i agree with the above... my brother is also a photographer and his fotos are amaZing!! he has GooD lenses on his cameras and I am always amazed by the sharpness and vitality of the images he creates, whereas in my fotos, they are always a bit soft and the color is NiCE but still lacking.
why??
it's all in the lenses, which is the EYE of the camera. just as if you wore glasses your vision is not the same as before, if your eyes were PErFecT, then everything you see would also be perfectly SHaRP and the colors alllll sooooo vivid!!!
so, BUY the BEST lenses you can afford, and your fotos will show the best results!!!
why??
it's all in the lenses, which is the EYE of the camera. just as if you wore glasses your vision is not the same as before, if your eyes were PErFecT, then everything you see would also be perfectly SHaRP and the colors alllll sooooo vivid!!!
so, BUY the BEST lenses you can afford, and your fotos will show the best results!!!
Thank you very much . I think I will upgrade my camera(or at least my lenses) after all!
Drop in to the German site, browse through the various pictures and look what camera they are shot with ..... and you will have sleepless nights I can assure you.
The most important thing in photography is, at least within my limited range of thoughts, to get "in touch" with your equipement, know what it does and can do, let yourself become one with the camera and lens .... know it's possibilities and what it does under which circumstances. Apart from that a good lens will help :-)
I do B&W only, I use one type of film, one type of developer, I do this with 135 film and 120 film and I only shoot with standard lenses. Once I get this all under controll I might move on, or I might not for, for the past year and a half I've been a happy photographer enjoying it more and more ...
Fall in love with your camera and lens !!!
Post Edited (1:40h)
The most important thing in photography is, at least within my limited range of thoughts, to get "in touch" with your equipement, know what it does and can do, let yourself become one with the camera and lens .... know it's possibilities and what it does under which circumstances. Apart from that a good lens will help :-)
I do B&W only, I use one type of film, one type of developer, I do this with 135 film and 120 film and I only shoot with standard lenses. Once I get this all under controll I might move on, or I might not for, for the past year and a half I've been a happy photographer enjoying it more and more ...
Fall in love with your camera and lens !!!
Post Edited (1:40h)
Hi there,
I'm a newcomer and just wanted to contribute to this everlasting discussion with this funny quotation I found somewhare on the internet:
There was a meeting of a photographer and a journalist. The journalist complimented the photographer by saying " I have seen your photographs. They are very good. You must have a good camera" The photographer returned the compliment thusly. "I have read your stories. They are very good. You must have a good typewriter".
:)
Regards to all,
J.
I'm a newcomer and just wanted to contribute to this everlasting discussion with this funny quotation I found somewhare on the internet:
There was a meeting of a photographer and a journalist. The journalist complimented the photographer by saying " I have seen your photographs. They are very good. You must have a good camera" The photographer returned the compliment thusly. "I have read your stories. They are very good. You must have a good typewriter".
:)
Regards to all,
J.
first come first
the eyes behind the lens
the lens behind the subject
but behind all of them the minde wich reads others belives and got to know what they will think of the photo even befor showing them
becouse (seeing is beliving )
and after all
beauty in the eyes of the holder adn on the other hand (uglyness is aret too)!
Al ustad
the eyes behind the lens
the lens behind the subject
but behind all of them the minde wich reads others belives and got to know what they will think of the photo even befor showing them
becouse (seeing is beliving )
and after all
beauty in the eyes of the holder adn on the other hand (uglyness is aret too)!
Al ustad
Hi Esti,
I'm really enjoying some of the responses you are getting on this question.
I've collected cameras for over 30 years. Still and movie. I started as a child intrigued by the pictures my parents took. It was amazing watching them pull the film from the camera, placing it under the arm to process and then peeling away the cover to see the vivid prints. I really miss those flash bulbs and cubes. Color photography was fairly new to the masses then.
My cameras ranged in quality from a couple of primitive homemade pin hole cameras (one made from a shoe box and the other from a Quaker Rolled Oats cylinder container, you can make a pin hole camera out of just about any container, a #10 knitting needle, a bit of cardboard and some photopaper) to my newest two, a Kodak EasyShare that I bought to document my daughter's homeschool experiences and my recent Canon d20. The most primitive was just using photosensitive paper (Cyanotype) to do shadow impressions - which requires NO camera at all. I really fought moving over to this digital medium. I'm fairly new to it, but slowing accepting and learning - I find it much more limiting than good old film, the chemicals and the glow of a red light in the dark. Digital is instant gratification - it misses the mark greatly when it comes to the full experiences and senses of film. The dark room is very meditative.
Anyway, I think people that have never had the experiences of doing more primitive photography are lured by all the gizmos and techie babble of digital - and subscribe to the theory that expensive equipment is better. Really, the process of photographic images is highly simplistic.
One of my cameras was a British Kodak 1888. Damned best camera in the world! Just a box with a fixed simple shutter. Pull the string to set the shutter, point it in the general direction of the subject and push the button. Depth of field was AMAZING! I compare it to a digital disposable of today, except you didn't throw away the camera. It came loaded with film for 100 pictures, it was sent in and shipped back to you reloaded with a package of your processed prints. Of course, I had to cut and load my own film. Two of my other babies was a Turn of the Century #1 Kodak Brownie, and a 40's Baby Brownie, very simple mass market cameras - very effective too, that's why it stayed on the market for SOooooo long. I've also had the fun of owning a Daguerreotype, and several folding pockets spaning decades.
The camera's I've enjoyed most were the ducktaped shoe box pinholes and my toy fixed f2.8 digital $5. webcam.
What really matters is the photographer's vision, (a lens can make a big difference in your range, although like I said, you can do photography without a lens). What has the most bearing on quality of image is the quality of "film," in digital you are paying for the technology that creates the resolution. (I'm still not up on my digital photography terminology, so I hope if I used the wrong words the concept comes across.)
What I do notice between the three digital cameras I have; my little key chain toy webcam ($5.), my Kodak pocket ($200.) and my Canon SLRd $3,000. with lenses), is that I prefer them for different reasons. I love the grittiness of the toy, the mindless ease of the Kodak, and the depth of field and range I get from the Canon with the bells and whistles.
Match and weight the quality and price of the camera with what you intend on doing with it.
My suggestion: your a very artistic person, go get some ready made photosensitive paper (link below) or make a pin hole camera and process your negativeless images. Then you can decide for yourself if expensive and high tech means better. The Cyanotype experiment will take you back to the most primative photographic capture.
PINHOLE CAMERA
How to make a Quaker Oat Box pinhole camera http://users.rcn.com/stewoody/photo.htm
Exibits of modern pin hole camera photography http://www.pinhole.com/gallery/
http://www.lenoxlaser.com/pinholephotog ... 2004a.html
CYANOTYPE (History of the hard way to do it)
Cyanotype http://www.nmpft.org.uk/insight/info/5.3.76.pdf
Inexpensive children's Cyanotype photo paper (The easy way.)
http://www.kindredlearning.com/sunprint2.html
FOR THE MODERN SLR PINHOLIST (No lens required!)
Pinhole adapters for SLR cameras http://www.lenoxlaser.com/pinholephotos ... _Kits.html
-Wendy
I'm really enjoying some of the responses you are getting on this question.
I've collected cameras for over 30 years. Still and movie. I started as a child intrigued by the pictures my parents took. It was amazing watching them pull the film from the camera, placing it under the arm to process and then peeling away the cover to see the vivid prints. I really miss those flash bulbs and cubes. Color photography was fairly new to the masses then.
My cameras ranged in quality from a couple of primitive homemade pin hole cameras (one made from a shoe box and the other from a Quaker Rolled Oats cylinder container, you can make a pin hole camera out of just about any container, a #10 knitting needle, a bit of cardboard and some photopaper) to my newest two, a Kodak EasyShare that I bought to document my daughter's homeschool experiences and my recent Canon d20. The most primitive was just using photosensitive paper (Cyanotype) to do shadow impressions - which requires NO camera at all. I really fought moving over to this digital medium. I'm fairly new to it, but slowing accepting and learning - I find it much more limiting than good old film, the chemicals and the glow of a red light in the dark. Digital is instant gratification - it misses the mark greatly when it comes to the full experiences and senses of film. The dark room is very meditative.
Anyway, I think people that have never had the experiences of doing more primitive photography are lured by all the gizmos and techie babble of digital - and subscribe to the theory that expensive equipment is better. Really, the process of photographic images is highly simplistic.
One of my cameras was a British Kodak 1888. Damned best camera in the world! Just a box with a fixed simple shutter. Pull the string to set the shutter, point it in the general direction of the subject and push the button. Depth of field was AMAZING! I compare it to a digital disposable of today, except you didn't throw away the camera. It came loaded with film for 100 pictures, it was sent in and shipped back to you reloaded with a package of your processed prints. Of course, I had to cut and load my own film. Two of my other babies was a Turn of the Century #1 Kodak Brownie, and a 40's Baby Brownie, very simple mass market cameras - very effective too, that's why it stayed on the market for SOooooo long. I've also had the fun of owning a Daguerreotype, and several folding pockets spaning decades.
The camera's I've enjoyed most were the ducktaped shoe box pinholes and my toy fixed f2.8 digital $5. webcam.
What really matters is the photographer's vision, (a lens can make a big difference in your range, although like I said, you can do photography without a lens). What has the most bearing on quality of image is the quality of "film," in digital you are paying for the technology that creates the resolution. (I'm still not up on my digital photography terminology, so I hope if I used the wrong words the concept comes across.)
What I do notice between the three digital cameras I have; my little key chain toy webcam ($5.), my Kodak pocket ($200.) and my Canon SLRd $3,000. with lenses), is that I prefer them for different reasons. I love the grittiness of the toy, the mindless ease of the Kodak, and the depth of field and range I get from the Canon with the bells and whistles.
Match and weight the quality and price of the camera with what you intend on doing with it.
My suggestion: your a very artistic person, go get some ready made photosensitive paper (link below) or make a pin hole camera and process your negativeless images. Then you can decide for yourself if expensive and high tech means better. The Cyanotype experiment will take you back to the most primative photographic capture.
PINHOLE CAMERA
How to make a Quaker Oat Box pinhole camera http://users.rcn.com/stewoody/photo.htm
Exibits of modern pin hole camera photography http://www.pinhole.com/gallery/
http://www.lenoxlaser.com/pinholephotog ... 2004a.html
CYANOTYPE (History of the hard way to do it)
Cyanotype http://www.nmpft.org.uk/insight/info/5.3.76.pdf
Inexpensive children's Cyanotype photo paper (The easy way.)
http://www.kindredlearning.com/sunprint2.html
FOR THE MODERN SLR PINHOLIST (No lens required!)
Pinhole adapters for SLR cameras http://www.lenoxlaser.com/pinholephotos ... _Kits.html
-Wendy
There is an article on Toy Cameras here:
http://fotocommunity.com/forum/read.php ... 085&t=1085
Wendy is right when it comes to equipment. If you have an eye you can do great pictures with anything and everything.
I think there are three main styles of photography:
FIRST one sees a picture and captures it
SECOND one has an idea/concept and realizes it
THIRD is exploring the limits of technology
I am very much in the second and third department but I am also a seer. I tend to see better if I have no camera on me.
Get the equipment you need for the pictures you want to take:
STILLIFE & PORTRAIT does not require fast & heavy equipment, but being able to control depth of field is importrant, so a decent film-based SLR with a cheap & quality macro-lens is a good start. Example a Sigma 2.8/50mm Macro lens with a used Nikon-Body like the FE2 or FM2 or one of these high-tech plastic-cheapies like the Canon 300x or Nikon F55 (I am not sure about the Nikon-Cheapie-Name). If you want to be mor versatile go for DSLR (digital single lens reflex) like Nikon D70 or Canon 350D with the same lens.
ACTION (like running children and sports) on the other hand requires the fastest possible equipment you can afford. Even if you are not that skilled: you simply cannot win a formula-1-race with a bicycle. I would not try to start there, except you are very much into random results or controlled blur.
Apart from the camera: get a decent book on photography that will get you the basic technical information. It is really less complicated than it seems to be in the beginning.
The really complex questions in photography are non technical, but compositional and decisional.
Why take a picture of what and how?
I started more that 20 yers ago with a Russian film-based SLR I bought in Belgium for about 75 US$. This was new equipment not used. I used it until it broke.
I actually work with a Nikon F5 and some decent primes and I also have a DSLR-body that is compatible to the same lenses.
I value reliability very much and reliability in digital equipment goes for a price that really hurts. A used Nikon F5 in a good state is 700 US$ at ebay, which is the price for a plastic-DSLR, whereas the F5-equvalent is 5.000 US$...
http://fotocommunity.com/forum/read.php ... 085&t=1085
Wendy is right when it comes to equipment. If you have an eye you can do great pictures with anything and everything.
I think there are three main styles of photography:
FIRST one sees a picture and captures it
SECOND one has an idea/concept and realizes it
THIRD is exploring the limits of technology
I am very much in the second and third department but I am also a seer. I tend to see better if I have no camera on me.
Get the equipment you need for the pictures you want to take:
STILLIFE & PORTRAIT does not require fast & heavy equipment, but being able to control depth of field is importrant, so a decent film-based SLR with a cheap & quality macro-lens is a good start. Example a Sigma 2.8/50mm Macro lens with a used Nikon-Body like the FE2 or FM2 or one of these high-tech plastic-cheapies like the Canon 300x or Nikon F55 (I am not sure about the Nikon-Cheapie-Name). If you want to be mor versatile go for DSLR (digital single lens reflex) like Nikon D70 or Canon 350D with the same lens.
ACTION (like running children and sports) on the other hand requires the fastest possible equipment you can afford. Even if you are not that skilled: you simply cannot win a formula-1-race with a bicycle. I would not try to start there, except you are very much into random results or controlled blur.
Apart from the camera: get a decent book on photography that will get you the basic technical information. It is really less complicated than it seems to be in the beginning.
The really complex questions in photography are non technical, but compositional and decisional.
Why take a picture of what and how?
I started more that 20 yers ago with a Russian film-based SLR I bought in Belgium for about 75 US$. This was new equipment not used. I used it until it broke.
I actually work with a Nikon F5 and some decent primes and I also have a DSLR-body that is compatible to the same lenses.
I value reliability very much and reliability in digital equipment goes for a price that really hurts. A used Nikon F5 in a good state is 700 US$ at ebay, which is the price for a plastic-DSLR, whereas the F5-equvalent is 5.000 US$...
When I see unintentional softness or dull color in a photo I'll look to the photographer's technique first, before blaming a cheap lens. It can be as simple as the more expensive lens came with the right lens hood. Good photo or not-so-good photo, 99% of the time it's the photographer, and not the gear.
I'm very new to photography and have really enjoyed reading what you have all contributed. I purchased a Fuji Finepix E500 a few months ago and was limited by my budget. Already I can see I am pushing the camera to it's maximum but my ability to capture the shot is still at the crawling stage. So much to learn. I must agree, read as much as you can on your camera and take photos. It will start to happen. There is no substitute for getting out and using the equipment. Digital especially enables you to try various shots and settings...Rob (NZ)
So how is it going with that new camera Rob?
I own 2 very cheap cameras. One is a really old zenit (people laugh at me when i use it) and a 80 euros value of a digital camera .
I get nervous about photos only when i realize that a zoom lense equipment could take better shots. But for now its ok.
I get nervous about photos only when i realize that a zoom lense equipment could take better shots. But for now its ok.
Hey Anula, I have a $3,000. set up, but sometimes I prefer my dinky (and laughable) Kodak Easyshare. I was so excited to find out that they made an adapter and specialty lenses for it. It's perfect for when I want to be incognito. Some of my personal favorites are taken with it.
16.03.06, 00:29
Post 28 of 104
Yes - I have a 350d and a 300d ... modest gear by an enthusiasts standards I guess .. and I do intend to buy a much better camera body and some good glass BUT I have just signed up for a one-day course in pin hole photography !! ... you never know, it may be a revelation to me. Regards, Paul.
anyone ever heard of Terry Richardson??? http://www.terryrichardson.com/
He's a hot one at the moment and he uses cheap camera's and gets to make awesome photographs with just that :))
Wish i could buy myself some new equipment, hihi
He's a hot one at the moment and he uses cheap camera's and gets to make awesome photographs with just that :))
Wish i could buy myself some new equipment, hihi
Sorry Dennis, cant really say i am impressed. 8-((