General Photography Chat - Page 54

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**1061** Posted **Jun 26, 2011, 7:01 PM**

I think a camera like that would be a useful tool for real photographers who know what they're doing, like photojournalists whose photos capture action. However, for new photographers, I could see how it would certainly produce some laziness since you wouldn't have to worry about properly focusing the shot before or as you're taking it.

photoLith · #**1062** Posted **Jun 26, 2011, 11:39 PM**

You can say goodbye to people needing to be talented to be good photographers, ugh. I hope that new technology doesnt work too well.

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**1063** Posted **Jun 27, 2011, 12:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photolitherland

You can say goodbye to people needing to be talented to be good photographers, ugh. I hope that new technology doesnt work too well.

Personally, I think the term "photographer" became severely watered down with the proliferation of digital cameras and camera phones in the last several years. I had a classmate with a beautiful Canon EOS 7D, a camera I could have dreams about owning. She used it to take Facebook photos. I saw so many classmates with cameras and gear just as good, if not extremely better (and more expensive) than mine, and they had no clue what they were doing. Fortunately, one of my friends took an interest in photography and got his dad to allow him to bring his Canon gear to school so I could show him hands-on, but the rest of my former classmates? Hopeless. Utterly hopeless, and completely undeserving of such fine photographic equipment.

/rant

photoLith · #**1064** Posted **Jun 27, 2011, 12:18 AM**

^
Well, than lets hope even as tech gets more advanced that the people shooting still take crap pictures. No matter how much photography evolves and no matter how easy it gets to take a well exposed sharp photo, etc that you will still have to have an eye for it and above all, know how to frame a photo well and not just put it up to your face and take a shit picture. I always hang out at the Houston Camera Exchange, one of the souths best camera stores imo and I always see people in their with incredible camera equipment but see their photos, and they suck a lot of the time. Pisses me off. Then theres other people that own nicer shit than me and I have to explain to them what aperture means and how to use their cameras on manual settings. Oh well.

flar · #**1065** Posted **Jun 27, 2011, 12:22 AM**

Some of the better point and shoots take better photos out-of-the-box than expensive SLRs. All kinds of people are taking shitty photos with awesome cameras, it's always been like that. SLRs plus the right lenses allow people who know what they're doing to get the most out of the equipment. I think you still need to understand what makes a good image to get the most out of the new technology.

The main problem I have right now is that there are so many people taking photos and posting them online that people think you should give away photos for free. It seems that in the past few months more and more people walk away from deals when they find out it costs money to use my photos. One of them was a goddamn credit union! As if they can't afford pay a few bucks for a photo. I don't make a living off it, so it's not going to kill me, but I have no interest in giving away my work for free to commercial users.

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**1066** Posted **Jun 27, 2011, 12:25 AM**

It's absolutely true that it doesn't matter how much money you spend or how nice your equipment is, if you don't have a good eye or a basic understanding of the rules like the Rule of Thirds, you won't take good photos and you can't call yourself a photographer. I know a guy around my age who takes absolutely stunning photos, much better than anything I could take, with a Lumix point and shoot. Now he's got a great eye.

photoLith · #**1067** Posted **Jun 27, 2011, 12:32 AM**

flar, Ive had plenty of my photos stolen by Arkansas tourists magazines and calenders, they get them off my photobucket account and dont even credit me, that really pissed me off when I found out about that stuff. But what can you do?

Also, 8 years ago when I first started photography and making money from it doing weddings and such, I could easily get a grand from a wedding. Now that every joe schmohs uncle can buy a 600 dollar DSLR, people think that even 500 bucks for a wedding is too steep and they say, you know, my aunt owns a camera, I think Ill just have her take my photos. Yeah, and youll get shit results. People arent willing to shell out money hardly anymore for photographers. On tuesday Im doing some portraits at a church here in town and Im only getting 250 bucks for a days with of work. They turned down someone for 500 dollars and I said Id do it for 250 cause Im strapped for cash right now. 10 years ago, you could have gotten 1200 bucks or so for the job Im doing for 250.

Robert Pence · #**1068** Posted **Jun 27, 2011, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photolitherland

^
... I always hang out at the Houston Camera Exchange, one of the souths best camera stores imo and I always see people in their with incredible camera equipment but see their photos, and they suck a lot of the time. Pisses me off. Then theres other people that own nicer shit than me and I have to explain to them what aperture means and how to use their cameras on manual settings. Oh well.

The gadget technology has evolved, but the activity hasn't.

Nearly fifty years ago I used to hang out occasionally at Wiles Camera Shop on Kirkwood Avenue, just off the IU campus in Bloomington, Indiana. One of the regular customers was a woman who would arrive in a chauffeur-driven Cadillac and bring her top-of-the-line Leica rangefinder camera into the store. The proprietor would load a 36-exposure roll of Kodachrome and make the appropriate settings for the day's weather, and she'd go out for an afternoon of picture-taking.

When she finished, she'd come back to the store and the owner would rewind the film and send it to the lab for processing. I never saw any of her slides, but I probably wouldn't have been impressed.

mr.John · #**1069** Posted **Jun 27, 2011, 4:15 PM**

One thing we all most agree on is that digitial photography has leveled the playing field between serious amateurs and so-called professionals, in the past an amateur couldn't match the results of a pro for the simple reason they didn't has access to endless roles of film ,imagine the cost of shooting 20 roles of Kodachrome and having a pro lab process your photos?

diskojoe · #**1070** Posted **Jun 27, 2011, 8:23 PM**

I still want to try out one of these cameras. I know when I did my photoshoot this would have been very handy because some shots did not get the focus I was looking for and I did not have time to test onsite. So with this I could have made the minor corrections I needed that are not possible in post with current technology.

BUT the future will come regardless of how hard you try to grip on the the past or the present. It will come. BUT TECHNOLOGY CAN NEVER REPLACE THE IMAGINATION.

tessioa9 · #**1071** Posted **Jun 28, 2011, 7:42 PM**

I'm really interested in photography. I even wanted to take the course. But what I've always wanted to know is what would be an ideal camera to start out with?

photoLith · #**1072** Posted **Jun 28, 2011, 8:28 PM**

If you have never even done photography before, start out with a nice point and shoot camera. Theres plenty that act like DSLRs but dont come with the price tag. After you get some experience under your belt, buy a decent DSLR and some lenses.

diskojoe · #**1073** Posted **Jun 29, 2011, 2:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photolitherland

If you have never even done photography before, start out with a nice point and shoot camera. Theres plenty that act like DSLRs but dont come with the price tag. After you get some experience under your belt, buy a decent DSLR and some lenses.

I'd second this recommendation. A good point and click can be used to learn the basic like framing a shot with out having to bother with figuring out exposure times and aperture needed. Thats what i started out with and eventually when it just wasnt enough anymore I upgraded.

bulliver · #**1074** Posted **Jun 30, 2011, 3:27 AM**

Very good advice for certain, but on the other hand, if you are pretty serious about getting into photography, a low end DSLR and kit lens will cost just a bit more than a decent point and shoot, and will hold a higher resale value if it doesn't work out for you.

I still have my first DSLR, and use it regularily as a second body when out and about shooting. It's turned out to be an excellent investment for me.

So again, I think you should question how serious you are about photography. If you just want to take snaps then get the point and shoot. If you are a bit more serious you may want to just go straight to the low end Nikon/Canon DSLR or even a used kit with a couple lenses.

You mentioned a course? Most courses I've seen require a DSLR camera...keep that in mind when looking....

diskojoe · #**1075** Posted **Jun 30, 2011, 1:37 PM**

Very good point to come back with. You can actually by some of the older model DSLR's used pretty cheap now. If you plan to take a course you would want the dslr. No one needs a course on how to use a point and click bc it does all the work. You would want something you could manually adjust. And it is a better investment long term.

photoLith · #**1076** Posted **Jun 30, 2011, 1:49 PM**

At the Houston Camera Exchange you can buy D200 bodies for freakin 400 bucks, when I bought mine 7 years ago, it was nearly 2 grand for the body. And its still a kick ass camera. So, yeah, to tessioa, you can buy pretty sweet cameras that are used but still kick ass.

Although, theres a really sweet new Nikon point and shoot, the Nikon Coolpix L120 thats around 240 bucks or so, 14.1 megapixels, way more than youll ever need. But if you want a DSLR thats not used, check out the new Nikon D5100, which is I think around 900 bucks with the camera and probably a 18-55mm lens or 18-70mm.

diskojoe · #**1077** Posted **Jun 30, 2011, 2:05 PM**

Id go with that d200 for $400. thats a good deal. add a nice lens and your in serious business.

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**1078** Posted **Jun 30, 2011, 4:59 PM**

The last few days, I've been keeping a close eye on my Flickr stats. There's one image that, for some reason is consistently getting 20 views or more a day, even though it doesn't really stand out in any way from its series. Anyone else ever have that kind of oddity occur in their stats, or have one shot that doesn't seem particularly noteworthy that gets a lot of views?

diskojoe · #**1079** Posted **Jun 30, 2011, 6:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan

The last few days, I've been keeping a close eye on my Flickr stats. There's one image that, for some reason is consistently getting 20 views or more a day, even though it doesn't really stand out in any way from its series. Anyone else ever have that kind of oddity occur in their stats, or have one shot that doesn't seem particularly noteworthy that gets a lot of views?

from the stats menu you can click referrers and see where the hits are coming from on individual photos.

mr.John · #**1080** Posted **Jul 1, 2011, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan

The last few days, I've been keeping a close eye on my Flickr stats. There's one image that, for some reason is consistently getting 20 views or more a day, even though it doesn't really stand out in any way from its series. Anyone else ever have that kind of oddity occur in their stats, or have one shot that doesn't seem particularly noteworthy that gets a lot of views?

could be some joker messing with you, click on any photo (not one of yours) then tap f5 for about a minute, and presto the photo has 300-500 views, and of course if your account is about to expire views mysteriously start spiking