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

I am just making the transition from "point & pray" to a Nikon D3000. It's really tough learning all the techincal stuff, but what perplexes me is the way I don't seem to "see" myself into the picture frame. With my low-tech cameras, I can just use the fake telephoto lens & it brings everything closer and in focus at the same time. I don't understand why the shots I am taking with the Nikon seem so "impersonal" and like there is no "me" in them, like I am not interested in what I am shooting.... Would LOVE some advice from all of you!

I tried to use Lightroom, but didn't really care for it. I still got better results using Elements. Don't get me wrong, Lightroom is a really powerful program, I just didn't need that amount of tweaking. I currently shoot with a Nikon D90 & my favorite lens is my ancient 35-105 f2.8 82mm dia Tamron. It's really incredible. I'll stick with Nikon, it's what I've used for years and LOVE 'em.

ETA - Photography group that could use some excitement:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/226-photographers-unite

JM

We have a lot of students who use Photoshop but like Lightroom just as much. I find it easier to user myself

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.