learning photography

Id say start with digital!!!

RebelXTi would be my choice.

 

I want a XTi

Out of money as well.


Spent it on XBOXlive and energy drinks.

 

If you want to learn Photography... Best thing is a fully manual SLR Film camera this way you have to learn the basics of walking before you try and run.. It slows you down but you also have to make each shot count. I have been Digital for 6 or 7 years now but started with a Minolta Range Finder Went to Pentax K1000 then ME Super, Then Olympus OM3-4 then Cannon F1 and now use Nikon... There is a lot of glass in my past.

There are some books out there but the best thing is to understand layout and artistic vision rather than the shooter's almanac. By layout I mean the way you look at the box that is your film it is a rectangle and understanding how the eye reacts is very important.

I will see what books to reference but every "Great" work of art, for the most part, utilizes such a basic amount of pure geometry understanding that helps a great deal

 

I'm starting off with a digital camera and hoping to get a Rebel XT in the summer or next year. The pics the Rebel XT takes look really good, im looking forward to hopefully getting one.

 

My advice would be to get a cheap high quality point and shoot. Sorta bottom of the range, but good for what it is. And just shoot the bageesus out of it. That way you learn if you like photography, and at the same time you'll appreciate a camera with more control if you choose to move up.

 

I disagree. That teaches you to take snapshots not pictures.

Taking the time to THINK is half the battle. Snapping a picture without care for background, lighting or other things is not how to become a photographer.

Now when you do have a handle on things shooting smartly and often is the only way to develop your eye

 

I agree. A P&S only really lets you work on composition. Exposure, focus, depth of field, focal length, point of view, perspective, lighting, filtration, etc are all variables under the control of the photographer that they should learn to use to get the effect they want. To do that they need a camera that lets them turn off all the automation so that they can learn the controls.

I will disagree about learning on a film camera. Learning photography today is so much easier since digital cameras give you immediate feedback. Learning on film takes several hours or days to get the results back, not to mention the cost; the learning cycle just happens faster with digital. But I do agree that you have to study the results, not just flip through them with a glance, which digital has a tendency to encourage; but that's a matter of discipline.

 

I started in Black and white. My first Newspaper was only b&w Kodak T-Max 400 learned to push and pull in processing and all that jazz

Mind you our layout was done by hand with words typeset on a Linotronic and we laid out strips of columns then had to shoot negatives for the plates...

GOD I FEEL OLD

 

My first camera was a Kodak Retina Reflex with Plus-X or Tri-X which I processed myself and did contact prints (I couldn't afford an enlarger) in the laundry room with blankets covering the windows .

That early experience stood me in good stead when I was a photographer for the school newspaper and I had to get negatives and prints out on deadline (usually Tri-X pushed to 800 or 1600) using a darkroom with mystery chemicals (you never knew who had used it before you and how diluted or exhausted the chemicals were), so I had to adjust processing times on the fly .

 

When I first started, I used 35mm SLR (because there was no digital!!!!), but if you are starting now, there's no reason not to go for digital, but get a good book on photography.

 

Very true.

I suppose what I should have written was that I don't think you should buy a $1000 dollar camera expecting results 5x better than a $200 dollar one. If you can use the $200 one and maximize its potential, move up to a $1000 one.

 

Same here... I started with an old Canon Rebel 35mm film camera way back in high school, bit I don't see why someone couldn't learn quicker with a digital SLR. Immediate feedback...

 

I suspect that they are trying to set you up to buy a second camera down the road.

Having access to a histogram is perhaps the most powerful tool in learning about exposure. No digicam = no histogram. Other than that, there is little difference.

That argument is flawed. If you want to limit yourself to the number of exposures you'll find on a common roll of film you can do so. Having extra space doesn't mean you must use it.

However, I think you should use it. You learn to take pictures by taking pictures.

For one example, not many people would spend the money to shoot and develop an entire roll of film of one scene with various aperture/shutter speed/etc. combinations. With a digital cam, that's easy.

For another example, not many people would change out their film and take the same scene multiple times to learn the effects of sensitivity. Again, with a digital cam that's easy.

Shooting film for no better reason that to limit your available exposures will only slow the learning process.

 

My first camera was an Olympus OM-1 which was GREAT for bulb photography, which I love. Then I went to an Canon EOS Elan 7e - great film camera but it took a LONG time to get mediocre.

I say starting with a digital SLR is the way to go. You get immediate feedback, you don't have to make notes on exposure and aperture and try to remember your situation when you were shooting, you can check the pics immediately and see what you did right and what you did wrong. Also, because digital pics are essentially free, you can experiment much more without worrying about expense and waste. Also, the only way to get good is to shoot, shoot, shoot. With film, you'll want to go to a good processor because otherwise your hard work on the shots may look like crap. But that gets expensive, and the expense can hinder your efforts. On the other hand, you can use a DSLR and snap thousands of pictures over a weekend for free.

DSRL is more to buy up front, but much cheaper in the long run. IMO the Rebel is a great choice. I had one, very good DSLR for the money. Very very good.

Also many (most) people say the equipment doesn't matter, its the person taking the pics that determines how good they are, or aren't. I am one of the very few who will disagree. I was frustrated using crap lenses on my Canon 20D at first. When I got some good L professional grade glass, my pictures came alive! I no longer made sacrifices (like shooting at a higher aperture just because my lens' bokeh sucked) and I knew the equipment could do the work, I just needed to work it correctly. And my pictures improved immensely.

But do not get disheartened - most of the worlds BEST photographers learned on film, and you can too. The most important thing is taking notes, and above all, USE IT. If you don't USE the camera, you'll never get better

 

I'd say 'equipment can help'. I've seen some great images taken with a kit lens, so it's certainly not impossible to take great pics with them, therefore I still think it's the photographer in the end that makes the difference. And I've seen many poor images taken with pro camera with L lenses. So, as you said (although in a different context), you just need to work it correctly.

 

Look up "Diana camera" on the web. it's a cheapie plastic $2 camera of the 60's, but there are some photographers that have a section of their portfolios devoted to photographs taken just with that camera. It's become something of a cult thing with them.

 

And even if they look good, someone else developed and exposed it. You lose creative control when you drop your roll off (assuming you don't have access to a darkroom).

Yah, many photographers say that.

One of the most vocal that comes to mind is Ken Rockwell. Now, Ken is a great artist. But he's full of it. He devotes an entire section of his website (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm) to explain that equipment is irrelevant.

Sure Ken. I believe you.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Good points re:equipment.

I think what people mean when they say "its the guy behind the camera that matters" is that good equipment won't make you a good photographer, but that's not what they are saying when they use those words.

I have found equipment matters a lot. I remember doing experiments with DOF only to be very frustrated with my efforts. The lens I was using had real bad bokeh, so I never got the result I wanted. I tried and tried without good results. The first time I tried a 135mm L lens, it was like being able to finally breathe. It got me the results I wanted and expected, with none of the hassle. I also remember having problems with sharpness on product shots. Everyone said it was camera shake, mirror shake, and on and on. Turns out it was really just the lens and the lengths I was going to in order to get a good shot were not necessary with better equipment.

Sure, I 'shot around' some shortcomings of my equipment, but it wasn't fun and I didn't feel that I was learning to be better by using worse equipment. I felt like I was frustrated and for some things, almost lost interest in photography for a while. IMO once you have good equipment, you can focus (pun intended) on getting the best out of it, rather than having not good equipment and wondering if it's you or if it's the camera. Until you can rule out the equipment, you often don't know why you're not getting the results you want, causing frustration. Now I have nobody to blame buy myself for my terrible pictures

 

Ok, let me jump in here. I obviously am at a different end of the spectrum, but I'll toss in some opinion. I shoot with a large Mamiya RZ67. It uses large bulky rolls of film. I get 10 photos for every roll. On a major campaign or catalog, I can shoot 20 rolls in a day.

This finite commodity makes me less of a photo editor going through the masses of digital images and more critical of the shots I take. Well this works for me at least. I also see the soul of an image in film, that I do not get from digital. Things like the darkroom experience for me and wonderful fiber prints really bring the art of it to me, and the whole image process for me is an artistic one.

I am a tinkerer, I like photoshop, been using it since the mid-90's. The problem is with an infinite toolset, I spent way too much time playing and not enough time being critical. The comfortability with repair tools makes it too easy to snap away and play the laws of chance, or worse yet, the defeatist attitude of "I'll fix it in photoshop" while taking photos.

Having a fotoki or other image account online and seeing 100's of images is the modern equivalent to a slide show, yet worse, because you do have to sit through it to get to the good stuff while squinting at thumbnails.