The Photography Thread

[Chicomagiko]

Film for now since I just got a hold of a shed and want to build a darkroom from it. I'm actually bidding on an eos an ae-1 at the moment since they both end soon and are both under 100 :D

I'll save the dslr for when I get a firm grasp of manual mode and 35mm. Thanks for your input

[mootsfox]

Nikon has a great history of MF lenses (something that Canon does not have), if you are starting with film, you may want to look into them. Plus, once (if?) you go digital you can use the same lenses. With Canon's you may have to buy new ones depending on what you bought.

[Chicomagiko]

Hmm. On average, how often does one buy lenses(especially if they're a beginner)? From what i've googled, most newbies buy at most 1-2 lenses and then wait and save for the more expensive ones as they progress. I've given up on the AE-1 since the bidding just got past my budget. The EOS is still under 100 though its in the last 9 minutes and someone else seems to want just as bad. I'll look into Nikon once I really get the hang of things. Again, thanks for all the input, I appreciate it.


Edit: Gave up on the EOS since it started looking pretty shady after we hit 60+(possible shilling, fucking useless ebay). Will take this as a sign and do more research.

[Saphirea]

Like moots said, Nikkon makes the transition from film to digital really easily in that the lenses that work on film, will work on your digital meaning less costs in the future.

[Sanoske]

I really want to invest in some new lenses, but at the moment they would all be for my 35mm. I have a 28-85mm and a 28-210mm, but I'd like to snag a 10-20mm and a fisheye lens to play with.

I would start investing more in digital, but the DSLR I have is on loan from school... and I definitely don't have the 5-600 to drop on a DSLR for myself atm.

And even with a DSLR at my disposal, I find myself yearning to shoot and develop film constantly. I love it so much more as a raw form of expression. True, not as much is possible, but it has a draw to it. Plus, I am just never happy with my work on digital.

[Saphirea]

I felt the same way for a really really long time until my super old cannon bit the dust. It was from the early '60s and so I went to Penn and loaned out a d70. While I miss the smell of developer and working in a darkroom, working with digital has allowed me to do so much more. I mean having instant gratification right then and there has helped a ton

[miokomioko]

At my school, the entire first year was essentially a film boot camp. Everything was film, we had to check every exposure with polaroids, we shot 4x5" film cameras... head under a cloth and everything. 2 sheets of film per holder... logging and explaining every developement/fix time in both film and print processing. Drawing lighting diagrams of distance between film plane to subject, film plane to focal plane, focal plane to subject, etc etc etc. There was enough of this to deter me away from shooting film ever again, at least for any job as film does not actually add anything to the process besides time and mystery, which are very very bad things when it comes to most photography and especially professional photography.

I occasionally shoot film on my lolHolga on the side when I'm shooting a model for a job because it always ends up having a shot or two that I like better, and while the client is looking clean/sharp, they always like the plastic lens-flared, focus fall-off, light leaked, etc shit that Holga does, but I need my 5D to at least give them what they asked for in the first place.

I originally shot film on a Canon AE-1 Program from the 70's or so and it's still running strong, upgraded to a shitty Cannon Elan7 because I wanted some Autofocus, as I was lazy.

From there, I upgraded to a Mamiya RZ-67 Pro II medium format film system that I actually hauled to Paris for a job a few years back, and although I regretted it as the thing is a fucking lead bazooka, I was glad I opted for film for that job. Getting high-speed film (above 400) through angry German customs assholes kinda' sucked though. (Anyone want to buy it? $4,000 for the whole kit!)

I finally caved and bought a 5D which works for everything I need it for and now I never go back to film unless I'm shooting a Holga for kicks. Mostly because the serendipitous effects of film that you think of when you think of that entire process (aside from enjoying the smell of fixer) is exactly the exaggerated effects you get from a shitty $15 Holga (at least they used to be $10~20 before Urban Outfitters decided they were hip enough to caryy and charge $60+ for).

[Sanoske]

Yea, I used to have a Holga myself... which I loved playing around with, til it got wrecked. Was a short lived adventure.

I think I'm just disappointed with the quality of the D50 I have. I do like digital... the convenience of it all. If anything I need to shoot more, which is something I've been lacking the past few weeks. Although I've been working on night shots and getting them down(since I'm at work/class all day), but I can't get the clarity to a point where I'm happy. I think part of it is me, and part is my horrendous tripod.

The nice thing about digital is the flexibility, but right now... since I don't actually own my own camera, I'm not going to start investing in lenses and whatnot just yet. Digital definitely takes some adjusting to, which I will have to do if I plan on continuing my current path. (Photojournalism)

[Kohan]

The less "photoshopping" an image needs to be good, the better it will ultimately be. Digital post-production should be used to perfect an already outstanding image and not to salvage an otherwise mediocre/bad image as it becomes obvious when people give Photoshop more merit than it deserves.

Though I agree with virtually everything else you said (and also admit that the touch-up was a rush job, as I'd mentioned in the original post), I don't agree with this particular statement. How can you state one moment that an eye for photography is more essential than top-of-the-line equipment, and then say this?

The only answer I can come up with is that you believe the original image is not that impressive, and thus not worth modifying in Photoshop, but this statement sounds like there's more generalizing at work. If even a "poor image" can be cleaned up, and it is of importance to the original photographer to do so, where is the crime?

If it were below the ordinary and being published in a magazine or otherwise exposed to the masses, that I can understand, but I do not believe someone should recommend never using Photoshop to clean up an amateur's images.

[miokomioko]

From my experience, digital is generally very bad at long-exposure and night photography. Until that black silicon shit comes around into CCDs, there is just too much digital noise when using a high ISO setting on anything exposed over a second or less. Film definitely does not have this problem but it does have a reciprocity effect where the exposures become exponentially longer as when film has a problem holding the tiny amount of light, it doesn't get "digital noise" it just doesn't get anything at all. On top of that, with color film, you get weird color shifts when reciprocity takes effect. That's one thing I will admit film still holds on to better than digital, aside from my happy mistakes plastic Holga.

[miokomioko]

Though I agree with virtually everything else you said (and also admit that the touch-up was a rush job, as I'd mentioned in the original post), I don't agree with this particular statement. How can you state one moment that an eye for photography is more essential than top-of-the-line equipment, and then say this?

The only answer I can come up with is that you believe the original image is not that impressive, and thus not worth modifying in Photoshop, but this statement sounds like there's more generalizing at work. If even a "poor image" can be cleaned up, and it is of importance to the original photographer to do so, where is the crime?

If it were below the ordinary and being published in a magazine or otherwise exposed to the masses, that I can understand, but I do not believe someone should recommend never using Photoshop to clean up an amateur's images.

I was not, in any way, trying to single out that image. It was just an example that was nearby without having to link anything or navigate around.

Either way, I think my statement holds true. When people put too much trust into Photoshop for making their images better, they end up taking shitty pictures in the first place. Your photography will never improve if you're relying on a crutch to fix everything in post... especially when there are certain things that even Photoshop cannot completely fix. Exposure is definitely one of those things. It has nothing to do with my not liking the original image. From the resulting image I see before me, I am seeing artifacting and color issues that are directly caused by trying to repair something that is slightly beyond the capabilities of digital processing, even for a professional.

I shot an entire project with my digital SLR set at 1600 ISO without realizing it and in post, I spent hours and hours trying to make them look decent and repair the damage done upon the initial capture and I still hated how they looked as I could not completely fix the noise/grain I created. All of this could have been spared and the images would have been much better had I payed more attention and done it properly upon hitting the shutter.

Skill is more important than top-of-the-line equipment and part of skill is using whatever capturing device you have to its full potential. If you're being held back by a shitty CCD that can't get shadow detail without turning it into technicolor vomit grain, try mounting the camera and bracketing exposures and piecing it together in Photoshop, rather than repair one single bad exposure.

underexpose the bright sky
normally expose the buildings
overexpose the shadows

[Saphirea]

Agree, digital just doesn't do super long exposure stuff well. It just seems to lose something with the noise it gets, especially at like ISO 1000+


Having a rocking tripod / remote will help a ton in your night shots. The less chance for a camera move the better the shot will be especially at longer exposures.

[Sanoske]

I never edit my work, really. If I don't like it right off the camera, I consider it a "bad" shot. Yes... some shots can be played with and editing into something decent, but like Mioko said, relying too much on PS will get a person in the bad habit of not always aiming for great photos. I try to avoid that.

Although maybe not being happy with any of my digital stuff means something? lol I know I have a pretty good eye, and I definitely liked most of my stuff on film.

[Sanoske]

Agree, digital just doesn't do super long exposure stuff well. It just seems to lose something with the noise it gets, especially at like ISO 1000+


Having a rocking tripod / remote will help a ton in your night shots. The less chance for a camera move the better the shot will be especially at longer exposures.

If I'm doing a long exposure, I have a shutter trigger for my Pentax, but my DSLR I don't have any accesories. So I just set the tripod, and then hit the 10 sec delay button, that way I'm as hands off as I can be without a remote.

Except half the time my shitty tripod will end up shifting right before the shot. /facepalm

[thebearofscience]

was driving down the road and noticed this:

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/m...rockwater1.jpg

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/m...rockwater2.jpg\

the white rocks look like water.
taken from camera phone. have a lg shine. got it for free, so...

[deshende]

Those pipes look like some giant nostrils or eye balls. Would make for some fun paint brush images

[Glade98]

Can anyone recommend a "beginner" 35mm SLR camera? I was looking at the Canon AE-1 series but I'm open to suggestions :D

Another great beginner camera that is also built like a workhorse tank is the Pentax K1000, and from what I remember you can pick them up pretty cheap as well. A good source for used cameras is KEH.com. It's actually where I got my Canon 40D for a great price.

[Brien]

I thought that was a shitton of golf balls at first.

[mootsfox]

I thought that was a shitton of golf balls at first.

Where your puttputt balls actually go at the end

[thebearofscience]

too much of a hassle to carry dslrs.

more camera phones:

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/m...oad-39_3-1.jpg

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/m...nload-35_3.jpg

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/m...ownload-44.jpg