I do wear lip gloss from time to time, but sometimes, it looks a little much on my because I have big lips, so I just save it for when I go out on Friday and Saturday night.
I always wear Maybelline Moisture Extreme lipstick...it feels more like a lip balm or sheer gloss. Will it still affect the natural state of my lips? I just like a little more colour everyday.Is it true that wearing lipstick everyday will take away the natural colour and plumpiness of your lips?
i mean over time yes because most non natural ones contain many chemicals...so go for a natural one and red is the worst for you!!!@!Is it true that wearing lipstick everyday will take away the natural colour and plumpiness of your lips?
I've never heard of this. This must be some over-protective mom who came up with this to scare her daughter of lipstick!
I've been wearing lipstick for many, many years and my lips are fine. I can't see there being any scientific truth to it..
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Is it true that the anime version of Air Gear is different form the manga version?
i just finished reading ch.87 of the manga
BQ: Do you like candy?Is it true that the anime version of Air Gear is different form the manga version?
Yachiru-chan~~
^_____^
YESH~
The anime is different, of course!
They generally are. %26gt;.%26gt;
[[ not gonna include spoilers~! %26gt;:O ]]
And the manga is a lot longer, since it's ongoing. The (completed, at 25 eps) anime pretty much follows the general timeline, and just cuts off in the middle of the manga timeline. But there ARE differences. %26gt;.%26gt;
For example:
';The anime has many differences from the manga, and the anime ends in an open ended way, just after Ikki has won in the Devil's 30-30. However, unlike the manga, Ikki does not go through training from Sora.';
-- from wikipedia
O.o';';';';'; Oops, that might have contained a bit of spoilers. Not much tho, hopefully...
BQ: Do you like candy?
xDD YESH~ Of course!
What is Yachiru-chan's favorite kind? =D
baibai~~Is it true that the anime version of Air Gear is different form the manga version?
Yeah,it's a little different.
And why yes,I do like me some candy.
x]
Heya~!
Well yes, they say so :P
u prefer air gear over bleach T~T
hehe:P
Cya~!
oo ya right .. yes me likes candy ^^
oo wait .. u changed ur avie .. super cute XD
BQ: Do you like candy?Is it true that the anime version of Air Gear is different form the manga version?
Yachiru-chan~~
^_____^
YESH~
The anime is different, of course!
They generally are. %26gt;.%26gt;
[[ not gonna include spoilers~! %26gt;:O ]]
And the manga is a lot longer, since it's ongoing. The (completed, at 25 eps) anime pretty much follows the general timeline, and just cuts off in the middle of the manga timeline. But there ARE differences. %26gt;.%26gt;
For example:
';The anime has many differences from the manga, and the anime ends in an open ended way, just after Ikki has won in the Devil's 30-30. However, unlike the manga, Ikki does not go through training from Sora.';
-- from wikipedia
O.o';';';';'; Oops, that might have contained a bit of spoilers. Not much tho, hopefully...
BQ: Do you like candy?
xDD YESH~ Of course!
What is Yachiru-chan's favorite kind? =D
baibai~~Is it true that the anime version of Air Gear is different form the manga version?
Yeah,it's a little different.
And why yes,I do like me some candy.
x]
Heya~!
Well yes, they say so :P
u prefer air gear over bleach T~T
hehe:P
Cya~!
oo ya right .. yes me likes candy ^^
oo wait .. u changed ur avie .. super cute XD
Is it true people would rather a colored car rather than a white car?
Someone told me that my car purely because its white, it wouldnt be as much of value as the same car and model that is coloured, metallic or just something thats not white.
Is this true, or is he just jealous?Is it true people would rather a colored car rather than a white car?
True ! Why are the Metropolitan Police purchasing NEW Silver Motor Vehicles these days as opposed to White Motor Vehicles, a few years back ! Silver Motor Vehicles have a HIGHER resale value than White Motor Vehicles !Is it true people would rather a colored car rather than a white car?
I recently read that 40% of the cars in Australia are white!
I have owned many white cars, the benefits are that they don't show scratches or minor dents as badly as coloured cars, but the colour does become boring.
At the moment I own 3 cars, (I just like cars.) 1 maroon metallic, 1 dark blue metallic, and the oldest, and one I've owned for many years is white.
The maroon is starting to bore me as it shows every little bit of dirt or marks on the paint, the blue one the same, but I still like that deep blue colour.
The white ones just plain, but when washed always comes up well, and never really ever looks dirty like the other 2.
So there are as many buyers for white as there are for any other colour, check the statistics.
Traditionally the best selling car colors are red, black, and white.
He's full of #*$%26amp;
However, there was a known incidence in the car industry of placing cars with parts that were sleightly off always in white paint.
Is this true, or is he just jealous?Is it true people would rather a colored car rather than a white car?
True ! Why are the Metropolitan Police purchasing NEW Silver Motor Vehicles these days as opposed to White Motor Vehicles, a few years back ! Silver Motor Vehicles have a HIGHER resale value than White Motor Vehicles !Is it true people would rather a colored car rather than a white car?
I recently read that 40% of the cars in Australia are white!
I have owned many white cars, the benefits are that they don't show scratches or minor dents as badly as coloured cars, but the colour does become boring.
At the moment I own 3 cars, (I just like cars.) 1 maroon metallic, 1 dark blue metallic, and the oldest, and one I've owned for many years is white.
The maroon is starting to bore me as it shows every little bit of dirt or marks on the paint, the blue one the same, but I still like that deep blue colour.
The white ones just plain, but when washed always comes up well, and never really ever looks dirty like the other 2.
So there are as many buyers for white as there are for any other colour, check the statistics.
Traditionally the best selling car colors are red, black, and white.
He's full of #*$%26amp;
However, there was a known incidence in the car industry of placing cars with parts that were sleightly off always in white paint.
Is it true that once a dog kills it is more apt to kill a second time?
My mom's border collie killed my grandma's pocket poodle puppy this weekend. We are not sure what happened exactly, but we think it involved both dogs being territorial over a small amount of food. I believe the size difference between the dogs was a major factor in the death. We are unsure whether or not to put the dog down. I was told that once a dog killed for the first time it is easier to for it to kill twice, and could be apt to bite someone. Just wanted to hear all your opinions.Is it true that once a dog kills it is more apt to kill a second time?
First of all I am sorry to hear that your grandmas dog died. Second I think a little more info may be needed. Has the dog ever shown signs of aggression before and how old is the dog. If it is a few years old and never been aggressive prior to this then maybe you cna just keep close tabs on her and if she shows any more signs of aggression then yes do something about it but if she does not then maybe it was just an isolated incident. But either way i would suggest that you keep the dog away from other dogs and if you take her to the parks and such maybe muzzle her. I hope it all works out for you.Is it true that once a dog kills it is more apt to kill a second time?
OMG yea it is...My dog Jackie killed my little puppy then it went after my other puppy.Then it attacked my brother's dog and almost killed her too.We had to take her to the vet and they put her down.
Just to clear things up, aggression towards another dog does NOT equal aggression towards people.
Has she ever shown aggression to dogs before? How about small animals? I would talk to an animal behaviorist about it before you decide on what to do with her.
Whether he will actually kill a dog again, he is aggressive and prone to attack. So, if you do decide to keep him, please immediately consult a professional and quality dog trainer for more information on rehabilitating your BC so he won't attack again.
Also, if he isn't already neutered, you probably should. When a male dog is neutered, he no longer has testosterone surging through his body which makes dogs aggressive and very territorial.
I hate to see dogs die, but if the BC killed another dog, then you must humainly euthenize it immediately. It is a safety hazard to you and your family, and to other dogs. Hope this helped, best of luck =]
Oh dear... you poor things. I had a similar problem with my ex-partner's dogs, who saw the neighbour's dog kill a kitten. That was enough to give them the idea of killing my cats, and they picked them off one by one despite having lived with cats perfectly happily for the last 5 years or so. The only solution was to not have cats.
This sort of killing is an impulsive behaviour, often to do with territory or jealousy, but it unlocks a deep instinct for hunting to kill- and you can't undo it.
I would definitely not trust this dog with any small animals after this. However I don't think it necessarily means that the dog is going to bite a person, if that hasn't been its style before this.
If the border collie truly did attack the pocket poodle over food, then the problem would most likely be just with guarding the food. Has the dog ever shown any aggression to any dog in any other situation? Also keep in mind the size difference between a border collie and pocket poodle, a bite to the pocket poodle is much more likely to do serious damage than a bite to another dog of a similar size. I would suggest talking to a behaviorist before deciding that the animal needs to be put down.
Killing in dogs is not like a drug. It's not like they get a taste of it and just want more. The death was probably due to a dominance and territory issue. As long as you ensure you are dominant the dog is not anymore likely to bite you. A big factor in the death may have had to do with the size. My coworkers kitten was killed just from a medium sized dog playing with it. If your dog is not socialized properly with other animals then it may continue to attack. Seek training before euthanasia
i would take that dog to the vet and have the vet keep it for a few days at least then advice you
It has been my experience that they are more likely to go for blood again, but there are exceptions. I personally would not trust the dog around children, and since they are around me a lot, I would put the dog down. Sending it to a no-kill shelter could mean that could happen to someone else, or worse yet, a child.
Usually once a dog starts ';sport killing';, you cannot not stop them. Not knowing all of the circumstances, but just judging from what you stated, I think this is more of an isolated incedent (with the vast size and age difference being a factor) than an outright ';kill for the heck of it'; attack. Ask yourself this? Does your dog act like this all of the time? Or was this the first time? How is the dog around other animals and people? Small kids? My parents had a dog (Akita) that started killing any small animal that moved. And it got worse. He attacked me and I wound up in the hospital with 53 stitches in my arm. Then he tried attacking my Mom. He was put down after that. My best advice to you is to take this dog to a professional dog handler and let then give you their opinionon this. I was also consult with my vet on this matter also. Good Luck.
First of all I am sorry to hear that your grandmas dog died. Second I think a little more info may be needed. Has the dog ever shown signs of aggression before and how old is the dog. If it is a few years old and never been aggressive prior to this then maybe you cna just keep close tabs on her and if she shows any more signs of aggression then yes do something about it but if she does not then maybe it was just an isolated incident. But either way i would suggest that you keep the dog away from other dogs and if you take her to the parks and such maybe muzzle her. I hope it all works out for you.Is it true that once a dog kills it is more apt to kill a second time?
OMG yea it is...My dog Jackie killed my little puppy then it went after my other puppy.Then it attacked my brother's dog and almost killed her too.We had to take her to the vet and they put her down.
Just to clear things up, aggression towards another dog does NOT equal aggression towards people.
Has she ever shown aggression to dogs before? How about small animals? I would talk to an animal behaviorist about it before you decide on what to do with her.
Whether he will actually kill a dog again, he is aggressive and prone to attack. So, if you do decide to keep him, please immediately consult a professional and quality dog trainer for more information on rehabilitating your BC so he won't attack again.
Also, if he isn't already neutered, you probably should. When a male dog is neutered, he no longer has testosterone surging through his body which makes dogs aggressive and very territorial.
I hate to see dogs die, but if the BC killed another dog, then you must humainly euthenize it immediately. It is a safety hazard to you and your family, and to other dogs. Hope this helped, best of luck =]
Oh dear... you poor things. I had a similar problem with my ex-partner's dogs, who saw the neighbour's dog kill a kitten. That was enough to give them the idea of killing my cats, and they picked them off one by one despite having lived with cats perfectly happily for the last 5 years or so. The only solution was to not have cats.
This sort of killing is an impulsive behaviour, often to do with territory or jealousy, but it unlocks a deep instinct for hunting to kill- and you can't undo it.
I would definitely not trust this dog with any small animals after this. However I don't think it necessarily means that the dog is going to bite a person, if that hasn't been its style before this.
If the border collie truly did attack the pocket poodle over food, then the problem would most likely be just with guarding the food. Has the dog ever shown any aggression to any dog in any other situation? Also keep in mind the size difference between a border collie and pocket poodle, a bite to the pocket poodle is much more likely to do serious damage than a bite to another dog of a similar size. I would suggest talking to a behaviorist before deciding that the animal needs to be put down.
Killing in dogs is not like a drug. It's not like they get a taste of it and just want more. The death was probably due to a dominance and territory issue. As long as you ensure you are dominant the dog is not anymore likely to bite you. A big factor in the death may have had to do with the size. My coworkers kitten was killed just from a medium sized dog playing with it. If your dog is not socialized properly with other animals then it may continue to attack. Seek training before euthanasia
i would take that dog to the vet and have the vet keep it for a few days at least then advice you
It has been my experience that they are more likely to go for blood again, but there are exceptions. I personally would not trust the dog around children, and since they are around me a lot, I would put the dog down. Sending it to a no-kill shelter could mean that could happen to someone else, or worse yet, a child.
Usually once a dog starts ';sport killing';, you cannot not stop them. Not knowing all of the circumstances, but just judging from what you stated, I think this is more of an isolated incedent (with the vast size and age difference being a factor) than an outright ';kill for the heck of it'; attack. Ask yourself this? Does your dog act like this all of the time? Or was this the first time? How is the dog around other animals and people? Small kids? My parents had a dog (Akita) that started killing any small animal that moved. And it got worse. He attacked me and I wound up in the hospital with 53 stitches in my arm. Then he tried attacking my Mom. He was put down after that. My best advice to you is to take this dog to a professional dog handler and let then give you their opinionon this. I was also consult with my vet on this matter also. Good Luck.
Is it true that PETA causes more harm to animals, than good?
I've seen a lot of videos and investigation articles that PETA does more harm than good.
I used to live in Norfolk, VA and whenever I passed the PETA headquarters, something smelled fishy. No Pun intended.Is it true that PETA causes more harm to animals, than good?
probably. but anyone who speaks the truth about an uncomfortable issue is going to cause harm. And peta make it worse by killing stray animals in their shelters, which makes them hypocrites. And then they make it worse still by attacking the groups who operate alternatives to killing the animals such as no-kill shelters.Is it true that PETA causes more harm to animals, than good?
Yes I think so.
Hey Christy,
In your letter to PETA are you going to include the details about where you really work????
I googled 'Peta and euthanasia' and got a shock at what I found.All I can say is, take a look for yourself...
I've read articles that cite statistics that show more animals are killed by PETA than are adopted out or cared for. In a recent case PETA picked up a bunch of abandoned dogs from a vet's office and immediately took them to a dumpster where they killed them. I think an animal has a better chance roaming the streets than it does with PETA.
Yes, it is true. PETA does a lot of harm. I appreciate you posting information about PETA. I am actually going to save a copy of this so I can review it daily. You are so right. This is serious stuff and they could be in a lot of trouble for lying on the internet
They are a tax exempt advertising firm that runs a animal shelter with a 90% euthanasia rate. Where is that good part you are talking about?
I certainly am no fan of PETA but I think they may have taken somewhat of a bum rap on this one. Just as PETA and associates use small video and sound clips to make their point so do others. I never watch these accounts. I know what happens occasionally in slaughter houses just as I can guess what happens in the PETA building. All in all they certainly do a lot of harm in their extremely propagandized video clips.
Yes. Actually if PETA has it's way, billions of animals will be killed from pets to farm animals. PETA has advocated the extinction of certain dog species because it claims the animals are ALL used in dog fighting. (talk about stereotyping). PETA has also advocated the end of no kill animal shelters. PETA jhas advocated the ';liberation'; of billions of farms animal through systematic euthanasia. PETA also has ';kits'; for animal shelters on how to exterminate ALL animals in shelters regardless of health or condition or adoptability. These are some things you won't find in a PETA website. Things they do not want you to know about PETA.
I think you should ask Peta. or people that support Peta. I am not sure why you would ask here.
Well of course PETA is suppose to be good. Yet there are cases where they might be putting more animals down than you or I would expect. In all I think they do more good.
No, it is not true. PETA does a lot of good. I don't appreciate you posting this hateful rumors about PETA. I am actually going to forward a copy of this to PETA's legal team so they can review it. You may have a defamation law suit on your hands. This is serious stuff and you could be in a lot of trouble for posting these lies on the internet.
No im in peta and were cool to animals.we killed that cow one time but it deserved it.
no
PETA's no different than the open-admission shelters around the country that are forced to euthanize animals because of the pet overpopulation crisis. About 6 to 8 million unwanted animals are abandoned at animal shelters in the U.S every year. Between three to four million of these are euthanized for various reasons. Since exsft is anti-euthanasia, he should ';walk his talk'; and take the 3 to 4 million animals into his home, finance shelters for them, or find good homes for them.
It amazes me that in polls, the vast majority of people say that pet owners should not be required to spay or neuter their animals. Add to that the breeders, pet stores, puppy mills, etc. and you have a real crisis. It's not PETA's or animal shelters' fault that there are wayyyy more animals than there are loving homes. Talk about blaming the victim...
PETA has the whole world against them... slaughterhouses, restaurants, cosmetic companies, animal circuses, laboratories, breeders, etc. It's not surprising that there are a lot of bad, false things written about PETA.
Exsft's little rant about PETA is ridiculous and unfounded, but understandable given that he runs a restaurant that serves meat.
I used to live in Norfolk, VA and whenever I passed the PETA headquarters, something smelled fishy. No Pun intended.Is it true that PETA causes more harm to animals, than good?
probably. but anyone who speaks the truth about an uncomfortable issue is going to cause harm. And peta make it worse by killing stray animals in their shelters, which makes them hypocrites. And then they make it worse still by attacking the groups who operate alternatives to killing the animals such as no-kill shelters.Is it true that PETA causes more harm to animals, than good?
Yes I think so.
Hey Christy,
In your letter to PETA are you going to include the details about where you really work????
I googled 'Peta and euthanasia' and got a shock at what I found.All I can say is, take a look for yourself...
I've read articles that cite statistics that show more animals are killed by PETA than are adopted out or cared for. In a recent case PETA picked up a bunch of abandoned dogs from a vet's office and immediately took them to a dumpster where they killed them. I think an animal has a better chance roaming the streets than it does with PETA.
Yes, it is true. PETA does a lot of harm. I appreciate you posting information about PETA. I am actually going to save a copy of this so I can review it daily. You are so right. This is serious stuff and they could be in a lot of trouble for lying on the internet
They are a tax exempt advertising firm that runs a animal shelter with a 90% euthanasia rate. Where is that good part you are talking about?
I certainly am no fan of PETA but I think they may have taken somewhat of a bum rap on this one. Just as PETA and associates use small video and sound clips to make their point so do others. I never watch these accounts. I know what happens occasionally in slaughter houses just as I can guess what happens in the PETA building. All in all they certainly do a lot of harm in their extremely propagandized video clips.
Yes. Actually if PETA has it's way, billions of animals will be killed from pets to farm animals. PETA has advocated the extinction of certain dog species because it claims the animals are ALL used in dog fighting. (talk about stereotyping). PETA has also advocated the end of no kill animal shelters. PETA jhas advocated the ';liberation'; of billions of farms animal through systematic euthanasia. PETA also has ';kits'; for animal shelters on how to exterminate ALL animals in shelters regardless of health or condition or adoptability. These are some things you won't find in a PETA website. Things they do not want you to know about PETA.
I think you should ask Peta. or people that support Peta. I am not sure why you would ask here.
Well of course PETA is suppose to be good. Yet there are cases where they might be putting more animals down than you or I would expect. In all I think they do more good.
No, it is not true. PETA does a lot of good. I don't appreciate you posting this hateful rumors about PETA. I am actually going to forward a copy of this to PETA's legal team so they can review it. You may have a defamation law suit on your hands. This is serious stuff and you could be in a lot of trouble for posting these lies on the internet.
No im in peta and were cool to animals.we killed that cow one time but it deserved it.
no
PETA's no different than the open-admission shelters around the country that are forced to euthanize animals because of the pet overpopulation crisis. About 6 to 8 million unwanted animals are abandoned at animal shelters in the U.S every year. Between three to four million of these are euthanized for various reasons. Since exsft is anti-euthanasia, he should ';walk his talk'; and take the 3 to 4 million animals into his home, finance shelters for them, or find good homes for them.
It amazes me that in polls, the vast majority of people say that pet owners should not be required to spay or neuter their animals. Add to that the breeders, pet stores, puppy mills, etc. and you have a real crisis. It's not PETA's or animal shelters' fault that there are wayyyy more animals than there are loving homes. Talk about blaming the victim...
PETA has the whole world against them... slaughterhouses, restaurants, cosmetic companies, animal circuses, laboratories, breeders, etc. It's not surprising that there are a lot of bad, false things written about PETA.
Exsft's little rant about PETA is ridiculous and unfounded, but understandable given that he runs a restaurant that serves meat.
Is it true a point and click camera would get nicer pictures as compared to a DSLR when used in auto mode?
I heard that it is because compact cameras are assumed to be used in auto while DSLRs are assumed to be used in manual mode, even when the former has manual settings.
Any truth to the statement? Or would the various advantages of the DSLR camera result in nicer pictures even when used like a point and click camera?Is it true a point and click camera would get nicer pictures as compared to a DSLR when used in auto mode?
It's not true but...
One of the biggest problems with taking photos is a lack of sharpness of subjects. Digital point and shoots have physically smaller sensors than SLRs, which helps to increase depth of field (the area in focus). In other words, at the same settings, the point and shoot is more likely to have more area in focus and this often helps people who are not good at taking photos, particularly family photos with groups of people or vacation photos with objects in the foreground and background that they want to be sharp.
In terms of exposure, digital SLRs are actually better because they have more sophisticated metering systems, which are more accurate whether the SLR is used in Auto, manual or other modes.
A digital SLR has far more advantages making it the better choice to get better photos. However, to get the same depth of field as a point and shoot, you'll have to change the aperture to get more depth of field, which requires a bit of photographic skill and knowledge. Essentially though, it's the increased depth of field which makes point and shoots attractive to people who are not very skilled at taking sharp photos. However, for a skilled photographer, having control over the depth of field is very important.
In any case, there's no truth to the statement about the assumptions for compact cameras and SLRs. It's simply an issue of physics.Is it true a point and click camera would get nicer pictures as compared to a DSLR when used in auto mode?
I have a Canon SD900 point and shoot as my pocket camera. I shopped for about 6 months for this camera, as I wanted the absolute best overall image quality possible in a point and shoot camera. If I take pictures at a family gathering, for instance, everyone simply expects my pictures to be ';the best'; and I would not settle for less than the best. There are only a handful of P%26amp;S cameras in the same class as the SD900, in my opinion.
However...
We own 3 different DSLR's and there is simply no comparison.
See: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstei鈥?/a> Click on ';All sizes'; and then original. Or, just go directly here: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=鈥?/a> The difference in image quality is almost mind boggling. Leaves and trees are about the most detailed subjects you can find, so they are always a challenge for a camera - film or digital - to reproduce accurately.
AND - the D200 was used with matrix metering on ';P'; or ';Program'; mode, which is the closest thing the D200 has to ';AUTO.'; I don't recall for the SD900, but it was probably on manual mode so I could access ISO 80 for best image quality.
just to back up fhotoace's answer. You pay extra for a DSLR for a very good reason!
teef_au
Well my brother borrowed my DSLR once and he took picture just as good as when he takes pictures with his point and shoot so for me, it's always the photographer.
It is true though that when he took his picture with my DSLR the picture have less noise but that's that.
But then again, it still depends on the situation. DSLR still have an edge with the lack of shutter lag that even a casual or even beginner can have benefit out of it if they're taking pictures of children or sports. That is, you might capture the right moment with your DSLR, but if you had your point and shoot then it might be half a second too late for that moment even if you press the shutter button at the same time.
Just me rambling. ;)
Who ever said that hasn't a clue ... about cameras or photography
DSLR's are NOT used in the manual mode but for two possible reasons. 1) you are using a flash unit and want to preset the shutter speed to sync with the flash, 2) the photographer is shooting in a situation where the manual mode just makes more sense. ... maybe a third ... when the photographer does not trust the camera to shoot in auto.
Nicer picture wise?
The DSLR has a much larger sensor and uses superior lenses to any point and shoot camera. Usually the photographer using a DSLR has a lot of experience as a photographer and uses all those skills to produce superior images. The point and shoot cameras are almost always used by people who have never taken a class in photography in their lives.
IF the statement, ';... a point and click camera would get nicer pictures as compared to a DSLR when used in auto mode'; were true, all the pros would be using them ... They do not.
In bright light condition, you may get a sharper picture from a P%26amp;S camera than from a DSLR. The P%26amp;S has a much higher in-camera sharpening setting then a DSLR.
Sharpening is a destructive change to the picture if you shoot in jpg. You cannot recover the lost details after too much sharpening. Therefore, DSLR usually has a much lower default in-camera sharpening setting. Of course, you can turn it up higher if you want.
If you shoot in raw format, you can use a software to sharpen your pictures in computer.tvs
Any truth to the statement? Or would the various advantages of the DSLR camera result in nicer pictures even when used like a point and click camera?Is it true a point and click camera would get nicer pictures as compared to a DSLR when used in auto mode?
It's not true but...
One of the biggest problems with taking photos is a lack of sharpness of subjects. Digital point and shoots have physically smaller sensors than SLRs, which helps to increase depth of field (the area in focus). In other words, at the same settings, the point and shoot is more likely to have more area in focus and this often helps people who are not good at taking photos, particularly family photos with groups of people or vacation photos with objects in the foreground and background that they want to be sharp.
In terms of exposure, digital SLRs are actually better because they have more sophisticated metering systems, which are more accurate whether the SLR is used in Auto, manual or other modes.
A digital SLR has far more advantages making it the better choice to get better photos. However, to get the same depth of field as a point and shoot, you'll have to change the aperture to get more depth of field, which requires a bit of photographic skill and knowledge. Essentially though, it's the increased depth of field which makes point and shoots attractive to people who are not very skilled at taking sharp photos. However, for a skilled photographer, having control over the depth of field is very important.
In any case, there's no truth to the statement about the assumptions for compact cameras and SLRs. It's simply an issue of physics.Is it true a point and click camera would get nicer pictures as compared to a DSLR when used in auto mode?
I have a Canon SD900 point and shoot as my pocket camera. I shopped for about 6 months for this camera, as I wanted the absolute best overall image quality possible in a point and shoot camera. If I take pictures at a family gathering, for instance, everyone simply expects my pictures to be ';the best'; and I would not settle for less than the best. There are only a handful of P%26amp;S cameras in the same class as the SD900, in my opinion.
However...
We own 3 different DSLR's and there is simply no comparison.
See: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstei鈥?/a> Click on ';All sizes'; and then original. Or, just go directly here: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=鈥?/a> The difference in image quality is almost mind boggling. Leaves and trees are about the most detailed subjects you can find, so they are always a challenge for a camera - film or digital - to reproduce accurately.
AND - the D200 was used with matrix metering on ';P'; or ';Program'; mode, which is the closest thing the D200 has to ';AUTO.'; I don't recall for the SD900, but it was probably on manual mode so I could access ISO 80 for best image quality.
just to back up fhotoace's answer. You pay extra for a DSLR for a very good reason!
teef_au
Well my brother borrowed my DSLR once and he took picture just as good as when he takes pictures with his point and shoot so for me, it's always the photographer.
It is true though that when he took his picture with my DSLR the picture have less noise but that's that.
But then again, it still depends on the situation. DSLR still have an edge with the lack of shutter lag that even a casual or even beginner can have benefit out of it if they're taking pictures of children or sports. That is, you might capture the right moment with your DSLR, but if you had your point and shoot then it might be half a second too late for that moment even if you press the shutter button at the same time.
Just me rambling. ;)
Who ever said that hasn't a clue ... about cameras or photography
DSLR's are NOT used in the manual mode but for two possible reasons. 1) you are using a flash unit and want to preset the shutter speed to sync with the flash, 2) the photographer is shooting in a situation where the manual mode just makes more sense. ... maybe a third ... when the photographer does not trust the camera to shoot in auto.
Nicer picture wise?
The DSLR has a much larger sensor and uses superior lenses to any point and shoot camera. Usually the photographer using a DSLR has a lot of experience as a photographer and uses all those skills to produce superior images. The point and shoot cameras are almost always used by people who have never taken a class in photography in their lives.
IF the statement, ';... a point and click camera would get nicer pictures as compared to a DSLR when used in auto mode'; were true, all the pros would be using them ... They do not.
In bright light condition, you may get a sharper picture from a P%26amp;S camera than from a DSLR. The P%26amp;S has a much higher in-camera sharpening setting then a DSLR.
Sharpening is a destructive change to the picture if you shoot in jpg. You cannot recover the lost details after too much sharpening. Therefore, DSLR usually has a much lower default in-camera sharpening setting. Of course, you can turn it up higher if you want.
If you shoot in raw format, you can use a software to sharpen your pictures in computer.
Is it true that the condition your skin is in is based on your ethnic background?
What are some of the things that can help based on ethnicity?Is it true that the condition your skin is in is based on your ethnic background?
well it actually depends on which etnicity you are......but yea in most cases, ethnicity has alot to do with it!! (( if ethnicity is even a word.........))Is it true that the condition your skin is in is based on your ethnic background?
It does have a great deal with the color of your skin. My mother is caucasian, but she has very dark olive skin and at 67 yrs. of age does not have many wrinkles even though she does smoke. It is also largely based on the amount of sun exposure you get along with taking care of it in other ways. Not smoking, not drinking a lot of alcohol, moisturizing daily, drinking plenty of water and things like that. Generally, those with darker skin do not show the signs of aging as fast as others.
I think it is true to say that the darker your skin colour the less wrinked it will get. Obvious really as it offers more protection from the sun.
well it actually depends on which etnicity you are......but yea in most cases, ethnicity has alot to do with it!! (( if ethnicity is even a word.........))Is it true that the condition your skin is in is based on your ethnic background?
It does have a great deal with the color of your skin. My mother is caucasian, but she has very dark olive skin and at 67 yrs. of age does not have many wrinkles even though she does smoke. It is also largely based on the amount of sun exposure you get along with taking care of it in other ways. Not smoking, not drinking a lot of alcohol, moisturizing daily, drinking plenty of water and things like that. Generally, those with darker skin do not show the signs of aging as fast as others.
I think it is true to say that the darker your skin colour the less wrinked it will get. Obvious really as it offers more protection from the sun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)