Any photographers in the house?

Paleocon wrote:

My point is that the market for these cameras is really for a casual shooter. Very few people I know that have these rarely if ever use the physical viewfinder to shoot. Heck, even fewer ever utilize manual focusing.

DSLRs from Canon and Nikon didn't have Live View until recently. I tried it out on a Nikon but didn't like it that much. The viewfinder is still superior. Manual focusing isn't used, I think, simply because autofocus usually works very well in a wide variety of situations. I remember an old articles I read once talking about the business of shooting runway models at fashion shows. Up until the invention of autofocus, the trick was to keep the models in focus as they moved towards you, one of the pros said. You needed some skill. Then autofocus came along and the guy said anyone could handle the job because the camera did the hard work.

What we're getting into here maybe is the difference between the photography as demanding, difficult skill versus a market that just wants decent pictures and doesn't care much for how the camera makes them. If a camera can take 90% of the necessary shots on auto, then most people will just use auto 90% of the time.

Also, is anyone else a fan of the daily Big Picture site hosted by a Boston newspaper? Every day a new photo essay with big, gorgeous photos.

Funkenpants wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

My point is that the market for these cameras is really for a casual shooter. Very few people I know that have these rarely if ever use the physical viewfinder to shoot. Heck, even fewer ever utilize manual focusing.

DSLRs from Canon and Nikon didn't have Live View until recently. I tried it out on a Nikon but didn't like it that much. The viewfinder is still superior. Manual focusing isn't used, I think, simply because autofocus usually works very well in a wide variety of situations. I remember an old articles I read once talking about the business of shooting runway models at fashion shows. Up until the invention of autofocus, the trick was to keep the models in focus as they moved towards you, one of the pros said. You needed some skill. Then autofocus came along and the guy said anyone could handle the job because the camera did the hard work.

What we're getting into here maybe is the difference between the photography as demanding, difficult skill versus a market that just wants decent pictures and doesn't care much for how the camera makes them. If a camera can take 90% of the necessary shots on auto, then most people will just use auto 90% of the time.

Also, is anyone else a fan of the daily Big Picture site hosted by a Boston newspaper? Every day a new photo essay with big, gorgeous photos.

I agree. That said, I'm not sure that a DSLR really gives the average DSLR user that much of a bump up in performance from a P&S that they'd notice -- at all. This is especially the case considering that most of the folks I know who own them rarely retain images in uncompressed format -- let alone blow them up to 8x10 or greater.

Long story short, if you're a casual shooter, a DSLR is more about being conspicuous than being serious.

Paleocon wrote:

That said, I'm not sure that a DSLR really gives the average DSLR user that much of a bump up in performance from a P&S that they'd notice -- at all.

Could be. My wife favors SLRs purely on looks and the coolness factor. So I can't discount this possibility.

I've used both extensively, and the DSLR's advantages (bigger sensor, better low-light performance, no shutter lag, greater range of depth of field, greater distance between the flash and the lens axis, greater range of apertures) gives it much more versatility than the P&S. I love my $100 P&S camera, but it's got this narrow band of conditions and situations where the pictures look comparable to what the DLSR can put out. Step away from those conditions, and the DLSR really stands head and shoulders above it.

Any suggestions on reading material then? I thought the site I linked from Canon was pretty good.

Also most don't offer the ability to frame the shot with the LCD, and for the ones that do it greatly cripples AF. It's not something you would choose to do.

You know I agree with everything you have said Paleocon, but have no idea what it has to do with digital vs film. Primes make wonderful lenses on both platforms, and actual shot taking methods don't change based on the format. Do you not know many people who have SLR's collecting dust in the closet, who bought them for the exact reasons you say people buy DSLR's?

The John Shaw nature photography books are a good introduction to basic technical issues.

I like the Galen Rowell classic _Mountain Light_ a lot. But it's a bit more abstract.

Neither will tell you how to use a DSLR though.

Edwin wrote:

Any suggestions on reading material then? I thought the site I linked from Canon was pretty good.

Understanding Exposure, by Bryan Peterson is really good.

As is The Digital Photography series by Scott Kelby

pol wrote:

Also most don't offer the ability to frame the shot with the LCD, and for the ones that do it greatly cripples AF. It's not something you would choose to do.

You know I agree with everything you have said Paleocon, but have no idea what it has to do with digital vs film. Primes make wonderful lenses on both platforms, and actual shot taking methods don't change based on the format. Do you not know many people who have SLR's collecting dust in the closet, who bought them for the exact reasons you say people buy DSLR's?

Come to think of it, I do know a ton of folks who bought film SLR's for all the wrong reasons. I bought from many of them on ebay.

I don't know about the average dSLR buyer, but for us it was shutter lag. Shutter lag was just pissing us off something fierce. Everything else has been gravy. The money and bulk was worth it to get rid of shutter lag.

I loved taking pictures of kids being thrown in the air at the pool on vacation. Everyone else with a P&S were shaking their heads and comparing their "3/4 of a second too late". I'd turn around my dSLR and show them the snap I just took and watch their eyes light up.

Edwin wrote:

Any suggestions on reading material then? I thought the site I linked from Canon was pretty good.

Ansel Adams wrote a series of books on taking pictures with film a long time ago, but I read this one recently and found much to learn that applies to DSLRs, as well.

For a daily photo blog fix, I like Kirk Tuck's Visual Science Lab blog. His posts generally aren't aimed at beginning photographers, but I've come to admire his outlook on taking pictures and have learned a lot from him.

Ken Rockwell, another blogger, is widely disliked by some photo forum inhabitants for his bombastic style and shoot-from-the-hip opinions, but his post on why "Your Camera Doesn't Matter" is worth reading.

+1 for Bryan Peterson's book (I linked to it earlier in the thread as well)

Scott Kelby's writing style can grate for some. That said, I found his books immensely helpful when I was getting into using Photoshop for processing photos.

On the web, I waste time browsing PhotoRadar and Digital Photography School.

Both are targeted toward noobs like myself and they have enough useful tips mixed in with the fluff to provide some balance.

www.photography.com actually has a few gems in it, but you have to hunt through the articles.

Paleocon wrote:

That said, I'm not sure that a DSLR really gives the average DSLR user that much of a bump up in performance from a P&S that they'd notice -- at all. This is especially the case considering that most of the folks I know who own them rarely retain images in uncompressed format -- let alone blow them up to 8x10 or greater.

Long story short, if you're a casual shooter, a DSLR is more about being conspicuous than being serious.

Both my wife and I definitely fall into the casual end of photography. We were getting increasingly frustrated by our point and shoot Canon Powershot due to the lag when snapping pictures and the poor performance in low light. So, my wife decided to get herself a Nikon D3000 a few days ago and the difference it has done to our picture taking is huge. Immediately we noticed how responsive it was compared to the point and shoot and both of us instinctively started using the view finder to setup shots, which kind of surprised us. Just out of the box, we completely were blown away by the difference in quality to our point and shoot when we compared images on the computer, and she's not typically one to put much weight on these types of things. While we're probably not the average casual user, I feel that having purchased a DSLR has kind of nudged us into a more serious direction with photography where we actually want to learn some of the key concepts in order to really take better pictures and have fun doing it.

Any recommendations for tripods? Amazon is having a sale on some accessories.

Moggy wrote:
Pirate Bob wrote:

Point-and-shoot digitals are notoriously bad at low-light stuff. Generally speaking - larger sensor size = better low light, hence why DSLR's do a lot better. Modern sensors have improved a lot as well. My D90 does low light stuff a world better than my D70 before it (even without noise reduction)

The Canon 5D Mk II has an excellent low light sensor. Effective to an equivalent ISO of 64,000 (or something equally insane). Among the improvements they made is a really good noise filter.

I couldnt agree more about small sensors = hard to photography low light situations. I use an e300 olympus and have had nothing but grief with low light shots, hast stopped me though, I really enjoy early morning and early night shots, heres what I have managed:
IMAGE(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/2807416615_87f1f547ef_m.jpg)

I have learned what I know so far about photography in association with my architecture studies and have kept at it as a hobby. The one thing that still confounds me is people, I do not understand them. I have never successfully taken a good portrait shot, but I wish I could.

anyway heres my work:
flickr, and a better way to view my flickr
my blog
and my current WIP portfolio

Blotto The Clown wrote:

The one thing that still confounds me is people, I do not understand them. I have never successfully taken a good portrait shot, but I wish I could.

I think you can only take good pictures of something you have a strong emotional connection to. So, I occasionally get good pictures of people in my circle of family or friends, but hardly ever strangers. I think I just don't connect with people I don't know... being an antisocial freak.

Edwin wrote:

Any recommendations for tripods? Amazon is having a sale on some accessories.

Gitzo

Blotto The Clown wrote:

The one thing that still confounds me is people, I do not understand them. I have never successfully taken a good portrait shot, but I wish I could.

Try starting with studio portraits. That's what I did (for painting references) and it helps a lot. Use a single light source and simple reflector (I use white cardboard), positioned to get "Rembrandt's triangle". A simple, non-reflective background and you're set. Then I just engage the subject in a topic of conversation while shooting away. It can make for some really nice natural smiles.

It's all in the lighting. Also, try a longer throw zoom, 100mm+, which will put you further away from the subject while being more flattering to the subject by making depths less (shorten them noses!). For candids, take a lot of pictures. It'll make the subject easier about being photographed while giving you more possible good shots.

Moggy wrote:
Blotto The Clown wrote:

The one thing that still confounds me is people, I do not understand them. I have never successfully taken a good portrait shot, but I wish I could.

Try starting with studio portraits. That's what I did (for painting references) and it helps a lot. Use a single light source and simple reflector (I use white cardboard), positioned to get "Rembrandt's triangle". A simple, non-reflective background and you're set. Then I just engage the subject in a topic of conversation while shooting away. It can make for some really nice natural smiles.

It's all in the lighting. Also, try a longer throw zoom, 100mm+, which will put you further away from the subject while being more flattering to the subject by making depths less (shorten them noses!). For candids, take a lot of pictures. It'll make the subject easier about being photographed while giving you more possible good shots.

what you say makes a lot of sense but I dont usually get a chance to set people up in a studio environment. I more than likely will take the direction my cousin did. She photographed the hell out of her child and from their got into weddings and portraits. the BUT being no child at the moment, but (again) i do have family etc that I can learn on. We will see

update

i decided to give portraiture another go, here's one of Michelle (my wife) and Isaac (my nephew). Isaac was a wee bit tired which accounts for the long face. There are some other rather entertaining shots from the set by they were in a rocking chair making them rather fuzzy so i left them on my computer for the time being.

IMAGE(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4243409525_d9d9239d5f.jpg)

I came across this story about a guy who photographs humpback whales from a kayak. Amazing pictures, and an example of people who are willing to go out and push themselves to the limit to get the ultimate in pictures.

So all we need now is some kayaks. And some whales...

Blotto The Clown wrote:

i decided to give portraiture another go, here's one of Michelle (my wife) and Isaac (my nephew). Isaac was a wee bit tired which accounts for the long face. There are some other rather entertaining shots from the set by they were in a rocking chair making them rather fuzzy so i left them on my computer for the time being.

IMAGE(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4243409525_d9d9239d5f.jpg)

Now I think this is a great shot. The composition is great. Isaac's body leads the eye to Michelle, who's in the third/third position in the frame. Michelle's face has some nice lighting, which provides a good 3-D feel. Isaac's face is a little flat as he's facing the light source. Having his head turned in the other direction may help, but the flatness helps emphasize his eyes, which are making great contact with the camera. In fact, the biggest issue I have is that there's two focal points - Michelle's face and Isaac's eyes - and I'm drawn between the two. There are far worse issues to have!

The out-of-focus piano fills what could have been a large negative space with interesting shapes that also draw the eye back to Michelle. There's a slight tangent between Michelle's right arm and Isaac's right shoulder, but it's not too bad. The tangents in the picture frames are barely noticeable, also thanks to the depth of field.

Anyway, enough composition bs. This is what you get after an entire semester of "Painting and Composition" studio classes.

Moggy wrote:

Now I think this is a great shot. The composition is great. Isaac's body leads the eye to Michelle, who's in the third/third position in the frame. Michelle's face has some nice lighting, which provides a good 3-D feel. Isaac's face is a little flat as he's facing the light source. Having his head turned in the other direction may help, but the flatness helps emphasize his eyes, which are making great contact with the camera. In fact, the biggest issue I have is that there's two focal points - Michelle's face and Isaac's eyes - and I'm drawn between the two. There are far worse issues to have!

The out-of-focus piano fills what could have been a large negative space with interesting shapes that also draw the eye back to Michelle. There's a slight tangent between Michelle's right arm and Isaac's right shoulder, but it's not too bad. The tangents in the picture frames are barely noticeable, also thanks to the depth of field.

Anyway, enough composition bs. This is what you get after an entire semester of "Painting and Composition" studio classes.

thanks, I havent taken any composition classes but I get the general idea. you should see the original, I had to toy a lot with the raw to get to the color/crop/fill I wanted... i blame rocking chairs!

Anyone need a 5200mm lens for their Canon? http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2010/...

Edwin wrote:

Anyone need a 5200mm lens for their Canon? http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2010/...

i wonder if that's even for sale

I stumbled across a DIY super macro lens and decided to give it a try, here's the results:

IMAGE(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4253514010_6fab7e9cea.jpg)

The rest of the set is available here

Could you link to the instructions on how to make one?

Edwin wrote:

Could you link to the instructions on how to make one?

Easy. Take a 50mm lens, get a screw on adapter, turn the lens backward and mount it. Instant macro lens.

I went to an art show yesterday hoping I could practice. Here are the results. Please feel free to destroy my noob attempts.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thereal...

Edwin wrote:

I went to an art show yesterday hoping I could practice. Here are the results. Please feel free to destroy my noob attempts.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thereal...

Just took a look at the set - 294 photos!? wow - that's a lot for a casual viewer to go through. The biggest curse of going digital is just how many shots you can take of a single subject - but then it is very important that the photographer takes the time to pick out the one photo that "says" what he/she was saying best.As a casual viewer, I can't really tell what you were thinking when you took a shot (sometimes I can but often I need a description or title before I can go "oh yeah") and 5 shots of the same subject from slightly different angles blurs that definition.

I can understand your decision to put them all up as well though - picking a "keeper" is often frustrating work. I have 1400 shots from a 4 day trip that I took 3 months ago, not one of which has been processed or posted online. Obviously, sarcastic questions about "are we ever going to see those photos" follow . But I cannot emphasis this enough, it's important to do that chore - because it is only then you get an understanding of the types of photos that are your strengths and how to play them up.

General comments - consider switching the shooting angle. A lot of them seem to be taken from your eye-level. Trying going down on one knee, or standing on tip toe etc and seeing what works. Also DoF, This shot for example - http://www.flickr.com/photos/thereal... might have benefited from getting in really close and low and using DoF to help highlight the texture & patterns of the material. As it is, there's a distracting pair of sneaker-clad feet in the background.