Learning photography: resources?

[Balog]

My wife has been getting into photography as a hobby, and since I started messing about with her dslr I've really enjoyed it as well.

So I'm looking for good books/forums/online guides etc to kind of walk me/us into the intricacies of taking good pictures. A friend mentioned the book "Understanding Exposure" as a great place to start. We've also considered taking a class from a local camera shop, but those run like $300 so I'd prefer to explore other options first.

[Brad Johnson]

John Hedgcoe's Complete Guide to Photography is excellent as is his Photographer's Handbook.  Also, a subcription to Shutterbug and Popular Photography are great for an ongoing resource.

Best thing to do is focus on a particular concept (aperture, shutter speed, depth of field, etc.) and run it into the ground taking pics around the house.  That's the great thing about digital... you can take all the pics you want for free and feedback is instant.  I went from a competent photographer to a very good one almost overnight after getting my digital, and all because I could see results right on the spot.

Also, go ahead and get Photoshop Elements.  It's relatively inexpensive and is a awesome tool.  You can take ho-hum and so-so photos to an entirely different level with some basic post-processing skills.  Chances are theres some entity in your area that gives classes both in basic photography and electronic editing.

Brad

[Balog]

Does Elements work with Ubuntu, I wonder? Great ideas Brad, I appreciate it.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I'd highly recommend community college courses in digital photography.  You will learn a lot about simple concepts like composition to more complex things such as multi-source lighting, color balance, etc.  Additionally they may include access to the computer lab and instruction in Photoshop as well. 

[Monkeyleg]

I agree with AmbulanceDriver. The magazines can be fun, but classes can give you the basics quickly. I took night classes for a year to decide if I liked photography enough to go to school full time for it and pursue a career.

[Balog]

The problem with classes are 1. They cost money & 2. I'm already doing night classes for work. If they offered them on weekends maybe...

[Boomhauer]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

Like drinking from a freakin' firehose.

You'll need Photoshop Elements or Lightroom to get the most out of your photos. Shoot in RAW to have the most adjustability/best quality if your camera allows for it.


A class is nice...but I say you can easily learn the basics on the 'net instead of dropping the money at the class. That money saved can then go to equipment, software, etc.

[sanglant]

if there is one for your camera. there are some really neat tricks some (d)SLRs can do. the book that came with the camera should cover them all. but they can be kinda hard to read.


might not be work safe.

http://photo.net/
http://www.photosig.com/go/main
http://pentaxworld.com/forum/forum/



my favorite raw software. kinda high, used to be cheaper through amazon. it absolutely flies on a multi-core processor.
the place i order prints from, it's cheaper than maintaining a printer.

or and for editing try the demos,(on a computer you don't mind formatting and reinstalling[it makes the computer run like a 486]) and try paint shop pro. it's a lot cheaper and closer to photoshop then elements

[230RN]

Many multi moons ago (age 10, 1949) my father (who was a quite good semi-professional photographer) told me that if I wanted to learn how to take good pictures, to use an old 620 Kodak Brownie for a while.

Hint for moderns:  set aperture to f:16, shutter to 1/50th-1/60th, focus to infinity, set zoom lens to normal, and take pictures that way for a month.

Without changing those settings.

Thou wilt learn that way.  Thou wilt learn.

Terry, 230RN

[Monkeyleg]

Digital has made it possible for a mediocre photographer to seem like a good photographer, as things can be so easily fixed in Photoshop or other programs.

The very best photographers learned the craftsmanship of photography---lighting, composition, exposure--without using Photoshop as a crutch. While nearly all digital photos need some correction, I think it would be best if you went for the best shot you can get naturally rather than assuming you can fix something later.

[AJ Dual]

Many camera stores have classes that teach the basics of exposure, composition etc.

And as Monkeyleg said, even with Photoshop, taking the photo right will save you lots of time. And of course there's a point where too much digital manipulation makes a photo look "odd" (at best), or a shot that's too dark, to overexposed, or not focused right (auto-focus isn't capable of catching everything you want) even Photoshop can't fix it.

Also though, after struggling with PS Elements for a long time, Mrs. Dual got full Photoshop and isn't going back. A student ID (or suitable proof) for a child even in Kindergarten is enough to get it at the student/educational price. No fraud at all. Their own rules.

[sanglant]

at the same time, there is something to be said for photoshop as art. very hard to get right, but i like being able to take a picture and make it look like i took it on any film. sometimes one good frame and i can get 5 or 6 different prints. oh, and if you want to go more for 'shoping a tablet is a good investment. there not very useful for making small corrections but when you want to paint over a pic it's a lot smoother going.

[230RN]

Another thing my father taught me was that usually you could "test" for composition by holding the negative (or picture) upside-down and sideways.  If it still looked good composition-wise, you were OK.

[Brad Johnson]

at the same time, there is something to be said for photoshop as art.

Thus we come to the two great detractors of digital photograpy.  Namely the Purist and the Film Snob.

The Purist will argue that P-shop is "cheating", that it's not really photography because you are manipulating the photo after the fact.  It can't be a real photo, and you can't be a real photographer, unless you are able to create and capture everything you want in-camera.  (Never mind this group usually travels with a stable full of lenses, gels, filters, and other assorted goodies that still manipulate the image, just on the front end.)  Some people are better at composition and camera controls, others are better at the art of digital manipulation.  If it results in a pleasing image, who cares which way works best?

The Film Snob is the one who says that digital isn't really a photograph anyway because there's no film and all the fun is in the developing process.  It can't be a real photo, and you can't be a real photographer, unless you do all your own developing and "become one with the film", eschewing all things digital as impure and unclean. (Never mind that many of this group could care less that digital often requires just as much, and sometimes more, after-shot processing to get the intended image.  If it's just done digitally instead of chemically it's not "a real photo".)  Some people like the convenience and relative cost savings of digital, preferring to spend money on software and hardware rather than film and chemicals.  Again, if it results in a pleasing image, who's to say one way is better than the other?

Me?  My concern is the finished image.  I don't care if it's digital or film, caught in camera or post-processed, chemical or digital.  In the end what matters is the picture.  I see it in simple terms - photography is the process of ending up with a photograph.  If you like it, that's what counts.  Someone having a problem with the way you achieve the end result is subjective and irrelevant.  (That is unless you are selling your services for a living, then you better damn well get to know what other people like! )

Short version of my mini-rant?  If someone gets the result they want, who are you or I to say that their way is right, wrong, or otherwise.  If you have a problem with it to the point of ire, angst, and spittle-spewing sermons on "the right way", well... I suggest you come down off the soap box, use the wood to build a bridge, and get over it.

Brad

p.s. - Before anyone asks, I was firmly in BOTH of the above camps just a few short years ago.  I was dragged into the digital age kicking and screaming, purchasing my D-Reb as a convenient way to get pics of my listings.  My prized Elan IIe was still intended to be my "real" cameral.  That attitude lasted all of about two months, the Elan taking up residence in the top of my closet and now coming down only for special occasions.

[230RN]

Me?  My concern is the finished image.  I don't care if it's digital or film, caught in camera or post-processed, chemical or digital.  In the end what matters is the picture.

Agreed.  I've done my share of bleaching, shaving, and dyeing my own negatives when I did chemical photography, and dodging, vignetting, and changing contrast under the enlarger.

The point, as you put it, is the picture.  My recommendation for using brownie box-camera settings is because you learn to watch your lighting, composition, framing, etc. so you don't have to play in the virtual darkroom as much.

[Brad Johnson]

Agreed.  I've done my share of bleaching, shaving, and dyeing my own negatives when I did chemical photography, and dodging, vignetting, and changing contrast under the enlarger.

The point, as you put it, is the picture.  My recommendation for using brownie box-camera settings is because you learn to watch your lighting, composition, framing, etc. so you don't have to play in the virtual darkroom as much.

Beauty part about most modern DLSRs is they have that nifty setting called "Manual" where the only thing you get is a light meter.  I learned that way on a Pentax K1000, only I had to buy film (lots and LOTS of film), then pay and wait for processing.  Half the time I couldn't remember exactly what I'd done to make or mess up the shot.  Going digital with a full manual setting changed that quite literally overnight.  My skills, and accompanying results, progress in hours, not weeks.

Brad

[Monkeyleg]

Yes, there are "film snobs." Before that there were "black and white snobs" who didn''t accept color work as "art." Art was only black and white.

Before that, of course, were the "paint snobs" who didn't accept photography.

Doubtless at some point there were "rock snobs" who didn't accept anything that wasn't scratched on a cave wall with a rock.

BTW, my comment about getting the basics with just the camera wasn't to bash digital, but simply to learn the basic skills. Walk before you run.

I earned a very nice living for several years manipulating my photos in Photoshop, so I'm not a "film snob."

[sanglant]

the pentax(well the k10d) also has the old double(i think you can go much higher than 2 exposures per frame but i would have to look it up ) exposure so you can have the moon huge right over someones head without cutting it in on a computer. or have the same person in the pic 2 times, etc. then there are these, but check reviews before buying. i have heard they mess up the metering somehow.

[230RN]

One way to take good pictures is to take a lot of them.  Ever see a pro's proof sheet?  Many nearly identical pics.

Of course, that was difficult when I was 10 years old, buying my own film, developer, paper, and ancillary equipment --tanks, thermomenter, scale for weighing chemicals (I sometimes mixed my own chems.)

But.  I haven't smelled hypo in at least 50 years.

I had a 9X12cm (close to 4X5") Zeiss Ikon bellows type camera with a Compur shutter.  I used to set it to one second just to hear the very precise "zzzzzzzzzzzt" of the shutter timing gears.  I had to quit using it when 9X12cm film got to be scarce as rattlesnake feathers here in the US.  I toyed with the idea of cutting down 4X5 film in the darkroom, but before I tried it, I read that the tiny sparks generated in the cutting process streaked the film, so that was that.  I sold it a long time ago and was surprised at how much I got for it -$200. 

Ah, I'll leave you guys to your discussion. I'm sure you don't want to hear about change bags to change the film in your film holders... although I had roll film back and film pack adaptor for it, too.

Just for grins, I looked for a pic of it.  Brought some moisture to my cheek.



Terry, 230RN
(Pic credit in properties)

[French G.]

I still miss my Nikon DM-2 with a motor drive. I sold it because I had a pentax SLR too and I was quite close to dropping change for a medium format. Realized it was going to be a too expensive hobby. Now, thanks to a Canon DLSR, some mediocre skill, and a talented writer of a wife I actually have a few published photos out there.