File :-(, x, )
So Im a N00b Anonymous
I want to get into photography, it holds my interest and i certainly have room to improve so what kind of camera do you reccomend. I would also prefer a digital if there are any good ones out.

Pic I took, kinda sorta related.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>> Anonymous
picture of you?
>> Anonymous
Actually what I meant to say is are you a man or are you a woman.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69434
>Actually, what I meant to say is ZOMFG RU M OR F? WILL U BE MY GF???!? UR HOT!!!11!
Fix'd.
>> Anonymous
looks like you'll have to go film. there is not a single digital camera out there that would be construed as "good". nope. not a single good digital camera out there. at all.
>> Anonymous
post more pictures taken by you
>> Anonymous
>>69444

Care to tell us more?
>> Anonymous
>>69423
start by taking GOOD photos with your cellphone. once you've mastered that, you may move on to point and shoot 35mm.
>> Anonymous
start off with 35mm rangefinders. something like a ricoh 500g, or a konica c35. once you've got the hang of a simple rangefinder, step up to a 35mm film slr. pentax made some great bodies that could fit tons and tons of different lenses called the k-mount. once you get the hang of light meters, composition, exposure, aperture, etc. THEN you can move up to a digital slr. honestly unless you're taking pictures a lot of the time as a hobby or for your profession, then it's not worth it to pay for digital prices.
>> Anonymous
>>69619

Except that eventually, considering the costs of film and developing, a digital camera will eventually pay for itself and then some in the long run. Unless of course you plan on printing out digital photos, but most people have a PC nowadays so you can upload them online, attach via e-mail, burn a CD or even view them on a TV.
>> Anonymous
tits or gtfo
>> Anonymous
http://myspace.com/thebuttholeexperiment
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
I'd start with something like the 1D Mark III with 4 shutter triggers.
>> Anonymous
>>69674
You're mean
>> pskaught
     File :-(, x)
this is the one you want, granted its only 39MP but the backs are interchangeable, so i'm sure they'll make a better back.
>> Anonymous
Make sure you get a Phase One P25 digital back. You'll need the added 22 megapixel res on any camera you buy
>> Anonymous
>>69619
I just has a P&S till it broke and spent 350 dollars on a pentax k100d. I love rebates.
>> Anonymous
>>69674
UNITINU camera?
>> Anonymous
>>69619
ricoh and konica are the worst cameras you can buy dumbass
>> Anonymous
>>69644Except that eventually, considering the costs of film and developing, a digital camera will eventually pay for itself and then some in the long run.
Except that unless she shots and develops a roll a day, by the time her analogue costs equal the price of dSLR she'd have bought back then, said dSLR will be an obsolete piece of junk.

PS. OP is female, underage b&, and we live in the same small country. Eat this.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69866
Best way to get good at photography is to shoot a roll a day. Or, ideally, several rolls per day. This is painful as hell with film (not to mention that you don't get the instant feedback that's so damn useful when you're just starting out), but no problem with digital.

I'd recommend getting something like a Canon PowerShot A-series to start out with. My favorite in the lineup right now is the A630.

(Additionally, digital SLRs nowadays are at a point where, even when they're obsolete, they'll make pretty good photographic tools. A six megapixel image is still going to look pretty good printed out in the future. Might not be able to shoot at quite the same high ISO, might not be able to enlarge quite as much, but you'll still be able to make good images with a digital SLR of 2007 well into the next decade.)
>> Anonymous
>>69866
And a digital shooter can shoot the equivalent of multiple rolls of film in a day, easily. Professional and artistic film shooters do that, too, except they get paid/ get grants/ sleep with some rich old "patron of the arts" guy to do it.

Since OP isn't skilled enough yet (probably) to get paid or get grants, and probably doesn't want to whore out to some wiry rich old opiated perv with a constant cigarette, a purple bathrobe, and variously sexed other charity cases also on the bed (or, you know, something like that), digital is the best way to shoot volume and improve her skills.
>> Anonymous
>>69873

personal experience amirite
>> Anonymous
>>69868

I want to do this, but I spend so long toiling over photos in post that it usually seems to take as long as shooting film to get to the final result.
>> Anonymous
>>69873And a digital shooter can shoot the equivalent of multiple rolls of film in a day, easily. digital is the best way to shoot volume and improve her skills.
No, it's not. It (spray-and-pray method), on the other hand, is the best way to settle for 0,1% good picture turnout, and never really progress or learn anything. "Because there were 5 good shots among the over 9000 I took during that 2 hour walk, so I must be doing it right".

Film just makes you think before you press the shutter. When you press the shutter, it can't be undone - you've just spent 1/36th of film + developing + printing or scanning cost. It makes you look at your photos more, and analyse, and consciously learn.

>>not to mention that you don't get the instant feedback that's so damn useful when you're just starting out
Oh, give me a break. Unless you're lugging a laptop with you all the time and checking each picture on it after taking, it's not "instant feedback". I'm very sorry for anyone who "learns" photography from a crappy 1.5 inch display on the camera.

After a walk, instead of rushing to the computer and downloading gigabytes of megapixels from the card, it feels so much better to have a nice tea and relax, and think of what you shot and what you expect your photographs to turn out like. And then go pick the prints up next day, and confront your expectations with the real results. I'm speaking from experience saying that this is a great, if not the greatest learning experience. There's just not nearly enough zen in digital.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69880
>"Because there were 5 good shots among the over 9000 I took during that 2 hour walk, so I must be doing it right".
Five good shots is five good shots, whether it's out of 9000 or 36 done in the same time period. The other side of that lack-of-monetary-pressure coin is that you're free to experiment all you want.

The instant feedback, if only from a 1.5" LCD, works really well for things like exposure. With film, if you're trying to do something with weird lighting (e.g., silhouette, deliberately overexposing something, etc) you can't see what you've done until a bare minimum of an hour later. The film-cost issue means you probably won't try several variations and see which is best.

>>69879
Call upon your inner lazy. I just don't postprocess my digital shots.

(Although, on the other hand, a lot of people here are probably reading that and going "Well yeah, and that's one of the many, many reasons AC's shots suck so much.")
>> Anonymous
>>69880
>>69880
Except that's not how it actually works. Pros, even those shooting film, shoot loads of photographs. It's not spray and pray. It's experimenting, working the scene. Search on YouTube for the trailer of the film "War Photographer," a documentary on the immensely talented James Nachtwey. There's video in there taken from a video camera mounted atop his camera to show how he works. What's he doing? Press the shutter, recompose. Press the shutter. Recompose.

What's the advice given to any artist? Practice. That's what all those spare frames are. Just like a writer should write every day, even if what they write is too pitiful to ever do anything with, they write to develop an automatic relationship with their tool, the language. Photographers should shoot as much as possible, anything that catches their eyes, even if they know the shot will be shit. They'll develop a better eye for light and composition, a better feel for their camera, and so on. Hell, even flower macros are useful self-instruction subjects.

>Film just makes you think before you press the shutter.

This is an insult to any serious photographer that shoots digital. It's the rapture of the moment, the artistic impulse, the desire to "fix to shadow" that makes one think before taking a photograph, not the medium.

And on anything but static subjects- well, one has less than a second sometimes to make any last-minute adjustments to focus and exposure, and compose. Someone who's shot thousands of frames will have that behind them, to give their thoughts a kick into quick praxis, whereas someone who hasn't will still have to think about what to do with the shutter speed control.

>It makes you look at your photos more, and analyse, and consciously learn.
If you need film to do that, fine. The rest of us have better motivations for being good at what we do than not wasting money.
>> Anonymous
>I'm very sorry for anyone who "learns" photography from a crappy 1.5 inch display on the camera.
It's a quick way to review things, to zoom in and check your focus, especially.

>instead of rushing to the computer and downloading gigabytes of megapixels from the card, it feels so much better to have a nice tea and relax, and think of what you shot and what you expect your photographs to turn out like

I seriously lol'ed. So, someone shooting digital isn't capable of patience (hell, I'm too slow if anything with dealing with my files) and isn't capable of reflecting on what he shot? But if he goes out and buys an old K1000 and puts film in it, he suddenly becomes a monk with an orange Domke vest?

>And then go pick the prints up next day, and confront your expectations with the real results

One version of the real results. Someone else's version. One of the main reasons I shoot digital is that it gives me exact creative control over my results much easier than a darkroom, and much more precisely, because I can actually see what I'm doing and process each individual picture as I would have it.

>There's just not nearly enough zen in digital.
Because emptying the mind is the way to think more about one's work.

OH SHI-
>> Anonymous
>>69884
>Five good shots is five good shots, whether it's out of 9000 or 36 done in the same time period.
Yeah, except that in case of 5 in >9000, they're most likely a matter of accident. Because there are gigabytes of cards to fill. But just because there are and you can fill them, doesn't mean you have to.

>With film, if you're trying to do something with weird lighting (e.g., silhouette, deliberately overexposing something, etc) you can't see what you've done until a bare minimum of an hour later.
Doing "something weird" with lighting is just a matter of playing with exposure. If you did your homework and know how a lightmeter works, you'll know the outcome before pressing the shutter. If it's different, here your learning starts - figuring out what you did wrong.
But taking 100 shots of the same scene at once just fiddling with settings and seeing which one turns out the best is not learning, it's equivalent of memorising all possible questions and solutions for a maths test.

>>69893
>Photographers should shoot as much as possible, anything that catches their eyes, even if they know the shot will be shit.
I'm sorry, this is the biggest piece of BS I ever read from a defensive digitard.

There is a grain of truth to is though, and let me rephrase it again - being a good photographer means knowing when the frame will be shit before taking the picture, and NOT taking it then. You WON'T learn or become better at photography by mindlessly shooting left and right. gb2lomo with this bullshit of an advice.

>Someone who's shot thousands of frames
.. without reflecting on previous ones and giving thought to every next he takes, will never know shit about photography or take a good photo in other way than by a lucky coincidence.
>> Anonymous
>>69894
>It's a quick way to review things, to zoom in and check your focus, especially.
Dunno about you, but I check my focus as I set it on a nice, huge, bright focusing screen.

>So, someone shooting digital isn't capable of patience
Your and your twin brother>>69894's defensiveness quite reassures me in thinking so.

>But if he goes out and buys an old K1000 and puts film in it, he suddenly becomes a monk with an orange Domke vest?
Try for yourself - next time take only a 32MB card (and one spare maybe), and make it fill up with 30 exposures. Or even be hardcore and use 8MB cards, pretending you're shooting MF. Remember you can't delete once taken photos. You'll see how much less you shoot, yet how many more good shots you get (assuming you have an idea what to do with your camera).

>One version of the real results. Someone else's version.
That was kinda shortcut solution for a total beginner. But developing and printing your own stuff is a tremendous fun on its own.

>much more precisely, because I can actually see what I'm doing and process each individual picture as I would have it.
You must have never printed a picture under the enlarger. But you get a bonus point for treating each picture individually, rather than throwing them into batch desaturate+auto levels+add film grain.

>Because emptying the mind is the way to think more about one's work.
Truly it is.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
This thread is shit.
>> Anonymous
>>69950
i concur
>> Anonymous
>I'm sorry, this is the biggest piece of BS I ever read from a defensive digitard.

It's called practice. Nothing good to shoot? Practice on some shitty, cliched subject. Don't show it to anyone, don't try to pass it off as art, but practice.

>without reflecting on previous ones and giving thought to every next he takes
You're assuming two things:

1) Each frame is of a different subject.
2) Digital shooters don't reflect or think.

One is usually not true, and two is not true of any digital shooter I know, including myself.

>Dunno about you, but I check my focus as I set it on a nice, huge, bright focusing screen.
Can't hurt to check it afterwards. And even the best focusing screen won't beat a 100% zoomed-in view, as nice as they are. (And they are nice.)

>Your and your twin brother>>69894's defensiveness quite reassures me in thinking so.
I am>>69894. The forums put a limit on the length of one post.

Also, since when is debating being defensive? By that standard, you're being defensive, too.
>> Anonymous
>Try for yourself

I have done this. It's useful as an exercise, but not as a normal mode of shooting or as the main way of learning.

The percentage of shots taken that are win here, and the percentage of shots taken with intent towards being win (and not just practicing/ playing around/ experimenting) when I'm not doing this is probably about the same. I've not bothered calculating it.

>You must have never printed a picture under the enlarger.
Photoshop gives more and more precise control than an enlarger.

>Truly it is.
gb/2 Shaolin. Seriously, Buddhism in general and Zen in particular have some good points, but the idea of withdrawing from the world into some "thoughtless contemplation" or whatever is bullshit, whether done in Buddhism or in any other religious/philosophical system.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69950
>>69962
ITT troll feeding.
>> Anonymous
>>69423
tits or gtfo.