Photographers....

[Liesje]

...what kinds of accessories do you like to use? What do you think are the essentials?

I have a Panasonic DMC-FZ50. So far I have a Raynox 150 macro adapter, a Hoya Pro1 UV filter/polarizer, an extra battery, SunPak flash, a bounce that fits on the flash, a simple tripod, the lens hood that ships with the camera (which I lost and had to buy a new one), and a case/bag. I also plan on getting a remote shutter release. I also want the Raynox 250 eventually, I'm having fun with the 150. I mainly like to shoot macros, dogs, still objects, dog shows, flowers, outdoor scenes, and portraits of pets and babies (don't really do sports or concerts). Anything else you would recommend?

[ntalwar]

I own a circular polarizer filter, but haven't gotten around to really using it much (for landscapes, etc.). Some landscape photographers also use a ND grad filter, although some claim that digital blending can get a similar result. I'll probably start stocking up on more accessories, lenses etc. after I upgrade to the Canon 5D replacement when it comes out this fall.

[Justin24]

I have a Canon Digital Rebel Xt. I have a Sun Pak flash. 2 (2gb memory Cards) 3 lithium batteries. Several filters I can't think on the top of my head. Two tripods, a shutter release. Lense Cleaner, Mirror cleaner (sensor chip which captures the image) 3 Lenses. The one which came with the camera 18-55mm, 18-200mm and 75-300mm. Camera bag.

[UberBeaver]

Do you guys have a preference between digital vs film? I've noticed that often the prints made from digital look awful, yet other times they look fantastic - like film. I can't figure out what would cause this as I don't change the settings on my camera. It's like a crap shot. I miss film sometimes.

[Liesje]

I've never owned a real film camera (my Canon S1 was my first camera in 2004). I do notice differences in prints depending on the quality of the printing. Getting 15 cent prints from Walmart IS different than getting quality printing. I don't print often, but I've started doing it more just to see what the photos look like in print. What do you mean by awful? Color, grainy, sharpness, etc...

[UberBeaver]

The pictures often come back pixelated and it's really annoying.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by UberBeaver Do you guys have a preference between digital vs film? I've noticed that often the prints made from digital look awful, yet other times they look fantastic - like film. I can't figure out what would cause this as I don't change the settings on my camera. It's like a crap shot. I miss film sometimes.

I love digital, but I almost always tweak my images in photoshop (color, curves, etc...) before I print, and I usually print big anyway. Some cameras have good jpg algorithms that give good, saturated colors, some don't. Also, depending on the sensor, digital reacts to shadows and highlights differently than film does (shadows tend to get noisy, and highlights tend to clip pretty harshly). Film had more exposure latitude before you lost detail in the highlights and shadows, so it was more forgiving in that sense.

I usually shoot using RAW instead of jpeg files, which on their own look pretty dull, but after a little work in photoshop look better than jpegs would straight out of the camera and have more detail than jpegs do. It's basically the digital equivalent of developing a negative.

[UberBeaver]

Originally Posted by Diemen I love digital, but I almost always tweak my images in photoshop (color, curves, etc...) before I print, and I usually print big anyway. Some cameras have good jpg algorithms that give good, saturated colors, some don't. Also, depending on the sensor, digital reacts to shadows and highlights differently than film does (shadows tend to get noisy, and highlights tend to clip pretty harshly). Film had more exposure latitude before you lost detail in the highlights and shadows, so it was more forgiving in that sense. I usually shoot using RAW instead of jpeg files, which on their own look pretty dull, but after a little work in photoshop look better than jpegs would straight out of the camera and have more detail than jpegs do. It's basically the digital equivalent of developing a negative.

Sooooo.....I'm fucked?

[Diemen]

Heh. No. If you don't mind using photoshop or a basic editing program on things you want to print, maybe just to boost the color a little or minor edits like that - you should be fine. Every single picture I have hanging in my house - up to a big 20x30" - are prints from my digital camera - though I didn't print those out myself.

[ntalwar]

Originally Posted by UberBeaver The pictures often come back pixelated

Pixelation is a sign of over-enlargement (i.e. beyond 100%) of the original image size.