Slate Chocolate Marble
Slate Chocolate Marble

Led Zeppelin Official Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

zepps_apprentice

Photography

1,771 posts in this topic

I always wished I was better at taking photos. I mean, I can take your standard picture of a flower or something and it doesn't look like crap, but the more artistic, "should be sold in a frame"-shot.....nope. One of these days, I'm going to break down and buy a really good-quality digital camera and some lenses and teach myself to get the shots I want.

You can start with a compact camera with manual settings, like the G Canon series or equivalent, you won't need different sets of lenses with these cameras. I have never taken any class on photography but I read a lot and have been trying to improve technically. A good camera doesn't take good pics alone, but a good photographer can make wonderful pics with quite simple cameras. A good pic is born on the eye of the photographer. And the eye can be taught. ;)

Edited by brspled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I did not. I found it on this site.

I have a Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-H50 that I got less than a year out of before it went south on me. Believe it or not, there are no camera shops that will work on it in the entire state of NC. My only option is to ship it to some place in CT to be repaired. My back up camera is a Casio Exilim (see below) that is excellent for taking on fishing trips and for underwater shots. I purchased it prior to making a trip to Costa Rica last summer but it's since come in very handy as a back up until I can have my Sony repaired.

Casio-Exilim-Ex-G1.jpg

Bummer. I have the same Cybershot, and I love it. I've never had an issue with it, even after my mom DROPPED IT on the driveway when it was less than 6 months old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wished I was better at taking photos. I mean, I can take your standard picture of a flower or something and it doesn't look like crap, but the more artistic, "should be sold in a frame"-shot.....nope. One of these days, I'm going to break down and buy a really good-quality digital camera and some lenses and teach myself to get the shots I want.

I'd say the best option at first might be to stick with a compact and buy a book on composition....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/1905814046

A DSLR will open up areas like shallow focus work, ultra wide shots or extreme macro that arent possible on to the same degree on a small camera and are also more effective in extreme lighting comdictions but alot of the controls are more about dealing with problems the larger image sensor creates. Better to stick to a compact to start with IMHO so you don't need to worry about those areas and can focus more on improving your composition.

The most basic composition advice is I'd say the rule of thirds, if your camera has a grid option that divides the back screen into thirds turn it on and look to position elements of the photograph roughly along the lines rather than merely central. I'm no compositional master but look at the last two pics I posted for example....

macroflower3copy.jpg

examplegy.jpg

Edited by greenman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken with a Canon 40 D + Canon 10-22 mm, in Sydney, Australia

NZAUS20091727-1-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a fancy SLR camera, though I think it will be one of my next purchases. I don't really know how to use one. Any tips on what kind of camera to get? Should I get one geared towards beginners or should I get something more fancy and grow into it?

Notwithstanding that I don't have an SLR I managed to capture these two shots on a Sony HX9V (a fairly sophisticated point and shoot) last night at the Pearl Jam concert in Toronto. The camera has a "sports" setting which speeds up the shutter and is really good for catching high speed action.

post-1800-0-01184300-1315849772_thumb.jp

post-1800-0-45557000-1315849784_thumb.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a fancy SLR camera, though I think it will be one of my next purchases. I don't really know how to use one. Any tips on what kind of camera to get? Should I get one geared towards beginners or should I get something more fancy and grow into it?

Notwithstanding that I don't have an SLR I managed to capture these two shots on a Sony HX9V (a fairly sophisticated point and shoot) last night at the Pearl Jam concert in Toronto. The camera has a "sports" setting which speeds up the shutter and is really good for catching high speed action.

I'd say it really depends on the kits of pics you want to take, the amount you want to spend and the size of camera your comfortable using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it really depends on the kits of pics you want to take, the amount you want to spend and the size of camera your comfortable using.

That is the problem. I don't really know what kind of pics I want to take. I like landscape and architecture shots, but I also like interesting portraits (or at least pictures with people in them - like some of the pictures brspled has posted). Is the subject matter a function of the camera you buy, or can you just change lenses as necessary?

I am prepared to spend decent $$ on a camera (probably up to about $2k), because I think I would get a lot of enjoyment out of it. I would want, of course want to spend less if possible (i.e. if the extra money would be spent of features I won't ever use), but the big limiting factor for me would not be the cost. I am prepared, within reason, to spend what it takes to get something good.

Size is the real issue. I have always bought super slim point and shoots because I knew if I bought small cameras I would not have an excuse not to take them with me. The HX9V is the biggest camera by far that I have had in the past 10 years and it still fits (relatively well) into a jacket pocket. I think at first, i would use an SLR when photography is the focus of the day, rather than when going somewhere that I may want to take some pictures. I expect I would still carry a point and shoot for the other days. If that was indeed how I used an SLR, size would become less important. What is worrisome though is that I would love the SLR so much I would want to take it out all the time and I would find a bulky camera limiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Deborah,it's very sweet of you. Photography is my favorite hobby ;)

This one was taken in Atacama, Chile. It's the Vale de La Luna, at sunset. Pic taken with a Canon 40D + Tamron 17-50mm, I used a Polorizer filter too.

_MG_0318-2-1.jpg

Wow, you really get around. Kinda reminds me of Death Valley.

Keep 'em coming.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Byrce Canyon pic is done from a JPEG doing nothing but desaturating the colour and then dropping the brightness a little and bumping up the contrast alot, you could probabley do it on any number of free programs.

The big factor is the original pic, you need to be looking to take striking shots with a wide contrast range and then be much more daring with the editting than you would be with colour shots.

Great. I'll keep that in mind.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5829876175_2336983fcf_z.jpg

5834342343_d2f78641f2_z.jpg

5788309813_83f22e06f4_z.jpg

5788863756_189e9fbf2d_z.jpg

5572525676_74daafa915_z.jpg

Beautiful black & white's and I like the last one with the shadow.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Macro shot out in the garden this morning and a storm in the afternoon...

macroflower3.jpg

I have an old photography book and one chapter is titled 'The Detail' and that is it.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one was also taken with a Canon 10-22mm, and a Canon 40 D. Brasilia's Cathedral, Brazil

_MG_7397-1-1.jpg

That looks as good as any Kodachrome slide I've ever taken.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken with a Canon 40 D + Canon 10-22 mm, in Sydney, Australia

NZAUS20091727-1-1.jpg

I give that a first place ribbon in black & white.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and panorama.

That is the problem. I don't really know what kind of pics I want to take. I like landscape and architecture shots, but I also like interesting portraits (or at least pictures with people in them - like some of the pictures brspled has posted). Is the subject matter a function of the camera you buy, or can you just change lenses as necessary?

I am prepared to spend decent $$ on a camera (probably up to about $2k), because I think I would get a lot of enjoyment out of it. I would want, of course want to spend less if possible (i.e. if the extra money would be spent of features I won't ever use), but the big limiting factor for me would not be the cost. I am prepared, within reason, to spend what it takes to get something good.

Size is the real issue. I have always bought super slim point and shoots because I knew if I bought small cameras I would not have an excuse not to take them with me. The HX9V is the biggest camera by far that I have had in the past 10 years and it still fits (relatively well) into a jacket pocket. I think at first, i would use an SLR when photography is the focus of the day, rather than when going somewhere that I may want to take some pictures. I expect I would still carry a point and shoot for the other days. If that was indeed how I used an SLR, size would become less important. What is worrisome though is that I would love the SLR so much I would want to take it out all the time and I would find a bulky camera limiting.

I don't know if I can talk you into it but I recently got a Fuji Finepix S4000 at COSTCO for $200 and it takes great shots. The lens is equal to a 35mm 24 to 730mm zoom plus macro, super macro and panorama. It also only weighs about a pound and looks similar to a big SLR and I love it. Here's a couple I took yesterday, one with the panorama and one with the zoom at 730mm of the sunset. I don't think you could go wrong, especially if you're not that experienced with photography.

For those who know.....How do I post pics without these stupid thumbnails coming up???

:)

post-503-0-52937800-1315870682_thumb.jpg

post-503-0-40737700-1315870767_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to explain len measurements, the numbers you get on a compact camera are the equivalent view from 35mm film or a camera with a sensor the same size as that(like brspled's 5D mk2). Most more affordable SLR cameras use a sensor smaller than that so for something like a Canon 550D, 660D, 60D or 7D you have to multiple the number by 1.6 to get the 35mm equivalent field of view, with Nikon and Sony you need to multiple it by 1.5. So for example a Canon 10-22 lens on a 550D will be a 16-35mm lens in 35mm terms, with compacts the actual number would be tiny but because the sensor is so small you multiple that by around 6-7.

Also you need to remember that these numbers have to be looked at in relation to each other, a the difference between a 20mm field of view and a 40mm view of view is the same as between a 200mm view of view and a 400mm field of view. That basically means the higher the number the less each mm counts, the difference between say 18mm and 20mm is very noticble but between 198mm and 200mm isnt.

However what doesnt change with different sensor sizes is the depth of field, that is the area of the picture thats in focus at a certain appature(the higher the appature "F number" the larger the depth of field but the less the light so the longer the shutter speed). The higher the real focal lenght the smaller the depth of field, so a compact with a lens thats actually say at 24mm(but 140mm in terms of field of view) will still have a deeper depth of field than a 35mm lens on a 5D mk2.

That makes it sound like compacts have a big advanatge(and they do in terms of being less fiddley) but SLR's have the advanatge of both being able to use a thinner depth of field for artistic purposes(the classic portait shot with the background blured to put the focus on the subject and make them seem sharper for example, or that flower I posted with the background totally gone) and of superior ISO. ISO is how sensitive the sensor is so the higher it is the higher the appature you can have for deeper depth of field without having to have long shutter speeds. The larger and newer the sensor generally the better the high ISO performance is, thats not just in terms of the ISO number the manifacturer gives but how good the pictures taken will actually look, a compact can have ISO 6400 but the pics will look aweful covered in grain and red/pink digital nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the problem. I don't really know what kind of pics I want to take. I like landscape and architecture shots, but I also like interesting portraits (or at least pictures with people in them - like some of the pictures brspled has posted). Is the subject matter a function of the camera you buy, or can you just change lenses as necessary?

I am prepared to spend decent $$ on a camera (probably up to about $2k), because I think I would get a lot of enjoyment out of it. I would want, of course want to spend less if possible (i.e. if the extra money would be spent of features I won't ever use), but the big limiting factor for me would not be the cost. I am prepared, within reason, to spend what it takes to get something good.

Size is the real issue. I have always bought super slim point and shoots because I knew if I bought small cameras I would not have an excuse not to take them with me. The HX9V is the biggest camera by far that I have had in the past 10 years and it still fits (relatively well) into a jacket pocket. I think at first, i would use an SLR when photography is the focus of the day, rather than when going somewhere that I may want to take some pictures. I expect I would still carry a point and shoot for the other days. If that was indeed how I used an SLR, size would become less important. What is worrisome though is that I would love the SLR so much I would want to take it out all the time and I would find a bulky camera limiting.

There are some very small SLR's that give very high performance these days, there are also mirrorless cameras with no optical "though the lens" viewfinder but with larger sensor's than compacts without being much bigger.

The Canon 550D/600D and the Nikon D5100 are both around 500g without a lens and have the same sensor as the high end "crop" bodies like the 7D and the D7100 that are much heavier, the main thing you lose out on is lighter build quality and not fewer autofocus points. Any SLR will focus much faster than any compact or mirrorless though, espeically on moving subjects.

The good thing about buying small is that its fairly(by SLR standards) cheap aswell which means you have alot more to spend on lenses that are really what give you image quality and versatility, they also remain top of the range far longer than bodies and hold there value much better. If your after an ultrawide for landscapes(not always the best but good for architecture and making more normal locations seem interesting) and something with a large appature for portraits with shallow depth of field you don't need a big heavy lens either, the Canon 10-22mm weighs 350g and a cheap prime like the Canon 50mm 1.8 weighs 130g.

Another storm that just passed over with the 10-22mm.

storm2p.jpg

Edited by greenman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good job, Greenman, both the pic and your explanations about the DSRLs. I won't even try to explain any technical subjects here since English isn't my first language.... :unsure: I have read A LOT about DSRLs before I got my Canon 40D three years ago and I was completely satisfied with that at the time. But photograhy kind of grew on me and I decided to go for a Canon 5D Mark II, though I still keep my old 40D. Choosing the right camera is a difficult task and each person has their own needs. Of course I could go on with my Canon 40D, it's a fantastic camera, but the high ISO is a must-have for me. That's why I bought the Canon 5D II, which I love.

Redrum, thanks so much for your compliments. :) :) And yes, I do get around..... ;)

Another pic, this one taken in Easter Island with the old Canon 40D and the Tamron 17-50 mm lens

_MG_1612-1.jpg

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some very small SLR's that give very high performance these days, there are also mirrorless cameras with no optical "though the lens" viewfinder but with larger sensor's than compacts without being much bigger.

The Canon 550D/600D and the Nikon D5100 are both around 500g without a lens and have the same sensor as the high end "crop" bodies like the 7D and the D7100 that are much heavier, the main thing you lose out on is lighter build quality and not fewer autofocus points. Any SLR will focus much faster than any compact or mirrorless though, espeically on moving subjects.

The good thing about buying small is that its fairly(by SLR standards) cheap aswell which means you have alot more to spend on lenses that are really what give you image quality and versatility, they also remain top of the range far longer than bodies and hold there value much better. If your after an ultrawide for landscapes(not always the best but good for architecture and making more normal locations seem interesting) and something with a large appature for portraits with shallow depth of field you don't need a big heavy lens either, the Canon 10-22mm weighs 350g and a cheap prime like the Canon 50mm 1.8 weighs 130g.

Another storm that just passed over with the 10-22mm.

Thanks Greenman. You are obviously very knowlegeable about this topic. I appreciate the help. And both you and Brspled have posted some pretty great pictures. Keep them coming!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isolating the subject with shallow depth of field/focus...

berrys.jpg

Probabley the hardest thing to get your head around in reviews of camera equipment is "bokeh" is means the quality of the out of focus parts of the image I.E. Its not the actual depth of field but what it looks like. The above shot is on a ultrawide lens and generally they never have "smooth" bokeh the way longer focal lenghts like that Macro shot do but also part of what you pay for is the shape of the "bokeh balls"(normally formed by bright light such as on the plants to the left hand side of the pic above) more high quality appature blades makes them round rather than say hexagonal.

Edited by greenman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Dandu :)

Talking about bokeh, this pic was taken with Canon 40D + Canon 85mm. The 85mm is a great set of lens, I really like it specilally when I use them for portraits. But one of the best features of this set of lens is the bokeh, as you can see on the pic below. A very soft, "rounded" bokeh:

Pharmacy Museum, Heidelberg, Germany

_MG_3824-1.jpg

The following pic was taken with the 5D II and the Canon 24-105 mm L. Though it's a L set of lens (the best series of Canon), its bokeh isn't that pretty. The bokeh of the Canon 85mm is way prettier. But I didn't have the 85mm at hand as I took this pic, well, nevermind. It fits the example of a "not so pretty" bokeh

Giverny, France

IMG_0488-1.jpg

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMG_0488-1.jpg

I wouldnt say thats "bad" Bokeh, some wider/cheaper lenses I'v seen arent nice but the 24-105 and 10-22 give pretty good "wideangle bokeh" if you ask me. When you want the out of focus area to contribute to the picture more like that french shot of the Blackberry's I posted rather than just fading to a blur I think its actually better, espeically if its got interesting lighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some very small SLR's that give very high performance these days, there are also mirrorless cameras with no optical "though the lens" viewfinder but with larger sensor's than compacts without being much bigger.

The Canon 550D/600D and the Nikon D5100 are both around 500g without a lens and have the same sensor as the high end "crop" bodies like the 7D and the D7100 that are much heavier, the main thing you lose out on is lighter build quality and not fewer autofocus points. Any SLR will focus much faster than any compact or mirrorless though, espeically on moving subjects.

The good thing about buying small is that its fairly(by SLR standards) cheap aswell which means you have alot more to spend on lenses that are really what give you image quality and versatility, they also remain top of the range far longer than bodies and hold there value much better. If your after an ultrawide for landscapes(not always the best but good for architecture and making more normal locations seem interesting) and something with a large appature for portraits with shallow depth of field you don't need a big heavy lens either, the Canon 10-22mm weighs 350g and a cheap prime like the Canon 50mm 1.8 weighs 130g.

Another storm that just passed over with the 10-22mm.

storm2p.jpg

I LOVE THIS PHOTO!!!!

Edited by ZoSo1960

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautiful black & white's and I like the last one with the shadow.

:)

Thank you redrum. I enjoy taking B&W photos, you get more of a "feel" for what's happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For compact/bridge cameras one of the most exciting upcoming releases for me looks to be the Fuji X10, really nice looking camera(like an old rangefinder) with a sensor larger than those we've seen before and a lens with a proper manual zoom with a nice large appature right to the long end and what looks to be a decent viewfinder rather than the typical pinholes. A bit pricey at just over £500 but actually much less of a prenium than I expected considering the styling/build...

800px_X10_Front_Left_28mm_Flash_copy.jpg

Sunset a couple of nights ago...

sunsetdogwalk2small.jpg

Edited by greenman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now