Photography Basics

[Reyneth]

Probably one of my favorite photos ever....

I took with my 4mpix digital that is now 3 years old (aka ancient). When I worked at a camera store, the next year I'd have people coming in demmanding 6mix, 7mipx, more.
"What size photos are you going to print?"
"Normal! 4x6"
"Then you don't need that much res - that photo *pointing to the 16x20 canvas print of my picture* is from a 4 mpix camera"
They always thought I was lying.

And my personal argument for why it saved me literally thousands to go digital?
This is one event on one day of a meet I go to nearly every year. 2007 was the first one I've missed since '01. It used to cost me $1200 or thereabouts for 4500 photos over the whole WEEK - and that was working at a camera store. Now I can take that same amount in a DAY and get much better results, for free. My $2000 camera was essentially paid off in 6 months. And now I can assess lighting conditions almost instantly, customize the settings for the different events, and click away to hit the perfect mid-trick shot without worrying about "rationing" film. Although there were times I would run low on memory - when I had 7 gigs avail for each event!

Of course now I want the D2x. But first I have to have the $$ to afford to go to the meets again.

And yes, I know I just tossed my name out there for everyone to see - but can't help it that I've already "stamped" all of those photos. Need to get that website up and running at some point, eventually......

[sld72382]

Two things I don't like about the digital photography market:

1. More megapixels does not make your camera better. As a matter of fact, sometimes it makes it WORSE. The reason for this is because there is limited amount of space on the camera's image sensor chip to put those pixels, and when a huge amount of pixels are crammed into a small space they become less sensitive to light, and their signal has to be amplified to gather more light, introducing distortion known as noise.

That's point and shoots, though. DSLRS have much bigger image sensors so the pixels can be much bigger thus their signal does not have to be amplified as much to gather light, resulting in much better images. The 10MP Canon EOS-40D's images demolish any 12MP compacts.

2. Cheap DSLRs are all the rage but people don't understand you need good lenses. As with anything, good lenses are not cheap - expect to pay AT LEAST $350 for a good 3rd party lens (Sigma, Tamron) and at least $650 for a lens made by the camera mfr. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS is one of the best you can get for Canon's midrange DSLRs and it cost around $950!

I surf dpreview's forums at lot and first time DSLR buyers claim their images are soft. When the forum regulars suggest a lens they complain "that's too much, why do I have to spend that much money on a lens!"

[Reyneth]

I surf dpreview's forums at lot and first time DSLR buyers claim their images are soft. When the forum regulars suggest a lens they complain "that's too much, why do I have to spend that much money on a lens!"

gaaaaaah! I know. Your lens is the most important factor in determining what your final photo will look like. But because you can't put as many impressive numbers on it - way more people understand "12mipx" as opposed to "fixed 2.8" - it's not as "cool." Unless you're a camera geek.

[Brentos]

Of course now I want the D2x. But first I have to have the $$ to afford to go to the meets again.

Is there a reason that you want the D2x instead of the new D3x aside from the price and the fact that you need to give a blood sample, semen sample, your first born and every personal fact ever to get one?

[PaRaGaS]

I think we called it "bracketing the shot" in our class, I hadn't thought of that - digital would be much better for making sure you got the shot you wanted.

In digital photography bracketing has been put to new use - creating images of very high dynamic range.
Note that you can achieve similar results while processing RAW files (or digital negatives, as one may call them).
They capture a lot more dynamics than 8-bit JPEGs.
Nothing beats good old film tho.

[meghann]

Slightly off topic, but I must share this old joke:

A professional photographer is invited to a friend's house for dinner. He has recently returned from a trip overseas, and his friend asks him to show them his portfolio. He does so, and the friend and his wife are very impressed. "What wonderful pictures!" says the wife. "You must have a very expensive camera." The photographer smiles and says nothing.

Later, as he leaves, he says to the wife, "Thank you for everything. Dinner was delicious. You must have a very expensive set of pans."

That? Is beautiful.

I'm not a photographer, nor do I play one on TV, but I've always like to take pictures & I still remember the basics from the photography classes I took ages ago in school. I do manage to get some good shots every once in a while. I took some nice pictures of my best friend's son at my mother's house on the beach last summer, and she sent them to a friend, who asked her to ask me what kind of camera I used because she wanted to be able to take nice pictures like that.

I am, however, a writer and an editor by trade. I have a running joke with a photographer friend that she can say she's a writer because she has a nice computer, and I can say I'm a photographer because I have a nice camera. Heh.

[protege]

Heh. This thread is amusing

Some of you know that I help moderate a model car site. Quite a few members have galleries where they can show off what they've built. Most of the photos are pretty good...but every now and then we get some that suck ass. They're either so blurry or so dark or washed out that you can't see a thing. Due to many complaints, we actually put standards in place. That is, if we can't see anything, or it's blurry...bye bye photos.

What's hilarious about that, is nearly *all* of those photos are taken with expensive cameras...but most of the good ones are taken with the cheap cameras

[crazylegs]

I had no clue what a 'macro' was at the tiem (and still dont).

OT
A true macro image is where the image on the sensor is the same size as in real life (as opposed to incredibly close up which is how some compact manufacturors think).

Back on topic. ish

I bought my Nikon D70 about three years ago, I have the Kit lens (18-70mm), a 70-300mm lens (nikkor) a 200mm macro (Nikkor) and a 170-500mm (Sigma), Its not the most expensive kit in the world, and when I first had it I took awful shots, now I've sold some, in addition to taking a few I actually like! My learning curve was so steep it was vertical, but I find something particularly soothing about macro, the patience required for that one shot is immense (particularly proud of my dandilion, took me months to find the right one).

Completely back on topic

I was in my local camera shop when I saw someone with a D2X complaining that
a) Pictures had funny colour
b) Pictures were blurry
c) Pictures were dark.

I *knew* the camera was not at fault, whilst the chap was waiting for the manager to tell him this I had a little chat with him explaining the different white balance settings, how to change the focal point and sold him a stand alone flash. Before I started on him he was convinced the camera was faulty, fault was with the chap who hadn't read the manual, even on the D70 its couple of hundred pages, let alone the professional spec D2x.

Lets just say the chap had more money than sense.

[LifeCarnie]

I was a member of my high school photograhy club. We were a fun collection of nerds.

I wish I now had a decent camera. I miss so many golden opportunities because my cheap arse point and shoot isn't up to task. Sometimes, the lighting is just too screwy for a point and shoot to figure out and the settings you can adjust can be limiting.

I have an old SLR, but haven't touched it for years. My present to myself next year will be nice entry-level SLR, hopefully with a decent Macro lens.

[ArenaBoy]

This picture in this link is what I consider my best shot. It was taken with a 5 year old Kodak camera back in May of this year at the Sears Tower in Chicago. For me, photography is more of a hobby whereas music is something that I'm running as a side project right now.

There are people who think that expensive product = great results when it's really the person who's using the item that matters. I have two guitars, one electric and one acoustic. The most expensive cost me $300. Top quality guitars (Both acoustic and electric) run as high as $2,000. Then I see the idiots buying effects pedals and what not and they end up spending as much as $5,000 or $10,000 on guitar stuff.

[CrazedClerkthe2nd]

The quality of the pictures depends largely on the person taking them.

It's like if you are interested in playing Football and go out and by the most expensive equipment you can find. All that high priced gear means squat if you have no football skills.

I took a photography class and I'm good with an SLR. Many people don't realize that for a particular situation, out of 10 pictures you take, you might get 1 or 2 REALLY good ones. I have managed to improve a lot of my pictures simply by being mindful of framing and the rule of thirds. Placing the subject off center is a tremendous way to take better pictures. Also light counts for a LOT.

I love photography because I'm always learning new things.

Here's a sample of my work: http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j5...s/DSC00744.jpg

[Reyneth]

Is there a reason that you want the D2x instead of the new D3x aside from the price and the fact that you need to give a blood sample, semen sample, your first born and every personal fact ever to get one?

Because I am so far out of the loop I didn't even know about it! The increased ISO range and the slightly higher frame rate sucked me in. WHAT D2x? Never was on my wish list. Nope.

Of course, by the time I'm able to afford it (after replacing my stolen laptop, paying off debt etc) it won't be in such high demand.
Thanks for the tip, though.

[Brentos]

Because I am so far out of the loop I didn't even know about it! The increased ISO range and the slightly higher frame rate sucked me in. WHAT D2x? Never was on my wish list. Nope.

Of course, by the time I'm able to afford it (after replacing my stolen laptop, paying off debt etc) it won't be in such high demand.
Thanks for the tip, though.

It's going to cost a ridiculously high amount for a long time though. I personally don't think it's worth the difference... I've seen pics taken at 3200 ISO with barely ANY noise, but I don't know if it's worth it :S


EDIT: I take that back... this is apparently at 6400 hundred .... http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2299/...8c41d954_b.jpg ...
I'm becoming a big fan of the Olympus E-3 simply because of it's toy-like features, a live-view with a good working focus, continuous shots until either your battery dies or card fills up at a decent price. It also does alright with higher ISOs (I generally don't shoot at that high of an ISO anyways) and it seems like the focusing issues I had with the E-1's when I worked with them have all disappeared...





....In other news, I was supposed to be told that I was relocating to a new store with a promotion, but instead my coworker got in an accident and I get to stick around and work his hours at my old job instead... Life goes on

[Reyneth]

It's going to cost a ridiculously high amount for a long time though. I personally don't think it's worth the difference... I've seen pics taken at 3200 ISO with barely ANY noise, but I don't know if it's worth it :S

It's not that much more than the D2x. And for me, big-time worth it. I take sports photos in places with not-great lighting and need fast shutter speeds. 2.8 can only get you so much sometimes. So that difference in ISO is worth it - and that lack of noise is .

Again, it's going to be *at last* 2-3 years (if I get a nice promotion or two) before I can even come close to thinking about affording it. You gotta have a goal, though!

[DesignFox]

This thread makes me My camera got stolen back in February and I haven't been able to replace it...

I had a 35mm Maxxum4 by Minolta... Kit lens and 100 mm macro lens...a couple of fun filters that I hadn't even begun playing with...

I got some really great shots with that little camera.

My BF is trying to convince me to switch to digital, but shutter delays mess me up something awful and I can't find anything I could possibly come close to affording (and most cameras that have little to no delay are far out of my pocket's range)...

Maybe I should just ask for my old camera for Christmas...I knew how to use it!