Misleading Newbies...
Barry P. Evans
as I've decided to buy an SLR. While originally planning on
purchasing the new Nikon N60 I read what people had posted about the
N60 & posted a few of my own questions most of which were very
intelligently answered. With all the info I picked up i decided to
get the N70, so this weekend I went to Raleigh with cash in hand to
buy a new Nikon N70 with a 28-80 lens. In Cary a certain camera shop
tried to sell me that N70 but not with the 28-80 lens I had looked at
only one week earlier with the same sales associate but with another
28-80 Macro lens that was another $75. After explaining to him that I
wasn't interested in the Macro/all-in-wonder lens he slapped the
"Hottest, sharpest lens out there" on that N70, a $300 Sigma 28-200mm
lens and then he told me that it was an absolutely great lens and he
used it himself for his own work. After that I left that store and
went to another camera store ( of the same chain ) in the Crabtree
mall, when I asked about lenses the sales associate popped up with the
"great" 28-200mm Tamaron lens. What is it with these lenses? Can the
profit margins be that high on them or are they just THAT popular?
I've read all the warnings (borderline flames) that say how shitty
these mega-zoom, all-in-wonder cameras are and I just can't believe
that these lenses could still be as popular as they are. Nearly
everyone in this group has said "Get a good 50mm prime", yet i've not
even seen one on a shelf new.
I've decided to go with a REPUTABLE mail order house now to
purchase my N70. I most likely will use B&H Photo. Does anyone else
have an alternative recommendation? Will B&H put a kit together for
me with a lens other than the cheap, plastic 35-80 Nikkor?
please respond to:
mailto:bpe...@eos.ncsu.edu
Thanks,
bp
//////////////////////////
// Barry P. Evans //
// bpe...@eos.ncsu.edu //
//////////////////////////
Spam not required
your local camera shop. Anytime someone tries to sell
you something other than what you ask for, be suspicious.
Chances are they are trying to sell you something that's
better for them rather than what's better for you. B&H
is a very good mail order company. They will sell you
the N70 and whatever lens you want to go with it. Just
be sure you know what you want before you call because
they're not too good at giving advice over the phone.
Nikon still makes the standard 50mm lens in a few
different versions. The 50mm/1.4D lens will run you
just a little bit more than the 28-80 lens you mentioned.
For my money, I would go with the 50mm/1.4D. At 80mm
the 28-80 is a f/5.6. That's four stops slower than 1.4!
Although you won't be shooting at f/1.4 very much, it's
nice to have when you need it. You will find yourself
shooting at 2, 2.8, and 4 quite a bit. Four stops is the
difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600, so as you can
see it's a significant amount of light you're losing.
The 50mm/1.4D is also much sharper than the 28-80.
In article <367f0978...@news2.coastalnet.com>, bpe...@eos.ncsu.edu says...
Baby
About lens, it depends how far u think u will go... If u think u are going
to take pics for your family, friends, travel, may be some portrait...etc
The Tarmon 28-200mm will do a good job for u..!!! And the size and money of
this lens is a big plus too...!!!
But if u think u will become a serious photography, how serious....? like u
will want to go to a trip to take photo by yourself or with your photography
friends, with bags and bags of equipment and heavy tripod, enjoy visiting
gallery, like to see other people's work,
make NOTES while u are reading photography magazine or books...
spend most of your money in films other than snobby accessories...
If this is what u want or dream about...
Than forget about 28-200, the longer end of this kind of lens usually gives
bad image (about 130-200mm)...u will be disappointed and regard later,
also the resell value of third party lens are lower...
Get some good prime lens is money is not a big factor....
like 85 f1.8, 24 f2.8 and 50 f1.8.....
The 24-120 are pretty good too...
Barry P. Evans wrote in message <367f0978...@news2.coastalnet.com>...
Boon-Li Ong
newsgroups, AF SLR does not seem to help newbies learn photography; in
fact they post the most questions, especially when things go wrong (not
that there's anything wrong in posting such questions or any lack of
interest to assist newbies). and i think the problem is that the
automation of the camera takes away the thinking from the user. and when
things go wrong, they don't know what happened. the use of a manual SLR
(i.e. manual exposure, centre-weighted average metering, manual flash
exposure) helps the user a lot more in learning photography. when things
go wrong, it's easier to understand what happened because the user is
always in full control of camera. if there are any professional
photographers out there who started out on a fully automatic SLR, then i
apologise for my bold statement.
bl
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My reply address above has been doctored to prevent SPAMming. Please
reply to esq...@clear.net.nz if you do not wish to receive an
undeliverable mail message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed
B&H www.bhphotovideo.com . Both offer web based ordering.
Ed
Spam not required
a N70 to learn on. With the exception of DOF preview the
N70 can do just about anything the FM2n can do. There is
also much more room to grow with the N70. The reason why
there aren't very many professional photographers that
started with a fully automated SLR is because they really
haven't been available except within the last 10-15 years.
One thing you won't see is too many pros who go without
those automatic features.
In article <367F55F5...@clear.net.nz>, esquire...@clear.net.nz says...
Meghan Noecker
<chr...@genasys.com.au> wrote:
>Hi all,
>I would have to agree with Boon-Li, in that the N70 is not the camera to
>learn photography on. It is a great little camera and everything, but
>the problem is that it can do everything for you, and if you are a
>newbie and you are confronted with a situation that they can't handle,
>they will switch right back to program mode. If you are using a manual,
>then you are forced to think every situation through, and if you make
>mistakes then you learn from them.
With the N70 you won't make any
>mistakes, so you won't learn.
I agree with everything but this. You can make lots of mistakes just
not necessarily the same ones. My sister has a fancy camera that she
doesn't know how to use. She just leaves it in program. She'll take
pictures in dark lighting with slow speed film and think everythings
fine because the camera took the picture without complaining. Of
course, it slowed the shutter speed down so she got bright blurry
photos back and had no idea why.
She also has no way to shoot a photo with the background blurred on
purpose in bright light because the camera automatically picks the
smallest aperature it can. She doesn't know how to tell it to use a
much faster shutter speed and open up the aperature.
My camera isn't nearly as fancy, but I can do more because I was
forced to. I started with A Canon AE1, no program mode. I now have a
Canon A1 with program mode, but I don't use it. I prefer to shoot in
manual.
>The other thing is that if you learn photography on a N70, then you are
>not so much learning the principles of photography, but the operation of
>the camera. Give someone who has only ever used a N70, a manual camera,
>or even another auto camera, and see if they can work out how to use it.
>Me, I can use any camera, and if I don't know all the functions, then I
>just switch to manual and I am in bussiness!
>Besides if you want to become a pro, and you have never used a manual
>camera, how do you expect to use a medium or even a large format camera.
>Remember there is a difference between a good camera operator, and a pro
>photographer. A biiiig difference.
>
>Anyway, just my 2c worth.
>--
>Chris Buechner
>WILDfire [ photography ]
>Sydney, Australia
>wild...@tpgi.com.au
>
>A mad, keen photographer needs to get out into the world and work and
>make mistakes. -Sam Abell
Meghan
Friesians in the Northwest
www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm
Jerry Gitomer
A serious amateur may want an N70 because it offers a lot of flexibility
since it can be used in manual, aperture priority, shutter priority or fully
programmed modes. So, if the amateur is taking "record" snapshots at the
family picnic s/he can just set the mode selector to P and not worry. On
the other hand when taking photos for entry in the local camera club contest
with the mode selector set to M everything that can be done with an FM2N can
be done with the N70.
regards
Jerry
Jessica Schein wrote in message <36804C27...@worldnet.att.net>...
>As a Newbie amateur, I have a comment/question. Why would any serious
>amateur photographer want an AUTOMATIC camera? I can see the need
>(sometimes) for an AF camera, but learning photography is learning
>technique and composition (craft and art). You can't learn technique
>from an automatic.
Chris Buechner
>
> I tend to dissagree. I can see nothing wrong with buying
> a N70 to learn on. With the exception of DOF preview the
> N70 can do just about anything the FM2n can do. There is
> also much more room to grow with the N70. The reason why
> there aren't very many professional photographers that
> started with a fully automated SLR is because they really
> haven't been available except within the last 10-15 years.
> One thing you won't see is too many pros who go without
> those automatic features.
Hi all,
I would have to agree with Boon-Li, in that the N70 is not the camera to
learn photography on. It is a great little camera and everything, but
the problem is that it can do everything for you, and if you are a
newbie and you are confronted with a situation that they can't handle,
they will switch right back to program mode. If you are using a manual,
then you are forced to think every situation through, and if you make
mistakes then you learn from them. With the N70 you won't make any
mistakes, so you won't learn.
Chris Buechner
>
> >With the N70 you won't make any
> >mistakes, so you won't learn.
>
> I agree with everything but this. You can make lots of mistakes just
> not necessarily the same ones. My sister has a fancy camera that she
> doesn't know how to use. She just leaves it in program. She'll take
> pictures in dark lighting with slow speed film and think everythings
> fine because the camera took the picture without complaining. Of
> course, it slowed the shutter speed down so she got bright blurry
> photos back and had no idea why.
Yes you are right, that will teach me to make sweeping statements in
future.
You can and will still make mistakes with the N70, but the point is that
you won't know why you made them, and so you won't learn from them.
> My camera isn't nearly as fancy, but I can do more because I was
> forced to. I started with A Canon AE1, no program mode. I now have a
> Canon A1 with program mode, but I don't use it. I prefer to shoot in
> manual.
Good one, I also started with a Canon AE1.
I just like to make one point, I am not against Auto cameras, au
contraire, they are great, especially if you use the camera as a tool,
day in and day out. But they are just not great for learning on.
See ya
Jessica Schein
Stéphane Leman-Langlois
when you're not sure is just fine. You know, matching a needle if you don't
know what it represents, or what the consequences of using f8 instead of
f2.8 are, isn't really "learning" either. Go ahead and find fault with my
logic:
1) AE will work most of the time. Fine for someone who doesn't want to
learn.
2) However, it will screw up sometimes
3) some other times the exp. will be ok, but not the effect (dof, whatever)
4) in cases 2 and 3 the *interested* newbie will try to figure out why that
is
5) in case 4, s/he will, and that's called learning
6) otherwise, s/he wasn't interested in learning in the first place, so a
manual camera wouldn't have worked either--s/he would simply have played
match-the-needle (or LED,or whatever).
As far as AF is concerned, there's nothing to learn with MF at all, other
than turning a ring. What is to be learned, is WHERE to focus, and that
applies in both cases equally.
QED (or not?)
Colyn
<jessh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I fully agree.. Most people are lazy and a camera that does everything
for them is just what they want..
Boon-Li Ong
least 15 years working experience. what about pros with 2 or 3 years
experience? what about pros who picked up photography in the last 5
years and recently turn professional?
bl
Boon-Li Ong
>
> Spam not required wrote:
> >
> > I tend to dissagree. I can see nothing wrong with buying
> > a N70 to learn on. With the exception of DOF preview the
> > N70 can do just about anything the FM2n can do. There is
> > also much more room to grow with the N70. The reason why
> > there aren't very many professional photographers that
> > started with a fully automated SLR is because they really
> > haven't been available except within the last 10-15 years.
> > One thing you won't see is too many pros who go without
> > those automatic features.
>
> I would have to agree with Boon-Li, in that the N70 is not the camera to
> learn photography on. It is a great little camera and everything, but
> the problem is that it can do everything for you, and if you are a
> newbie and you are confronted with a situation that they can't handle,
> they will switch right back to program mode. If you are using a manual,
> then you are forced to think every situation through, and if you make
> mistakes, so you won't learn.
> not so much learning the principles of photography, but the operation of
> the camera. Give someone who has only ever used a N70, a manual camera,
> or even another auto camera, and see if they can work out how to use it.
> Me, I can use any camera, and if I don't know all the functions, then I
> just switch to manual and I am in bussiness!
> Besides if you want to become a pro, and you have never used a manual
> camera, how do you expect to use a medium or even a large format camera.
> Remember there is a difference between a good camera operator, and a pro
> photographer. A biiiig difference.
>
> Anyway, just my 2c worth.
> --
> Chris Buechner
Well said!
bl
Boon-Li Ong
> > My camera isn't nearly as fancy, but I can do more because I was
> > forced to. I started with A Canon AE1, no program mode. I now have a
> > Canon A1 with program mode, but I don't use it. I prefer to shoot in
> > manual.
> Good one, I also started with a Canon AE1.
>
> I just like to make one point, I am not against Auto cameras, au
> contraire, they are great, especially if you use the camera as a tool,
> day in and day out. But they are just not great for learning on.
likewise, i started out on a manual, a yashica fx3 super 2000. i am also
not against AF SLR (i have an EOS 50E) but i doubt i would have learned
anything had i started out on an auto-everything SLR. i do know of
people who started out on an auto-everything and are so reliant on the
manufacturer's programed exposure modes (you know, those landscape mode,
portrait mode etc) that they always complain of not getting the photos
they want. they never did dare touch Av or M exposure mode.
bl
Jed
against my better instincts.
I picked up my photography with my dad's FM2 and FE2 cameras, and an SB22
flash which we used on full manual all the time. It's helped me immensely in
getting a puristic (is that a word?) view of photography, but frankly I
don't feel (in my case) that it'd have been any different if I had started
out with an AF/auto-everything camera. It took many trips in the library,
many 4 book in 4 book out sequences before I've got to where I am now, in
addition to reading the Nikon mailing list attentively, recently browsing
these newsgroups, listening to other photographers. All of which I could,
and in my case would, have done anyway even if my dad had had an F5 as a
hand me down instead. The cameras themselves didn't force me to learn
anything... as someone pointed out, they work fine as match the needle/LED
toys, which doesn't teach you anything but still gets acceptable pictures.
I now own my own F90x, and I use it all the time as my main body, with the
FM2 as backup. I love both of them, and feel comfortable with them. The F90x
is usually on aperture priority, or manual. I've run through about 100 plus
rolls since I got the AF camera, and not one has been on full program mode,
and only about 5 SHOTS or so were on shutter priority. Using the manual
bodies made me familiar with both types of cameras (handling aside) and I
could use both types to the best of my abilities, but that's because I
bothered to figure both out, and brush up my photography.
There was a stage when I picked up those FM2 and FE2 bodies and got the
exposure to balance, tried to avoid camera shake, and fired away. Now I
shudder at those times, but having a manual camera does not force you to go
take an interest in photography.
Now I have a friend who's never owned anything except an F90x. He does a
spot of photography for money, and obviously he gets pretty decent photos.
He shoots in aperture priority most of the time, but I doubt he's ever put
the camera in manual. And he himself has admitted to me that he'd be totally
lost if someone put a fully manual camera in his hands. He told me he's not
comfortable focusing manually at all either. I believe he's never shot
chromes either. Still, he earns more money from his photography than I do.
Does that make him a worse or better photographer than me? I say neither.
Both of us take pictures. One of us learnt something about using manual
cameras because one of us was forced to, the other didn't. Both of us know
things about photography from what we pick up from sources other than our
cameras...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it really isn't the camera, but the
person. An enthusiast with an F5 is still going to go and read up about AA's
zone system, 18% grey, rule of thirds, et cetera. A person who couldn't be
bothered would pick up an FM2 and get the LED to read "o" and fire away,
without realising that half his shots might be ruined by camera shake. Of
course there're also those who will pick up an FM2 and take it to it's
limit, playing around with multiple exposures, bracketing; and those who buy
an F5 to take it to its limit too, but with the F5 pushing itself in full
program every step of the way.
It's the person who decides. And the person who ultimately learns.
Paul Cox
Evans) wrote:
> I've been following this newsgroup for about three weeks now
>as I've decided to buy an SLR.
Which one? You crossposted to three. :P
> What is it with these lenses? Can the
>profit margins be that high on them or are they just THAT popular?
What it most likely is that for the average salesperson, they know
that the average buyer has NOT read various newsgroups for three
weeks. The average buyer has NOT thought about his camera purchase
much.
And the average buyer will get a 28-80 lens home and want it to "zoom
in more" almost immediately, because that's how average buyers are.
They wind up back in the shop and get pissed when they're told that
there aren't any Nikkor lenses for 175 bucks that go from 28 to 350
mm, but when they find that there's a Tamron, or Sigma, or whatever,
they want *that* lens. The store makes more dough on them, the
average buyer goes home reasonably happy, and promptly launches into
many average years taking average pictures.
> I've decided to go with a REPUTABLE mail order house now to
>purchase my N70. I most likely will use B&H Photo. Does anyone else
>have an alternative recommendation? Will B&H put a kit together for
>me with a lens other than the cheap, plastic 35-80 Nikkor?
You bet, they'll put darned near anything together for you if you have
the dough. :)
Good luck with your new camera, and just a suggestion: Wait until
after the holiday to buy. Shipping will be less crazy, the phone
lines will be less crazy, and the guy at B&H will be less crazy. :)
Paul
Mike Norkum
I personally choose an automatic camera to learn on, why, because I
wanted to start a new hobby and have some fun. As a generation Xer, I
know myself. At least at first, learning all the technical jargon
that is required to take a good picture did not interest me. I wanted
a carmera that I could use today and get better pictures than with my
old P&S.
And thats exactly what happened. I took the camera out, pointed it at
things and pressed the button. The pictures were better but not
nearly as good as I had hoped. This is when I chose to learn more
about the technical side of picture taking.
For me I continue to enjoy learning about the camera, playing with
custom functions and trying to figure out how to take a better picture
each time. As a computer geek I like the whiz bang functions and
electronics in my camera. I like the autofocus feature and I like the
fact that I can continue to grow into my new camera. I'm almost
positive that a fully manual camera would be the same spot as where my
sister keeps hers, in the back of a storage locker.
A camera is only useful if you use it. Whether it be a manual camera
or a fully automatic camera, pick one that you can afford and go out
and have some fun. One year into my hobby I know I am having a lot of
fun.
Merry Christmas all.
Mike
On Wed, 23 Dec 1998 10:38:47 +1100, Chris Buechner
<chr...@genasys.com.au> wrote:
>Meghan Noecker wrote:
>
>>
>> >With the N70 you won't make any
>> >mistakes, so you won't learn.
>>
>> I agree with everything but this. You can make lots of mistakes just
>> not necessarily the same ones. My sister has a fancy camera that she
>> doesn't know how to use. She just leaves it in program. She'll take
>> pictures in dark lighting with slow speed film and think everythings
>> fine because the camera took the picture without complaining. Of
>> course, it slowed the shutter speed down so she got bright blurry
>> photos back and had no idea why.
>Yes you are right, that will teach me to make sweeping statements in
>future.
>You can and will still make mistakes with the N70, but the point is that
>you won't know why you made them, and so you won't learn from them.
>
>> My camera isn't nearly as fancy, but I can do more because I was
>> forced to. I started with A Canon AE1, no program mode. I now have a
>> Canon A1 with program mode, but I don't use it. I prefer to shoot in
>> manual.
>Good one, I also started with a Canon AE1.
>
>I just like to make one point, I am not against Auto cameras, au
>contraire, they are great, especially if you use the camera as a tool,
>day in and day out. But they are just not great for learning on.
>
len...@my-dejanews.com
In article <3680fcf2.3564855@news>,
--
************* Len Cook, Photographer ***************
** 20 years of photojournalism -- DANG that was fun! ***
But there's more to life than News, Weather, and Sports, eh?
http://www.glamourline.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
<chr...@genasys.com.au> writes:
>... if you are really really serious about understanding photography I don't
>see how you can avoid learning on a manual camera. Even if you start on a
>automatic and later switch to a manual.
I'm sure the analogy is not perfect, but although I don't think you can really
drive a car unless you can drive one with a clutch, I would not recommend
learning to drive in a standard transmission auto. There are too many other
things to worry about without also having to be concerned about whether the
engine is going to die on you in the middle of the intersection with the US
highway and a tractor-trailer bearing down on you.
Would it make sense for a beginner to start out with an automated camera,
concentrating on learning composition and color and light, etc., and then when
these are more or less learned start mastering exposure and focus? Does a
fully manual camera, or a fully automatic one with too many modes to choose
among, give a beginner too many things to think about at once?
Gary Williams
Chris Buechner
>
> I've avoided getting stuck in until now, but I've decided to do so now
> against my better instincts.
> I picked up my photography with my dad's FM2 and FE2 cameras, and an SB22
> flash which we used on full manual all the time. It's helped me immensely in
8"x10" cameras and use a f stop of f64. They consider themselves to be
purists, but really they are nuts:-) (Besides you get too much
refraction at f64)
> don't feel (in my case) that it'd have been any different if I had started
> out with an AF/auto-everything camera. It took many trips in the library,
> many 4 book in 4 book out sequences before I've got to where I am now, in
> addition to reading the Nikon mailing list attentively, recently browsing
> these newsgroups, listening to other photographers. All of which I could,
Well that's great, you obviousely had a genuine interest in photography,
and wanted to learn. I still think there is a difference between people
who think they are serious about photography, but all they want is good
pictures without understanding the ins & outs. That's ok, they can get a
good camera and learn the basics, and that's it. But if you are really
really serious about understanding photography I don't see how you can
avoid learning on a manual camera. Even if you start on a automatic and
later switch to a manual.
> and in my case would, have done anyway even if my dad had had an F5 as a
> hand me down instead. The cameras themselves didn't force me to learn
That's because you were really really serious about photography.
In my experience people who say they love photography, often mean they
love their camera. They know how to use one brand of camera and that's
it.
> anything... as someone pointed out, they work fine as match the needle/LED
> toys, which doesn't teach you anything but still gets acceptable pictures.
>
> I now own my own F90x, and I use it all the time as my main body, with the
> FM2 as backup. I love both of them, and feel comfortable with them. The F90x
Yep, top cameras, I got 2 F90's myself.
> is usually on aperture priority, or manual. I've run through about 100 plus
> rolls since I got the AF camera, and not one has been on full program mode,
> and only about 5 SHOTS or so were on shutter priority. Using the manual
> bodies made me familiar with both types of cameras (handling aside) and I
> could use both types to the best of my abilities, but that's because I
> bothered to figure both out, and brush up my photography.
Well done, that's what it is all about. You can probably pick up any
camera, set it to manual and use it. You could probably even figure out
how to use a Mamiya or Hasselblad if you had to, without any other
instuctions(apart from loading the film).
>
> There was a stage when I picked up those FM2 and FE2 bodies and got the
> exposure to balance, tried to avoid camera shake, and fired away. Now I
> shudder at those times, but having a manual camera does not force you to go
> take an interest in photography.
No one said that it forces you to. My dad always uses his trusty old
Voigtlaender, he gets great pictures, but has no further interest in
photography.
>
> Now I have a friend who's never owned anything except an F90x. He does a
> spot of photography for money, and obviously he gets pretty decent photos.
> He shoots in aperture priority most of the time, but I doubt he's ever put
> the camera in manual. And he himself has admitted to me that he'd be totally
> lost if someone put a fully manual camera in his hands. He told me he's not
Just wait till he is in the middle of a job, and his camera breaks down,
and somebody shoves a FE2 in his hands and says, "here you go, use it,
or loose the job"
> comfortable focusing manually at all either. I believe he's never shot
Man, I don't get it, there is skill involved in manually focusing. It
just shows that he some big insecurities about doing something by
himself. I mean I use AF most of the time as well, but it isn't even a
issue if I have to use manual focus. I am sorry, but this guy isn't a
photographer, maybe a camera operator at a stretch.
> chromes either. Still, he earns more money from his photography than I do.
> Does that make him a worse or better photographer than me? I say neither.
> Both of us take pictures. One of us learnt something about using manual
> cameras because one of us was forced to, the other didn't. Both of us know
> things about photography from what we pick up from sources other than our
> cameras...
Well it all depends on your definition of 'Photographer'. What is a
'pro'? anybody who makes money from photography, or is there more to it.
That would be a different thread alltogeher. I pride myself on the fact
that I have a pretty thorough understanding of photography, and I
believe that I could use any camera, be it a pin hole camera or a Leica
or whatever. I could photograph just about any subject you put in front
of me (except some scientific applications). I might not have experience
in a particular field, but I can still get a decent shot of whatever it
is. And I haven't been a pro for 15 years. I first started playing with
my dads' Voigtlaender about 10 years ago when I was at school, and I
have turned pro about 2-3 years ago.
Anyone care to start another thread about 'pro' vs 'camera opereator'
>
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that it really isn't the camera, but the
> person. An enthusiast with an F5 is still going to go and read up about AA's
> zone system, 18% grey, rule of thirds, et cetera. A person who couldn't be
> bothered would pick up an FM2 and get the LED to read "o" and fire away,
> without realising that half his shots might be ruined by camera shake. Of
> course there're also those who will pick up an FM2 and take it to it's
> limit, playing around with multiple exposures, bracketing; and those who buy
> an F5 to take it to its limit too, but with the F5 pushing itself in full
> program every step of the way.
Ok, one more thing. If you have an F5, and you want to learn about
photography, that's fine, you'll be able to use it just like a manual
camera. But what about all those people who get a mid-range automatic.
They often don't have a DOF preview button, no cable release, some don't
let you set the ISO manually, etc, so how are you meant to learn
anything, even if you wanted to?
>
Coming back to the original question about the F70. It's a good camera.
If you are buying it because you want take family pictures, or you are
going on holidays, and you want to make sure you don't stuff up, then by
all means go ahead and get it. If you then become more interested in
photography maybe you'll consider a manual camera. If you are buying a
camera purely because you are interested in photography, then get a
manual one to start off with. Who cares if you make mistakes, film is
cheap.
Fair enough?
> It's the person who decides. And the person who ultimately learns.
Absolutely, and the difference between a pro and a happy snapper is not
their gear, but how they use it.
Merry Christmas everybody
Chris Buechner
>
> One thing that I haven't noticed in this thread is the idea of FUN.
about it.
>
> I personally choose an automatic camera to learn on, why, because I
> wanted to start a new hobby and have some fun. As a generation Xer, I
> know myself. At least at first, learning all the technical jargon
> that is required to take a good picture did not interest me. I wanted
> a carmera that I could use today and get better pictures than with my
> old P&S.
interested in photography, and that is cool as well.
>
> And thats exactly what happened. I took the camera out, pointed it at
> things and pressed the button. The pictures were better but not
> nearly as good as I had hoped. This is when I chose to learn more
> about the technical side of picture taking.
>
> For me I continue to enjoy learning about the camera, playing with
> custom functions and trying to figure out how to take a better picture
> each time. As a computer geek I like the whiz bang functions and
play solitaire on it :-)
> electronics in my camera. I like the autofocus feature and I like the
> fact that I can continue to grow into my new camera.
I don't know what sort of camera you have, but I wager there are
something you just won't bother to learn because you don't have to.
> I'm almost
> positive that a fully manual camera would be the same spot as where my
> sister keeps hers, in the back of a storage locker.
If that's the case, then you are not having as much fun as you could be
having. I used to have a lot of fun when I started, because I had this
cheap Canon AE1, and I didn't care if it got dented or scratched. I used
to tape it to my bike and try shooting while I was riding. At one stage
I was really into macro, so I used got two flashes, opened them and
connected them with some wiring, and soldered the connections to my
camera flash shoe. this way I was able to have to lights at 45 degrees.
It worked great, and I didn't have to be afraid of frying the
electronics of the camera, That was fun! But I wouldn't do that to my
F90X. Then I bought a couple of Prakticas, cause they were cheap, and
took them apart and put them back together, sort of. That was fun too!
All up I went through 4 Canons, 3 Prakticas and a couple of others
before I bought my first F90. The only one that still works is an old
Canon Ftb. It even has mirror lock up. How many automatics have that?
Anyway, maybe I am just warped, but I had lot's more fun with my manuals
that ever with my F90's. One thing I learned from the manual cameras is
not to get too hung up about brands or to worship your camera too much
(unless it's a gold plated Hassi!)
>
> A camera is only useful if you use it. Whether it be a manual camera
> or a fully automatic camera, pick one that you can afford and go out
> and have some fun. One year into my hobby I know I am having a lot of
> fun.
Good for you, and that is all that counts, all I am saying is that there
may be more fun to be had, that you haven't discovered yet, especially
if you are a tinkerer.
You are a self confesed 'computer geek', do you use everything 'out of
the box' or do you like to set up your own PC or workstation, maybe even
write your own programs, GUI's or batch files. If you do, then you know
how I feel about manual cameras. It's like running Linux vs running
Windos98.
> Merry Christmas all.
>
> Mike
Merry Christmas
Stéphane Leman-Langlois
>concentrating on learning composition and color and light, etc., and then
when
>these are more or less learned start mastering exposure and focus? Does a
>fully manual camera, or a fully automatic one with too many modes to choose
>among, give a beginner too many things to think about at once?
Right. When it comes down to it, finding an interesting subject and/or an
interesting way to shoot it is a hundred times harder than figuring out
exposure. Well, what can you do. It's the old protestant work ethic: if it's
not hard to actually take the picture, it's not worth anything--it's not
about the result, but how hard you worked. You have to learn with a manual
camera and a sack of bricks on your back too. And when I was young I had to
walk 12 miles to school without shoes.
Stéphane Leman-Langlois
>really serious about understanding photography I don't see how you can
>avoid learning on a manual camera. Even if you start on a automatic and
>later switch to a manual.
Well, it's just the opposite. If you're so serious about learning
photography, you shouldn't tie yourself up to an old manual thing if that's
not what you want. You can learn EVERYTHING on a full auto camera, just as
long as it ALSO has manual controls. Are you like Ulysses and the sirens,
you have to tie yourself up not to do something? I suppose you need a
12-step program to get off AF too.
Adrian Legg
> IMO if a newbie wants to learn, s/he will. Have some faith. To default to AE
> when you're not sure is just fine. You know, matching a needle if you don't
> know what it represents, or what the consequences of using f8 instead of
> f2.8 are, isn't really "learning" either. Go ahead and find fault with my
> logic:
+++snip+++
>
> QED (or not?)
I think your logic is good and interesting, and a while back would have
agreed. My partner is ploughing through an art foundation course, and
has been doing similiar courses for a couple of years.She is obviously
lucky to be dealing with composition and colour relationships on a daily
basis anyway, and these in her course are not separated from materials
and techniques - the whole bundle goes together.
During her courses there are occasional photog. semininars/hands on,
the most recent of which was very successful for her at the printing
end. The taking end of it was chaos though, and I now believe this is
because she is using an Eos500 (USA Rebel something). She is still not
really grasping the functions/implications of shutter speeds/apertures,
and is still pretty hazy on their relationship.
She is very left brain and hand centred with the arts activities, always
says she needs to see things rather than have them explained, and with
hindsight, I'm sure it would have been better for her to have used the
old F2 we have kicking around here.
I think modern auto cameras have control systems whose logic is very
user related - I love the Eos1ns for that, wonderful cameras to use for
me.
The F2 in particular though, has a control system that is much more
related to the process of what is actually happening within the camera.
For instance, the aperture control is around the lens, you can hear it
click through stops as you move it, and if you take the lens off, you
can twist that ring and see exactly what it is doing, plus you can see
the linkage to the camera and how it tells the meter where it's at.
The d.o.f. preview button is part of the stop-down,mirror,shutter
sequence that the cameras goes through, and has the mirror lock twisting
around it, you can see its linkage and how the camera closes up the iris
in the taking sequence.You can take the lens off and actually watch it
doing all this.
The shutter speed control is very easy to relate to increasing or
decreasing tension on a spring that will pull/push the shutter quicker
or slower when it's tighter or slacker as it winds up or down, plus you
can open up the back and see and feel the shutter cock as you push the
winder round. Those of us of a certain age (ahem) have always understood
wind-up toys and mechanical clocks - and some of us have direct physical
experience of mechanically stored energy in exploding toy springs :-)
And so on. I think the F2 (or a similiarly built camera), to a quite
significant extent, can involve you more directly with its functions,
whereas the modern auto is built more to coincide more comfortably with
one's own functions - understanding how the latter delivers is at least
one step removed and involves more theory than mechanical observation.
On the 1n, the thumbwheel that controls the lens' iris is nowhere near
the lens; on the 500(Rebel) you push a button and rotate wheel on the
top of the camera again nowhere near the lens - so the action is less
related to the actual physical fact, in both cases some invisible
electrical signal may or may not be causing something to happen.
I'm used to electrical control systems that operate physical things, but
my partner is not. On the other hand, she is absolutely connected to the
relationship of techniques and materials to aesthetic results in art.
I hope this makes some sense...?
--
The address is spurious - spam clogs the mailbox when I'm away.
Contact info: http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm
Mike Norkum
What I was really trying to get across is to know yourself when you
make a choice between a manual or automatic camera. Maybe for one
person the best way to learn photography was to use a manual camera...
but as JED put it '... having a manual camera does not force you to go
take an interest in photography.'
Best wishes for the Christmas season...
Mike
PS... I have to admit, I'm tempted to try to convince my sister to
bring her camera down for Christmas so I can do some soldering :-)
On Thu, 24 Dec 1998 09:59:35 +1100, Chris Buechner
<chr...@genasys.com.au> wrote:
>Mike Norkum wrote:
>> <snip...>
>> know myself. At least at first, learning all the technical jargon
>> that is required to take a good picture did not interest me. I wanted
>> a carmera that I could use today and get better pictures than with my
>> old P&S.
>Ok it sounds to me that you like taking photos, but you are not too
>interested in photography, and that is cool as well.
I'd rephrase this..
"I like taking pictures and was not that interested in photography."
However enjoying my hobby has increased my interest in photography and
made me a better photographer (I think I've graduated from 'picture
taker' :-) ).
>I bet you can't wait till your camera comes with Windows98, and you can
>play solitaire on it :-)
Please .. no more solitaire....
>I don't know what sort of camera you have, but I wager there are
>something you just won't bother to learn because you don't have to.
As far as I know, the only feature I haven't used yet on the camera is
Multiple Exposure (I have an Elan IIe) but for some reason I have this
overwhelming urge to try it tonight :-).
><snip>
>to tape it to my bike and try shooting while I was riding. At one stage
>I was really into macro, so I used got two flashes, opened them and
>connected them with some wiring, and soldered the connections to my
>camera flash shoe. this way I was able to have to lights at 45 degrees.
I guess this is my point... I would not be at the stage I am now if I
didn't start with and automatic camera. When I was starting out, if
someone told me I should try to solder a couple of wires together to
get a 45 degree flash angle I'd probably thought they were 'a
photography geek' now I think thats pretty cool.
>Canon Ftb. It even has mirror lock up. How many automatics have that?
Elan IIe does (well at least a modified version of MLU) :-)
>Anyway, maybe I am just warped, but I had lot's more fun with my manuals
>that ever with my F90's. One thing I learned from the manual cameras is
>not to get too hung up about brands or to worship your camera too much
Definitely not, its only a tool and if it breaks a new/used one costs
$500.
>(unless it's a gold plated Hassi!)
My dad sold his Hassy system about 4 years ago to go to a P&S camera..
Boy I wish I had been a cameraholic back then :-(
>Good for you, and that is all that counts, all I am saying is that there
>may be more fun to be had, that you haven't discovered yet, especially
>if you are a tinkerer.
and now I'm interested in discovering new things.. when I started out
I was interested in picture taking...
As an aside, my latest cool thing is using my Dads old Metz flash as a
slave unit when my 380ez fires (no wires and it works great). I call
it the paaaatinnnng, paaaatowwwww .. (not an advanced lighting
technique but cool nonetheless).
>You are a self confesed 'computer geek', do you use everything 'out of
>the box' or do you like to set up your own PC or workstation, maybe even
>write your own programs, GUI's or batch files. If you do, then you know
>how I feel about manual cameras. It's like running Linux vs running
>Windos98.
>
>> Merry Christmas all.
>>
>> Mike
>
>Merry Christmas
>--
>Chris Buechner
>WILDfire [ photography ]
>Sydney, Australia
>wild...@tpgi.com.au
>
>A mad, keen photographer needs to get out into the world and work and
>make mistakes. -Sam Abell
Agreed....
Stéphane Leman-Langlois
>the lens; on the 500(Rebel) you push a button and rotate wheel on the
>top of the camera again nowhere near the lens - so the action is less
>related to the actual physical fact, in both cases some invisible
>electrical signal may or may not be causing something to happen.
>I'm used to electrical control systems that operate physical things, but
>my partner is not. On the other hand, she is absolutely connected to the
>relationship of techniques and materials to aesthetic results in art.
I can see your point, but do this: take the 1n, look into the lens, hit DOF
preview and turn the dial: you will see the diaphragm open and close. It's
not "mechanical" (well, it must be at some point) but it still visibly
works -- it's easy to understand the relation to that iris and the amount of
light coming in. And if it isn't, a mechanical body won't help either. Other
example, the shutter speed wasn't visible on a mech body either; but you
can -- and still can -- hear the difference at lower speeds -- you can tell
the curtains are held open longer. And basically, that's all the camera
does, in a variety of ways that you don't really need to understand all at
once.
Stéphane Leman-Langlois
>person the best way to learn photography was to use a manual camera...
>but as JED put it '... having a manual camera does not force you to go
>take an interest in photography.'
It might actually make you loose all interest.
Terry Dawson
the camera is only a tool. Some people seem to think that the camera makes
the photographer. I submit that the photographer, not the camera, *makes*
the picture.
If we can accept that assertion, we must say that more consistently good
shots are made by the photographer who fully understands his/her tools --
whatever they may be. Many people who don't have the fundamentals have
trouble understanding the real purpose of exposure value (EV) adjustments on
an automatic camera, for example. They think the + and - settings are to
"lighten and darken the picture." I tried to explain this in one of my
articles (on site below). In order to really explain, I had to get down to
the fundamentals of exposure values. To be truly effective with these
adjustments, you need to understand what they do, how they do it and why.
Soooo... Is a car with automatic transmission easier to drive than a car
with manual shift? Yes. Is a power saw easier to use than a hand saw?
Yes. Do they automatically make one a better driver or carpenter? No.
--
[>@\/\/$<>|\|
Discover One Zen Zeros
http://www.infinet.com/~tdawson/index.html
Boon-Li Ong wrote in message <367F55F5...@clear.net.nz>...
>I have to differ on your opinion. From what i've been reading in this
>newsgroups, AF SLR does not seem to help newbies learn photography; in
>fact they post the most questions, especially when things go wrong (not
>that there's anything wrong in posting such questions or any lack of
>interest to assist newbies). and i think the problem is that the
>automation of the camera takes away the thinking from the user. and when
>things go wrong, they don't know what happened. the use of a manual SLR
>(i.e. manual exposure, centre-weighted average metering, manual flash
>exposure) helps the user a lot more in learning photography. when things
>go wrong, it's easier to understand what happened because the user is
>always in full control of camera. if there are any professional
>photographers out there who started out on a fully automatic SLR, then i
>apologise for my bold statement.
>
>bl
>
>Baby wrote:
>>
>> Stick with N70 if u want to really learn photography..!!
>> About lens, it depends how far u think u will go... If u think u are
going
>> to take pics for your family, friends, travel, may be some portrait...etc
>> The Tarmon 28-200mm will do a good job for u..!!! And the size and money
of
>> this lens is a big plus too...!!!
>> But if u think u will become a serious photography, how serious....?
like u
>> will want to go to a trip to take photo by yourself or with your
photography
>> friends, with bags and bags of equipment and heavy tripod, enjoy visiting
>> gallery, like to see other people's work,
>> make NOTES while u are reading photography magazine or books...
>> spend most of your money in films other than snobby accessories...
>> If this is what u want or dream about...
>> Than forget about 28-200, the longer end of this kind of lens usually
gives
>> bad image (about 130-200mm)...u will be disappointed and regard later,
>> also the resell value of third party lens are lower...
>> Get some good prime lens is money is not a big factor....
>> like 85 f1.8, 24 f2.8 and 50 f1.8.....
>> The 24-120 are pretty good too...
>>
>> Barry P. Evans wrote in message
<367f0978...@news2.coastalnet.com>...
>> > I've been following this newsgroup for about three weeks now
>> >as I've decided to buy an SLR. While originally planning on
>> >purchasing the new Nikon N60 I read what people had posted about the
>> >N60 & posted a few of my own questions most of which were very
>> >intelligently answered. With all the info I picked up i decided to
>> >get the N70, so this weekend I went to Raleigh with cash in hand to
>> >buy a new Nikon N70 with a 28-80 lens. In Cary a certain camera shop
>> >tried to sell me that N70 but not with the 28-80 lens I had looked at
>> >only one week earlier with the same sales associate but with another
>> >28-80 Macro lens that was another $75. After explaining to him that I
>> >wasn't interested in the Macro/all-in-wonder lens he slapped the
>> >"Hottest, sharpest lens out there" on that N70, a $300 Sigma 28-200mm
>> >lens and then he told me that it was an absolutely great lens and he
>> >used it himself for his own work. After that I left that store and
>> >went to another camera store ( of the same chain ) in the Crabtree
>> >mall, when I asked about lenses the sales associate popped up with the
>> >"great" 28-200mm Tamaron lens. What is it with these lenses? Can the
>> >profit margins be that high on them or are they just THAT popular?
>> >I've read all the warnings (borderline flames) that say how shitty
>> >these mega-zoom, all-in-wonder cameras are and I just can't believe
>> >that these lenses could still be as popular as they are. Nearly
>> >everyone in this group has said "Get a good 50mm prime", yet i've not
>> >even seen one on a shelf new.
>> > I've decided to go with a REPUTABLE mail order house now to
>> >purchase my N70. I most likely will use B&H Photo. Does anyone else
>> >have an alternative recommendation? Will B&H put a kit together for
>> >me with a lens other than the cheap, plastic 35-80 Nikkor?
>> >
Asher Langton
> my submission is that
> automatic SLR does not create the same interest in photography as a
> manual SLR. further, it's a lot easier to learn on a manual SLR because
> it gets the user down to the basics. a person who owns the latest
> automatic SLR would invariably switch the camera either to green mode or
> to P mode.
Well, IMHO, you're dead wrong. I started with a Rebel (which may not have
been a good choice, but not for the reasons you suggest) and have used it
almost exclusively in M and AV modes. I still have a lot to learn, but
from reading instruction books and working with the Rebel, I think I have
a decent understanding of the basic principles of photography. I'm now
working with the Rebel, a Minolta X-700, and an ancient Voigtlander Bessa
II medium-format rangefinder. Even the Voigtlander is relatively easy for
me to operate, becasue I learned the basic techniques on
the Rebel. So, no, a person who owns the latest automatic SLR will not
*invariably* switch the camera to the "green mode." Some may; I didn't.
People who want to learn the art of photography will probably do so no
matter what camera they use (as long as it has all the necessary
functions), while a person who isn't interested in photography probably
won't learn much no matter what camera they use.
-asher-
--
Asher Langton
jala...@ucdavis.edu/as...@cts.com
DoD #2017
Boon-Li Ong
makes the picture. but the point of the original posting is: should a
newbie start on a manual SLR or automatic SLR? my submission is that
automatic SLR does not create the same interest in photography as a
manual SLR. further, it's a lot easier to learn on a manual SLR because
it gets the user down to the basics. a person who owns the latest
automatic SLR would invariably switch the camera either to green mode or
"Portrait Mode" when in fact it can be done in Av with greater control.
the greater the degree of automation (i'm referring to
picture/programmed image control modes, not Av, Tv or M metering modes),
the less control the photographer has over the camera. automation does
not always give us what we intend.
bl
Richard Saylor
you want to get a picture in a hurry, like in action photos.
Richard
Allurephto
they are not giving you anything more for the money, just a larger sales slip.
Conrad
Chris Ward
Allurephto wrote in message <19981228155113...@ng141.aol.com>...
I AAA has no storefront, and I think it is associated with Cambridge.
Scott & Liz (Mostly Liz)
easy camera to use. So I lent her a Nikon EM, one of the easiest cameras
in the world to use (and my very first). I explained how everything fit
together (50mm prime), how to use a simple flash (also included), a quick
primer on aperture/shutter speed - just enough so she would understand why
it's important to have the little needle line up with the notch, and even
had her load and unload film a couple times to make sure she could do it
without me.
She finished the roll of film that was loaded when she left, and never
used it again. I asked her why not, and she said it was too much work to
think about all the different things to do, and that she wanted an EASY
camera to use. So I got her a disposable and took my equipment back. Her
pictures weren't noticably different.
Some folks just don't care enough about it to learn how the stuff works.
They want good easy fast cheap pictures.
Chris Ward
Scott & Liz (Mostly Liz) wrote in message <36880388...@sprynet.com>...
>My sister claimed she wanted to take better pictures, and she wanted an
>Some folks just don't care enough about it to learn how the stuff works.
>They want good easy fast cheap pictures.
>
I bought my mother a Konica FP-1 in the early eighties (81?), and she still
loves it. It had the same lenses as I was using, and originally it had just
the 40 f1.8. She also loaded it most of the time with the fast film (Fuji
1600, shot at 800 - that is as high as the camera went). No settings other
than the film speed. And that is how she has done most of her pictures -
except the occaisional bird with the 135 f3.5 that I got her. Still used.
Spam not required
>
>My sister claimed she wanted to take better pictures, and she wanted an
>in the world to use (and my very first). I explained how everything fit
>together (50mm prime), how to use a simple flash (also included), a quick
>primer on aperture/shutter speed - just enough so she would understand why
>it's important to have the little needle line up with the notch, and even
>had her load and unload film a couple times to make sure she could do it
>without me.
>
>She finished the roll of film that was loaded when she left, and never
>used it again. I asked her why not, and she said it was too much work to
>think about all the different things to do, and that she wanted an EASY
>camera to use. So I got her a disposable and took my equipment back. Her
>pictures weren't noticably different.
>
>They want good easy fast cheap pictures.
Unfortunately she's not the only one. Everyone nowdays wants
to just turn their brain off, look through the viewfinder,
push the button, and have their pictures in 1 hour. Now APS
and disposeable cameras are the thing because people can't
figure out how to thread a roll of film.
Charl van Schoor
...and that's a damn shame...
Msherck
>think about all the different things to do, and that she wanted an EASY
>camera to use.
A number of years ago, when my kids were younger, I bought each of them an
inexpensive point 'n shoot so they'd have something to take pictures with (and
stop bothering me!) They weren't photo freaks, just getting to the age where
they wanted to take pictures of friends and pets and things.
After a year I noticed something interesting: whenever they went to a party or
to a friend's where they wanted to take a photo, they borrowed one of my
cameras. They weren't interested in the point 'n shoots any more.
Now they're teens and I doubt we can even find one of the three cameras I
bought them years ago. My 21 year old has her own 35mm, all manual (a Minolta
XG-1, to be precise.) The 17 year old borrows my ancient SRT-102 whenever she
wants to take a photo, and #1 son (15) grabs my Maxxum 7000. The last time he
took it to school he grabbed the camera, flipped it upside down and turned the
autofocus off before stuffing it into his backpack.
Everybody's a little different, I guess. :)
Mike
Asher Langton
Why is that a shame? Who cares if the majority of people don't want
anything more than snapshots? I certainly don't. If someone just
wants to use a camera to record personal events with no great regard
to picture quality, composition, etc., more power to them. Just
because some of us happen to enjoy photography is no reason that
everyone else should have to follow suit. Whether people want to use
disposables or APS units or full manuals or some nifty AF/AE or
medium-formats or view cameras, whether they want to use Nikon, Canon,
or Leica, whether they develop their own high quality film or send off
cheap consumer film to a one-hour lab: IT DOESN'T MATTER! Just get
your favorite camera, go out and shoot whatever you want, however you
want to, and quit bitching about everybody else.
-asher-
--
Asher Langton
as...@cts.com/jala...@ucdavis.edu
DoD #2017
Adrian Legg
> I would suggest Tri-State Camera, Worldwide or AAA, B&H Is way to
> expensive and they are not giving you anything more for the money, just a
> larger sales slip.
>
> Conrad
Well, that's certainly misleading newbies alright.
len...@my-dejanews.com
Bill.C...@thewhitehouse.com (Spam not required) wrote:
Everyone seems to want to do things just a little bit different from your way.
That, of course, means they are stupid, and you are the only genius. It's
lonely at the top, I hear.
Some folks don't want to figure out how to load a camera, others don't care
about spelling, because it's politically correct to look the other way past
the intellectual laziness of newsgroup carelessness.
What a lot of tripe. Photographs are the point for some people, fondling
cameras is the point for others, and so on. The nonsense about who is right
and wrong in their preferences is silly us-vs.-them posturing.
Len Cook
> >Some folks just don't care enough about it to learn how the stuff works.
> >They want good easy fast cheap pictures.
>
> Unfortunately she's not the only one. Everyone nowdays wants
> to just turn their brain off, look through the viewfinder,
> push the button, and have their pictures in 1 hour. Now APS
> and disposeable cameras are the thing because people can't
> figure out how to thread a roll of film.
>
>
Spam not required
jumped on my statements as being critical of everyone who does
point and shoot. The statement had more to do with people who ask
for help and don't understand why they can't learn to take
professional level pictures with minimal effort.
In article <76br1q$j46$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, len...@my-dejanews.com says...
Jimi Greydog (Morgan) katmanjim@hotmail.com
The reason that some of the pro's hate the new cams especially in
the journalistic field is that SOME of them by gosh, are doing
damn fine work and at a very much lower price than the gear the
pro's use.. and many of the buyers do not care what made the image
if the image is okay for their publication..
So the guys hate this.. and it is already impossible to turn
around without hitting the ass of a competing photog anywhere you
go so they are worried ...
But these cams do good work by accident.. some of them, some of
the time...
And they do not even have the lens quality of their semi-automatic
fore-bears..
And to day.. many pubs will be using digital... so we are looking
at long time guys with big buck getting obsolete overnight and
also inducing competition from the masses...
I do NOT like APS... I still shoot 16mm 110 cameras and use 35
exclusively for anything real... but you cannot deny success and
they are very cute little machines and I know as soon as I can
afford one I will never let it go.. but damn! I wish kodak would
quit DOING this to us!
Jimi
Charl van Schoor wrote:
> ...and that's a damn shame...
>
eric
>
> In article <36816C04...@genasys.com.au>, Chris Buechner
> <chr...@genasys.com.au> writes:
>
> I'm sure the analogy is not perfect, but although I don't think you can really
> drive a car unless you can drive one with a clutch, I would not recommend
> learning to drive in a standard transmission auto. There are too many other
> things to worry about without also having to be concerned about whether the
> engine is going to die on you in the middle of the intersection with the US
> highway and a tractor-trailer bearing down on you.
While this is indeed an interesting analogy, the direct consequences of
photography
are somewhat less life-affecting than being struck by a tractor-trailer.
> Would it make sense for a beginner to start out with an automated camera,
> concentrating on learning composition and color and light, etc., and then when
> these are more or less learned start mastering exposure and focus? Does a
> fully manual camera, or a fully automatic one with too many modes to choose
> among, give a beginner too many things to think about at once?
>
> Gary Williams
I am actually a newbie-wannabe in photography, which means that I am
going to graduate from a simple 35mm point-and-shoot to a manual SLR. I
am excited about learning
proper techniques for exposure and depth-of-field, as well as artistic
impression.
I know that there will be times when my skills with a manual cameral are
not
sufficiently developed to take care of that "...oh man, gotta get that
shot NOW..."
sort of situation, and for this I will have my trusty 35mm point-and
shoot handy.
I believe (wrong or right) that improving in exposure and focus should
come before
color and composition. If your well-composed photograph is blurry and
dim, well...
The problem with having snazzy automatic controls is the temptation to
use them
before properly learning and understanding the corresponding manual
activity.
Being forced to learn is the way to really learn.
Thanks for reading my two cents worth :)
Eric
Jason
Evans) wrote:
Wow!! A hot debate on AF and MF cameras!
I am also a newbie and I have one question for the rest of you.
What do you mean by learning how to photograph?
It seems like some people are saying that going with AF and an
automatic SLR makes it harder to learn.
If learning to photograph means how to use cameras and lens in special
ways and how to respond under special conditions, I agree.
But good photographs include not only those technical aspects but also
aspects of art.
I've seen many excellent photographs which was taken with P&S cameras.
So... I think both of you have a point!
Kenny Nilsen
>What do you mean by learning how to photograph?
>If learning to photograph means how to use cameras and lens in special
>ways and how to respond under special conditions, I agree.
Hello Jason,
learning how to photograph is much more than learning how to use a camera
and a lens. The camera and lens is just a tool in it all to help you
manifest the image _you_ see to film. Knowing how to use them doesn't
automatically make one a good photograph.
Photographing is much talent and skill, pluss an intuition - combining this
with knowledge about composition, colors and practise etc. will IMHO make
one a good photographer.
And also, a professional photographer (getting payed) can make pictures like
an "amateur", and an amateur (not getting payed) can take pictures like a
pro. Money isn't a part of the "definition".
Thomas Hardy
>On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:16:31 GMT, bpe...@eos.ncsu.edu (Barry P.
>Evans) wrote:
>
>Wow!! A hot debate on AF and MF cameras!
>
>I am also a newbie and I have one question for the rest of you.
>
>
>automatic SLR makes it harder to learn.
>
>ways and how to respond under special conditions, I agree.
>
>aspects of art.
Be careful what you call art. Many "real artisits" , museums and galleries
STILL consider photography a recording medium only.
Thomas
Thomas Hardy
>Jason wrote:
>
>>What do you mean by learning how to photograph?
>>ways and how to respond under special conditions, I agree.
>
>
>learning how to photograph is much more than learning how to use a camera
>and a lens. The camera and lens is just a tool in it all to help you
>manifest the image _you_ see to film. Knowing how to use them doesn't
>automatically make one a good photograph.
>
>Photographing is much talent and skill, pluss an intuition - combining this
>with knowledge about composition, colors and practise etc. will IMHO make
>one a good photographer.
I think a lot of the skill is learned. Many photograhers go to school, just
like a physician goes to medical school. Intuition comes from having a
large knowledge base and experience.
>And also, a professional photographer (getting payed) can make pictures like
>an "amateur", and an amateur (not getting payed) can take pictures like a
>pro. Money isn't a part of the "definition".
>
I for one would not pay someone my hard earned money for taking amaturish
pictures, would you? I'll bet that person would not be a "pro" (one who gets
paid) for very long.
THardy
Jim Williams
>pictures, would you? I'll bet that person would not be a "pro" (one who
gets
>paid) for very long.
Haven't been to any photography shows at major contemporary art galleries
lately, have you?
For example, check the work of William Eggleston. It looks almost identical
to what I could find rummaging around the bin outside the local photo lab,
and yet he's just been awarded the Erna and Victor Hasselblad Foundation
International Photography Prize.
Kenny Nilsen
>>with knowledge about composition, colors and practise etc. will IMHO make
>>one a good photographer.
>I think a lot of the skill is learned. Many photograhers go to school,
>just like a physician goes to medical school.
I agree. You also don't have to reinvent the wheel and you avoids many
pitfalls.
>Intuition comes from having a large knowledge base and experience.
I don't agree entirly. Intuition can be enhanced within a level, but the
level of intuition is something one is borned with IMHO. Though, I mixed up
photographing and good photographers. Of course, intuition doesn't have to
be present to take pictures. One can go by the book and do what thousands of
others has done before you - if that's what you want, but if you want to go
new ways and make something innovative, you would need a creative mind and a
good intuition (or pure luck.. <g>) (I assume the reader to be intelligent
to add other stuff needed as well..).
>>an "amateur", and an amateur (not getting payed) can take pictures like a
>>pro. Money isn't a part of the "definition".
>I for one would not pay someone my hard earned money for taking amaturish
>pictures, would you? I'll bet that person would not be a "pro" (one who
>gets paid) for very long.
Of course. My point was that you good be a pretty good photographer, but
what you choose to do with it, becoming an amateur or going professional, is
a choice.
Jason
wrote:
>Be careful what you call art. Many "real artisits" , museums and galleries
>STILL consider photography a recording medium only.
>
>
>Thomas
Well... This is a same line of question as "Is photography a science
or an art?"
What do you think?
Jay.
j.delgrosso
It's both. Any kook with a bunch of money can buy a nice camera and learn how
to use it, but the truly talented can churn out nicely compositioned pictures
with a disposable camera.
-j
--
bored at work. I'm not drunk, insane, or intentionally offensive.
Web Design .. Other Cool Stuff
http://www.frontiernet.net/~jn
phil taylor
>
> In article <839.670T7...@bgnett.no>, "Kenny Nilsen" <ke...@bgnett.no> wrote:
> >Jason wrote:
> >
> >>What do you mean by learning how to photograph?
> >>If learning to photograph means how to use cameras and lens in special
> >>ways and how to respond under special conditions, I agree.
I am going to disagree to a point with the following statement that was
posted earlier:
>
> I think a lot of the skill is learned. Many photograhers go to school, just
> like a physician goes to medical school. Intuition comes from having a
> large knowledge base and experience.
> I think you can teach technique, but I do not think you can teach vision,
and that intangible something that makes one photograph great and another
one suck. I have judged photographic contests, helped contestants edit
their slides, and won several contests. I have also sold my scenic and
nature photographs as framed art. I have tried to teach others how to
take photographs, but you really cannot teach much more than technique
and a few compositional rules, like merger, the rule of 3rds, having the
subject look into and not out of a frame, simplicity and the like. The
vision cannot be taught. I think most photographers are painters who
realized they cannot draw a straight line. Their medium is photography.
All of the really good photographers know in advance what they are
looking for in the shot. They know in advance the elements they want,
how the light needs to be, and what they are trying to communicate. Then
they look for the place and the subject to convey it. You just can't get
that shot by knowing what an f'stop is, what film speed is, how to hold
the camera. You need to know all those things, true, but you also need
to have a vision in your head that you want to record on film and convey
to the world. It is the desire to convey that vision that pushes the
photographer to learn good technique and get good equipment. It doesn't
really work the other way around.
har...@bellsouth.net
"Jim Williams" <j...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >I for one would not pay someone my hard earned money for taking amaturish
> >pictures, would you? I'll bet that person would not be a "pro" (one who
> gets
> >paid) for very long.
>
> lately, have you?
>
> For example, check the work of William Eggleston. It looks almost identical
> to what I could find rummaging around the bin outside the local photo lab,
> and yet he's just been awarded the Erna and Victor Hasselblad Foundation
> International Photography Prize.
>
I see your point.
Thomas
Robert Ribnitz
Evans) wrote:
> I've been following this newsgroup for about three weeks now
>as I've decided to buy an SLR. While originally planning on
>purchasing the new Nikon N60 I read what people had posted about the
>N60 & posted a few of my own questions most of which were very
>intelligently answered. With all the info I picked up i decided to
>get the N70, so this weekend I went to Raleigh with cash in hand to
>buy a new Nikon N70 with a 28-80 lens.(..) After that I left that store and
>went to another camera store ( of the same chain ) in the Crabtree
>mall, when I asked about lenses the sales associate popped up with the
>"great" 28-200mm Tamaron lens. What is it with these lenses? Can the
>profit margins be that high on them or are they just THAT popular?
>I've read all the warnings (borderline flames) that say how shitty
>these mega-zoom, all-in-wonder cameras are and I just can't believe
>that these lenses could still be as popular as they are. Nearly
>everyone in this group has said "Get a good 50mm prime", yet i've not
>even seen one on a shelf new.
> I've decided to go with a REPUTABLE mail order house now to
>purchase my N70. I most likely will use B&H Photo. Does anyone else
>have an alternative recommendation? Will B&H put a kit together for
>me with a lens other than the cheap, plastic 35-80 Nikkor?
>
>please respond to:
> mailto:bpe...@eos.ncsu.edu
>
>Thanks,
>bp
>
>
> //////////////////////////
> // Barry P. Evans //
> // bpe...@eos.ncsu.edu //
>//////////////////////////
If you tell them, you want the N70, with *exactly* this lens (eg.
35-70/3.3-4.5 AF), they'll get you exactly that. (they might talk you
into something else, but its on you to resist phonemarketing)
manica...@yahoo.com
hear, hear. asher is damn right. besides, if you think about it,
without all that money the camera companies are getting from the set
and forget brigade, our hobby/passion/profession would be much more
expensive, and the innovation that we are experiencing now would not
exist.
>On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 14:57:36 +0200, "Charl van Schoor"
><charl.v...@sanlam.co.za> wrote:
>>...and that's a damn shame...
>>
>>>Unfortunately she's not the only one. Everyone nowdays wants
>>>to just turn their brain off, look through the viewfinder,
>>>push the button, and have their pictures in 1 hour. Now APS
>>>and disposeable cameras are the thing because people can't
>>>figure out how to thread a roll of film.
>
Eugene A. Pallat
<76lsi4$1glg$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
> In article <368e6aa1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> =?EUC-KR?Q?Jason?= <we...@iname.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 02 Jan 1999 05:52:40 GMT, har...@bellsouth.net (Thomas Hardy)
> >wrote:
> It's both. Any kook with a bunch of money can buy a nice camera and
learn how
> to use it, but the truly talented can churn out nicely compositioned
pictures
> with a disposable camera.
Case in point. At a party, the host asked if I would look at his Polaroid
camera because he couldn't get any good pictures with it. It's part of the
crabgrass that goes with being known as a photographer! ;-)
I took one test shot, adjusted the exposure, and shot another half dozen
pictures. He looked at the results and said "These are great! What did
you do?" He thought I was joking when I said "Nothing." Of course using
good composition, taking photographs since I was in grade school and being
my worst critic helped.
That's why I laugh when I hear a debate about which brand of camera / lens
will enable someone to take better pictures. If you don't know how, more
expensive equipement won't help.
An intensive course in photography would. An apprenticeship would enable
you to learn even more. Sadly, too many don't want to spend the effort.
Remove the '-glop-' for sending email to me.
Gene eapa...@orion-glop-data.com
Orion Data Systems
Solicitations to me must be pre-approved in writing
by me after soliciitor pays $1,000 US per incident.
Solicitations sent to me are proof you accept this
notice and will send a certified check forthwith.
Mac Breck
focus manual exposure camera and learn the Zone System. After, you have
mastered the technical aspects of making correct exposures under all
conditions, *then* you can concentrate on the art part of it. It's like
algebra. You had to learn it in jr.high school, and when learning it, you
didn't think you'd ever use this stuff. Then when you get into calculus,
it's one of the tools in your toolbox. Zone System is like that. It's a
tool in your toolbox. After you learn it, it's always with you.
Mac
Jason wrote in message <368d133d...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:16:31 GMT, bpe...@eos.ncsu.edu (Barry P.
Evans) wrote:
Wow!! A hot debate on AF and MF cameras!
I am also a newbie and I have one question for the rest of you.
What do you mean by learning how to photograph?
It seems like some people are saying that going with AF and an
automatic SLR makes it harder to learn.
If learning to photograph means how to use cameras and lens in special
ways and how to respond under special conditions, I agree.
But good photographs include not only those technical aspects but also
aspects of art.
I've seen many excellent photographs which was taken with P&S cameras.
So... I think both of you have a point!
>
>
Mac Breck
doing weddings. Word of mouth gets around.
Mac
Thomas Hardy wrote in message <_Dij2.921$Vk.13...@news1.atl>...
>In article <839.670T7...@bgnett.no>, "Kenny Nilsen"
<ke...@bgnett.no> wrote:
>>Jason wrote:
>I for one would not pay someone my hard earned money for taking amaturish
>pictures, would you? I'll bet that person would not be a "pro" (one who
gets
>paid) for very long.
>
>THardy
Mac Breck
real crap.
Mac
Jim Williams wrote in message ...
>>I for one would not pay someone my hard earned money for taking amaturish
>>pictures, would you? I'll bet that person would not be a "pro" (one who
>gets
>>paid) for very long.
>
Mac Breck
Eugene A. Pallat wrote in message <01be391b$781ba350$c6a036cf@alpha>...
>An intensive course in photography would. An apprenticeship would enable
>you to learn even more. Sadly, too many don't want to spend the effort.
They don't even want to figure the proper exposure or even focus for
themselves. Apprenticeship? I can hear the cries of anguish right now.
I'd be happy if they'd just start with Zone System (Ansel's books). The
technical part has to be second nature (like riding a bike) so as not to get
in the way of the creative aspects. All people want to do today is push a
stupid button and have a chip do all the thinking for them.
Mac
Mac Breck
>Agreed, SOME is, and some is not. I wish that photo contests would spell
out up front what they
>want. If they want "An aristic impression of the phoyoghapher's
interpretation of the subject
>matter" (Read Artsy-Fartsy CRAP) or good tasteful pictures which show some
skill and an
>appreciation of natural beauty.
Check out a book called "Photography and The Art of Seeing". I think that's
the title, but I couldn't put my finger on mine at the moment.
Mac
Don Baccus
Mac Breck <macb...@timesnet.net> wrote:
>The best way to learn photography (in my opinion) is to start with a manual
>focus manual exposure camera and learn the Zone System. After, you have
>mastered the technical aspects of making correct exposures under all
>conditions
The Zone System isn't about "making correct exposures", it's about
making exposures correct in the context of a system of negative
development that is based on single-exposure developement (i.e.
sheet film).
How do you vary the development times of 36 individual exposures
on a roll?
("it's easy if they're all the same" - OK, I'll give you that)
>*then* you can concentrate on the art part of it. It's like
>algebra. You had to learn it in jr.high school, and when learning it, you
>didn't think you'd ever use this stuff.
And afterwards, many forget important parts, for instances that
development is given equal weight with exposure in the Zone System,
which apparently you've forgotten...
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
Kent K
myself but: 1. I do not have the time and 2. Having bought my 1st SLR only 3 years ago, I am
not qualified.
Newbies: Questions like this are not dumb questions. The problem is, you have asked a question
that places you squarely in the middle of one of the bigger arguments on this NG. On one hand,
you have the purists who want auto-nothing and can support their arguments quite well and on the
other, you have people who like atuomatic cameras and argue quite convincingly for them as
beginner cameras.
Which one is best? THE ONE YOU OWN, because it is paid for and sure beats taking pictures with a
Kodak Brownie.
In article <sRSl2.316$KK5....@news15.ispnews.com>, macb...@timesnet.net says...
>
>The best way to learn photography (in my opinion) is to start with a manual
>focus manual exposure camera and learn the Zone System. After, you have
>mastered the technical aspects of making correct exposures under all
>conditions, *then* you can concentrate on the art part of it. It's like
>algebra. You had to learn it in jr.high school, and when learning it, you
Kent K
want. If they want "An aristic impression of the phoyoghapher's interpretation of the subject
matter" (Read Artsy-Fartsy CRAP) or good tasteful pictures which show some skill and an
like a Picasso or Dahli work, use paint. Cameras are for capturing the most realistic
representation of a person/place/subject etc as possible.
In article <uRSl2.318$KK5....@news15.ispnews.com>, macb...@timesnet.net says...
Francis Lee
>Newbies: Questions like this are not dumb questions. The problem is, you have asked a question
>that places you squarely in the middle of one of the bigger arguments on this NG. On one hand,
>you have the purists who want auto-nothing and can support their arguments quite well and on the
>other, you have people who like atuomatic cameras and argue quite convincingly for them as
>beginner cameras.
You can tell a photograph for what it is but you can have no idea what
equipment is been used, like "actually I am not the one who took it".
Only me...
Kent K wrote in message ...
>like a Picasso or Dahli work, use paint. Cameras are for capturing the
most realistic
>representation of a person/place/subject etc as possible.
Is that all? They can be used for nothing more? Wow, you're work must
be a bit dull if you're so closed minded about such things. What you're
talking about is merely recording a scene. My Grandmother can do that, big
deal. It's creativity, and personal interpretation that make the difference
between a good photographer and a great one.
David.
Boon-Li Ong
be the official photographer for special occasions (always works). too
much expectation and when things go wrong, word of mouth gets around
too. so far, things have not gone wrong, thankfully. but i still try to
discourage. i'd rather be the informal photographer as i feel more
comfortable that way, and capture better moments that way as well. it's
nice having a 100-300mm zoom lens and catch people by surprise. :o)
bl
Kent K
rcording of an actual subject. I do not deny that some very interesting things can be done with
the objects/people/places around us, and yes, these are part of the photographer's art. However,
I will say that photographs which look like something done by Worhol are not art, because I do
not condider Andy Warhol's stuff to be artistic. Heck, my cat PUKES stuff that looks better than
some of the modern impressionistic and post-impressionistic dreck you find in the "art" world.
All this leads to my lamentataion that many respectable photography magazines and contests are
embracing and even publishing images such as a technicolored cow standing in a lake (seen it)
that can ONLY exist because some poor misguided "photographer" booted up his computer one day and
got bored.
I do not deny these folks their professional or hobby field, I just don't think it's photography.
As for personal interpretation, I also agree. However, when your personal interpretation of a
rose garden is mistaken for another subject by the people who view the image, then I think
something, somewhere has gone horribly horribly wrong.
Finally, not being a big student of photographic history, how many GREAT photographers have we
had the good fortune to produce? By great, I mean people who's talent etc. made them known
beyond the photo profession or hobby. I can think of only 4. And what kind of photos did they
take?
In article <779pbe$dl2$4...@newnews.global.net.uk>, dg...@globalnet.co.uk says...
Henry C. Gernhardt, III
>>focus manual exposure camera and learn the Zone System.
>
>making exposures correct in the context of a system of negative
>development that is based on single-exposure developement (i.e.
>sheet film).
For one, I've never been taught the ``zone system'', although I was trained in
photography in my early years (6-8 years old) on a camera which had manual
focus, manual aperture, manual shutter speed, et cetera (original Nikonos).
Recently, I've become interested in classic cameras, however I do not own a
light meter, so guess what? I'm having to ``guess'' my exposure and focal
distance.
As long as I'm shooting outdoors, the following works pretty well:
Set the shutter speed to the ASA rating of the film (200 ASA == 1/200 sec),
and:
Bright sun, harsh shadows---f/16
Overcast, fuzzy shadows---f/11
Overcast, no shadows---f/8
in shadow---f/5.6
Now given, this only works for oudoor, full daylight (dusk/dawn you have to
start guessing), but it works pretty well. I also use my depth of field
indicator to set for max depth of field, adjusting only on wide apertures with
close subjects.
Personally, I think if your budding photographer is a child between the ages of
5 and 8, hand them a camera with manual everything. Most kids I know love
knobs, dials, and buttons, and love to learn how to work them.
Henry C. Gernhardt, III
mailto:hcger...@hotmail.com
har...@bellsouth.net
> >pictures, would you? I'll bet that person would not be a "pro" (one who
> gets
> >paid) for very long.
>
> Haven't been to any photography shows at major contemporary art galleries
> lately, have you?
>
> For example, check the work of William Eggleston. It looks almost identical
> to what I could find rummaging around the bin outside the local photo lab,
> and yet he's just been awarded the Erna and Victor Hasselblad Foundation
> International Photography Prize.
While browsing through the Sunday paper, I see that William Eggleston's
photos are being shown at a gallery in Nashville. I guess I have to see it.
BTW there is one expample in the paper. Not bad, if you like photos of
dolls on the hood of a Cadillac. I prefer Lincolns myself.
Thomas Hardy
har...@bellsouth.net
I think I saw an article in Lenswork quartery or some other mag about this
very topic, "being the designated photog because you own a camera". This
problem seems to be universal. Hey, how about asking to be paid for doing
the photography for these functions?
Thomas
har...@bellsouth.net
dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
> In article <sRSl2.316$KK5....@news15.ispnews.com>,
> Mac Breck <macb...@timesnet.net> wrote:
>
> >mastered the technical aspects of making correct exposures under all
> >conditions
>
> making exposures correct in the context of a system of negative
> development that is based on single-exposure developement (i.e.
> sheet film).
>
> on a roll?
>
> ("it's easy if they're all the same" - OK, I'll give you that)
>
> >algebra. You had to learn it in jr.high school, and when learning it, you
> >didn't think you'd ever use this stuff.
>
> development is given equal weight with exposure in the Zone System,
> which apparently you've forgotten...
>
> --
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
I now remember reading a book on photography which discussed the zone system.
Yes, develoment was important. And the system was indeed described using
sheet film. Isn't there a Hasselblad which was developed to exploit the Zone
system? What's that all about? The Hassey is a roll film camera. Must be
marketing guys pulling our leg.
Mac Breck
Don Baccus wrote in message <36982...@news.pacifier.com>...
>In article <sRSl2.316$KK5....@news15.ispnews.com>,
>Mac Breck <macb...@timesnet.net> wrote:
>
>>The best way to learn photography (in my opinion) is to start with a
manual
>>focus manual exposure camera and learn the Zone System. After, you have
>>mastered the technical aspects of making correct exposures under all
>>conditions
>
>The Zone System isn't about "making correct exposures", it's about
>making exposures correct in the context of a system of negative
>development that is based on single-exposure developement (i.e.
>sheet film).
The Zone System *is* partly about making predictable correct exposures
(placing important parts of the scene in their appropriate zones, within the
latitude of the film, and having those parts of the subject appearing in the
print in their appropriate zones. There's nothing that says you can't apply
parts of Zone System to non-sheet film photography, or even color slide
photography.
>How do you vary the development times of 36 individual exposures
>on a roll?
I don't. Then again, I don't have to. When shooting color slides (say when
testing out a new body or lens, and not wanting the evidence to be obscured
by some automatic printer), I still consciously put important parts of the
subject in their appropriate zones. I don't just point an AE camera at a
scene, push a button, and hope for the best.
>("it's easy if they're all the same" - OK, I'll give you that)
>
>>*then* you can concentrate on the art part of it. It's like
>>algebra. You had to learn it in jr.high school, and when learning it, you
>>didn't think you'd ever use this stuff.
>
>And afterwards, many forget important parts, for instances that
>development is given equal weight with exposure in the Zone System,
>which apparently you've forgotten...
I haven't forgotten anything. It's your insistance that Zone System is an
all or nothing thing, that's off base here.
Meghan Noecker
>
>I think I saw an article in Lenswork quartery or some other mag about this
>very topic, "being the designated photog because you own a camera". This
>problem seems to be universal. Hey, how about asking to be paid for doing
>the photography for these functions?
I've been begged to do a wedding this march for my brother. I have
repeatedly told him no, I can't be the official photographer. I have
no clue about formals, no idea what normally gets taken, and I have no
lighting (ok, I might by then, but I'm practicing to be a PET
photographer, not a people photographer). If I could afford to hire a
pro, I would as my gift. And to top it off, he wants my sister as the
backup - she's the one with the fancy camera and doesn't even know how
to change the settings, let alone what the words aperature and f-stop
mean. Talk about some pressure. I'm trying to get my parents to help
my argument against me doing this. I haven't convinced him on my own
yet.
Meghan
Friesians in the Northwest
www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm
Chris Buechner
> I've been begged to do a wedding this march for my brother. I have
> repeatedly told him no, I can't be the official photographer. I have
> no clue about formals, no idea what normally gets taken, and I have no
> lighting (ok, I might by then, but I'm practicing to be a PET
> photographer, not a people photographer). If I could afford to hire a
> pro, I would as my gift. And to top it off, he wants my sister as the
> backup - she's the one with the fancy camera and doesn't even know how
> to change the settings, let alone what the words aperature and f-stop
> mean. Talk about some pressure. I'm trying to get my parents to help
> my argument against me doing this. I haven't convinced him on my own
> yet.
Yes, it is amazing how many people equate a fancy camera with being a
pro photographer. It just gets to show how uneducated the general public
is about photography, and also why people can't understand why GOOD
photography is expensive.
Anyway, if you are not confident, don't do it. Tell them to get a pro,
and you can do all the informal shots, and this way get some practice.
Maybe you can take a couple of shots of the couple, and totally
overexpose or something, then show them the images and ask them if this
looks OK. That might deter them a bit:-)
See ya
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Buechner
Boon-Li Ong
> In article <369868D1...@clear.net.nz>,
> esquir...@clear.net.nz wrote:
> > uuugh...tell me about it. i try to discourage friends from asking me to
> > be the official photographer for special occasions (always works). too
> > much expectation and when things go wrong, word of mouth gets around
> > too. so far, things have not gone wrong, thankfully. but i still try to
> > discourage. i'd rather be the informal photographer as i feel more
> > comfortable that way, and capture better moments that way as well. it's
> > nice having a 100-300mm zoom lens and catch people by surprise. :o)
> >
> > bl
[...]
> I think I saw an article in Lenswork quartery or some other mag about this
> very topic, "being the designated photog because you own a camera". This
> problem seems to be universal. Hey, how about asking to be paid for doing
> the photography for these functions?
well...yeah, i could do that but the thing is that i feel like i'm doing
it more as a favour rather than as a job, so i'm always not too keen on
asking for payment, though they were willing to pay. i don't mind
charging people i don't know but when it comes to friends....i'm
somewhat hesitant. i do get them to pay cost though (film, reprints).
bl
Boon-Li Ong
get married once in their life. and so, surely he does not want to
receive a bunch of photos that does not show the jubilation of marriage.
for such critical events, it's best to get things right the first time
than to regret it for the rest of his life (or perhaps until a second
marriage, which we hope will never happen). and since you neither have
any experience, nor, presumably, have the time to get up to scratch with
people and wedding photography, it is best that he got himself a proper
wedding photographer.
if he so insist that you do it, then i suppose you'll have to do your
best and hope for the best. if anything goes wrong, he can only blame
himself, though i think you might feel bad about the whole thing as
well.
i recently did a friend's wedding as the official candid photographer.
being the candid photographer, i did not feel any pressure and worked at
my own pace and level. the results were, on the whole, good.
surprisingly too.
perhaps what you could tell him to do is this: for the wedding reception
(assuming that it's a dinner), place one disposable camera on each table
and allow the guest to snap pictures. then at the end of the reception,
collect the disposable cameras. i think it's an interesting idea - you
get to see various different styles. it's just an idea.
bl
Meghan Noecker wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:09:39 GMT, har...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >
> >I think I saw an article in Lenswork quartery or some other mag about this
> >very topic, "being the designated photog because you own a camera". This
> >problem seems to be universal. Hey, how about asking to be paid for doing
> >the photography for these functions?
>
> I've been begged to do a wedding this march for my brother. I have
> repeatedly told him no, I can't be the official photographer. I have
> no clue about formals, no idea what normally gets taken, and I have no
> lighting (ok, I might by then, but I'm practicing to be a PET
> photographer, not a people photographer). If I could afford to hire a
> pro, I would as my gift. And to top it off, he wants my sister as the
> backup - she's the one with the fancy camera and doesn't even know how
> to change the settings, let alone what the words aperature and f-stop
> mean. Talk about some pressure. I'm trying to get my parents to help
> my argument against me doing this. I haven't convinced him on my own
> yet.
>
> Meghan
> Friesians in the Northwest
> www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My reply address above has been doctored to prevent SPAMming. Please
reply to esq...@clear.net.nz if you do not wish to receive an
undeliverable mail message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
slav...@yahoo.com
> Actually, I agree with your comments, but I point out that the nature of photography is the
> rcording of an actual subject.
From our "let's set photography back 75 years" department. All due respect,
but IMO your close-minded assessment of the "nature" of photography is held
only by photomicrologists and people who take pictures of there cars for the
Weekly Trader.
ALL photography is interpretive. Don't confuse intrepretation with
manipulation. I agree with your assesment of computer images and photo
contests, but you can have a heavily interpreted image that falls quite
nicely within the traditional realm of camera, lens, film, and light. It may
even be an accurate interpretation, but an interpretation none the less. In
photography, reality is created. The photographer chooses the level.
What area of photography is "real"? Photojournalism? Hardly. You can tell
countless stories of the same subject by choosing different interpretations.
Depending on the photos, people can be portrayed as either saints or sinners,
heroes or villans, innocent or guilty.
Want further proof? How about police mug-shots? In theory, these are purely
"accurate", existing only as a legal documentation of an individual. Yet we
all know the distintive "style" of this type of photo. It is unique, giving
the viewer a strong perception of the subject, usually negative. Certainly
an interpretation.
>I do not deny that some very interesting things can be done with
> the objects/people/places around us, and yes, these are part of the photographer's art.
I asssume you mean well here, but your use of the word "interesting" implies
an insulting and condesending attitude towards the many photographers who
choose to use the medium in a personally creative way. To me, "interesting"
is the least descriptive term to apply to the work of fellow shooters I
admire and respect. Words like INTENSITY, POWER, EMOTION, BEAUTY, and
FEELING come to mind...
> As for personal interpretation, I also agree. However, when your personal interpretation of a
> rose garden is mistaken for another subject by the people who view the image, then I think
> something, somewhere has gone horribly horribly wrong.
This is the ultimate in ignorance. You are certaily entitled to your
opinion, but to just dismiss the "abstact" and "ambiguous" aspects of
photography with a simple wave of your hand tells me you are missing out on
the tremendous vision of a great many photographers. Fortunately, you can
only place these "rules" and limitations on yourself, and not the rest of the
world.
> Finally, not being a big student of photographic history, how many GREAT photographers have we
> had the good fortune to produce? By great, I mean people who's talent etc. made them known
> beyond the photo profession or hobby. I can think of only 4.
And here lies the problem. Maybe you should expand your world. There are
many. You can find out about them if you want to. Don't get me wrong, there
is nothing terrible about making your photography a personal journey without
the knowledge of all those that came before you. There is a comfort that
often comes from confining yourself this way, and you can certainly
accomplish a great deal...
And what kind of photos did they
> take?
>
How far back do you want to go? I'm not one to name names, but let's
see...Mathew Brady. A unique style. Nadar? Same. Man Ray? Amazingly
interpretive. Stieglitz? Steichen? Not even close to "documentation".
More recently? Avedon, Leibovitz, Arbus. The list goes on... Oh, and this
may come as a shocker, but even the esteemed Ansel Adams was very
interpretive (hint: he shot mostly in B&W).
Creating my reality,
Steve
> In article <779pbe$dl2$4...@newnews.global.net.uk>, dg...@globalnet.co.uk says...
> >
> >
> >Kent K wrote in message ...
> >My opinion is that if you want to produce something that looks
> >>like a Picasso or Dahli work, use paint. Cameras are for capturing the
> >most realistic
> >>representation of a person/place/subject etc as possible.
> >
> >
> > Is that all? They can be used for nothing more? Wow, you're work must
> >be a bit dull if you're so closed minded about such things. What you're
> >talking about is merely recording a scene. My Grandmother can do that, big
> >deal. It's creativity, and personal interpretation that make the difference
> >between a good photographer and a great one.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Meghan Noecker
<chr...@genasys.com.au> wrote:
>Anyway, if you are not confident, don't do it. Tell them to get a pro,
>and you can do all the informal shots, and this way get some practice.
I've told them I'll do informals, but I think they figure I'm just not
confident and that if they don't get a pro, I'll do it anyway.
>Maybe you can take a couple of shots of the couple, and totally
>overexpose or something, then show them the images and ask them if this
>looks OK. That might deter them a bit:-)
Unfortunately, I do about 6 groupd photos a year for the local church,
and I have also sold several horse photos to breeders; so I can't
quite fake incompetence. I could probably do well. I just don't want
the pressure associated with it. I have a hard enough time waiting for
my film to be processed after a farm visit. On one ocassion, I bought
two used camera bodies after my one body broke. So I tested each with
a roll of film, then went 600 miles to a farm. They had their horses
doing tricks including rearing in fornt of the camera. Well, I put
slide film in the camera with the best lens and print film in the
other. The print film was back the enxt day, and the camera had a
light leak causing horrible fogging. It hadn't shown up in the test
roll, because I shot it quickly and indoors, so no walking around for
20 minutes with the lens cap off. The slides were supposed to be done
in a couple days but came back several days late. I was really
sweating it, worried that that film wouldn't turn out or would be
lost. That was my first year of serious photography, and that breeder
was the only one kind enough to invite me to her farm and get the
horses looking extra special for the camera. Fortunately the did come
back, and those photos ended up being my whole portfolio a couple
months later when I went to the annual judging and the for that
breed.
I'm much more confident now, but the fear of messing up a wedding is
too great. I have a hard enough time with the 6 group shots a year
(that and everybody is staring at ME). I'm used to photographing
animals, and I don't care about them staring at me. That, and they
don't complain about the results :-)
Meghan Noecker
<esquir...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>perhaps you could tell him that generally, and it is hoped, that people
>get married once in their life. and so, surely he does not want to
>receive a bunch of photos that does not show the jubilation of marriage.
>for such critical events, it's best to get things right the first time
>than to regret it for the rest of his life (or perhaps until a second
>marriage, which we hope will never happen). and since you neither have
>any experience, nor, presumably, have the time to get up to scratch with
>people and wedding photography, it is best that he got himself a proper
>wedding photographer.
>
I remember when one of my friends got married. She hired somebody -
I'm not sure if they were really a pro or not as the price was very
cheap compared to the prices I've heard. Anyway, the lady only shot
one roll of film and forgot to load the camera. So she got no photos
at all.
>if he so insist that you do it, then i suppose you'll have to do your
>best and hope for the best. if anything goes wrong, he can only blame
>himself, though i think you might feel bad about the whole thing
That's probably what is going to happen. I'll be getting my lighting
setup this next month for pet portraiture, so I will make an extra
study for people just in case. I'm also getting a medium format camera
which means I have no equipment excuses :(
My dad will have to help with any group photos as I am not good at all
about asking people to smile, move to certain locations or any other
instructions. I would much rather disappear into the background :)
I've done some group photos, but I have the hardest time remembering
to turn on my motor drive and flash because I am so nervous. It's as
bad for me as it is doing a talk in front of a crowd.
What's really funny is that when I was 15 or 16, I photographed a
wedding for fun. It was for a "sister" that my family kind of adopted.
They couldn't afford a pro, nor was it even considered. I had an old
SLR with broken light meter that at the time I had no idea how to use.
( I didn't catch the photography bug until about age 23 and only
serious until 24). Nobody asked me to take pictures; it just seemed
like the thing to do when you go to a wedding. So, I did some okay
ones inside, nothing spectacular, and some nice posed shots of the
bride and groom outside in the church garden. I had no fear or
pressure back then. Now that I know better, I'm terrfied of the idea.
Isn't ignorance bliss?
Boon-Li Ong
[...]
> I remember when one of my friends got married. She hired somebody -
> I'm not sure if they were really a pro or not as the price was very
> cheap compared to the prices I've heard. Anyway, the lady only shot
> one roll of film and forgot to load the camera. So she got no photos
> at all.
at the wedding where i was the formal candid photographer, i had a funny
suspecion that the photographer they hired was the same photographer i
heard of with a somewhat dubious ability. my suspecion became reality
when i saw who the photographer. he was in fact the same photographer of
dubious ability. and to make matters worse, i saw first hand why he was
of dubious ability. though not lacking in equipment, he lacked in skill.
i have seen his previous work and had a good time laughing at the poor
composition and use of lighting. i am yet to figure out why they hired
him but my curiousity shall soon be laid to rest when the newly wedded
arrives back from their honeymoon.
> My dad will have to help with any group photos as I am not good at all
> about asking people to smile, move to certain locations or any other
> instructions. I would much rather disappear into the background :)
been there, done that. for that reason (getting people into position and
getting them relaxed), i hated doing group photos. it seems that people
have this tendency for standing in a straight line when it comes to
group photos. i find that to be appallingly boring. what's more is
people's impatience. they expect you to do a good job in 10 seconds. and
it is for that reason why i prefer to take candid shots - people look so
natural. and they love it.
[...]
> What's really funny is that when I was 15 or 16, I photographed a
> wedding for fun. It was for a "sister" that my family kind of adopted.
> They couldn't afford a pro, nor was it even considered. I had an old
> SLR with broken light meter that at the time I had no idea how to use.
> ( I didn't catch the photography bug until about age 23 and only
> serious until 24). Nobody asked me to take pictures; it just seemed
> like the thing to do when you go to a wedding. So, I did some okay
> ones inside, nothing spectacular, and some nice posed shots of the
> bride and groom outside in the church garden. I had no fear or
> pressure back then. Now that I know better, I'm terrfied of the idea.
i have to admit that i really enjoyed doing the photos for that wedding.
i only wish i could do more. not as a formal photographer but as the
offical "informal" photographer. there's so much less pressure and i
find that i am more relaxed and able to concentrate on taking photos.
well, make the best of this opportunity. who knows, you may one day find
wedding photography to be interesting. however, if any family member or
friends ask me to be the official photographer, i would be more incline
to decline the opportunity because i find that i'll be running around so
much that i won't be enjoying the moment. so i still fancy the idea of
being the informal photographer.
bl
Don Baccus
Mac Breck <macb...@timesnet.net> wrote:
>The Zone System *is* partly about making predictable correct exposures
>(placing important parts of the scene in their appropriate zones, within the
>latitude of the film, and having those parts of the subject appearing in the
>print in their appropriate zones. There's nothing that says you can't apply
>parts of Zone System to non-sheet film photography, or even color slide
>photography.
But you aren't using the Zone System in this case, it is, after
all, a *system* combining exposure and development.
What you are saying is that you must learn to make proper exposure
decisions in order to use the Zone System, just as you must in
order to, say, use slide film with its narrow latitude.
This is true.
It is also true that you can learn to make proper exposure
decisions without learning (or even hearing about) the Zone
System, just as many photographers did before Ansel Adams
codified the exposure/development techniques he used into
the Zone System...
>I don't. Then again, I don't have to. When shooting color slides (say when
>testing out a new body or lens, and not wanting the evidence to be obscured
>by some automatic printer), I still consciously put important parts of the
>subject in their appropriate zones.
In other words, you make proper exposure decisions. This isn't
the Zone System.
>I don't just point an AE camera at a
>scene, push a button, and hope for the best.
Never said you do.
>I haven't forgotten anything. It's your insistance that Zone System is an
>all or nothing thing, that's off base here.
Uhhh...I must respectfully disagree.
Kent K
First, let's be clear about one thing. I want to reply honestly without this devolving
into a mutual urination contest. Here goes.
>> Actually, I agree with your comments, but I point out that the nature of photography is the
>> rcording of an actual subject.
>
>From our "let's set photography back 75 years" department.
If we're going to stay on the high road, this type of comment needs to be avoided. You remarked
about "implies an insulting and condesending attitude."
All due respect,
>but IMO your close-minded assessment of the "nature" of photography is held
>only by photomicrologists and people who take pictures of there cars for the
>Weekly Trader.
I think we're approaching this one from seperate ends, and the major difference is our
interpretation of what is and what is not artistic. In this area, there is usually no convincing
another party. I like what I like and other people have their preferences. While I might call a
filtered landscape with a purple sunset artistic, someone else may not and that is a valid
opinion for them to hold.
>
>ALL photography is interpretive. Don't confuse intrepretation with
>manipulation. I agree with your assesment of computer images and photo
>contests, but you can have a heavily interpreted image that falls quite
>nicely within the traditional realm of camera, lens, film, and light.
And this is the key, I think, for us both. While I may not like someone else's work, So long as
it is a work of camera, lens, film and light, I consider it well within the realm of hobby or
professional photography. As to it's artistic quality, I reserve judgement to individual images.
It may
>even be an accurate interpretation, but an interpretation none the less.
At the extreme end, one can make the argument that any interpretation is valid or accurate, and
this might actually be an true statement.
In
>photography, reality is created.
Here is where I start to disagree. Reality is what reality is, whether you want to get
philosophical and debate reality Platonically, from an Aristotlian perspective, or even from the
perspective of T. Leary (best taken to another NG) or by some other definition. The photographer
can use the camera to show reality in many different ways and some of those ways may make the
subject look quite a bit different than when viewed with the Mark I eyeball. This is where the
realm of art and interpretation play their parts, in my opinion.
The photographer chooses the level.
>
>What area of photography is "real"? Photojournalism? Hardly. You can tell
>countless stories of the same subject by choosing different interpretations.
>Depending on the photos, people can be portrayed as either saints or sinners,
>heroes or villans, innocent or guilty.
Point well taken.
>
>Want further proof? How about police mug-shots? In theory, these are purely
>"accurate", existing only as a legal documentation of an individual. Yet we
>all know the distintive "style" of this type of photo. It is unique, giving
>the viewer a strong perception of the subject, usually negative. Certainly
>an interpretation.
>
>>I do not deny that some very interesting things can be done with
>> the objects/people/places around us, and yes, these are part of the photographer's art.
>
>I asssume you mean well here, but your use of the word "interesting" implies
>an insulting and condesending attitude towards the many photographers who
>choose to use the medium in a personally creative way.
That was not the intent, however, before you get to INTENSE, POWERFUL, EMOTIONAL, BEAUTIFUL,
TERRIBLE, WRETCHED or HORRIBLE you have to get past interesting. If something about the photo
doesn't grab your eye, then you will never finish the evaluation. I have seen many photos that
I've loved and looked at twice only because, at that first instant of a glance, something seemed
interesting. Same goes for many that I don't like as well. Still, I think interesting is the
first hurdle.
To me, "interesting"
>is the least descriptive term to apply to the work of fellow shooters I
>admire and respect. Words like INTENSITY, POWER, EMOTION, BEAUTY, and
>FEELING come to mind...
>
>> As for personal interpretation, I also agree. However, when your personal interpretation of a
>> rose garden is mistaken for another subject by the people who view the image, then I think
>> something, somewhere has gone horribly horribly wrong.
>
>This is the ultimate in ignorance. You are certaily entitled to your
>opinion, but to just dismiss the "abstact" and "ambiguous" aspects of
>photography with a simple wave of your hand tells me you are missing out on
>the tremendous vision of a great many photographers.
Nope, I get it, I just don't get it. Ref: previous remarks about Picasso etc. I will say this,
I have to acknowledge that what PP did was art and it was art because Picasso earned the right to
paint what he did AND EXPECT folks to respect it. He earned this right by first showing that he
could paint "classical art" with the best of them. And no, I do not imply anything with respect
to photographers who do not like landscapes, or photographing people etc. but rather work in
the more abstract. That takes skill with a camera. I can respect these people and not the
artists because I know that they go through as much, if not more, headache and heartache that the
great landscape photographer because at that level, photography is not easy. Now in the art
world, an artist painting a round red dot on a white canvas, well, IMHO, that's not art; that's a
scam if he manages to sell it for more than the cost of the canvas and paint.
Westridge
to be a 'professional' photographer. Sounded OK, but knowing this woman we
suspected the worst. Sure enough we had a look at the demo album - it was
SO SAD. I'm a competent amateur photographer and I'm sure that I could have
done better (and have done with group portraits) myself. His poses and
staging were OK, but he didn't have a clue about lighting, shadow or
exposure. The photos were pretty bad.
The worst bit was trying to not explain why we hired someone else to do the
job! LOL!!
Westridge
Boon-Li Ong wrote in message <3699ABA8...@clear.net.nz>...
slav...@yahoo.com
Hey Kent,
I have to hand it to you, a very good response. I'm glad you realized that,
despite appearances, my post was more a defense of my philosophies than an
attack on yours. I think we both have some very valid points.
Yes, it would seem that our approaches to photography are a bit different,
but it also wouldn't surprise me if there were more than a few similarities.
In any event, I always welcome the opportunity to discuss it.
Steve
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Magda
<west...@nospamthanksmailexcite.com> wrote:
> | < When I got married one of my acquaintance's husband was setting himself up
> | < to be a 'professional' photographer. Sounded OK, but knowing this woman we
> | < suspected the worst. Sure enough we had a look at the demo album - it was
> | < SO SAD. I'm a competent amateur photographer and I'm sure that I could have
> | < done better (and have done with group portraits) myself. His poses and
> | < staging were OK, but he didn't have a clue about lighting, shadow or
> | < exposure. The photos were pretty bad.
> | < The worst bit was trying to not explain why we hired someone else to do the
> | < job! LOL!!
> | <
> | < Westridge
Was it a woman or a man ? Or are you not sure ?
Kent K
me and strives to record it the way it is (whatever IT may be), I naturally have a difficult time
getting deeply into the abstract. I can think of less than a handful of abstract photos or
paintings that I would hang in my house. What I would like to see are the results if you
restrict an accomplished photographer who is highly abstract and interpretive to a camera, a
selection of lenses and nothing else. In effect, take away as many of the tools of abstract
creation/interpretation as possible, this includes the foil backgrounds etc.) and boil it down to
a camera (make/model open) and the creative mind and see how different their pix are from someone
like mine.
On the other side of life, I do have a pretty complete set of filters etc. that I rarely (twice)
use. Maybe I should break them out in the near future and see what happens if I decide to take 1
complete roll with the simple rule that I have to use these or some other convention that I don't
normally employ in my photography. Could open a door, could close one, could end the world as
we know it. Maybe I'll have to find that one out.
In article <77f67e$g3i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, slav...@yahoo.com says...
Asher Langton
>On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:55:04 +1300, "Westridge"
><west...@nospamthanksmailexcite.com> wrote:
> > | < When I got married one of my acquaintance's husband was setting himself up
> > | < to be a 'professional' photographer. Sounded OK, but knowing this woman we
> > | < suspected the worst. Sure enough we had a look at the demo album - it was
> > | < SO SAD. I'm a competent amateur photographer and I'm sure that I could have
> > | < done better (and have done with group portraits) myself. His poses and
> > | < staging were OK, but he didn't have a clue about lighting, shadow or
> > | < exposure.
>
Er, it may be poorly worded, but I think Westridge was writing about
her acquaintance (female, and the one referred to as "this woman"),
and her acquaintance's husband (the photographer, referred to by the
male pronouns). Is that too complicated?
-asher-
--
Asher Langton
as...@cts.com/jala...@ucdavis.edu
DoD #2017