Photographers: I need advice

[Sateema Lunasi]

I know nothing about photography. The only camera I have ever owned is a lousy point and click thingie I took to Ireland with me to get some shots of the scenery. I had a little panoramic too but it broke. I would like to get into photography but first I want to play around and see if I even have a knack for it.

What kind of camera should I start with. I want to get something good, not terribly expensive, but still good, and not too complicated. I don't even know where to start.

Also, I'd like some advice on what I have done so far. I just have a few pics I took from Ireland, but I want to know if you guys think they are any good or not. My mom was a photo-journalist and anthropologist so I am hoping some of it rubbed off a little.

My favorite:

 

[Sateema Lunasi]

Byt he way, this is the cottage my sweetie and I vacation at in Ireland. The stone tower is Rinvyle Castle's keep.

 

[Sateema Lunasi]

The Cliffs of Moher...

 

[Sateema Lunasi]

Bolivia

Moon Vally

 

[Sateema Lunasi]

Bolivia

A Street Market...

 

[Sateema Lunasi]

China

This is the only decent pic I got in Bejing. The others look terrible. This man had so much character in his face.

 

[marksgirl]

I use a Nikon, love it. I use it because it allows me to be in control of it, the ASA the f stop etc...that way I can get the varied results I want. I does cost a little bit but it is worth the $. I went to college for photo journalisam and the one thing my teacher said that has always stuck with me was "make it personal" best advise I ever received so now I pass it along.. Best of Luck

 

[Sateema Lunasi]

"Make it personal..." that does mean alot, thank you. Any advice on a beginner's camera?

 

[Bindii]

I have a Canon Eos and have found it very versatile and easy to use.
If you are thinking of buying a new camera then I suggest looking for one that has both auto focus (point and shoot) as well as manual focus. The auto focus makes it easy for the quick 'snapshots' when you haven't got a lot of time to play around with ... ideal for moving subjects. Yet having the manual focus allows you to experiment with your camera making full use of the available light etc
BTW I liked your photo's!

 

[Sateema Lunasi]

Thanks Bindi, I will look into that model of camera. Thanks for the advice!


Gawd the people on Lit are helpful!

 

[Bindii]

There are lots of different models in the Canon Eos series, basically it will depend on the $'s you want to spend. The more auto focus points the camera has the dearer it is.

Overall though the body themselves are not all that expensive, and you can always buy better lenses as you need them...they are what cost the real money. This way your camera can 'grow' with you as you get better.

 

[Sateema Lunasi]

That sounds like what I need. Something that can grow with me. Any idea what the prices start at?

 

[Bindii]

I can only give you the prices for here in Australia.....starting price is around the $500 mark, but that includes a 28-80 lens so its not too bad. In US dollars thats around $270.

Have a look on the net for a Canon web site...the Australian one has all the prices and specs so I am presuming that the other sites would as well.

I recently purchased some new equipment and found a good way of getting prices was to do a search of local camera stores, I then emailed them for a price list. They were all happy to help me out.

 

[La Huesera]

I am in college and my major is photography. I started out with a Nikon N-65. I got it at Wal-Mart for around $250. That included a lens, it was just not the body. While it worked really well, it did not fit all of my needs. Last semester I upgraded to a Nikon F-100... a top end camera. While you may not want to spend that much on a camera ($1600 with lens), there are several models below it in the Nikon school that are very good. A lot of the expense come from the lens...what you want it to do, and how fast it is. My teachers have always said that its not the body of the camera, but the lens that makes the difference. Also, if you are having trouble deciding which camera to buy, you need to look at the lens selections. Some cameras only allow you to use the lens' that are made by that company..(ex..only use a Nikon lens on a Nikon camera). I picked a Nikon because they are able to use several different types of lens' from different companys. Just a few things to think about.

 

[Sateema Lunasi]

Thank you for that advice

 

[Starfish]

Two threads about this in a day! WOW. And these pics are fantastic too.


I just love the market photo, but they are all very nice.

You'll do great.

 

[Closet Desire]

Trouble with photography is...

...you always get more advice than you need! But it's fun!

I've got a lovely Canon A-1 set up. Multiple camera bodies, lots of lenses, dedicated flashes--the works. Haven't touched them in two years. Why? Digital.

My advice if you're just starting out is to go digital. You don't already have a ridiculous investment in film so you should be able to afford some good equipment and even though it's improving on a monthly basis a good camera today will still be a good camera next year.

If you've got a computer and a decent ink jet printer you're well on your way to having a whale of a good time. Epson offers a software package for about $30 on their web site that can track your film cards as "rolls" and then print out everything as snap shots or contact sheets. Cameras come with some reasonably good photo editing software (I prefer Adobe Photoshop Elements for a simple package) so you can work with the "keepers" to make them just so.

I've got a Fuji 4900 (replaced by the 6900) which gives 4 megapix images--decent enough for 8X10s. It works with all my studio equipment, has a fast 35-210mm lens, more bells and whistles than you can shake a stick at. Nikon and Olympus also make some brilliant cameras for this.

It's not necessarily any cheaper than film once you figure in paper and ink and how much fun you're going to have, but it's competitive and you get full control over it.

My avatar (very lo-rez) was shot with this setup and two studio lights. More photos on my web site if you want to have a look at digital stuff www.closetdesire.com. If you do look at these photos keep in mind that they are compressed jpegs at just 95dpi. Photos are printed at 300dpi or better and a screen doesn't really do them justice.

I liked your photos and I think you would really enjoy just starting with and sticking with digital. Geez...never thought I'd be saying such a thing.

Enjoy!

 

[paphian]

I know nothing about photography. The only camera I have ever owned is a lousy point and click thingie I took to Ireland with me to get some shots of the scenery. I had a little panoramic too but it broke. I would like to get into photography but first I want to play around and see if I even have a knack for it.

What kind of camera should I start with. I want to get something good, not terribly expensive, but still good, and not too complicated. I don't even know where to start.

Also, I'd like some advice on what I have done so far. I just have a few pics I took from Ireland, but I want to know if you guys think they are any good or not. My mom was a photo-journalist and anthropologist so I am hoping some of it rubbed off a little.

My favorite:

I'm probably gonna go "against the grain" a lot here. But here's at least $.02 worth of advice:

I recently returned to serious photogrpahy after a couple of years absence where I went temporarily insane and thought that digital was the way to go.

It's not, IMO.

Without spending the (serious, well over a thousand bucks) money for a top-end digital camera, most all digitals are "point and shoots." Great for snapshots, but entirely crappy for serious photographic efforts. I could go on and on about the various reasons, but the biggest two are these: 1) Lack of interchangeable lenses and 2) Controls not designed for manual exposure use.

So I went back to 35mm. I happen to use Olympus OM series cameras. They're small, light, have a total "system" of lenses and accessories to go with them, and the build quality is excellent. My first was bought in 1980. Unfortunately, Olympus just this spring has officially discontinued them. Fortunately, there's enough of the various pieces out there and good enough service and repair support that I'll be able to keep shooting with mine for another 20 years, I expect.

In any event, my basic advice is to throw out most all advice to buy a specific brand or model, go to a good professional camera shop (not a department store) and try out as many different bodies (new, used and of any vintage) as they'll let you play with in the store. You want a camera that "fits" you. One where the layout of controls makes sense, where it "feels" right to you and where you can, should you choose to, expand what you've got to fill the need for what you want to shoot.

Keep in mind that newer isn't necessarily better. The newest cameras have often been designed with the snap-shot photographer in mind more than someone who is serious. Most often, in my experience, serious photographs will demand some sort of eaily-accessed manual control. The argument can even be made that a "manual-only" camera will serve you best. Add to that the fact that more and more of the newer cameras *require* batteries to operate, are made of pretty cheap plastic (even including the lenses and lens-mounts) and still cost a pretty penny, and you might just find that starting with a used, older camera made of real metal and glass is a better investment.

Happy to discuss this with you more if you'd like. PM me if you've got more questions.

Oh, and remember this: Many of the world's most respected photographers took their most admired photographs with equipment that people now would consider "primitive." It's not the equipment that makes the photograph. Great photographs are a product of the mind and vision of the photographer.

 

[Closet Desire]

Paphian...

...is spot on.

I won't lie--I went through three digital cameras before I settled on the one I currently use. I think the going rate is £700 for the Fuji and that works out to a tad under a grand in dollars. It's probably the lowest cost camera with semi-professional abilities. It does have fully manual override, shutter and aperature settings comparable to most SLRs, and so forth. In my case, because of the range on the lens interchangeable lenses wasn't a big deal BUT the viewfinder is a miniature video screen so focussing can be a bit of a pain. Fortunately the autofocus locks and works well in low light. It does have manual focus but it's a bit difficult to use well in a studio.

I'm a big fan of secondhand equipment and most of the big brands, even older stuff, is still serviceable and lovely to use. It doesn't have to cost a lot either. I worked professionally for years with Prakticas (communist made) and while they were not the most refined cameras the optics were tack sharp and I could afford them. There's something very sexy about all that glass and brass (let out a Tim the Tool Man grunt!).

Artistically I have to agree that my best shots with film were done either partially or totally in manual modes. It sort of depends on what you plan to do. Bresson used Leica's since his chosen art was candids. Adams used large format cameras that took minutes or longer to set up. Mind you he dried his prints in a microwave so he wasn't afraid of new technology! Still, most of these have ended up being scanned and edited on computer rather than in a darkroom.

Good advice--go have a look see at everything and pick what's comfortable and affordable. Film isn't going away anytime soon (although digital now outsells film in the UK) and the popularity of digital will drive prices down even lower.

I'm just one of those who found new thrills in photography through digital after selling off my darkroom equipment to move to the UK.

See what I mean about advice? It's almost like fishing!

Have fun!

 

[paphian]

A couple of other things I thought of...

First, I'd say your strongest shot is the "Chana Man" one, of those you posted. A good strong subject, isolated from surrounding clutter. Nice photograph.

Second, look at as many photos as you can find on the net, in books and so forth, and see if you can figure out what it is about them that you like or dislike. The more critical your seeing gets, the more you'll begin to "see" more as you make your own shots.

Third, shoot, shoot, shoot. The more photos you make, the more you'll begin to develop your own means of seeing the world and your own sense of what's "right." And, as difficult as it may be, at first, grit your teeth and post your work for critique, as you've done here. If you need a venue for it, try PhotoNet where you'll not only find a place to post your work, but literally tons of information on how to take better photos.

 

[amiss]

Since you seem to have more than enough advice here on actual cameras, I'm going to leave that alone.
But besides all the manual settings and such, there are actual elements of a photograph that set it apart from a snapshot. Most imperative and fundamental of these differences is the Rule of Thirds (IMO). (Anyone care to second this motion?) Were I to see two pictures of the same subject, a sunset for instance, and one picture has the horizon in the middle of the shot, and the other has it set on a "third line" that the latter is much more appealing, much more artistic, etc. and just plain better.
Cameras you can experiment with. (Some professional shops will offer to rent them to you so you can get a feel for what you want.) But good photographs are not solely dependent on the camera, but also the photographer (as has been mentioned before).

 

[paphian]

<snip>

Most imperative and fundamental of these differences is the Rule of Thirds (IMO). (Anyone care to second this motion?) Were I to see two pictures of the same subject, a sunset for instance, and one picture has the horizon in the middle of the shot, and the other has it set on a "third line" that the latter is much more appealing, much more artistic, etc. and just plain better.

<snip>

I fully agree. Enough to have the focusing screen I use in one of my camera bodies custom-etched with "third lines" to aid in composition. Having interchangeable focusing screens in the OM series is a blessing.

Once you master that, though, then you're always free to break that rule where it makes sense.

 

[Closet Desire]

Rules...

The rule of thirds is a tried and true one for many shots. Since most of my work is now for reference shots that will be sketched the rule has become "when you think you're close enough--get closer". Sometimes a photo is like writing a simple paragraph--what is the subject? What are you trying to convey?

To illustrate just think of the boxes all of us have of photographs from holidays where we tried to get the Rocky Mountains into a 4x6 print. Doesn't work.

Attached art reference shot. Photo was originally full length and most didn't achieve what I was looking for (have to do it over), but salvaged some for sketches by looking at what might be interesting. Artist will probably drop the "tie" and uncover the arm hidden beneath it. That's what I mean in my work by getting closer. (yes, it's a woman's hand)

Anyway, it's just fun and they're right--shoot, shoot, shoot your heart away!

 

[Sateema Lunasi]

You guys have helped me so much....muuuuah! Thank you. I am not interested in digital as I played with a friend's digital and was not feeling right with it. I will go into a shop and tinker with some cameras. Thanks again