Photography Basics

[auntiem]

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.

I used to freakin' hate those shots until a photographer friend of mine pointed out that it is basicly the digital version of "dodge and burn" when you develop.

[earl colby pottinger]

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!

That is why my ex-girlfriend bought the digital model (Pentax) that she did. While she liked the camera alot the real deal breaker was that it worked with all the lens and filters that she already owned. The camera costed just over a thousand, but she already have more than three thousand invested in add-ons. And unlike digital cameras they are not getting cheaper. In-fact one German lens-set she has, has increased in value on the USED market compare to what she bought it new for.

I just take vacation/trip shots. I have no real photo skills, but since I am a computer tech I still get asked about digital cameras.

The only tech advice I push is 'Buy the biggest memory card for the camera that you can afford'. People are always telling me that they only take a few shots a day I explain shots costs nothing but batteries, buy memory because you will use it.

Too many go cheap, but even then after finding that the camera says there is room for 50-100 photos, it temps them into doing more. The next thing you know they are asking if I know where to get deals on 1-2 GB cards as they are short on cash since they wasted money on a not so cheap 32-64-128K card.

It's not what you have, it how you use it. Computer side thread. I have an old 366MHz Dual Celetron as my main desktop home computer. It has 512MBs, dual LCDs (1280*1024) and runs BeOS (a very little weight OS). Total costs $1000 CDN when the Canadian dollar was in the mid-60s compared to the US dollar.

Had a relative from Florida visiting who needed to finish some business orders over the internet, so I offered him my machine. He expressed doubts as he had just spent over $2500 last year for his laptop which he left behind.

First, he kept insisting what version of Windows I was using as he watched it boot so fast and the programs came up without all that disk crunching that Windows does even on machine with tons of memory.

Then in mid-work he asked how to open an extra window (I use FireFox, him IE), his eyes almost fell out when I dragged the extra window to the other screen.

Then I blew his mind when I told him Windows will do the same if he bought a second display.

[rts]

In addition to retail (photo), I do work as a pro photographer!

Everything you all are saying is spot on!

I regards to the lens, the statement I've always used is that the camera is like a sword. While a comfortable handle is great (camera body), the blade (lens) is what does all the damage!

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!

That was my first film camera and I still have it and use it when I want to shoot B&W film or slides! I'll use it to shoot fireworks in color print film and love it for that use as well!

Finding that camera will be next to impossible, I'm sorry to say!

[petslave]

LOVE this topic! I'm a second gen. photographer, and I learned the ropes of SLRs on my dads 30+ year old fully manual Zenith. He upgraded to digital two years ago, choosing the Canon Rebel XT. This fall he decided he wanted a new camera, so he invested in the new 40D that just came out, and I got his hand-me-down (no complaints from me!).

Of course he HAD to buy me a lense (), and so we found a nice used Tamron 28-105 w/ 2.8f. He kept his two, a Sigma 18-55 w/2.8f and a Canon 77-200 w/2.8f and IS. I plan on stealing both. Plus his camera. And his flash.

Here are some examples of my work - reachthestars-stock.deviantart.com

I also have a great little fujifilm PAS that is an 8.3mp. I wouldn't have bought it, but my dad won it through work and wanted his old PAS kodak back (3.2mp), so we traded.

[Bluenomi]

I can relate to so many things said in this topic!

I would love to have a nice fancy digital SLR but for the amount of photography I do it so isn't worth it. I love photography but it is a hobby that requires more time than I have to spend on it. And I know I'd never get around to using most of the features on the camera. So I have my powershot that has more features than a point and shoot but is still nice and small.

I did a film production course at uni and between that and my photography course at school with the odd short course here and there I've been deamed the video expert of the group. So when some friends had a christening for their daughter the other week I rock up and get handed their new handycam. Apparently I was the only person who could video it. Arghhhhh!

[crazylegs]

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)...

Nikon are doing some fantastic deal on the D40 DSLR cameras at the mo fr around £300-400 price bracket, I'm sure there will be an equivilent deal in the US.

[Reyneth]

My BF is trying to convince me to switch to digital, but shutter delays mess me up something awful...

DSLRs have virtually no shutter delay when compared to film. Sometimes less depending on the models you are comparing. And even Point & Shoots are getting better. Not great, but better.

[PaRaGaS]

Nikon are doing some fantastic deal on the D40 DSLR cameras at the mo fr around £300-400 price bracket, I'm sure there will be an equivilent deal in the US.

I can recommend the D40 (prefferably D40, not D40x) and Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 HSM Macro as a good starter kit/high-quality P&S substitute.

[Brentos]

realistically, if megapixels are important (for instance if you make large prints or like to digitally manipulate or crop photos) the D40x isn't really that much... really just $100 more. The only real difference between the two is the megapixels (4, which can be a big difference... depending) and the size of the screen... but also, if you do a lot of digital manipulation or take your photography seriously enough to make large prints, you might as well go towards the D80 or D300 as they aren't THAT much more expensive.
The D40x is interesting, it's like it tries to brag as much as the D80, yet not pack nearly as much into it.

ANYWAYS, we have a deal at my store, D40x with 18-55 and 55-200 DX VR lens. That second lens, after a rebate is only $180 more. I had some SC try to con me as a competitor advertises the D40x with 18-55 for $20 less than us, which is all fine and dandy, but the 55-200 DX VR is regular $280 and we had a special on THAT combo.
He wanted the best of both worlds - the $20 off the kit, PLUS the $100 off our package. It took me 45 minutes to explain to him how, I could either take the $20 off and charge $280 for the second lens, or I could charge $100 less under our package, yet he kept trying to get that extra $20 off (which puts the package below cost - bottom line means it's not good for me as a salesperson... I would actually LOSE money).
Eventually he caved because he KNEW it was a better deal, but it's just aggravating how people are persistent with their stinginess. I don't blame you for trying or inquiring, but give it a break after I explain it to you once!


...That's my mini rant for the day....

[wolfie]

Best Photo/SC story ever:
As I am buying photo paper for my photo class, a woman buys a box of the same kind (100 sheets per box). She then goes into the corner of the store opens the box, takes the paper out of the black plastic it's wrapped in and begins to count the paper. At this point I'm hanging around to watch the fun.

If this was in the last couple of years, I can understand the customer's thought processes - a lot of "inkjet paper for running off prints of digital photos" is sold as "photo paper", so someone who isn't familar with the darkroom side of film photography might not realize that "photo paper" can also refer to something that's light-sensitive.

My favourite amateur vs. pro story happened at a wedding in my extended family. The father of the brides (2 weddings same day) had an ornamental garden bench that had seen better days, but the official photographer thought it would look good in pictures of the wedding parties. After watching for a few minutes, with people trying to brace themselves to keep the bench from collapsing sideways (diagonal braces had failed) while looking relaxed, I suggested grabbing a couple of the stacking chairs rented for the event and putting the bench on them (seat slats on chair bottoms). The chairs would take the weight, and be hidden behind the women's skirts. Didn't take too many seconds for the photographer to go along with that. It's a bit odd for an amateur to give hints to professionals, but this was an issue of structural engineering, not photography.

[DesignFox]

If this was in the last couple of years, I can understand the customer's thought processes - a lot of "inkjet paper for running off prints of digital photos" is sold as "photo paper", so someone who isn't familar with the darkroom side of film photography might not realize that "photo paper" can also refer to something that's light-sensitive.

If I had seen that, I'd still fault that lady because the boxes of light sensitive paper are VERY clearly labelled, sealed and specifically state NOT to open the box as you will ruin the light sensitive paper. IF the box was not labelled as such, then I could understand that line of thinking. I don't give any lenience for stupidity. (just my opinion)

Thanks for the advice on cameras everyone. If I get a few hundred dollars in hand, I have a starting point this season.

[Reyneth]

If I had seen that, I'd still fault that lady because the boxes of light sensitive paper are VERY clearly labelled, sealed and specifically state NOT to open the box as you will ruin the light sensitive paper. IF the box was not labelled as such, then I could understand that line of thinking. I don't give any lenience for stupidity. (just my opinion)

How about a hippy-style druggie chick (yes, she at least did pot on a regular basis and I'm betting more than that) who WORKED at a camera store. When asked to change the paper in the printer, she goes and gets a roll of 6", OPENS IT and gets it out of the light-safe bag in the middle of the store and goes "what now?"

I would have been if I wasn't so hard. The manager, who was a perv had hired her because she was a cute girl, ignoring the fact that she was a TOTAL idiot.

[PaRaGaS]

This Friday I finally had an opportunity to use my D80.
A selection of shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paragas...6808387/detail

I screwed up seriosly by choosing a too slow shutter speed.
1/30s just doesn't do the job for concert shoots.
But overall I think the results aren't very bad,
it was my first time shooting in such lighting.

[Brentos]

your shots seem pretty nice, what lens did you use?

Also, I had a guy today, who wanted to trade in his beautiful 70-300 lens, we're talking 1700 when he got it (it's still 1100 cdn today) I warned him before I even looked it up that he was much better off selling it himself, even low-balling the price, but when I told him that the best he would get is a quarter of the price of a new one he gave me his card and told me to have my manager give him a call when we get serious about buying it.

I'm sorry, we don't want to spend too much money buying this stuff because it's just going to take up space on a shelf, I mean - yes, it's a nice lens, but only a small percentage of shooters have the brand of cameras for it, and from that only so many would consider such an expensive lens, and from THAT very few would want to buy it used.

[PaRaGaS]

your shots seem pretty nice, what lens did you use?

Tamron 17-50/2.8
Really, why spend three times more on a comparable Nikkor...

BTW, the bands are:
http://www.myspace.com/theblacktapes
http://www.myspace.com/jaceklachowicz