Anybody else wanna' geek out and talk PHOTOGRAPHY???

the_journeyman

Nah, some things won't come from a book. Grab you camera and start shooting. Read as you go.

JM

neverstray

I'm seriously an amateur and an oddball. I got a Sony a33 with a Sigma 180mm macro and a Sony 3.5-6.3/18-250. Love macro and landscape but I really want to get a really good portrait lens. Still learning a bunch (part of why I came here). I'm also a Paint Shop Pro user... debating on switching over to Photoshop though.

If you're thinking about going to photoshop...consider going to adobe photoshop lightroom (it's complete and proper name) instead. it can do MOST of what you want to do. i'm telling you...if you get good at lightroom you'll take your photography WAAAAY to the next level.

//edit...it's also a LOT cheaper. now if you can find out how to download the instructional videos for lightrom someplace from a company called lynda....you will be a freakin' lightroom jedi inside two weeks. you will not believe the kind of photos you'll produce. this is of course providing you have a camera that shoots in raw, i should add.

Yeah, true to a point. But, there really is no replacement for photoshop. You can do a lot with Lightroom. It took me a long time to adjust. But, once I did, I do most everything in Lightroom now. However, when it goes to print, I run every single image through Photoshop for fine tuning. You can't do fine retouching, as an example, in lightroom. Unless they've fixed that. But, in the version I have, you can't. I think i have 3.x and Photoshop CS5. I like Lightroom for proofing and rough editing. But, when it gets into detail, I like photoshop.

Agreed. Photoshop is needed for the heavy lifting/fine tuning, but I'm astounded at how capable LR is at times. You still shoot?

Yes. Not as much. But, yes. I'm asked occasionally for cash, and then sometimes I just head out somewhere and shoot different things.

Nerple

Nah, some things won't come from a book. Grab you camera and start shooting. Read as you go.

JM

Well half of the reading would be selecting a new camera to get!

wellbert

YEssss.

I'm itchy to upgrade my old camera, but I haven't seen a feature come out in years that makes me want to upgrade.
Video? Pfffft. It's an SLR. IDGAF.
Give me a full frame camera under $2000.... then I"ll bite! until then, lenseslenseslenses.



For learning?

Camera controls are easy. An afternoon with the manual and you will get acquainted.

For taking pictures? Composition and learning what looks interesting is paramount.
I think everyone should learn using a prime lens (Like the nifty fifty)


I'll save you some time too: Making everything glowy neon with HDR is awful. Don't do it.

karylee44

i have to agree with the juouneyma.. just get out and shoot.. books are fine.. but you need to shoot.. you might only get one good shot out of a 100 anyways.. with digital, it is sooo much easier to get a better shot.. you can check it right away and make adjustments. with film.. you never knew untill you developed it. and even then.. dark room work took HOURS.

I would love a nice expensive camera.. but right now all my stuff is shot on a cheap little camera..

but you can have the most expensive camera in the world and still shoot bad photos..

UpEarly

Nice gear!

I have a 5D, a Rebel T2i (my hiking camera) and my old 20D. I love the Singh-ray graduated ND filters. Did you know they make a reverse GND specifically for sunrise skies? It's awesome! Also the vari-duo that combines a ND filter with a circular polarizer - amazing for shooting long exposures on moving water.

L00py_T0ucan

bump

neverstray

i have to agree with the juouneyma.. just get out and shoot.. books are fine.. but you need to shoot.. you might only get one good shot out of a 100 anyways.. with digital, it is sooo much easier to get a better shot.. you can check it right away and make adjustments. with film.. you never knew untill you developed it. and even then.. dark room work took HOURS.

I would love a nice expensive camera.. but right now all my stuff is shot on a cheap little camera..

but you can have the most expensive camera in the world and still shoot bad photos..

Good point. You can have the best camera gear in the world and still take the same lousy pics you take today. It ain't the gear. This is hard for people to understand, but just because you can afford a formula race car, doesn't mean you'll drive like Mario Andretti. Ya know? It doesn't t work like that. It has advanced features where if you're a really experienced driver, you can take advantage of, but the car doesn't make you a better driver. The gear won't make you take better pics. I can use a $20 camera and smoke anyone with $10,000 worth of gear. It's about the feeling and emotion and knowing a lot about the technical stuff of art that makes images great. There are some technical things you should learn about art if you really want to excel, like the Golden Mean and crap like that. It's important, but don't get consumed by it. Just understand it, and then forget about it when shooting.

If you want to get good, you have to shoot a lot. Go out every weekend and shoot 1,000 frames or more. Come home, process them immediately and post your best one to a blog or soemthing and start sharing. Keep doing this week after week after week. It takes practice. Like a musician, you can't just pick up an instrument and play it well, you have to practice to get good.

Most of all though, have fun.

I've been thinking about posting small tutorials somewhere. Would anyone be interested if I did that?

trimom10

Congratulations on the new camera... and just in time for a trip! Back in high school, I had to get the Pentax K1000 for photography class. I still have the camera and use it here and there. Of course with my three sons involved in sports, I got the Nikon D40 with a couple of different lenses. While I like the digital SLR convenience, the photos just do not have the depth like the Pentax photos. For my son's senior picture session I used both cameras. We ended up selecting THE senior photo from one of the Pentax shots.

On a side note, I inherited my great uncle's Brownie which he used probably from the 1940s to 1960s. I haven't even had a chance to figure out its value. With 35mm film becoming difficult to find, they probably don't even sell film for it anymore.

neverstray

Congratulations on the new camera... and just in time for a trip! Back in high school, I had to get the Pentax K1000 for photography class. I still have the camera and use it here and there. Of course with my three sons involved in sports, I got the Nikon D40 with a couple of different lenses. While I like the digital SLR convenience, the photos just do not have the depth like the Pentax photos. For my son's senior picture session I used both cameras. We ended up selecting THE senior photo from one of the Pentax shots.

On a side note, I inherited my great uncle's Brownie which he used probably from the 1940s to 1960s. I haven't even had a chance to figure out its value. With 35mm film becoming difficult to find, they probably don't even sell film for it anymore.

People are wrong. Film is better, richer, and has more depth and feel to it. But, whatever. That's like arguing that the computer has ruined people skills for kids. It's an uphill battle. But, it is better. Before I sold my MF equipment, I took my kids out to the beach and shot off a roll of film. Best pics I took in a long time. I love film. But, digital is cheap and easy, for sure. But, sometimes, cheap and easy isn't better.

Jeneba

Meeeeeee! Would LOVE tutorials!

FORIANN

Congratulations on the new camera... and just in time for a trip! Back in high school, I had to get the Pentax K1000 for photography class. I still have the camera and use it here and there. Of course with my three sons involved in sports, I got the Nikon D40 with a couple of different lenses. While I like the digital SLR convenience, the photos just do not have the depth like the Pentax photos. For my son's senior picture session I used both cameras. We ended up selecting THE senior photo from one of the Pentax shots.

On a side note, I inherited my great uncle's Brownie which he used probably from the 1940s to 1960s. I haven't even had a chance to figure out its value. With 35mm film becoming difficult to find, they probably don't even sell film for it anymore.

People are wrong. Film is better, richer, and has more depth and feel to it. But, whatever. That's like arguing that the computer has ruined people skills for kids. It's an uphill battle. But, it is better. Before I sold my MF equipment, I took my kids out to the beach and shot off a roll of film. Best pics I took in a long time. I love film. But, digital is cheap and easy, for sure. But, sometimes, cheap and easy isn't better.

I love the alien skin exposure plug in...simulates film very impressively. The dynamic range of film is broader, but I am fairly sure I can get equally as satisfying and rich results for anything in the 11x14 range with digital...but as you say....we could battle this all day long.

One thing I will say is that I think with digital people are very hap hazard about what they shoot...just go out and shoot 150 photos at whatever event they are attending, etc. I've done photography workshops where you were only allowed to shoot 100 pics in 3 days of shooting. As with film it makes you stop and consider and weigh your shots more. That's one factor that people miss these days. Another is autofocus....people don't ever stop to consider having the infocus object be off center for more creative compositions.

Also, let me say that people used to have to learn photography to a greater degree...what kind of film you used mattered. There was a more deliberate and conscience application of the art. Now they just put it on auto and snap 14 million pics. I've shot with film..but only after cutting my teeth, so to speak, on digital. I was fluent in photoshop before I learned how to develop my own film in the darkroom. While I'm thankful for the experience, I didn't enjoy it. I was already accustomed to a certain way of thinking. I do like to think that my mode of thought enables me to be firmly "rooted in the now" though and I have learned over the years to take my time and familiarize myself with what my camera can do.

I like photography.

Captain_Tightpants

I'm not the biggest fan of Lightroom. But I think that's not a reflection on the program so much as that I use Photoshop all day every day in my job so it's so much more intuitive for me to use that instead.

Captain_Tightpants

I've been looking into getting more into photography but just seeing this thread reminds me I have a lot of reading to do before I can even undertsand half of this thread.

Honestly, this is all you really need to know to go full manual... the rest will just come with messing around over time...

Captain_Tightpants

Gah cut off... okay, here's the link instead:
http://www.michaelpyoungblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2011/01/Esthetic_Exposure_Triangle2.jpg

Cyngen

Canon 60D here with some primes. Your first prime will make you addicted to what they offer for sure.
I do mostly landscape and building photography. Of late, I'm very into black and white photography, so my trips are to hunt out scenes that fit that.

Shoot in full manual mode and RAW format. Everything is brought into Lightroom 3 and any in depth processing is done in Photoshop.

neverstray

Congratulations on the new camera... and just in time for a trip! Back in high school, I had to get the Pentax K1000 for photography class. I still have the camera and use it here and there. Of course with my three sons involved in sports, I got the Nikon D40 with a couple of different lenses. While I like the digital SLR convenience, the photos just do not have the depth like the Pentax photos. For my son's senior picture session I used both cameras. We ended up selecting THE senior photo from one of the Pentax shots.

On a side note, I inherited my great uncle's Brownie which he used probably from the 1940s to 1960s. I haven't even had a chance to figure out its value. With 35mm film becoming difficult to find, they probably don't even sell film for it anymore.

People are wrong. Film is better, richer, and has more depth and feel to it. But, whatever. That's like arguing that the computer has ruined people skills for kids. It's an uphill battle. But, it is better. Before I sold my MF equipment, I took my kids out to the beach and shot off a roll of film. Best pics I took in a long time. I love film. But, digital is cheap and easy, for sure. But, sometimes, cheap and easy isn't better.

I love the alien skin exposure plug in...simulates film very impressively. The dynamic range of film is broader, but I am fairly sure I can get equally as satisfying and rich results for anything in the 11x14 range with digital...but as you say....we could battle this all day long.

One thing I will say is that I think with digital people are very hap hazard about what they shoot...just go out and shoot 150 photos at whatever event they are attending, etc. I've done photography workshops where you were only allowed to shoot 100 pics in 3 days of shooting. As with film it makes you stop and consider and weigh your shots more. That's one factor that people miss these days. Another is autofocus....people don't ever stop to consider having the infocus object be off center for more creative compositions.

Also, let me say that people used to have to learn photography to a greater degree...what kind of film you used mattered. There was a more deliberate and conscience application of the art. Now they just put it on auto and snap 14 million pics. I've shot with film..but only after cutting my teeth, so to speak, on digital. I was fluent in photoshop before I learned how to develop my own film in the darkroom. While I'm thankful for the experience, I didn't enjoy it. I was already accustomed to a certain way of thinking. I do like to think that my mode of thought enables me to be firmly "rooted in the now" though and I have learned over the years to take my time and familiarize myself with what my camera can do.

I like photography.

I agree with you about the lack of deliberation digital created. Additionally, its created the illusion that anyone can do it. As a photographer that used to photograph weddings, more often than not, I saw couples allowing "friends" or relatives with a dslr to shoot their weddings instead of hiring a pro. The results were sometimes ok, but sometimes disastrous too. People think digital is easy. Ha, ha. The same elements apply whether film or digital.

Nerple

What are people's thoughts on the Canon Rebel T2i or T3i for a first SLR camera? I don't want to go too overbaord on something as I have no idea what I am doing yet. But I also want a new camera (and know how to use it) before I go the Artic this summer (and hopefully before I go to Asia next month should that trip come through). But most of the time when home I'll probably mostly just be taking pictures of my 19 month old niece.

reneegee23

What are people's thoughts on the Canon Rebel T2i or T3i for a first SLR camera? I don't want to go too overbaord on something as I have no idea what I am doing yet. But I also want a new camera (and know how to use it) before I go the Artic this summer (and hopefully before I go to Asia next month should that trip come through). But most of the time when home I'll probably mostly just be taking pictures of my 19 month old niece.

We have a T2i at work and I like it, I've always used Canon bodies and lenses UNTIL my awesome brother gave me a Nikon D90 and I am forever a Nikon girl now. Their lenses are far superior (IMO) to comparable Canon lenses, if ever slightly more expensive.

yoovie

OMFG *HUMPS THREAD*

reneegee23

I agree with you about the lack of deliberation digital created. Additionally, its created the illusion that anyone can do it. As a photographer that used to photograph weddings, more often than not, I saw couples allowing "friends" or relatives with a dslr to shoot their weddings instead of hiring a pro. The results were sometimes ok, but sometimes disastrous too. People think digital is easy. Ha, ha. The same elements apply whether film or digital.

I so SO agree with you, dude. We hire a lot of photographers remotely at my work, and you can tell IMMEDIATELY the pros from the guy who had 1500 to blow on a DSLR. It's so obvious who put the work in during production as opposed to post-production.

I'm certainly not a pro, but I do have photography experience and I learned on film. There's a certain spontaneity that you get with film that will never be replicated with digital. Plus, simply learning the basics of manually exposing your film is invaluable imo.

But of course, even the conversation of film v. digital is pointless now, isn't it? I've been putting together a small B&W darkroom at my house with Craigslist finds and when I told a friend this, he said "Isn't there a photoshop filter for that?" Lol. Point taken.

mrmanmeat

I randomly got a message asking for suggestions on lighting equipment today. I quit over 2 years ago. Best decision I ever made.

I no longer have to deal with *****y brides and "ugly teenagers" lol

neverstray

I agree with you about the lack of deliberation digital created. Additionally, its created the illusion that anyone can do it. As a photographer that used to photograph weddings, more often than not, I saw couples allowing "friends" or relatives with a dslr to shoot their weddings instead of hiring a pro. The results were sometimes ok, but sometimes disastrous too. People think digital is easy. Ha, ha. The same elements apply whether film or digital.

I so SO agree with you, dude. We hire a lot of photographers remotely at my work, and you can tell IMMEDIATELY the pros from the guy who had 1500 to blow on a DSLR. It's so obvious who put the work in during production as opposed to post-production.

I'm certainly not a pro, but I do have photography experience and I learned on film. There's a certain spontaneity that you get with film that will never be replicated with digital. Plus, simply learning the basics of manually exposing your film is invaluable imo.

But of course, even the conversation of film v. digital is pointless now, isn't it? I've been putting together a small B&W darkroom at my house with Craigslist finds and when I told a friend this, he said "Isn't there a photoshop filter for that?" Lol. Point taken.

Alien Skin is my fav filter for film-like looks. It really is the best I've seen, but why do we do that? Lol. Its funny. I tell my photographer friends why try to make it look like film, if you want that look, shoot film. Lol. But, most of them don't know how, although a few of them have taken to it. I think it's a little bit of a retro thing in the industry right now to shoot some film here and there.

Anyway, I kept one of my EOS 1V's for anytime I get the itch to shoot some real documentary stuff on BW. But, mostly I use my 5D Mark II.

I miss the smell of chems and staying up all night in the darkroom. There is soemthing really pure about the whole process. The computer interrupts the creative flow, I think. As an artist, having to shoot, then develop, then print, put the artist direct in touch with the creative process, with the chemicals, and with the elements that made the art come alive. As an example, most people have no idea what cross-processing really is. They think it's a photoshop action that makes colors look cool. I doubt if too many 20-somethings could really describe the process for how that's done. And, I'm talking in the pro photographer realm, much less in the hobbyist world.

One thing digital HAS done is make photography important again by making it cheap and available to the masses. That's exactly what Kodak did back in their day. So, it's popularity has risen which is actually a good thing. One draw back is people aren't printing pictures. Which is sad. I used to love to look through boxes of prints of our family photos. Now, people go to their computers, and that's kind of boring. I don't know why, it's just boring. I'd rather look at a handful of prints than 20,000 lame *kitten* pics on someone's phone or computer screen.

reneegee23

Alien Skin is my fav filter for film-like looks. It really is the best I've seen, but why do we do that? Lol. Its funny. I tell my photographer friends why try to make it look like film, if you want that look, shoot film. Lol. But, most of them don't know how, although a few of them have taken to it. I think it's a little bit of a retro thing in the industry right now to shoot some film here and there.

Anyway, I kept one of my EOS 1V's for anytime I get the itch to shoot some real documentary stuff on BW. But, mostly I use my 5D Mark II.

I miss the smell of chems and staying up all night in the darkroom. There is soemthing really pure about the whole process. The computer interrupts the creative flow, I think. As an artist, having to shoot, then develop, then print, put the artist direct in touch with the creative process, with the chemicals, and with the elements that made the art come alive. As an example, most people have no idea what cross-processing really is. They think it's a photoshop action that makes colors look cool. I doubt if too many 20-somethings could really describe the process for how that's done. And, I'm talking in the pro photographer realm, much less in the hobbyist world.

One thing digital HAS done is make photography important again by making it cheap and available to the masses. That's exactly what Kodak did back in their day. So, it's popularity has risen which is actually a good thing. One draw back is people aren't printing pictures. Which is sad. I used to love to look through boxes of prints of our family photos. Now, people go to their computers, and that's kind of boring. I don't know why, it's just boring. I'd rather look at a handful of prints than 20,000 lame *kitten* pics on someone's phone or computer screen.

Some of my best times were spent in darkrooms and that was just simple B&W processing - I never really got to dive into color but I did experiment with liquid emulsions which were f*cking amazingly fun. I sometimes wish I'd gone for a Masters so I could have more time to make things.

Anyway - speaking of film and subject matter, have you heard of Vivian Maier? She was an unknown street 20th century street photographer, lived and died in obscurity until some Joe Shmoe discovered thousands of rolls of film (many UNDEVELOPED) and started a blog posting her work. I could look at it all day long. http://www.vivianmaier.com

You will probably want to pull out that 1V now and go shoot some peeps in B&W.

FORIANN

Congratulations on the new camera... and just in time for a trip! Back in high school, I had to get the Pentax K1000 for photography class. I still have the camera and use it here and there. Of course with my three sons involved in sports, I got the Nikon D40 with a couple of different lenses. While I like the digital SLR convenience, the photos just do not have the depth like the Pentax photos. For my son's senior picture session I used both cameras. We ended up selecting THE senior photo from one of the Pentax shots.

On a side note, I inherited my great uncle's Brownie which he used probably from the 1940s to 1960s. I haven't even had a chance to figure out its value. With 35mm film becoming difficult to find, they probably don't even sell film for it anymore.

People are wrong. Film is better, richer, and has more depth and feel to it. But, whatever. That's like arguing that the computer has ruined people skills for kids. It's an uphill battle. But, it is better. Before I sold my MF equipment, I took my kids out to the beach and shot off a roll of film. Best pics I took in a long time. I love film. But, digital is cheap and easy, for sure. But, sometimes, cheap and easy isn't better.

I love the alien skin exposure plug in...simulates film very impressively. The dynamic range of film is broader, but I am fairly sure I can get equally as satisfying and rich results for anything in the 11x14 range with digital...but as you say....we could battle this all day long.

One thing I will say is that I think with digital people are very hap hazard about what they shoot...just go out and shoot 150 photos at whatever event they are attending, etc. I've done photography workshops where you were only allowed to shoot 100 pics in 3 days of shooting. As with film it makes you stop and consider and weigh your shots more. That's one factor that people miss these days. Another is autofocus....people don't ever stop to consider having the infocus object be off center for more creative compositions.

Also, let me say that people used to have to learn photography to a greater degree...what kind of film you used mattered. There was a more deliberate and conscience application of the art. Now they just put it on auto and snap 14 million pics. I've shot with film..but only after cutting my teeth, so to speak, on digital. I was fluent in photoshop before I learned how to develop my own film in the darkroom. While I'm thankful for the experience, I didn't enjoy it. I was already accustomed to a certain way of thinking. I do like to think that my mode of thought enables me to be firmly "rooted in the now" though and I have learned over the years to take my time and familiarize myself with what my camera can do.

I like photography.

I agree with you about the lack of deliberation digital created. Additionally, its created the illusion that anyone can do it. As a photographer that used to photograph weddings, more often than not, I saw couples allowing "friends" or relatives with a dslr to shoot their weddings instead of hiring a pro. The results were sometimes ok, but sometimes disastrous too. People think digital is easy. Ha, ha. The same elements apply whether film or digital.

Digital is in some ways more difficult. Shooting in raw gives you more latitude when developing, though. I had a photography business for a while..about half of which was sports...and it was miraculous to me the kind of "bad shots" people would buy because it was of their kid, etc.

Here's the thing....people who don't know photography might look at several photos and say, "Oh those look nice"....someone like you or I who have seen what good photography is and appreciates it in a more precise way could say.."Oh those few look ok...but this one here has composure, accurate exposure, etc."

It's like people that listen to poorly encoded MP3s on an ipod all the time.....they have been conditioned to lower standards. While someone who was used to listening to a loseless compression on a Cowan player can appreciate the major difference in the quality. That makes sense, right?

FORIANN

What are people's thoughts on the Canon Rebel T2i or T3i for a first SLR camera? I don't want to go too overbaord on something as I have no idea what I am doing yet. But I also want a new camera (and know how to use it) before I go the Artic this summer (and hopefully before I go to Asia next month should that trip come through). But most of the time when home I'll probably mostly just be taking pictures of my 19 month old niece.

We have a T2i at work and I like it, I've always used Canon bodies and lenses UNTIL my awesome brother gave me a Nikon D90 and I am forever a Nikon girl now. Their lenses are far superior (IMO) to comparable Canon lenses, if ever slightly more expensive.

I'll throw the EOS-1D X and a couple of fast primes against anything you'd like.

Sorry couldn't resist.

At this level it's more about preference. I believe that Nikon has superior strobe/flashes...but that Canon is far better at available light. toMAtoe...tomoTOE...

JeepBaja

Some of my best times were spent in darkrooms and that was just simple B&W processing - I never really got to dive into color but I did experiment with liquid emulsions which were f*cking amazingly fun. I sometimes wish I'd gone for a Masters so I could have more time to make things.

So many people will never know what it is like to be in a darkroom. Granted, I haven't been in one since high school but even after all these years I know I could go back and do it... These days I have no reason.

My niece is about to take photography classes and they use film. She doesn't have a good 35MM SLR so I am giving her my old Canon EOS A2 to use this weekend matter of fact...

So it is good that this is still be taught.

neverstray

Alien Skin is my fav filter for film-like looks. It really is the best I've seen, but why do we do that? Lol. Its funny. I tell my photographer friends why try to make it look like film, if you want that look, shoot film. Lol. But, most of them don't know how, although a few of them have taken to it. I think it's a little bit of a retro thing in the industry right now to shoot some film here and there.

Anyway, I kept one of my EOS 1V's for anytime I get the itch to shoot some real documentary stuff on BW. But, mostly I use my 5D Mark II.

I miss the smell of chems and staying up all night in the darkroom. There is soemthing really pure about the whole process. The computer interrupts the creative flow, I think. As an artist, having to shoot, then develop, then print, put the artist direct in touch with the creative process, with the chemicals, and with the elements that made the art come alive. As an example, most people have no idea what cross-processing really is. They think it's a photoshop action that makes colors look cool. I doubt if too many 20-somethings could really describe the process for how that's done. And, I'm talking in the pro photographer realm, much less in the hobbyist world.

One thing digital HAS done is make photography important again by making it cheap and available to the masses. That's exactly what Kodak did back in their day. So, it's popularity has risen which is actually a good thing. One draw back is people aren't printing pictures. Which is sad. I used to love to look through boxes of prints of our family photos. Now, people go to their computers, and that's kind of boring. I don't know why, it's just boring. I'd rather look at a handful of prints than 20,000 lame *kitten* pics on someone's phone or computer screen.

Some of my best times were spent in darkrooms and that was just simple B&W processing - I never really got to dive into color but I did experiment with liquid emulsions which were f*cking amazingly fun. I sometimes wish I'd gone for a Masters so I could have more time to make things.

Anyway - speaking of film and subject matter, have you heard of Vivian Maier? She was an unknown street 20th century street photographer, lived and died in obscurity until some Joe Shmoe discovered thousands of rolls of film (many UNDEVELOPED) and started a blog posting her work. I could look at it all day long. http://www.vivianmaier.com

You will probably want to pull out that 1V now and go shoot some peeps in B&W.

To be honest, I wasn't too into her work. Everyone was all gaga about it, and from the stuff I saw, I was kinda like, meh. Whatever. I've seen far better. I wasn't sure what the thing was with her. Maybe it was the sheer volume of work and her dedication to it, but remaining totally unknown. Not sure.

neverstray

Congratulations on the new camera... and just in time for a trip! Back in high school, I had to get the Pentax K1000 for photography class. I still have the camera and use it here and there. Of course with my three sons involved in sports, I got the Nikon D40 with a couple of different lenses. While I like the digital SLR convenience, the photos just do not have the depth like the Pentax photos. For my son's senior picture session I used both cameras. We ended up selecting THE senior photo from one of the Pentax shots.

On a side note, I inherited my great uncle's Brownie which he used probably from the 1940s to 1960s. I haven't even had a chance to figure out its value. With 35mm film becoming difficult to find, they probably don't even sell film for it anymore.

People are wrong. Film is better, richer, and has more depth and feel to it. But, whatever. That's like arguing that the computer has ruined people skills for kids. It's an uphill battle. But, it is better. Before I sold my MF equipment, I took my kids out to the beach and shot off a roll of film. Best pics I took in a long time. I love film. But, digital is cheap and easy, for sure. But, sometimes, cheap and easy isn't better.

I love the alien skin exposure plug in...simulates film very impressively. The dynamic range of film is broader, but I am fairly sure I can get equally as satisfying and rich results for anything in the 11x14 range with digital...but as you say....we could battle this all day long.

One thing I will say is that I think with digital people are very hap hazard about what they shoot...just go out and shoot 150 photos at whatever event they are attending, etc. I've done photography workshops where you were only allowed to shoot 100 pics in 3 days of shooting. As with film it makes you stop and consider and weigh your shots more. That's one factor that people miss these days. Another is autofocus....people don't ever stop to consider having the infocus object be off center for more creative compositions.

Also, let me say that people used to have to learn photography to a greater degree...what kind of film you used mattered. There was a more deliberate and conscience application of the art. Now they just put it on auto and snap 14 million pics. I've shot with film..but only after cutting my teeth, so to speak, on digital. I was fluent in photoshop before I learned how to develop my own film in the darkroom. While I'm thankful for the experience, I didn't enjoy it. I was already accustomed to a certain way of thinking. I do like to think that my mode of thought enables me to be firmly "rooted in the now" though and I have learned over the years to take my time and familiarize myself with what my camera can do.

I like photography.

I agree with you about the lack of deliberation digital created. Additionally, its created the illusion that anyone can do it. As a photographer that used to photograph weddings, more often than not, I saw couples allowing "friends" or relatives with a dslr to shoot their weddings instead of hiring a pro. The results were sometimes ok, but sometimes disastrous too. People think digital is easy. Ha, ha. The same elements apply whether film or digital.

Digital is in some ways more difficult. Shooting in raw gives you more latitude when developing, though. I had a photography business for a while..about half of which was sports...and it was miraculous to me the kind of "bad shots" people would buy because it was of their kid, etc.

Here's the thing....people who don't know photography might look at several photos and say, "Oh those look nice"....someone like you or I who have seen what good photography is and appreciates it in a more precise way could say.."Oh those few look ok...but this one here has composure, accurate exposure, etc."

It's like people that listen to poorly encoded MP3s on an ipod all the time.....they have been conditioned to lower standards. While someone who was used to listening to a loseless compression on a Cowan player can appreciate the major difference in the quality. That makes sense, right?

Yes. And this is one of the big reasons for a sort of dumbing down of the industry, in some respect. The quality is so bad. However, on the other side of the spectrum, for those that hone their craft constantly, the overall level in pro circles is beyond unbelievable. High ISO, and immediate feedback, speed lights, and the ability to make quick adjustments has really taken it all to a new level, IMO. So, you get the great with the bad. But, the general public is having a hrd time dechiphering he difference, since they don't have the knowledge to understand why the good guy is charging $8,000 for your portrait and the sh*tty one is charging $50 plus the cd. Lol. I was the $8k guy, and it was getting harder and harder to sell because camera phones, dslr availability, and people just settling for the $50 and a cd from the girl down the street, got annoying for me. More Han annoying, actually. They could see the difference, but didn't want to pay or it. So, "it was good enough" was what I was hearing. Kind of like your MP3 example. I'm guilty of that one too. Lol.

mccarol1956

i have to agree with the juouneyma.. just get out and shoot.. books are fine.. but you need to shoot.. you might only get one good shot out of a 100 anyways.. with digital, it is sooo much easier to get a better shot.. you can check it right away and make adjustments. with film.. you never knew untill you developed it. and even then.. dark room work took HOURS.

I would love a nice expensive camera.. but right now all my stuff is shot on a cheap little camera..

but you can have the most expensive camera in the world and still shoot bad photos..

Good point. You can have the best camera gear in the world and still take the same lousy pics you take today. It ain't the gear. This is hard for people to understand, but just because you can afford a formula race car, doesn't mean you'll drive like Mario Andretti. Ya know? It doesn't t work like that. It has advanced features where if you're a really experienced driver, you can take advantage of, but the car doesn't make you a better driver. The gear won't make you take better pics. I can use a $20 camera and smoke anyone with $10,000 worth of gear. It's about the feeling and emotion and knowing a lot about the technical stuff of art that makes images great. There are some technical things you should learn about art if you really want to excel, like the Golden Mean and crap like that. It's important, but don't get consumed by it. Just understand it, and then forget about it when shooting.

If you want to get good, you have to shoot a lot. Go out every weekend and shoot 1,000 frames or more. Come home, process them immediately and post your best one to a blog or soemthing and start sharing. Keep doing this week after week after week. It takes practice. Like a musician, you can't just pick up an instrument and play it well, you have to practice to get good.

Most of all though, have fun.

I've been thinking about posting small tutorials somewhere. Would anyone be interested if I did that?

I would be very interested in small tutorials!