| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/09/2004 11:19:18 AM · #1 |
Someone who's opinion I admire, after looking at my completed challenge entries, made a point that my people shots don't capture the 'glow' and 'inner beauty' of the person. I felt bad about this since people are my favorite subject. He had good things to say about some of my work---this isn't a whine or rant.
I was talking to my husband, crowing about receiving a good comment from someone else who's work I enthusiastically admire (I don't care how this shot does now, I'm content ;D) and I mentioned that my abstracts, landscapes, and natural still-lifes are better than my people shots. But I realized that wasn't always the case. I have a folder of old 35mm work in my portfolio and I got some great comments (once again from two folks who's work I hold in high regard) on one of my candids.
It suddenly struck me that the difference is in the lag time of the shutter. With an SLR you get the shot pretty much when you click the shutter. With my old Nikon Coolpix 700 there is a huge amount of lag time. The higher the quality setting, the greater the lag time. I miss so many great expressions and gestures because of that. I think the reason I'm able to get nice shots of my youngest daughter is because she is so self-composed. She doesn't blink, squint, scrunch, or do any of those things when you take her picture so you have a bit of time to get the shot.
From my understanding, the newer cameras have much less lag time. All the more reason to get my butt away from DPC for a few days and list some eBay!
Baby needs a new camera. |
|
|
|
06/09/2004 11:51:48 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Someone who's opinion I admire, after looking at my completed challenge entries, made a point that my people shots don't capture the 'glow' and 'inner beauty' of the person. I felt bad about this since people are my favorite subject. He had good things to say about some of my work---this isn't a whine or rant.
I was talking to my husband, crowing about receiving a good comment from someone else who's work I enthusiastically admire (I don't care how this shot does now, I'm content ;D) and I mentioned that my abstracts, landscapes, and natural still-lifes are better than my people shots. But I realized that wasn't always the case. I have a folder of old 35mm work in my portfolio and I got some great comments (once again from two folks who's work I hold in high regard) on one of my candids.
It suddenly struck me that the difference is in the lag time of the shutter. With an SLR you get the shot pretty much when you click the shutter. With my old Nikon Coolpix 700 there is a huge amount of lag time. The higher the quality setting, the greater the lag time. I miss so many great expressions and gestures because of that. I think the reason I'm able to get nice shots of my youngest daughter is because she is so self-composed. She doesn't blink, squint, scrunch, or do any of those things when you take her picture so you have a bit of time to get the shot.
From my understanding, the newer cameras have much less lag time. All the more reason to get my butt away from DPC for a few days and list some eBay!
Baby needs a new camera. |
Lag time is almost non-existent on DSLRs. ALL cameras, film or digital have SOME lag time.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 11:56:13 AM · #3 |
| Some more than others. My little P&S has quite a bit of lag, the trick is to be able to get the shot you still want while working around the lag-time. |
|
|
|
06/09/2004 12:06:54 PM · #4 |
As well as lag time, there's also the human factor. When we see an expression we like, it takes time to realise that and then send that information to our fingers then onto the shutter release.
And if we have to wait for the focus to align... |
|
|
|
06/09/2004 05:52:58 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Lag time is almost non-existent on DSLRs. ALL cameras, film or digital have SOME lag time. |
I just find that with SLRs it is pretty split-second unless you're shooting in low light at 1/30. Even then, 1/30 of a second is still pretty fast. The time it takes to press the shutter release and the time the shutter opens is lightning quick compared to my Coolpix 700. There is quite a bit of lag time from the time I hit the shutter release 'til the moment the shutter actually opens. Then there is the time waiting for the image to be filed away. It has to be somewhat faster on a newer DC? Doesn't it...? Don't shatter my illusions, just nod knowingly and say, "Sure it does."
I figured DSLRs would be the same as SLRs only with a built in 'motor drive'. I wish I could afford one. :D
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 05:59:32 PM · #6 |
Forgive the lousy low-res scans and clumsy rotation marks---I had these pictures in my files. They are old examples of 35mm stuff I did in the early 90's. These shots would have been with pretty high speed film, judging by the grain and the use of available light for a nighttime shot. I don't think I could have captured these expressions as easily with my current digital camera.
 |
|
|
|
06/09/2004 07:12:00 PM · #7 |
I hear ya. Shutter lag bothered the bejesus out of me on my ol' nikon 995, even though I still occasionally pick up and use that cam and like it for some uses. I certainly did not enjoy trying to shoot sports with it though!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 03:36:25 AM EDT.
