Getting started in photography

[berkeman]

although the backlight from the Sun is useful in many situations

Like this shot...

 

[gmax137]

Surf and turf?

 

[Miranda]

Most gear works fine nowadays, but an iPhone is good enough for daily shots. I think composition matters a lot in photography – it takes some natural sense, plus practice and experience. Just keep shooting more, and you'll get better!

 

[Flyboy]

Agreed. The artistry is in the framing and composition, not the image capture system.

 

[symbolipoint]

As compared or contrasted from posts 33 and 34, Getting Started in Photography some several decades ago included interacting with the technologies more easily, when people still had easier access to wet photography methods. Some technicalities were common. Some members here may remember handling photographic paper in a dark-room and making test prints to figure what was a good time quantity to expose the larger photographic paper for a good exposure from the enlarger. Also the handling of Negative film in a lightless room to remove it from the cartridge, wrap it onto a spool and put into a developing tank; and then proceeding with the chemical processing steps.

 

[apostolosdt]

Wow! I wished that much of enthusiasm went into physics posts, too! Anyway, here's my advice list.

1. If really serious about photography, enroll in a class; nothing can replace a good course and/or an enthusiastic tutor.

2. If you want to try your own steps, then start with a mechanical, fully manual camera; use a 50mm lens and load it with a black & white 400 ASA film. People at the photo shop will know what to do and how; they will most probably develop your film make prints for you.

3. Complain about the cost? Well, photography even as a hobby is expensive. Learn to live with that!

4. A really nice piece of advice in this thread: start with M42 equipment, like Asahi Pentax. Again, visit a shop or google a bit. Educate yourself!

5. Film photography first, (lazy) digital shots can wait, if you're so keen as your posts show. (Are you lured by some artistic iPhone shots? Well, check the shooters' CV first; apparently, they are pro photographers with lot of experience.)

6. "Composition" is such a big word! No, start with understanding the difference between a snapshot and a more thoughtful shot; for composition is about paying attention. (If you attend any class, the tutor will tell you to start with "Critique" on other people's photos.)

7. Too many, confusing terms? Sure, welcome to the vast world of visual arts, and photography in particular!

One final word: physicsforums are for physics; for photography, you should look elsewhere for authoritative answers.

 

[jtbell]

Surf and turf?

More like surf and nuts.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Inspired by all the great photos in the Random Photos thread, I wanted to ask the photographers of PF, novices and experts alike, what their suggestions are for getting into "real" photography. Maybe you have equipment suggestions, technique/skill suggestions, or ways of practicing photography. I'd appreciate any and all suggestions!

I've been holding off replying b/c I come to photography from a perspective based on my graduate program (optics) rather than 'the arts'- I have never taken a photography class- and so any advice I have is likely at variance with what a professional photographer will tell you. In any case, assuming by "real photography" you mean using a interchangeable lens/camera system, I would suggest:

0) start simple- personally, I would avoid any 'kit lens' provided with a camera body as these are typically slow zoom lenses. Instead, get a fixed focal length 'normal' lens (focal length somewhere around 50mm for 35mm format images) with as low an f/# as you can afford (for example: 50/1.8 is inexpensive, 50/1.4 less inexpensive).

1) Experiment with how varying the f/# changes the depth of field (to isolate the subject from foreground and background), and experiment with shutter speed to understand how to either freeze motion or emphasize motion. Shooting in 'auto ISO' mode (and auto white balance) will help ensure you are exposing correctly and reduce the frustration level. Same for autofocus- it's one less thing you have to master (only at first- I would get away from autofocus as quickly as you can and use it only when you have to). Do not try and take 'the perfect photo'! Just click away and later, see what settings are giving you photos that you like. Expect that you will only like 0.01% of your photos, but that's ok! Over time, the fraction of images you like will increase- I'm all the way up to 0.1% :)

2) From there, you can start to branch out by thinking about composition (like the rule of thirds), how directional lighting impacts shape and texture, etc. etc. Definitely check out your local library for books- the Time-Life series is quite good, for example. There's a ton of useful books out there- useful not just for explaining how to create a photo in different situations, but also example images that include essential information like what lens focal length, f/#, and shutter speed was used. And many volumes on post-processing.... I would ignore those for now and instead focus on creating good photos at the sensor. Keep experimenting- you are trying to advance from "take a bunch of photos and see what works" to "use intentional camera/lens settings to create a desired image".

3a) once you have a better understanding of what you like to photograph (landscapes? portraits? architecture? wildlife? sports? all of the above :)?) the experience you have gained will help you decide what lens(es) you need to add to your 50mm normal lens: wide angle? telephoto? macro? Tilt-shift? I'm biased towards fixed-focal length lenses over zoom lenses, but I understand the logic of having a high-quality fast zoom.

3b) Also- do you now need a flash? a tripod? a bigger SD/XD card? How are you organizing your photos? Are you just posting images online, do you want small (up to 5x7) prints, or do you want larger prints?

3c) at this point (IMO), you are now ready to explore the world of post-processing.

My $0.02...

 

[DaveC426913]

As compared or contrasted from posts 33 and 34, Getting Started in Photography some several decades ago included interacting with the technologies more easily, when people still had easier access to wet photography methods. Some technicalities were common. Some members here may remember handling photographic paper in a dark-room and making test prints to figure what was a good time quantity to expose the larger photographic paper for a good exposure from the enlarger. Also the handling of Negative film in a lightless room to remove it from the cartridge, wrap it onto a spool and put into a developing tank; and then proceeding with the chemical processing steps.

Harkens back to my high school days. And my first career.

Good times, good times..

 

[DennisN]

Even though the gear is secondary (as has been said a couple of times in this thread) I just wanted to share a recently released video from the youtube photography channel Zenography where he lists and demonstrates his five best vintage lenses. I share it here for fun, and it also inspired me to do my own list below .

My Five BEST Vintage Lenses - UPDATED! (Zenography)


Zenography's five best vintage lenses are these (and I also put in my own notes about the lenses he describes):

• Nikon 105mm f/2.5
  I haven't tried it, but I have heard about it. This lens was used to shoot the famous "Afghan Girl" photo.
  
  
• Konica 40mm f/1.8
  I agree, it's a very nice lens. Small, cheap and easy to find. It's not on my own favorites list though.
  
  
• Nikon 50mm f/2
  I haven't tried it.
  
  
• Canon nFD 50mm f/1.4
  It's my own favorite lens.
  
  
• Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f/2.4
  I haven't tried it, but I have heard about it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For fun, and reference, here is my own list of my five favorite vintage lenses.
Please note that this list is not necessarily describing lenses with the best optical performance;
it's a list of my own favorites judged mostly on how versatile and fun I think the lens is.
Please also note that lists like these are by nature subjective and personal .
I also provide pictures of the lenses and some sample photos I've taken with the lenses.
In order of focal length, here they are:

• Canon nFD 50mm f/1.4
  
  Great image quality, warm colors, fast, good in low light, versatile.
  Price: A little bit more than other 50mm lenses, but reasonably priced and well worth the money.
  
  
  
• Meyer-Optik Görlitz Oreston 50mm f/1.8
  (or Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 Multi Coating; it's basically the same lens)
  
  Fun, well built, versatile and with a minimum focus distance of only 33 cm, which means you can get remarkably close with this one for being a 50mm.
  Price: Quite cheap. The Pentacon version is multicoated and even cheaper.
  
  
  
• Helios 44 58mm f/2
  Not exceptional optics, but a very, very fun lens, fine for "normal" shots but great for artistic shots and experimental photography. It can do swirly bokeh, and it can be modded by reversing the front element in order to get really experimental and unusual shots. Available in seven versions with various prices. The last version, M7, is said to be the best optically, but it can be harder to find than the other versions.
  Price: Still relatively cheap, but prices have gone up. Easy to find.
  
  
  
• Canon nFD 100mm f/4 Macro
  I like shooting macro and this is a good and useful 100 mm macro lens. It can be used for other things too, e.g. "normal" shots and portraits. Maybe my recently aquired Vivitar 90mm f/2.5 Macro will replace it, I don't know yet.
  Price: Not among the cheapest vintage lenses, but macro lenses tend to cost a little more.
  
  
  
• Jupiter-37A 135mm f/3.5
  A Sonnar-type 135mm; solid build, smooth focus and distinctive rendering. Good bokeh with 12 blades in the aperture.
  Price: Can be a bit hard to find and can cost a little more than other 135mm lenses, but it's a very, very good lens.
  
  
  

 

[Janus]

As compared or contrasted from posts 33 and 34, Getting Started in Photography some several decades ago included interacting with the technologies more easily, when people still had easier access to wet photography methods. Some technicalities were common. Some members here may remember handling photographic paper in a dark-room and making test prints to figure what was a good time quantity to expose the larger photographic paper for a good exposure from the enlarger. Also the handling of Negative film in a lightless room to remove it from the cartridge, wrap it onto a spool and put into a developing tank; and then proceeding with the chemical processing steps.

I had my own darkroom set up when I was younger. I even got ambitious and did color processing. Getting the color balance right, and having to do everything in total darkness was a challenge.