started to use Cokin split neutral density filters and they have made a big diffance I used a split neutral density filter and polarizer for this photo

I hope you found the suggestions here helpful, (and that I didn't monopolize things too much). Questions like this come up quite frequently in this forum. It is always a good idea to Read The Fine Manual, however the real neat thing about the digital cameras is you can make a lot of exposures, using different variations, and see the results rather quickly. [Don't always trust the little LCD viewer though!] The point is not to avoid unusual and challenging lighting, the point is to know how to deal with it. [Someday I HAVE to try making a landscape with the sun behind my left shoulder, like it suggests on the film box. An entirely new point of view!] Wow! That is a nice result, azy, with the split filter. Star -> You made nice images with that old Mavica! You just keep hurting its feelings!

Attached Link: Sunset over Bryce in Winter

If your friend is still unconvinced, have him take a look at this URL. This is a photo by another amateur photographer named A. Cemal Ekin; I really like his stuff. Remind him/her that this was reduced and jpeg'd so that it would fit within the posting guidelines of that site (640x480 200k or less). It was taken with a Nikon Coolpix 995 - a 3.14megapixel consumer digital camera. In the end, it's not the equipment, it's the photographer. -=>Donald

Wow! That is a killer link!

Thank you Donald ..... i will show him this . cheers again .

Nothing like digital "ammunition", huh, Don?