Looking into starting into Photography

[Yamez]

I'm looking into starting into some Photography as a hobby and had a few questions regarding it:

(I checked the search function and there didn't seem to be any answers for these questions)

 

I have little to no experience, so everything is new to me, please be gentle

 

Whats a good starter camera to go with? I'm thinking starting out simple is smart, with features to get a little bit more complex (digital camera of some kind I *think*). Price range would be nice to be reasonable, but I'm willing to splurge a bit.

 

What are some good general tips for taking shots? I've looked around the web, and gotten some advice but I'd like to ask you folks. When it comes to photography I've seen some stunning pictures here. Lighting, angle, and positioning all seem important, but everything is slightly overwhelming to read through.

 

I'll be taking pictures of just about anything really, no focus on any one thing. What is a good area to start in to work my way up? Should I just start taking pictures of things I find amusing or interesting or focus on a certain aspect?

 

What is some good editing software that is easily accessable to 'clean up' photos?

 

Thanks for your time and advice

[ParkTrips]

What's your budget? I think you can get an entry-level dSLR for around $500 now. Much better than the early models which started around $1000

 

Consider taking a photography class or two, you can probably find them at a local community college (or, if you're in school, check there)

[Hhappy]

can i ask a very simple question before trying to answer some of your questions?

 

why do you want to start photography as a hobby?

 

The reason for taking on this hobby will be very important regarding budget and camera choice.

 

for the rest, it's mostly a case of trial and error, try new things and try to keep an open mind for new/different angles.

trial and error will help you evolve yourself and in the end should make you a better photographer.

 

There are some guidelines for taking pictures and certain special shots (weddings stuff etc) but the biggest things is to have fun doing it and the rest.. the rest is the rest..

[spaceace12]

I would find a cheaper dslr, like a Nikon d3000 or d5000. They run about 700 dollars and they are great to see if you want to dive head first into it. If you plan on doing it for a job, don't, everybody and their mom does it and you have to be real good to make any money. As for editing software, first use GIMP before seeing if you want to dive head first, then go for either photoshop elements *(about 100 dollars) or full blown Adobe suite (200 dollars and up).

 

As for tips, there is a bunch. One is rule of thirds, always try to have your subject on the left or right third and have lead room. Play around with the semi manual setings on a dslr. Do a apature priority to get the depth of field stuff down. Fstops (apature) determine how much light gets into the ccd's and your dept of field (having a brain fart on the exact technical stuff, it is either the larger the fstop {lower the number} the more light will get in and the more depth of field {more things stay in focus} you will have. And the smaller fstop {higher the number} the more shallw it will get). Fstops start normally on lenses that come with cameras around f 3.5 and go up from there. The lower that number, the more light gets in and better in low lighting.

 

Shutter speed can also determine depth of field and also makes things be in focus. In good light and photographing things like racing, the higher the shutter speed, the better. But the more shutter speed you have, the more light you need. Everytime you double your shutter speed, you need double the light.

 

All that I just typed really doesn't matter for the time being, the big thing is to get a camera and play with it. Dslr's are cheap now compared to when I bought my Nikon d70s (I paid 1200 for it). Another thing is to just search the web for information. When I went to college for broadcasting, I learned quite a bit that transfers over (I might not be 100% correct on those things since it has been about 5 years since I finished and I don't shoot video at work).

 

Also, I agree with Parktrips, find a class or two (college or even photography stores offers them).

 

And get a tripod.

[Yamez]

can i ask a very simple question before trying to answer some of your questions?

 

why do you want to start photography as a hobby?

 

The reason for taking on this hobby will be very important regarding budget and camera choice.

 

for the rest, it's mostly a case of trial and error, try new things and try to keep an open mind for new/different angles.

trial and error will help you evolve yourself and in the end should make you a better photographer.

 

There are some guidelines for taking pictures and certain special shots (weddings stuff etc) but the biggest things is to have fun doing it and the rest.. the rest is the rest..

 

To answer your question:

 

I want to be able to take better photos of parks and things, I also live next to DC so Id really like to be able to go out in the city and capture the things I see and do. Particularly at night.

 

Budget is reasonably around $600-700.

 

Thanks for the responses so far guys!

[Angry_Gumball]

I've gotten more into shooting photos and whatnot recently. I've always had a point and shoot or one of those Mega-zoom cameras (a great thing to have as a side arm by the way) and at the beginning of this summer, I purchased a Canon T2i which came with the 18-55mm lens, and a 55-250 lens. I got the package for a little over $1000. I love it so far, have yet to try it out at the park as I'm kind of weary of leaving this kind of thing in the station. Shoots awesome photos, I need to spend more time with it and practice using different settings.

 

Why I got more into it? I'm already a graphic artist, so having a nice camera is a nice element to have. Often, I'd rather use my own photos than a stock photo as it is more satisfying for me. I've always seemed to have a good eye for composition so I figured that I should give this a go.

[Hhappy]

To answer your question:

 

I want to be able to take better photos of parks and things, I also live next to DC so Id really like to be able to go out in the city and capture the things I see and do. Particularly at night.

 

Budget is reasonably around $600-700.

 

Thanks for the responses so far guys!

 

Based on this info i would be looking for something slim (thin) as a camera.

If you want to get overall images of things youre doing while being in town i would not want to walk around with a "big"camera and having to change lenses etc.

 

Start with a "simple" point and shoot device and if you start noticing that you want to do more with it.. then you could always look into a big DSLR and different lensen, flash stuff etc etc etc..

 

for now.. keep it simple.

 

There are a number of camera's out there that have 12Mp or more and still fit in your pocket..

 

But these are my 2 cents.

[ParkTrips]

^ I agree, a fancy dSLR sounded like a great idea, until I had to carry it around. I ended up buying a nice point-n-shoot and it did a good job

[Hydraglow]

Yeah, I've been there before. The whole "photography" thing was once to my liking. I took classes, I bought books, rented cameras, experimented with equipment, took thousands of pictures, etc. So, you can say I have "some" experience in photography. In recent times, I haven't been as "active" in photography and haven't shot any pictures in awhile. Although, my knowledge is still retained from the many years I've spent gaining knowledge and experiencing it first hand. Thus, I would like to give you a few tips that most glance over.

 

First, If you are really interested in getting started or improving in photography, I really suggest the "Digital Photography Books" by Scott Kelby. I currently own them, and have read them multiple times, and they are really fantastic. They have the best layout I've seen to a photography book, and is really easy to read and pick up on. Excellent!

 

Second, and most important. Never, ever think a camera will determine how good your pictures will turn out. DSLR cameras don't take better pictures than point and shoot cameras. I'm sorry to all you professional photographers with the huge camera set-ups who think I am wrong, but I am right. It is the photographer and nobody or nothing else that produces the quality of the images they create. Fancy cameras only make it "easier" for the photographer to get what they are after in an image. I've taken and seen incredible images from point and shoots that are more appealing than ones taken by "delusional" photographer wannabes with huge and expensive cameras. It's all in the artist's eye, and in the artist's eye only.

 

For more info on stuff of that matter, you should visit "Ken Rockwell's" website. Where he is extremely blunt with what photography really is, and has enormous amounts of useful information on photography. Every photographer and future photographer should have visited or currently be visiting his website. Yes, it is that good.

 

And third, the bit of advice that I have learned from the best. "Your camera can only take pictures when it is with you". I have always looked at all the fancy DSLR's photographers carry around and wished I had one. I thought once I had one of those, my pictures would improve. Nope, not quite. One day, I bought a point and shoot camera that looked like a DSLR, but was a bit more compact. Known as an "ultra zoom" these cameras are pretty bulky, yet not quite as bulky as a DSLR. Well, I did have my fun with that camera over the years, but now, the fun has ceased. Why? Because I don't want to take it with me anymore! It's too much of a hassle! I want something that can be put in my pocket, or in my backpack without taking too much space. So I ended up missing many excellent opportunities to create wonderful pictures, all because I didn't have my camera. Unfortunately for me, I don't have a camera I can really pack around.. And for the longest time, I've been planning on "down-grading" to a slimmer camera, but have not done so, and may not do so for awhile. As I've said up top, my interested has slightly diminished, so buying another camera is not my top priority.

 

Well, I hope I've been somewhat helpful. If you have any questions for me, please ask. I would be glad to help.

[Rotura Violenta]

DSLR cameras don't take better pictures than point and shoot cameras. I'm sorry to all you professional photographers with the huge camera set-ups who think I am wrong, but I am right.

 

Glad to know you think you're right! I actually teach photography at a university and so having an iota of professional knowledge, I would have to respectfully disagree.

 

I think what the above poster is trying to emphasize is that having an eye for the subject is most important -- which is true to a degree; you can have a $10,000 camera and still lop people's heads off. Similarly, you could potentially capture incredible and prize-winning shots with a webcam! However, the limitations of a point and shoot is unmistakeably apparent when placed next to an SLR. It would be like Robb showing up to a theme park gig to do professional b-roll footage with iPod nano.

 

You can take great shots with a point and shoot (or a phone), but you sacrifice a lot of the aperture control which is the key element to good, professional photography. If you just want to take solid, hi-resolution images like you'll see on the majority of the trip reports here, a good point and shoot with a decent megapixel will do that -- and fit in your pocket. You'll be able to have a lot of fun with it, and you don't have to worry about setting exposure etc., as it's all automatic -- hence the name point and shoot.

 

However, if you're looking to do more creative shots that emphasize selective depth of field (where the subject is in focus and everything else is blurred), or require extensive zooming (the kind of on-ride facial expression stuff that Hanno posts), you can really only do that with an SLR with interchangeable lenses. They are bulky, for sure -- but if photography is a hobby you can see yourself really getting into -- and the funds are there, it would be the best way to go.

 

So again, it depends on what you want. A point and shoot will get you great images, but you'll have limited artistic control. An SLR will be bulky, but will transgress simple images and function as more of a creative tool. You might want to go to a local camera store and try out a few models so you can see just how different they are. Some places will even rent the equipment out -- which might be wise, too. Good luck!

[Hydraglow]

Oh, I forgot to take that factor into consideration.

 

What I meant by "point-and-shoots" is a camera without an interchangeable lens. Most commonly confuse that term with the really, really basic cameras that have no manual control. To tell you the truth, I can't stand those cameras! I need, potential photographers need, some form of manual control with their camera. There are a certain line up of really cheap cameras, that can pretty much just shoot. That's it. I'm talking about the fancy "point-and-shoots" that have A LOT of the features DSLR's have, but without the interchangeable lenses and added bulk. So, let's call them advanced point-and-shoots.

 

I hope I have cleared this up a bit. And I still do stand by my original saying of, "You still can take marvelous pictures with a point-and-shoot".

 

By the way, I would consider anyone a very talented person if they could tell the difference between a photo taken by a DSLR and one taken by a "point-and-shoot".

[Rotura Violenta]

Again, it really comes down to what you're looking to do. If you want to take good, quick images with little concern over technical control, then totally go with the point and shoot. DSLR's can actually operate as P&S's too, as many of them have settings that limit the aperture control and automatically adjust exposure just like P&S's. I'm not familiar with "advanced" P&S's, but would imagine they allow for greater control of ISO, shutter speed, higher zoom etc. But if they don't have the mirror mechanics of the SLR, then you don't have the aperture control that the SLR offers.

 

In the courses we teach we use a lot of advanced techniques, so students are required to use SLR's (we supply them) simply because the P&S doesn't function with f-stop calculation, or allow for DOF control -- both critical to a certain styles of artistic shooting. P&S cameras have limited aperture settings, so in one sense you don't have to worry about "setting up the image," but you're limited to flat, single-dimensional shooting. In no way is it about one being better than the other (I use both myself, SLR for pro work and P&S for fun stuff), they're just very different beasts.

 

By the way, I would consider anyone a very talented person if they could tell the difference between a photo taken by a SLR and one taken by a "point-and-shoot".

 

It's not hard to learn how to tell the difference as it's very apparent in images with controlled DOF. Most pro situations (weddings especially) require this effect, hence the use of SLR's and not P&S's by wedding photographers. Same with all commercial shooting. However, most of the students I work with treat photography as a hobby, so such is image control isn't always essential. Other than viewing the visual difference (again, I'd invite you to look at Hanno's zoom work and DOF shots), the big turn around is when student's actually use an SLR for the first time and are blown away by the control they now have over their work. The SLR is a major step up, creativity-wise, but not essential for everyone.

 

Have fun on your research, Yamez!

[Invertalon]

Just remember, a great photograph has little to do with the equipment used, and I say little because there are exceptions. I have a huge pet peeve of people asking me about my camera equipment assuming it does all the work itself and even to the point of criticizing my equipment because their $200 point and shoot has 20x zoom, and my $1300 lens with my $1500 body has no zoom-ability at all (prime lens, set focal length). It is hard to explain to them that the money is spent on image quality, versus versatility. A prime lens blow away any zoom lens for quality, speed and colors/contrast. But yes, this has happened to me plenty of times when walking around parks. People try to act nice and then start asking about "mega-pixels", "zoom" and other features only to then compare what I have to them and how I am silly for having what I do and how much I may have spent on it. We buy the best tools for what we shoot, not buy all-in-one wonders that most people do.

 

Photography has a large learning curve and can be quite confusing at first. My best advice is to do plenty of research, learn manual and custom modes and stay OUT of "AUTO". A camera and lens is only a tool that helps you grab your vision, it does not take magical pictures on it's own. You can not give somebody the best paint brushes and canvas out there and expect them to paint the Mona Lisa, now would you?

 

I will admit, better gear helps BIG TIME with creating effects with depth of field, cropping resolution and features compared to the P&S cameras. It is hard to get subject isolation and capture fast moving objects in low light with a P&S. Sure, a great photographer can make excellent photos with a P&S, but it has great limitations as stated a few posts back. AF systems for tracking subjects, resolution, high ISO capability, shutter-lag, start up time and lenses dedicated to specific tasks.One great feature on a few SLR's and lenses include weather-sealing, allowing you to continue shooting in the rain/snow and whatever else with little risk. It are the features that make your job easier with an SLR. I have shot in a downpour at Cedar Point shooting Starlight at night while most people ran for cover. That is a nice feature to have. Because of that, I was able to capture some amazing images including this one, where I may have missed it otherwise:

 

 

My suggestion (Canon suggestions from me!) would be to skip any "luxury P&S" and start off with a Canon XS, XSi or T1i with the 18-55mm IS kit lens (or any other budget SLR kit from Nikon, or whoever else)... That is all. Shoot with it, learn it and see what its limitations are to YOU. If you feel you need a longer focal length to reach animals at the zoo, people riding rides, or whatever else... Look into various telephotos. If you want a lens that will have speed for low-light situations, pick up the ultra-cheap Canon 50mm f/1.8 for $80 for low light and shallow depth of field. They have lenses for every use, just play around with the camera first and see where it falls short for you before buying extra lenses that you will not really use.

 

And do not let others tell you that a P&S will match an SLR for image quality or operations... For example, I can turn on my camera, lock focus and fire off at 8 frames a second as fast as I could move. With a point and shoot, the lens would still be "extending" and preparing to even allow me to think of doing anything, meanwhile, I am already looking through the photos I had already taken on the SLR. SLR's make photography much more enjoyable, customizable and rewarding IMO. It does get very expensive, sure, but it just depends on how dedicated you are and the results you want.

 

Learn the relationships between aperture, shutter speed & ISO and what they each do to change your image. Also, looking into post-editing, such as Adobe Lightroom for image processing. Learn and shoot with RAW when possible for ultimate photo editing.

 

Many resources out there to learn. If you ever have any other questions, just let me know though. I will be glad to help explain the best I can to make it less confusing.

 

-Steve

[Hydraglow]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm

[netdvn]

I'm a photography newbie as well. I was inspired by the stuff I saw online and decided to check it out.

 

I use...

1. A generic old digital camera from 2003 with the front plate broken off

2. Picnik with a little GIMP on the side

3. An eye for art.

4. A little inspiration from Flickr and deviantART.

 

Here's an example of an unedited photo I took.

Since TPR won't let me link directly to the image for some reason.

 

I edited this one like crazy to bring out the blue color in the middle. I basically darkened the background and saturated the picture. Nothing too fancy... just a little Picnik magic.

Looks like you have to click here as well.

 

I just looked at professional photographers pics online (primarily Flickr and deviantART). I studied their art style and did a little practicing of my own. Then when I went into the field, I looked for a good photo op and started shooting away. I'd look for the perfect photo and delete all the crappy ones when I had the chance to save room for other pics. Once I got home, I dumped all the pics on my computer and if I liked it, I'd post it online and if I didn't, I'd stick it in an editor and play around with the effects to see what I could pull off.

 

So all you really need is a camera (any kind works) and a decent photo editor (I'd recommend Picnik - easy to use, does the job, and its free - But if you're willing to go the extra mile for more features, programs like GIMP and Photoshop are good choices as well).

[Invertalon]

Ken Rockwell is a joke. I would not look into any of his "guides" seriously. He even says this himself.

 

Some of the things he says and writes about are complete B.S.

 

Just so you know

 

I highly recommend http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php for some of the best photography forums out there, to learn from. Search and find near anything that you have questions to.

[Hydraglow]

Ken Rockwell is a joke. I would not look into any of his "guides" seriously. He even says this himself.

 

Some of the things he says and writes about are complete B.S.

 

Just so you know

 

I highly recommend http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php for some of the best photography forums out there, to learn from. Search and find near anything that you have questions to.

 

Noted, and I also somewhat agree. Not all of his stuff is junk though.

 

I still do recommend the first link if you haven't read it before.

 

Second one is just for good laughs, but also holds SOME truth.