Amateur Photography

[enoy21]

Who here does it ?  


I have been a big fan of amateur photography for some time now , I just could never afford the cost of the big time camaras.    Henceforth , most of mine have been mid to upper level PnS.


I was just gifted a brand new Nikon D40 kit  from a fellow employee that won it at a company function but is not into photography like I am. I am hoping to get to play with it some this weekend and study up a bit on all of the SLR features.   I understand this is a great "starter" kit for DSLR beginners.


The one thing I already know I want is a zoom lens as one of my biggest gripes about my current  Canon SD750 is the 3x optical zoom limit .  

I really love Macro photography as well so when I get my new KB I hope to really put the camera through it's paces for a nice review.  

Is there a Site for reference that gives definition of SLR language in layman's terms ?


ISO speed
Shutter speed
Appature ?  etc ?

[Malphas]

http://www.slrlounge.com/

Don't go and buy a load of lenses until you're sure you want to go with Nikon, or even if you want to go SLR, EVILs are worth considering too.

[enoy21]

Well at this point I need to get over my KB fetish before spending money on a new hobby. Again the money involved in photography is pretty steep initially. So a Nikon is what it will be since I now have the camera.  

Thanks for the links and I'll check them both out !

[enoy21]

That's a pretty damn good idea !      Thanks Harrison

[InSanCen]

Get a cheaper body, Spend the money on the Glass. Chances are the body will do you for a number of years, and Good glass makes a huge amount of difference.

[teraflame]

You think you want a zoom lens?

Well you actually dont. Just get a 35mm f/1.8 prime to learn on for a while. Never get those kit lenses.

Buy Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.

[enoy21]

Well based on some professional reviews of this camera , the kit lense that comes with it is pretty nice and is higher quality than expected.   It was compared against the Canon EOS and the K100 ( can't remember the manufacturer)    

The Zoom lense was more for distant shots But with really high megapixel use I imagine croping can have a similar effect ( like a digital zoom would )


So far today Im trying to learn the mulitude of settings and have taken about 250 pics of my son and Fiance' using the RAW format.  

I understand that it comes with software to convert RAW .nif  format , but I'm wondering if GIMP can do this ?

[Malphas]

Can't you just get closer to what you're photographing?  Or are you taking up paparazzi photography as a hobby?

[enoy21]

Lol , Well It depend on the situation.   Sometimes the zoom helps with preventing shadows, sometimes it's on a sports field and I want to get a kids face on the other side, somtimes water or teraign makes close access tough.


Right now the Zoom lense it's all that critical , it's just a " Next to buy " item.    And I may end up buying a Macro Lense as I really like Macro images. ALOT.

[HeavyArms]

I've been working in photography for about 10 years now about to start on my masters. I focus mostly in digital but dabble with 120 and 4x5. I work with Nikon digitally, so if there is anything I can help you with or any questions you might have feel free to PM me. Good luck with your photography

[7bit]

Congratulations!

Get a used 18-200 and you've got all you need!

Read this first:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

Welcome to the Nikon club.
:-)

[enoy21]

Thanks guys , I read up abit on the camera itself and what some of the settings all mean , I feel like I need a good full day of no kids or fiance to sit and focus on all of the options and learn what they mean.    I'll check out the links above in a few minutes.  I would agree that the 18-200 would be plenty as right now with the 18-55 lense on it It doesn't decently well for most shots that I take.


Wow that D40 guide link is nice.  I was also looking into ordering :

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470171480/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B000KJQ1DG&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ST8Q4FVTZX7HTNCNYBQ
But I'll go through these KenRockwell links first.... THANKS.

[7bit]

Thanks guys , I read up abit on the camera itself and what some of the settings all mean , I feel like I need a good full day of no kids or fiance to sit and focus on all of the options and learn what they mean.    I'll check out the links above in a few minutes.  I would agree that the 18-200 would be plenty as right now with the 18-55 lense on it It doesn't decently well for most shots that I take.

The lens I shoot most of the time is a fixed 20mm, so the 18-55 should not be too bad for the beginning. Just get closer. A telephoto lens is only useful if you can't get close enough (shy, dangerous or ugly animals).

Wow that D40 guide link is nice.  I was also looking into ordering :

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470171480/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B000KJQ1DG&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ST8Q4FVTZX7HTNCNYBQ
But I'll go through these KenRockwell links first.... THANKS.

Don't ever buy these $MYCAMERA guides!!!

For these $13.01 you can buy a keyboard!

[enoy21]

Lol that is part of the issue. I can only afford one hobby at a time and until I get atleast one more keyboard in reds or browns this hobby isn't complete.  

That link sent above to Ken Rockwells site I think did the trick. Really well written and took me through every option and explained what they did and why I might want to use them.  Very helpful.    

So the next question. What do you guys think about the whole RAW vs JPEG argument?    I was using raw for the purity before compression but he said I was being a noob.  What is your collective preference ?     Typically I don't do alot of prints. The ones I do would be 8x10 maximum I would think, so .jpg would be fine for that ?

I have an 8 GB card so space isn't really an issue.  1100 pics in Raw or 2200 in 6.1mp Jpg

[DaemonRaccoon]

Nikon's RAW does do a little compression, but it's negligible compared to JPEG compression. As long as you're shooting with the Fine JPEG option you should be good, otherwise the compression kills the image.

[enoy21]

Yeah , Rockwell was saying he used Large_Basic , But I would have to use Fine if I went compression like Jpg.   I wonder why cameras don't do PNG yet ? Isn't that loss-less compression ?

[ZeroGraVT]

I use Raw + Jpeg.  Raw provides you with more option when post processing.  You can change white balance for example with raw.  And I would look for other opinions before listening to Ken Rockwell. Nikoncafe is a good place to start with.  As far as lens go, I wouldn't spend my money on a 18-200mm unless all you really care about is convenience of never changing lens.  A 18-55mm and a 55-200mm offers better image quality and cheaper too.  Then spend the rest on a flash and maybe a fix focal lens like a 35mm or 50mm.

[Pylon]

RAW+basic is the way to go. RAW loads way too slowly to browse through but is great for editing.

As for a lens, buy a 55-200 VR or a 55-300 if you want more reach. It's a lot cheaper than an 18-200 and the image quality is better too. It's just you'll have to deal with the hassle of changing lenses.

I have a D40 too and it's a great camera, though a bit too small for my hands. I should've gotten a used D70 instead.

[7bit]

RAW+basic is the way to go. RAW loads way too slowly to browse through but is great for editing.

As for a lens, buy a 55-200 VR or a 55-300 if you want more reach. It's a lot cheaper than an 18-200 and the image quality is better too. It's just you'll have to deal with the hassle of changing lenses.

I have a D40 too and it's a great camera, though a bit too small for my hands. I should've gotten a used D70 instead.

I'm not sure about the D40, but with current Nikons, Canons and Fuji X100s you can forget about RAW. If the out-of-camera JPG looks bad, you can't ever rescue it in RAW. If you want to rectify taking and tweaking RAW pictures, get a Leica.

[TacticalCoder]

I wonder why cameras don't do PNG yet ? Isn't that loss-less compression ?

PNG is indeed "lossless" as long as you stay within PNG's limitation (32 bits/pixel max if I'm not mistaken).  PNG was not meant to be used in the professional printing world (no CMYK for example, you only get RGBA with PNG as far as I know).

The main issue is that PNG works best when there a lot of identical pixels (and ideally long stretches of identical pixels).  When it's not the case, PNG is actually quite awful.

For example if you take a picture made of only black & white pixels and containing huge area all black or all white: PNG will compress it fine, because it shall realize there are only two colors used etc.  You'll get a really tiny file.

Now create a picture of the same widht/height but where every single pixel is using a unique color: PNG's compression will be totally awful.  The size of the resulting file will be bigger than JPGs (even with JPG compression set to high-quality).

In photography you rarely have two pixels of the same colors and hence typically PNG can't compress these pictures efficiently, which is why PNG is not a good choice in this case.

[enoy21]

Excellent explanation.   I actually would have thought there are alot of areas the same color , but now that I think about it , that would only be true if using a smaller color spectrum.  For instance a Cup has millions of color based on shadows. So while it appears like just a white cup , really it is many man shades of white.

[vils]

Every time I see this thread title I read it as: Amateur pornography.  I'm doomed.

[enoy21]

I would say we could always follow Interweb forum  derailmant , but I don't think I want to see a bunch of Keyboard fetish pr0n.

[dubkatz]

naked keyboard p0rn, checked out the strip keyboard with only the pcb :3

Anyway back to topic, I suggest I when buying new get the kit lens that come with it. It's great bang for bucks especially the 18-55, 55-200 combo. Reason is parents would like the use of 55-200 for sports day to take action shot of their kids. It's broad daylight so even the kits lens speed is sufficient without a flash. By in general use I find the range of 18-55 is all I used.

So I would suggest:
18-55 and 55-200 kit lens
Or
50mm f1.8d and 55-200 kit lens( preferred)

I really prefer the  2 nd option because you get to play with a decent prime lens, and moving back/forward 1 or 2 steps is negligible.

These are my Nikon lens recommendation for starters

[litster]

Keyboards is a cheaper hobby than photography, generally.  I am not good at photography at all because I am not artistic, even i have expensive camera hardware.  A relative of mine is a pro and he make a good living.  He has good gears, but he shoots amazing pictures with phone cameras.  You can be a good photographer with entry level gear.  As a beginner, upgrade your skills before you upgrade your hardware.

Good luck, have fun!

[xwhatsit]

Use film. Fantastic cameras with way better image quality for the same money. Cheap, wonderful glass available second-hand. Huge amounts of exposure latitude and dynamic range without having to use that fake-looking HDR stuff. Experiment with different sorts of film once you're bored with your now huge prime lens collection.

The only thing I miss with film is high ISO -- however I have fun trying to make up for it using my sub-$50 f1.4 50mm fixed-lens rangefinder and using black & white silver halide negative film pushed in compensating developers like Microphen. Grain as big as golfballs but that's half the fun.

[enoy21]

I've always loved the art of photography. Being able to capture an emotion or a scene that you can just imagine " that day in time".


I happen to live in a very mountainous region with alot of streams in the Blue Ridge mountains,  so we get alot of great sun/shadow scenes and fall colors.  When my Fiance' and I would go camping I would often have to pull the jeep over on a moments notice to cross a country road into a field to capture a log home off in the distance.

As a matter of fact.  I've always been Anti art gallery ( it's a country redneck thing ) and My fiance' got me into one in floyd county once...... I was in there for 15 minutes admiring all of the awesome pictures when I suddenly looked around and whispered " Are we in an art gallery?"   She giggled and clamped on my arm so I wouldn't run as my eyes turned into saucers.    I couldn't believe how many of those pictures that I thought were average at best were selling for $250+.    Photography is about the only artistic form I feel that I have and really like.  I just don't really have the technical training to understand all of the mechanics and before now lacked the hardware to be able to tweak the camera for certain scenes.

I would love to make money off photography but it would have to be nature photos as I'm not into the whole " wedding/ bar mitzva / kids " thing and it's a very private solo thing for me when I'm in the zone.

I can see a standard softball sized rock though and see how it could be framed at a certain angle to make it a beautiful image. I currently have about 5000 pictures from over the years and difference cameras.   I love the continuous shots of this one as I'm one of those people that take 50 pictures to keep 1.  Macro photograpy  and Scenery are my two favorites.  


There happens to be a prairie type place about an hour or so from here that we found one day just randomly driving through the mountains. About this time of year just before sunset it's just an amazing scene.  Small Valley in the mountain , with a stream and about 50 acres of cleared land , with various different animals all over it and a gorgeous home on the hill overlooking it all.    I even found it on Google maps to pinpoint how to find it again.  I can't wait to try and get back up there and would love to ask the owners permission to get some photos of their land and animals.

[Brodie337]

One thing I find with photography is I have no idea how to make things interesting. I can take a heap of photos, and sure, I can sit there and pick out the ones that worked, but I just can't visualise a shot in my head (if that makes any sense).

[enoy21]

That's kind of the opposite for me , It's seeing the shot in my head but not knowing all the technical ways to bring it out in a picture.  

For me , the picture needs to do a couple things. Capture a  moment, a literal scene that inspires the imagination of that moment in history.  Or a change in perspective or an emotion.

One night at dusk we were driving back from said mountain ( spent alot of time up there last summer ) and there was a single flag pole and flag sitting on a hill with the night sky behind it and a single star (Saturn?) just to the side. It just screamed at me to capture the moment.  I couldn't capture it due to the lighting and my Less than stellar camera with me.    

Or the lone leefless tree on the hill with a single cow beneath it munching on some cud ad dusk. Saw that one once but didn't have the camera with me.

Or the night on a specific ridge that had just been cleared for the wood but had left a  beautiful wooded ridge about 200 yards off with a HUGE bright full moon above it.   We sat there on top of the Jeep's roll bars stretched out for hours just enjoying the nature.  

That leads me to a question. How does one capture the moon with a camera when the perspective is different to us ?

You know when it first starts rising and "appears" huge , but in reality is the same size as when it's far into the sky ?   Camera images for me always show a tiny little moon when that happens.  Is there some specific things with a camera that help with that ?