Looking recommendation on DSLR

[soufiej]

Consider two things when looking at "pre-owned" equipment.

1) There are more than a few buyers who want to be the person with the latest gear and the person who can almost always say, "I owned that and ... " These are the people who change gear like most of us change socks. In general, they have no set idea what they are looking for other then to have the newest and to say, "I owned that and ... "

They trade in gear that is perfectly usable and often has only a sufficient amount of use to ensure it is not defective out of the box.

2) "Pre-owned" covers a large amount of gear that may be all but new. If someone purchases a component and, within the return period, finds it is not what they really want, they can return that item. However, if the packaging and manuals are missing or damaged and, most importantly, the warranty card has been registered with the manufacturer, the item must be sold as "pre-owned" and not as "open box" or demonstrator.

Given the death of many local brick and mortar dealers as on line shopping drives the audition process out of existence, the only way some buyers can try equipment is to buy equipment on line. Considerable amounts of equipment is being auditioned at any time and will be returned or traded for other merchandise. This in no way implies the equipment has been "used" for more than a few hours in some cases.

Buy pre-owned equipment from a reputable dealer and your chance of a problem is diminished by a considerable margin. Besides, there is always the chance the new equipment you purchase will be DOA. Pre-owned almost guarantees that will not be the case.

 

[Jim Walczak]

I have, however, come across photographers a while back that stand by statements that if you are using software to "improve" your photos, then you aren't taking them right.

As a person who has been a LONG time user of Photoshop (and other image editing programs), I have to say that my first reaction upon reading that was "poppycock!". It's kind of funny really as in the old days of film, most people didn't question a photographer who chose to setup his/her own darkroom...in fact on a pro or semi-pro level, it was often expected, but today when you mention the term "Photoshop" some people get their shorts all bunched up suggesting this is somehow cheating or something, even though it's essentially the same thing. I certainly won't speak to everyone on this issue, however it's been my experience that most people who say such things are either not photographers themselves or simply don't understand the nature of what photo editing software actually is (or may simply be intimidated by the software...computers still scare the hell out of a lot of people). There may be a few photojournalists out there with similar views, but that's usually more about the ethics of altering an image that's meant to factualy represent an event, as apposed the artistic sense of all this. To be blunt, from an artistic point of view, it's NOT about what you do at the camera, it's about creating the best looking final product you can.

Consider this; if you go out and snap a bunch of photos and simply take them into someplace like Walmart or Rite Aid where you pop your memory card in a machine and receive your prints a few minutes later, those prints are STILL altered from how they were captured on the camera. Modern image processing equipment that produces pictures on photo paper virtually always has some form of auto adjustments it makes to your images (unless of course you tell the lab tech to turn these adjustments off). Even in the earlier days of film, the lab technicians would often make adjustments to exposure, contrast, etc., etc., so the customer could receive the best looking prints possible. The use of software such as Photoshop today simply puts that control in the hands of the photographer just as it did in the days of dark rooms.

Very honestly, would you call Ansel Adams a "cheater"? The great Ansel Adams did in fact create many of the post-processing techniques in a darkroom that many of us use these days in various image editing programs...and arguably, many of those famous Adams' prints were seldom identical to what he captured with a camera. The simple fact of the matter is that good photographers have often and frequently "altered" their photos from how they were captured with a camera LONG before Photoshop or even computers were around. There's a reason why pros and even budding enthusiasts would setup their own dark rooms to process their own film and pictures...it was so the PHOTOGRAPHER would have control over how their images/prints actually looked and NOT the zit faced kid running the gear at the photo lab. Modern software has simply made that process MUCH easier. I did in fact spend a good deal of time in my early years squinting in a dark room, dealing with those nasty chemicals, doing manual enlargements, dodging and burning (where do you think the term "cut & paste" came from?), etc, etc., etc., and the truth is there really isn't too much I typically do in Photoshop (from a photography point of view at least) that I couldn't have done in a dark room. Even in terms of "retouching images"...in the old days, you had people who would even sit down with an air brush, alter a print and re-shoot it...it was a very common practice for many professionals. It's just that Photoshop on a decent computer is MUCH easier, usually faster and considerably more pleasant to deal with.

Understand this; photography is a process...it's NOT just about what you do at the camera. YES, a person should try and do the best they can with the camera and the better you do, the more you can get out of your images, however THAT'S ONLY PART OF THE PROCESS. The process begins before you even snap the shutter...you evaluate the scene, the lighting, the angle, the composition, etc., then you click the shutter, however that's NOT where the process ends. In my not so humble opinion at least, that process doesn't actually end until you've made your prints (be them physical prints on photo paper or jpgs that you post on the internet) and processing the images IS very much a part of the process. It's not about any sense of cheating at all, it's about creating the best images you possibly can. For myself at least, whether I'm shooting for a client or simply for my own pleasure, it's all about the print...what I do at the camera is simply part of that process.

Now on a more personal note, I will be the first to admit that no, I'm NOT a perfect photographer...never have been, never will be. Sometimes I will miss the exposure by a stop or two and from time to time I will certainly decide a given image may need a bit of a crop or some adjustments to the color, saturation, etc., and certainly -EVERY- digital image can use at least a small degree of sharpening and such. So yes, I will use Photoshop (or other software) to make up for my short comings with the camera (or even the shortcomings of the medium itself)...however I really see nothing wrong with this at all. If I and/or my clients are happy with the final results, why should it matter at all?? Even in the case where I may be doing an exhibition, if someone is looking at my work, even IF they happen to be another photographer, they're NOT looking at my process, they're looking at my prints and either they like my work or they don't....and THAT is what's important. In other words, people will judge your results and NOT the methods of your madness .

Be it Photoshop, Coral, Lightroom, Aperture, Gimp, etc., think of photo editing software simply as your "digital darkroom". It's a tool...and a very powerful tool to allow you to get the most out of your images. Yes, you can create images that go well beyond what you saw thru your lens, however the truth is that good photographers have been doing this for MANY years...and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[soufiej]

Feel better now, JW?