File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
dear /p/, id like to get into photography, and i figured this would be the place to ask. any advice on where and how to get started? i dont have a camera or any related experience.
>> Anonymous
Do you want to get into it seriously as an art?

For now, stick with digital systems. They are super cheap to run and for a beginner it is perfect to be able to snap away a thousand times at no cost and get instant feedback to learn from. I'd suggest getting a decent compact. One of those SLR like ones that are often called "bridge cameras". They are cheap enough and easy to use, but allow you more control and better results than most compacts. It should be a good way to learn the basics or even some more advanced amateur stuff and also what you may want to do with your photography in the future when you'd perhaps consider getting a DSLR.

That way even if you lose interest you are not out of pocket much.
>> Anonymous
>>92492
Or a completely different approach, get an used SLR film camera. This will seem hard at first, but you will learn the most important things much faster than with an automatic digital camera.
>> Anonymous
>>92498

How does an old and expensive to run film camera help? With digital he can try settings, take a shot and see what it changed and do that for any number of shots all day. With film he has to take a roll of 24 or 36 and wait days and then hope he can remember.
>> Anonymous
>>92499

you're right! how did anyone ever learn how to take a picture before digital cameras became commonplace five years ago!?!?!
>> des
>>92499
It's not expensive, it's simply not "free"
>>and then hope he can remember.
Even with digital, you should be taking logs if you're learning or trying new equipment/techniques/locations
>> Anonymous
>>92499
Film makes you think about each shot, not just push the shutter release and see what happens. That's an important quality for a photographer that's harder to learn with a digital camera.
It's like learning to drive with different cars. You can learn to drive some fancy new Toyota, but you might end up helpless later if your ABS, cruise control and air conditioner fail. Or you might not. And on the contrary, you can learn to drive some old Lada, which will be harder and much more painful, but after that you'll be ready to drive anything that has four wheels under any conditions.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
I'd recommend getting something like the PowerShot A630. That's the sort of camera I used to learn photography. It gives you the option of full manual controls, but is small enough to stick in your pocket (which means it'll be a lot more useful if you ever upgrade to an SLR than a nearly-SLR-sized bridge/superzoom type camera). Costs about $300.

As for the film vs. digital argument, I'm with the "Go digital to learn" crowd. The instant response of an LCD makes it way easier to figure out what you're doing quickly. And it really is cheaper:
Let's assume $3/roll for film, $5/roll for development (which is about as cheap as you can get). That's a combined $8 you have to pay once every 24 shots.

Assume you get an old film SLR for $30. That means you break even around your 800th shot. And what if you want to get these pictures into a digital format? You'll need to spend another ~$100 on a scanner, which puts the break-even point around the 500th shot.

This doesn't count things like gas to and from the place you get your shots developed, either. Or the fact that $3/roll to buy and $5/roll to develop is a heck of a deal. So yeah, film is more expensive in the medium-long term than digital, and could be *way* more expensive depending on your preferences for film and shooting style.
>> Anonymous
>>92504
theres also the people who shoot film and just randomly click the button and wait to see what it comes out like anyway.
>> Anonymous
I'd suggest learning on a digital, then picking up a film to master your craft.

It's how i'm doing it. I'm learning a lot of my DSLR(just an older Nikon D40), and then i'm trying to perfect shots, or lighting instances with my film slr(Canon AE-1, which is so unexplainably awesome it blows me mind!).

Also, if you're doing something that involves quick shots, such as a punk show or a sports event, the quickness of a dslr is great, while I find film clunky and slow(although film might give me one really good shot out of 50, my digital will give me 10-20 good shots out of about 600)

I'd suggets you use both, learn on both, and then make the decision what you like best, and start focusing on that. There's nothing wrong with knowing both.
>> Anonymous
full disclosure time: what did you learn on yourself, and what are you recommending?

film here. i started with a shitty 110 vivitar compact, moved up to my mom's Minolta X370 when I was 12, and so on and so forth. i still shoot 90% film today, though I might pick up a used D50 for snapshots.

I recommend film, because it is so expensive. there was a /p/ thread about two months ago where people named their shutter actuations. it nearly gave me an ulcer to see the photos that some people were making after 30,000 frames. There's a slapdash shooting style when photos don't cost you anything; i've noticed it myself anytime I use a DSLR. on the other hand, i shoot lots of expensive-ass provia, and it takes me much longer to get through a roll.

plus, with digital, there's "fix it in photoshop." it's the bane of photography.
>> des
>>92514
>>full disclosure time: what did you learn on yourself
Film
>>and what are you recommending?
pragmatism
also: less yap, moar shutter snap
>> Anonymous
>>92514
i find first off learning with digital helps because its so cheap. you can try settings to see how it affects a shot, and you can try lots of different compositions. then you start to see what works and what doesnt. its more about the mentality of the person behind the camera that makes film or digital better for learning. ive seen people shoot film like it was free because they had the money to.
>> Anonymous
OP here, im reading over your posts and noticing a similar trend that seems to agree that digital is a good starting point for learning. I don't know the differences in slr and a normal camera, but it seems like the general consensus is that film slr is the thing i should be working towards eventually. I'll look into the suggested cameras and ask around, thanks for your advice and if you've got anymore to give, itd be immensely appreciated.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I also just started photography and I got myself a second hand Panasonic Lumix FZ50 (breidge camera). It's not a DSLR, but that's not what I wanted anyway. It has everything you need in one camera. You don't need a series of seperate lenses (like macro, ...) to learn everything. You just have everything in one tiny package which is great to begin with. The quality of the pictures is amazing, btw. Also the zoom and focus ring on the front are a joy to work with, since you don't have to go and push buttons or whatever to zoom/focus like on other bridge cameras.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:19 21:09:30Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width250Image Height213
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
I learned on film, I shoot nothing but. It's nice to have a physical copy/original in my hand that i can reproduce hugeee enlargements from without worries?

My recommendation? Though you, like a lot of photographers, will eventually want to go digital, learn on film. It may be more expensive, but it DOES slow you down and make you think about the shot. Having an LCD to look at your shot on is a disadvantage, as you come to rely too heavily on it.

I honestly always shoot at f22 or f18. It's just what i've found works out best for most of my shots. You bet it's a learning curve, but it will help you in the future and be worth it. You may lament some wasted film for a while (start out with basic Kodak 200 speed film then work your way up, or start out with black and white film you can develop yourself in your bathroom.)

It'll push you more and will program into your head what you need to do in what particular conditions.

I just woke up, if i don't make any sense let me know and i'll try to rephrase it
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>92523

Oops, i did forget to mention that I originally started out on a Canon a-1. Though i doubt you need to go THAT manual, if your'e feeling adventerous it might be a good time. My main first camera was a n65, i kept it mostly on automatic before I upgraded to my now N80. It's been fantastic (in b4 canonfag). In terms of cameras, find something with basic features, nothing too fancy, that will require you to do more work than you would normally. Choose whatever feels good in your hands and make sure you can choose a system that will grow with you and allow you to move your current lenses from camera to camera. Just an FYI :)
>> Anonymous
If you can shoot well with a digital camera, you can shoot well with a digital camera. If you can shoot well with a fully manual film camera, you can shoot well with anything.

I think DSLRs are great, but if you're serious about learning the technical skills behind photography the best thing you can do is get an old fully manual camera, preferably with no built-in meter.
>> Anonymous
OP here again, looking things over and checking up on wikipedia, lost in the terminology and all that jazz, I'm gonna try to compare this to other things I've done-in terms of complexity. I don't mind buying film, I'm not sure if I can develop film as I've done it once around a hundred years ago in highschool. If film is what I should be working towards then it makes sense to start with it, so, within a 500-700 (the cheaper the better, but dont want something i'll just toss aside later) dollar budget, would there be any recommendations at good starter film cameras, something in the middle-learning range, not too advanced but not fisher price.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>92544

As I mentioned earlier, the Nikon N65 worked out great for me ( you will of course have to get a used one ) but it's possible to get one with a kit lens and one extra. I'd go one zoom and one wide angle, then again depending on what your kit lens is.
>> Anonymous
>>92544
film isnt necessarily what you are aiming for. it depends on what you want to shot. certain things arent as practical to shoot with film unless you are a pro and have an assistant to help you out, like sports or concerts and the like.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>92550

those things do work out well on film, too. Get Fuji 400 speed and then just get it 1 hour developed and put it on CD. Only thing you truly, truly need digital for is Weddings.
>> Anonymous
>>92556
i mean more in the lines of having to switch out films in the middle, meaning lots of chance to miss shots, and the fact its harder to get the shot you want with things constantly moving.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>92557

that makes sense. I guess I don't think about that since i've never had any trouble of that regard, even when I was doing the photography for my school newspaper. For me, it's just a matter of popping open the camera, sticking the film in, close it and start shooting. Less than a minute. But you do bring up a good point.
>> Anonymous
OP here, will probably be taking photos of scenery and city sights and non-fast moving things, which is why i changed and leaned towards film.
>> I||ICIT
i started digital, still using it and i highly doubt ill ever go anaolg ever. unless there is some major reason that i physicaly cant shoot it.

ive considered getting an old film slr as something to toy with but i cant justify it.

i dont want to spend more time diddling around figuring out exposures. i put my 30D in aperture value and adjust it as i need/want to.
i can take a few hundred photos in a day, go home and check them out and see straight away. thats out of focus, thats over exposed, thats badly composed and all the rest. then i can go through and post process(raw is your friend :D) and set the contrast where i want it, sharpen it, decide if its better in b/w or colour etc.

i can then save a few million images online, in an external HD or on cds. sure you have a physical copy, yet with digital media the way it is, i can have more backups than you, and theyre easier to share with friends and "clients".
what happens when your only copies get damaged/destroyed/stolen while ive got multiple backups...

as for learning, id say digital is a much better option for learning. sure film is more "artistic" and edgy or whatever, but the instant feedback and adjustments mean digital is a far better learning tool. and sure film makes you "think" about each shot, but i can do the same with digital. i can a shot from 5 different perspectives at varying apertures and exposure levels and then i go home and decide exactly which one is the best.

and then theres the inevitable costs and the time involved with film. and thats HOPING you got the shot right. what happens when you get a once in a million shot thats badly exposed or whatever and its beyond rescue. with digital i would have spotted that as soon as the shot was taken. i only use the LCD for exposure and composition basics to ensure im close enough.

its a big jump backwards to shoot film and I, personally couldnt do it.
>> Anonymous
I started on film, I did developing and enlargements myself and I learned a lot with the SLRs I had. That doesn't meant that film is the best, it's simply what I had and the only thing there was to learn from. If I was starting off now or could magic a working DSLR system that would function somehow back then I'd be handing myself the DSLR every time.

There are no advantages to going with film to learn. None whatsoever. Digital is the future and it has many benefits, especially for learning.

I'd still use film for myself simply because I have the gear and I'm used to it, but nowadays it's more and more a novelty and more of the film gear for everyone gathers dust as better things come out for digital.
>> Anonymous
>>92503

EXIF information logs a lot of it for you forever and it's all available with digital darkroom editing. You don't get that with film.

>>92501

People used to make great photos with medium and large format and the snobs said that 35mm was junk and for happy snappers when it came out at first too. It's pathetic it see the SAME BULLSHIT come out when a new format has supplanted the old popular one again. I've heard the same crap for different mediums and arts too.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>92577
Counterpoint: Shooting film is fun.
>> Anonymous
>>92585

Until you buy EOS 1V, which records a film "serial number" to start of the film strip.

Then it records to in-camera memory chip EXIF like data with the roll's number, which you can download to PC from the camera.

Finally you can do some 1+1 and have exif like info with your film shots!
>> I||ICIT
>>92586
counter-counterpoint
so is digital.

probably more fun, cos now all the myspace generation can take pics of themselves and have them on their myspace in minutes :D
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>92588
Not saying digital isn't. My primary camera's a Digital Rebel XTi. But it's really fun to go out and burn through a roll of film now and again. Especially fun films like Velvia 50 or Delta 3200, or medium format.
>> Anonymous
>>92594
that's pretty funny, because i think it's a blast when i get to shoot with a dslr once in a great while. then again, a change in equipment often does that for you, no matter what you're doing.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>92605
QFT. That's why I've got a big-ass pile of cameras. :)
>> Anonymous
>>92503
it fuckin is expensive in australia, 5$ for out of date film (let alone new) and then 15$ for processing
>> Anonymous
>>92637
Here in Canada the prices are all over the place. About $4 CAD ($4.50 AUD) a roll, but I have seen a single roll of expired Velvia 100F sell for $31 in a shop once (what fucking moron would pay that for 135 size film, who knows)

Processing isn't that expensive, though. Where I am, there's a pretty cheap E6 lab down the road, or I can mail out a bunch of rolls for a little extra to one of the best E6 labs in Canada (they do really amazing work, but it takes a while to get it back).
>> Anonymous
I started on digital, a 400D with a mediocre tamron zoom.

I pulled out my dad's old Pentax MX, with 50mm f/1.8. It was like going from <something mediocre> to <something grand>. the photo quality was even just secondary, the sheer enjoyment of the (almost) entirely physical (It has a light meter, but whatever) camera is awesome. HIGHLY recommend at least trying film.
>> Anonymous
buy a camera
get experience
???
Profit
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
Go to the library and read some books on photography; Technical stuff as well as history.
>> Anonymous
>>92691
Any books in particular you've read that you recommend?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>92699

"The 35mm Photographer's Handbook"

I found the originakl 1979 printing in an antique shop... i can't go on and on about how great this is... and the best thing is pretty much everything applies to digital.

IT gives concise but not convoluted information on focal range, aperture... etcc etc... how to shoot certain types of photography... lighting setups.. etc etc

The current print, isn't that great... but still check it out.

Then there's always the Dummy's guide to digital photography which is also good.

But check out Canon's and Nikon's websites, both have great instructions and tutorials on beginners photography
>> des
>>92587
N90 records exposure information to internal memory, F4/F5/F6 will put it in between frames with the right back (F6 might have this stock)
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>92699

Technical stuff:
Scott Kelby's book on digital photography, perfect if you're just starting out. Ansel Adams' books (though a bit lengthy and deals with film). Those photography guide books from Kodak and National Geographic.

Some Essays from Petteri's Pontifications (though you have to take some of them with a grain of salt):
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/o_Boring_Photographs/a_Boring_Photographs.html


Non-technical stuff:
Most of them may not interest you, but here they are anyway:

An interview with Garry Winogrand
http://www.jnevins.com/garywinograndreading.htm

A workshop with Garry Winogrand
http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/xtol1.html

Hidden Truths of Photos:
http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/

On Being a Photographer by Jay and David Hurn
http://stephengrote.com/teaching/courses/files/storage/On%20Being%20a%20Photographer,%203rd%20Ed
ition,%20CD%20version.pdf

The Tao of Photography by Shapiro and Gross

Travelog by Harbutt
>> Anonymous
>>92707
very good writeup of resources, but I'd like to add that I have some of the kodak books and they're shit.

I've only seen one National Geographic publication on photography, and it was pretty good, but the Kodak ones I never liked.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>92703
the F5 and F6 also stores the EXIF on the camera's memory, can be downloaded onto a CF reader adapter. The F6 can display it on its rear LCD screen.
>> Anonymous
>>92504
all dslr's have a fully manual mode, wich most serious photographers use.
you think everyone using a dslr is using the auto-features?
stupid cunt.

If you use a dslr on fully manual then it gives you the exact same learning curve as using a film.
>> Anonymous
>>92523
You can produce HUGE prints of dslr photos.
I can do it for free in my college or i can go to local jessups and get it done for very cheap.
Just take in my memory card and tell them what photo i want printed and what dimensions.
>> Anonymous
Heres a great free photography course that i used, i learned alot from it..
http://web.archive.org/web/20070812143115/http://www.photography-tutorial.info/
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
My take is, learning with digital takes the same kind of discipline that learning with film does. It's just that with digital, you have to force yourself to pay closer attention, since you do have the option of slacking a bit. I shoot in almost nothing but A and M, and have since getting my camera. But the instant feedback (getting it onto your computer, not checking the lcd) is really worth it. Film tends to force you to pay that kind of attention due to awareness of costs, although again, there are people who simply don't worry about that either.
As for the number of digital shutter actuations, a lot of shots go simply towards testing various in-camera software settings; I've spent quite a bit of time fine-tuning some of my camera's white balance settings, for instance, working with tungsten settings I've probably taken a couple hundred shots, something you don't do with film.
What it comes down to is personal preference. I'm learning with a d40, because I couldn't justify the startup costs of film. I don't shoot tons of frames even with digital though, since I grew up with film p&s. What I love about a (d)slr is how very physical it feels; I definitely plan to switch into film at some point, because I find the results of certain types of film to my liking, and the extra tactile element. I don't know if I'll continue with digital as well or not. Just do what you enjoy, and realize that you will end up spending a good amount of money to get there.
>> deleted
Thank you for the resources guys. I think I started a thread the other day asking for some books and didn't get any names in particular. . this time I've got too many :>.
>> Not OP Anonymous
But what do you guys recommend as a replacement lens for the kit EFS18-55 in the $200 range? I know that's not much ($250 maybe), but it's like 3x more than what the actual kit lens costs. Something like the 17-85 IS, but without the IS for a cheaper price. . basically I like my 18-55's range a lot, I just would like something at least one step up from the kit. . but not so much as the $500 IS mentioned in OP.
>> deleted
>>92914
Sorry. . meant to post this in the other thread about the Canon lenses.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>92914
Well, there's always the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS that just came out. $179. It's basically the kit lens + better build quality + closer focusing distance + IS.