>>590087428 Yeah. Really anything is fine when you first start, it's not about the arrow it's about the Indian.
As you get better, the equipment will matter more, but your style will dictate the gear. For example, a journalist might like a smaller compact camera, but for a still-life photographer, it might be a medium format camera with constant lighting
>>590088024 I pretty much agree with the camera bodies (I shoot with Canon 5D mk.III's mostly), and with the concept of the lenses - but don't understand why they'd recommend against Canon or Nikon lenses.
I do agree with going for the best lenses. Also can rent good glass if you need something specific.
>>590087428 As a pro photographer I recommend you to read guides and books about exposure and composition before you buy any other equipment. Try out all manual settings and how they affect the photo, take lots of photos with different settings and sometimes only have one setting for the whole day to get used to it. Go trough a day without zooming at all and another day zoomed in to 50mm (equivalent) or so.
If you want to post photos to internet, please don't. If you still want to then do only post 1 or two of the very best photos but no more than that. Get critique, not "great shot" comments.
>>590088563 Are Canon and Nikon the best type of cameras?
Dumb question but what does the glass do?
>>590088765 I'll do so. Thanks. I've got tomorrow all planned out. I don't particularly care about uploading photos onto the 'net but I want a nice, hobby I don't have to share and photos I can look back on with memorable memories rather than being a camwhore
Another question for you guys: what's the most interesting thing you've taken a photo of? Also: are phone cameras jokes to you guys?
>>590090177 >what does the glass do? glass = lens, different focal lengths and apertures to create different kind of photos, large aperture gives you nice blurred background while small apertures give you lots of sharp details through the field and are cheap to manufacture.
>phone cameras in the end photography is not about equipment but the content of the photo. there are lots of great cameras on phones nowadays and they can be used to take photos of landscapes and events and people (if you are close enough).
Hey guys, not OP but where do i start with my first DSLR?
I currently have a nikon FM2, which has been a great analog camera to learn on. Ive been taking photos for around 2 years now. I want to start trying to turn my hobby into profession, and everyone knows you just cant do it anymore with film (too expensive, slow, etc).
what is a good intro camera into DSLRs? Should i get something cheap or dish out $1000+for a mid-professional level one? i know how to take a good photo, so its not like im a beginner photographer or anything
id rather use nikon because all of my gear is nikon already.
>>590093862 dslr are not good for pure filming, get a video camera for that if you really want that. Panasonic has excellent mirrorless video bodies, the GH-series (GH4 being the newest).
Full frame means the size of the photo sensor, full frame is equivalent to the size of 35 film, 36 mm wide. Crop sensors are smaller and the focal length "looks" longer on them, as they were cropped from the full frame sensor.
I guess my main focus is photo, but i love film as well. ive been thinking of just shooting my first student film on super 8 or something. id really like something that can do both, but from what ive read there isnt really a perfect mix
isnt there some big feature that canon DSLRs have that Nikons dont in terms of video? like some sort of interface/program or something like that?
i remember reading about it but i cant for the life of me find what exactly is was
>>590094930 The magic word was, as you said, student budget. Pro cameras don't have things like af-filter on their sensors and lenses are more expensive because their gears are much higher quality and silent.
DSLRs are okay for cheap budget films when one wants to use shallow DOF and make things "pop" so much that the more I see shallow dof films, the more they irritate me. Have you seen a hollywood movie with extra shallow DOF? Nope. It's just an effect to compensate lack of other things like light and post processing.
Also DSLRs need audio recording equipment, separate screen with focus peaking ability and dollys to move camera smoothly, gearings to focus smoothly and all this costs (alot).
>>590095468 iso is light sensitivity. depending on the camera is how high you can go with it still being noise free.
If your iso gets too high for acceptable noise, then lower your shutter speed.
if you go too slow in shutter speed, the photograph will start to blur without the help of support.
generally you can go 1/f (1 over your focal length of the lens) without it being a problem, but that is a weak rule of thumb. But, if shooting 50mm, then most people can handle 1/50 shutter speed... 125mm ... 1/125 shutter speed, etc.
>>590086768 There's two ways of doing it. you want to take nice photo's for yourself and others? you want to do weddings and other such venues as a bit of side cash? 1. buy a $500 digi camera 2. download GiMP. 3. start snapping and build up a portfolio
You want to be an atiste? and make thousands and millions from "art peices?" 1.buy $5000 digi-film camera 2.buy $3000 worth of accessories (inc old film camera's if you wish) 3. build up a portfolio of just any old shit, even throw in a few photo's that have clearly intentionally been done badly. 4. do anything you physically can to get into exhibitions and gallerys. 5. look for really post modern fashionista pricks with people surrounding them. and just really loud and brashly talk out your arse about what you think the art means. 6. show them your portfolio and make up equally random shit about each piece 7.Rinse & repeat until success.
>>590095485 really the only reason to choose a canon over a nikon for video is magic lantern which is just a hack of the firmware but ive been shooting video with my d800 for the past few years and have had no problems with it
>>590100627 before buying, it can be helpful to rent stuff. learn what works better for you, etc.
I live in Miami, and there are a few places where you can get a weekend rental and they don't count sunday, so gives you a free extra day. some rental studios are better than others about this, but, gives you some time to tinker and see what works best for you.
For me, once I learned how to use a camera, and understood basic compositional rules, I let myself off the book and just did my own thing. About a year ago, everything clicked and my photos almost overnight became drastically better. You just gotta keep practicing until your style suddenly emerges. But there isn't really a way to 'learn' photography, it's just something that innately happens.
>>590086768 Shoot in manual mode as early on as you can. It will be a bumpy ride in the beginning. But you'll end up a true photograph god. Knowing how to play with apperture and shutterspeed is essential.
-It is also good to find a few photographers that have styles you like. Every time I come across an image I like online I save it. I have stacks of books from photographers I like. Usually a few times a week I will go through things and pick out what made me want to save that image.
-Get some retouching software and learn how to use it. Even if only basic corrections are learned (saturation/exposure/color adjustments) they can really help out a photo and don't take much time.
-Don't get too caught up in gear. It's nice if you can afford it but don't worry too much if you can't. There are plenty of people taking amazing photos with cheap gear and plenty of people taking horrible photos with top of the line gear.
-As more stuff is learned a lot of photographers start to lean more towards one area. When I started shooting models I had to learn artificial lighting, networking and just dealing with models. That is a whole different set of topics to learn :)
-Experiment a lot, try now things even if a bunch of your photos end up being shitty. Art and Fear is a good book for the general art making & learning process:
>>590098248 Looking back on when I was just getting started, some basic tips that I wish I had read:
-Shoot RAW, or RAW+JPG. You might think at first that JPG is good enough, but processing functionality in software is increasing all the time, and most likely you will want to go back to your earlier shots and try to get the most quality out of them. This is something I wish I would have done. Because...
-Photos capture moments in time- this isn't just true for street photography, but for "static" subjects as well. I do a lot of urbex shoots so I can't just go back and re-shoot the buildings I was at when I first got in to the hobby...many of them are now demolished. One I really liked burned down this week. Never assume you'll have another chance to get any shots.
-If you shoot RAW, you can focus on learning about the basic camera settings: aperture, shutter speed, ISO, exposure compensation. RAW format makes it unnecessary to worry about white balance, contrast, sharpness, saturation, noise reduction, art filters/film emulation, etc. when you're shooting, as you can change those after the fact with no loss in image quality.
-Get a cloud backup service for your pictures. I use CrashPlan- $50/year for unlimited storage. Given how much photography equipment costs this is dirt cheap, and so worth it for the piece of mind.
-Don't believe the hype about how buying prime lenses magically aids composition, or you should buy any lenses just as an upgrade to a kit lens. You can 'zoom with your feet' or see a constant perspective with any kit zoom lens, just set it to a focal length you want to try and go out shooting without touching the zoom ring. Eventually this will help you be able to look at a subject/scene and visualize roughly what focal length you should use to photograph it, and help you decide what additional lenses would be most useful to buy.
-Size does matter: Chances are you want to take pictures of your kids/street photography/vacation photography. A DSLR is a heavy beast. You are not going to want to carry a backpack full of DSLR equipment all day. It is also terrible for street and candid photography because everyone notices a DSLR instantly while you can take pictures with a small mirrorless and nobody cares. Most venues and concerts don't even let people carry in a DSLR with them while you can freely take in a mirrorless.
Full frame does NOT matter: Clueless people will say things like "you need full frame if you want to take pro looking pictures or if you want to shoot in the dark" That is pretty much the equivalent of "you need to buy a new GFX card every month if you want to play a game on PC". Modern Mirrorless cameras all have ISO comparable to full frame nowadays. Fuji cameras can shoot up to ISO 6400 with barely any noise.
AF Speed: Pro DSLR's are faster than mirrorless cameras in this department. Chances are you won't be getting a pro DSLR nor need one unless you make your living shooting sports. Current mirrorless AF speed is fast enough for most anything you will shoot. Do a youtube search for the camera you are interested in and it's AF speed test.
Lenses: Mirrorless have absolutely amazing lens selection and anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about or believes that Leica lenses are the only lenses capable of taking good pictures. When you are buying lenses it goes like this: There are lenses that are slow and crap. Such as your cheap kit lenses like the ones that come with T3i's. Then you have the good value lenses. These are the lenses that are cheaper than the "pro" lenses but give you %90 of the image quality. Maybe they are a little softer in the corners but nobody will give a fuck nor notice when they look at your pictures.
The photographer chooses what to show the viewer, so even before any processing has begun the image has already taken on how the photographer sees the world or how they want to present it.
Look at this image, it was not altered or processed in any way. It was shot on film, developed and sold, nothing more. It is a very powerful image, it won a Pulitzer for the late Kevin Carter and rightly so. What does this image convey to you?
What it looks like to me is that this child is dead or dying. That a vulture will pick his bones dry in the not too distant future. It makes me realise how horrible famine is and how helpless I am to help this child and others like him or her. I can feel fortunate that I am not in this child position, nor am I likely to ever be. I can also feel guilty because what right do I have to have what I do, when children like this one suffer so much and so on.
What it cannot convey is that the juxtaposition of these two creatures was absolutely intentional, that a telephoto lens would have been used, making the vulture seem closer than it really was. It doesn't tell you that vultures being around the area was commonplace because of a food aid station nearby. It doesn't tell you the fate of the child (though Carter received much criticism for not helping). You wouldn't know that Carter chased the bird away after getting a number of shots, that the white thing on the wrist is to signify the child was to receive treatment for malnutrition or that the boy went on to live for another 14 years.
Even in this unaltered image, Kevin Carter chose which part of the world to show you. He and many other photographers are manipulating your emotions, and to some that could be considered 'cheating'.
>>590087428 It depends what you want to do, but for anything close to pro, probably not. Though the best camera is far from making the best photographer, your camera must allow you to control what you are doing.
This means - Manual modes (manual/aperture/speed modes), a decent viewfinder or a very good screen, and depending on what you want to take probably large aperture, wide angle, long telezoom, macro, etc.
>>590103055 >-Don't believe the hype about how buying prime lenses magically aids composition, or you should buy any lenses just as an upgrade to a kit lens. You can 'zoom with your feet' or see a constant perspective with any kit zoom lens, just set it to a focal length you want to try and go out shooting without touching the zoom ring. Agreed. Also a zoom can help you figure out which prime you might like.
A little bit of gaffers tape can keep the focusing ring from moving safely.
When I was doing my Euro travelogue, some people were disappointed upon learning that I touched the photos in post at all, because that meant the photos were "no longer real."
Had a good laugh at that. All eyes, digital or biological, are subjective interpreters of reality. And a camera spitting out a jpg is doing a full set of post work on the spot, it's just automated based on the camera's internal parameters, so you may as well be doing it yourself if you want to be more in control of the end result.
If we accept that photography is art, which should be obvious enough, then the photographer manipulating the result at any point in the process is part of that art.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.