|
I actually disagree with you about the ISO, benjammin.
OP, ALWAYS have your ISO set to 100, or whatever the lowest value is (NOT AUTO if your camera has that). Adjust it upwards if the lighting conditions do not allow for it. You always want the best possible image quality, no need to needlessly compromise when you can change the ISO on the fly depending on your surroundings.
Also, you need to figure out for yourself what the lowest you can for hand-held shots is. Some people are better at it than others. Personally, I suck at that, and the slowest I can hand-hold a shot at is at around 1/50. I can push it maaybe one stop slower, but results will vary. ):
|
well, if you are in good lighting, of course use 100, but there's no point trying to stop camera shake at like 1/6 and iso 100 when setting it to 400 will be easier on the photographer
|
I just ordered a D60 myself.... only to just read that they're replacing it with a new model near the end of August. -_-
But still, I'm excited and hopefully a lot of good comes from learning the trade. :D
|
On July 30 2009 07:30 benjammin wrote:
well, if you are in good lighting, of course use 100, but there's no point trying to stop camera shake at like 1/6 and iso 100 when setting it to 400 will be easier on the photographer
Of course, and I agree.
All I'm saying is that you should always try to push for the best image quality, and for that, 100 should be what your camera is most commonly at. Any decent general focal length lens (and by decent, I mean one that go to f/2.8) can handle most everything at 100ISO except for poorly lit daytime indoor or nighttime indoor shots. Except for those circumstances, you should be able to easily get away with 100ISO.
|
oooohh i was gonna get that camera but I'll be waiting until the new year to get it...
I loved playing with DSLR from my photography class...so much u can do/ play
|
Man, I sometimes wish I had talent in photography : /
Have fun using your new camera and be sure to post some photos.
|
its not always best to use iso100, its not as bad for canons but with nikons which have their base iso at 200 you will lose significant highlight range.
i dont think much talent is needed for photography, $$$ is equally important for good equipment. as long as you enjoy shooting and sorting through ur pics, u can shoot tons with no talent and still get plenty of good ones.
op u def need a longer lens, you will get bored real quick with no reach 
|
I have a really basic question about the pictures I'm taking. First, I can shoot at 10mp, 6, or like 2.5. I hear people say how it's almost pointless for cameras to be higher than around 6 megapixels so should I focus on using that setting? I'd like to since I can fit more pictures on my 1gb sd card. I do need to buy a better card soon.
Second, how much cropping and resizing should I focus on doing? A lot of people use flickr which resizes things pretty small relatively. Am I trying to fill the frame every time I shoot with the lens I have? When I look at alot of pictures, like say neverggs, they are usually a very wide angle (whether vertically or horizontally i mean, like her player portraits) does she crop or is it the lens she uses?
I would think a lot of detail is lost in straight resizing of these 10 megapixel photos
As far as new lenses I likely won't buy anything for a long time, I want to get to a point where I feel like I can do all there it is to do with a kit lens before moving on.
I hear great things about the Tamron 17-50 lens. But yeah having a 200mm lens would be cool as shit too at some point
|
It depends what you are doing with the image, if you are going to sell stock images or have them printed the higher the resolution the better.
Personally I say a little cropping and resizing as possible, as a beginner you should learn to frame each shot with just your lens and camera view finder. Live view is nice but that saps battery life like none other.
In nevergg's case she has a purpose for the crop because she just wants the players or a specific scene and she wants to get shots up for us to seen. So cropping maybe useful if she doesn't have a lens that fits the situation.
Resizing an image won't lose a lot of detail if you maintain the dpi of the image. (here is some reading material http://photo.net/learn/resize/)
Finally something i wrote a while back
Photography. Camera. Lens. Flash. Click.
How hard can this be? You see an image, point shoot click. Done. Digital Cameras have pushed the envelop. Professional and amateurs are using equipment that no longer separate them. Frankly now from what I see, even people that have no idea about photography no longer give the high praise of "oh that must be a really great camera." An amateur must shoot for the love of photography and the love of the art. While the professional must push further and work harder, think faster and have images that are just profound. Standard lighting is now everday, the edgy and dramatic is what is now needed. Flashes create blanket light, everyone is captured, but there is no feeling there is no emotion. There is just that fake plastered CHEEESSEE smile.
I for one am not professional. I am not classically trained. I am just kid with camera. The quality of cameras are now producing weekend photographers. People that go out and just shoot, and record memories. Everyone is a photographer now. But to me photography is not for the weekend. Photography is every second of every day. Photography is life, photography is everywhere. The images are already out there. You have to make it happen. The camera is a tool, the eye is the only limiting factor. What you see is not what you see, because you don't see everything. The golden number of 7 plus minus 2. Thus five to nine objects are in your attention. So see, see not with your eyes see with your mind. Create the shot, create the image. Take the shot after you already know what it will be.
Photography is not the camera. Photography is not the lens. Photography is not the flash.
Photography is creativity. Photography is peace of mind. Photography is.. whatever you make it to be.
Go wild, experiment. You restrain yourself, so push the limits, remove the boundaries and create the memory that you will want remembered.
|
I'm such a fucking retard, it took me 2 days to realize I was supposed to be zooming by turning the lens. I mean I knew that was possible from my dads old SLR, but something in my head thought auto focus was auto zoom, like it was smart enough to zoom in accordingly. God I'm stupid.
When I was saying like cropping and stuff, I didn't realize I wasn't zooming at all, so all my shots were the widest they could be. I'm sitting here trying to take pictures of birds and shit 10 feet away from me zoomed all the way out wondering how I turn that into a decent photo.
My goal is a nice photo of a bird from my porch with a blurred sort of background, so I guess a high f value image. I'm not sure what other settings I should go for.
|
i am jealous of u all
i know about how an dslr operates, camera techniques, filters, what makes a good picture (mostly) etc but i am too damn poor to buy one of these
woe is me
|
On July 31 2009 05:40 gusbear wrote:
i dont think much talent is needed for photography, $$$ is equally important for good equipment. as long as you enjoy shooting and sorting through ur pics, u can shoot tons with no talent and still get plenty of good ones.
I actually take offense at that.
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If that's the case, why am I not a world-renowned magnum photographer?
I've worked hard to improve my photography for five years and I'm still terribly mediocre at it. For some people, a sense of photographic aesthetic comes naturally. Everyone has to learn the technical side, but no...there's a huge difference between people who know what they're doing and a beginner who happens to accidentally get a good shot.
On August 01 2009 01:47 floor exercise wrote:
I have a really basic question about the pictures I'm taking. First, I can shoot at 10mp, 6, or like 2.5. I hear people say how it's almost pointless for cameras to be higher than around 6 megapixels so should I focus on using that setting? I'd like to since I can fit more pictures on my 1gb sd card. I do need to buy a better card soon.
Second, how much cropping and resizing should I focus on doing? A lot of people use flickr which resizes things pretty small relatively. Am I trying to fill the frame every time I shoot with the lens I have? When I look at alot of pictures, like say neverggs, they are usually a very wide angle (whether vertically or horizontally i mean, like her player portraits) does she crop or is it the lens she uses?
I would think a lot of detail is lost in straight resizing of these 10 megapixel photos
As far as new lenses I likely won't buy anything for a long time, I want to get to a point where I feel like I can do all there it is to do with a kit lens before moving on.
I hear great things about the Tamron 17-50 lens. But yeah having a 200mm lens would be cool as shit too at some point
I would recommend shooting at 10megapix always, unless you plan on absolutely NEVER making prints in your entire life. In addition, you'll be able to capture that much more detail...but it won't be important for most things you do since you'll be resizing for most hosting places on the internet. I only use a 1GB card too (I used to have many, but my equipment was stolen a couple years ago), and I haven't had any significant problems yet...I just have to frequently transfer pictures.
I'm one of those weird ratio purists...ALL of my photos are 2:3. I never crop without maintaining ratio...and even then, I don't like to crop because that means the composition I took on-site was bad, meaning I fucked up as a photographer. I don't like it when people excessively crop photos to make up for a lack of composition sense. I also don't like it when photos end up in weird ratios and shapes and sizes...unless there's a purpose to it.
As for resizing...always do that last. When post-processing your photos in photoshop or whatever, always work with the big image first. Once you've finished all of your resizing, save that one, then make a resized copy that you will upload. This way you'll never be screwed in case you need a bigger size for a different website or a print or something.
As long as you use a decent program, you'll inevitably lose detail in resizing, but nothing that will be missed. In any case, you don't have a choice if you're going to be uploading to flickr or something.
I've been using nothing but a 50mm prime lens for more than a year. Trust me...lens isn't all that big of an issue unless you're specifically going for a niche type of photography that requires something specific (like macro or sports or something). Since you're still learning, do as much as you can with the kit lens (which I've said before is not a horrible lens).
The Tamron 17-50mm is a great bargain lens. It nearly stands up to Canon's L series in that focal range for like...a fourth of the price? Definitely go for that one to replace your kit lens. Tamron's 28-75 (I think?) doesn't hold up as well even tho the focal range is closer to Canon's 24-70 masterpiece. I used to own one (before it got fucking STOLEN T_T ) and found it was very soft wide open at f/2.8.
BTW, NeverGG's photos are all very narrow, not wide-angle. She only uses a very long telephoto zoom lens. To my knowledge, she doesn't crop either.
|
On August 01 2009 05:19 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2009 05:40 gusbear wrote:
i dont think much talent is needed for photography, $$$ is equally important for good equipment. as long as you enjoy shooting and sorting through ur pics, u can shoot tons with no talent and still get plenty of good ones.
I actually take offense at that. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If that's the case, why am I not a world-renowned magnum photographer? I've worked hard to improve my photography for five years and I'm still terribly mediocre at it. For some people, a sense of photographic aesthetic comes naturally. Everyone has to learn the technical side, but no...there's a huge difference between people who know what they're doing and a beginner who happens to accidentally get a good shot.
I was responding to someones comment about not wanting to take up photography because it requires talent. equipment is as important as talent in photography and you will get more good shots with better equipment. you still wont shoot anywhere as consistently as a pro but we are talking about photography as a hobby here so it is irrelevant. Obviously anyone with half a brain would know you need talent to be "world-renowed" at anything, not just photography.
|
On August 02 2009 02:14 gusbear wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2009 05:19 PH wrote:On July 31 2009 05:40 gusbear wrote:
i dont think much talent is needed for photography, $$$ is equally important for good equipment. as long as you enjoy shooting and sorting through ur pics, u can shoot tons with no talent and still get plenty of good ones.
I actually take offense at that. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If that's the case, why am I not a world-renowned magnum photographer? I've worked hard to improve my photography for five years and I'm still terribly mediocre at it. For some people, a sense of photographic aesthetic comes naturally. Everyone has to learn the technical side, but no...there's a huge difference between people who know what they're doing and a beginner who happens to accidentally get a good shot. I was responding to someones comment about not wanting to take up photography because it requires talent. equipment is as important as talent in photography and you will get more good shots with better equipment. you still wont shoot anywhere as consistently as a pro but we are talking about photography as a hobby here so it is irrelevant. Obviously anyone with half a brain would know you need talent to be "world-renowed" at anything, not just photography.
sorry, but this is completely wrong. equipment does not make the photographer, even an amateur
$5 camera versus a $3200 camera: http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/trip-35.htm#perf
$25 camera versus a $5000 camera: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/25-vs-5000-camera.htm
$150 camera versus a $5000 camera: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm
|
equipment is especially important when you are an amateur. besides that, a lot of shots are just impossible without proper equipment. I am wrong to imply you need a lot of money to get good gear, you can get great old stuff for cheap, but again probably not noob friendly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
