"Not suitable for vegitarians" A sign at the pre-cooked Chicken counter at a supermarket I visited a year or so ago. Made me chuckle at the time :) BTW - I thought it was an unwritten law that us guys never read a manual until we've absolutely and positively tried pressing all the buttons, turned all the dials and opened every compartment we could find. To do so before hand is considered rather un-manly :P saunters off to re-read manual

Better gear = Better pictures? haha, not a chance.

I'm under no illusions that having just upgraded to a D-SLR from a "prosumer" point and click my images will be better. If anything, they'll probably be worse until I learn how to use the beastie with these glass bits that SHOCK HORROR DETACH!!

Having an eye for composition will take you far though. No matter how cheap, or insanely expensive, your camera happens to be :)

Ooo nice topic. Just the kind of info I've been looking for as I'm buying my starter set of lenses for my new 20d :) I've ordered: 1) Canon 17-85mm EF-S IS - this will be my general purpose lens I suppose. 2) Canon 50mm f1.8 prime - something to use in low light, or when I'm forcing myself to think more about the composition rather than simply "zoom to fit". 3) Canon 70-200mm f4L - people can't seem to recommend this lens enough. I know I'll end up wishing I splashed out on the f2.8 IS model - baby steps Wiv old boy. 4) Canon 18-55 Kit lens - probaly keep this in a box somewhere and when the time comes to upgrade the camera body, I'll sell it on as a "kit". Hopefully that will give me a good set to be going on with :) Those shots with the 180mm Sigma Macro makes me want a true macro lens though. Maybe the Tamron 180mm 1:1 lens...when I've recovered from this set though! Oh, and perhaps the new Canon 10-22 EF-S wide angle could come in handy :) Darn it...this SLR lark is costing me a packet! ;) Size matters? It's what you do with it that counts...or so I'm told...never beleived it though ;)

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12379&Form.ShowMessage=2093966

Like dBgrafix, I could keep my old camera about for a bit (Sony 717) for doing macro/close up work. The stock 18-55 should suffice as a general purpose lens for now, so perhaps the 70-200L would be a good first choice, it certainly seems to be well regarded by a few posters here (got any examples in your gallerys that used this lens peeps?).

Does anyone rate the canon 17-85 IS lens? Am I better sticking with the 18-55 that came with the camera? Finally, how much benefit would I get from a teleconverter?

Aha, I didnt realise you'd veered off into lens talk, was all about bodies last time I checked :D Thanks gang, I'll redirect to there. Cheers :)

!Can i keep these for myself?" Fine by me :D

I enjoy messing about with photoshop, so I thought I'd have a go. What I've tried to do is take the original picture and try to make the image seem less bright (was the original over exposed?). This was achieved by layering a Curves adjustment layer (a very gentle s-curve), a Monochrome channel mixer layer and a warm photo filter. The image has also been sharpened, but also a very slight gaussian blur was applied to smooth out a little bit of the noise.

I think its a bit noisy and grainy to do the subject justice though :(.

I work purely with a Digital Camera at the moment (maybe one day I'll get back into film).

I'm still learning about how to capture a great looking image, that doesn't look over/under exposed, or flat, or skewed, and it has no red eye, and its not out of focus...etc etc etc

Try as I might, but with the limitations my camera and my skill level, I'm rarely going to be happy with the picture that comes directly of the memory stick. And thus I use Photoshop to attempt to bend the image back to what I was trying to achieve in the first place. And indeed sometimes I may even add a border, or a tint to simulate a tinted filter.

Does that mean I'm not longer an amateur photographer and I'm now a 2-D artist? I still composed the image with the camera, and set the shutter speed, F-Stop and ISO...I'm still using photography skills to create an image. Quite frankly the differnce between what I do and what a purist photographer does is simply that I'm not as good as him/her!! I don't feel therefore that because I need to use photoshop to correct and enhance my picutres that I'd be somehow not welcome to post my images on a "photography" gallery. Such a move would actually hinder my development as a photographer!! I want to share my work with those more skilled than me, so I may learn and become better!!

Images that have clearly been manipulated so much that it no longer looks like something you "could" capture in a camera should perhaps be in a Mixed gallery. At the end of the day it does come down to simple common sense...is it a photographed image or not?? Could the image have been created in a camera instead of photoshop?

As for collages, maybe there is scope there to have a seperate gallery for them. Collages contain great photography true, but maybe there is a valid argument that would say that a collage is a different form of art. I dunno though, if it was mostly a collage of original photography, I'd be happy with it on a photography gallery under the sub heading of "collages"....which funnily enough we already have :P

Thanks :) its very much appreciated :) :)

Very "heath robinson" Solo - I stood the thermometer on the floor, and then put a white card behind it. I have a Sony DSC-717 camera that takes 58mm filters, so I attached a HOYA +4 Close Up lens/filter that I use for macro shots.

I also used the internal flash, having run out the batteries on the external by leaving it on !! Must NOT do that again, 2nd time so far :( (or get a better flash unit with auto power off - if such a thing exists).

I also do not have a tripod yet, so I led on the floor trying to turn my elbows into a human tripod...I set f-stop to 8, shutter to 1000, turned on the flash and "tried" to get the image in focus by moving the camera towards and away from the subject. Touble is the image updates veeery slow on the LCD with these settings, which didnt help focusing at all.

Should I try this again, I think brighter conditions and a tripod may help ;)

In photoshop, I used a curves adjustment layer to give the image more depth, and then a filter layer simulating a "cool" photo filter to enhance the colours somewhat.

With the right set up I expect I could have had a slightly sharper image, but at the end of the day it was fun simply experimenting with what I had availble to hand :D

I haven't broken out my old film SLR for yonks - maybe I should now the photography bug is biting once more (though that new Canon Digital-SLR coming out in sept looks tempting!)

Thanks for the kind comment :)

:o Wonderfull images...speechless :)

I think one's deliberate :P

Thats one wet moggy. Brought a little smile to my day. Thank you! :)

I you mean a close up lens, the yes, you should be able to get some nice macro shots with it. On my digicamera, I have to zoom in as far as I can go optically first, the hold the shutter button partially down until it locks a focus (or manually focus), and then move the camera towards and away from the subject until it looks sharp in the LCD. This is because the close up lens plays havoc with the autofocus :| I've also noticed you don't get a lot of DOF, so I use the camera in manual mdoe and select max f-stop I can get away with, I often use a flash too (even on bright sunday days!) and high sutter speed to help get a sharp non blurry photo as I move the camera in and out....I really need a tripod!! lol Because I'm essential focusing manually by adjsuting the distance the camera is from the subject, I tend to take an awful lot of rubbish pictures that I bin. And I tend to swear a lot at subjects that fly away just as I get the focus right and am about to take the picture :( Hopefully someone here can enlighten us a bit more about techniques with close up lenses, as I'm sure my method is a bit hap-hazard :|

lol, you have warped my fragile little mind ;) Mole Stew!! He'd be better in a curry I'm sure :D