After a bit of discussion on one of eds posts about using a flash i was wondering whether there should be a place on this site where members can ask for advice on technique for different situations,i take it for granted that others know about , fill flash ,flash X-tenders ,and depth of field but i shouldn't assume.
I have been using cameras for over 40 years and im still learning!
I think that would be a good idea Sparrow when they revamp the forum site. It should be away from the photos as some people just want to look and not wade through technical stuff. Like you, I have been using cameras for many years (30 at least) and started before light meters were even in my cameras!!! I have very little equipment due to cost and not lack of interest. But it is always interesting to learn how those who do it well are achieving it. I take it for granted about stuff too such as D.O.F etc It is easy to forget how much knowledge we have accumulated over time.
Sunshine Coast Queensland
Ah,light meters i still have the fist one i owned a gift aged 14,i have 4 in my desk draw but they all give different readings.
We tend to forget just how easy we have it now,if we want we push the button and it's all done for us.
by the way i collect vintage cameras and have over 300 and yes they all work
Good stuff!
when I was 21 in Perth, I met up with a photographer who had a friend that was an old German or Russian guy. He had actually been a spy photographer during the war and he owned heaps of old and very beautiful cameras. he gave me an Exacta to start using with a waist level finder, beautiful results but all very manual. He taught me all I needed to know about apertures and f stops and I would spend all my time taking shot of anything that was sitting in one place. I used to spend much of my wage on developing and printing so it was good that I worked in a photo shop. He also gave me a twin lens reflex that I did beautiful stuff on in the larger format. So most of what I learned after that was self taught with a few books etc thrown in. When I worked for Canon the AF EOS was released and so began a new era. Then came digital ... hard to believe it was only 9 years ago that I stood in a camera shop having a discussion with fellow workers about whether digital would knock off 35m or not. I was such a purist that I was on the negative side.... so much for that theory !
Sunshine Coast Queensland
Similar start,not the spy bit,an older German friend of the family gave me a praktica and a lot of advice,it had the same finder!
I still shoot a lot of film in different formats,my wife is always whingeing about the vegetable crisper draws being full of film.
Ha ha ... that used to be me!!! I would buy it when it was short lifed and keep it for months in the fridge. I have to say although I still have a film camera.... I am just too lazy and poor to use it any more. I have truly embraced the digital format ... and thank goodness when I look at the quantity of shots I take.
Sunshine Coast Queensland
Funny about digital cameras. Years ago I was shooting 35mm transparencies only and thought I’d be not ever switching to digital. How wrong was I? In fact, the first 11 years of my nature photography it was nothing but transparency. Then I bought my first DSLR in 2006 and shot around 80,000 frames since. All good? I don’t think so. But with film there is no way to have been able to shoot as much as I have. It would have cost me nearly $38,000 in film and E6 processing (without mounts!) that means it would have cost $0.47 per image shot. Not much I guess, but in the end, when you add up how many shots I took it would be prohibitively expensive. Now anyone shooting transparency film would know that probably 5% of frames per 36 frame roll are most likely keeper images (works about the same for digital, don’t worry). That means, I would have wasted about $36,000 on film and E6 that would have been in the bin. I worked out so that my 30D cost me $2,000 in March 06. So the $2,000 paid for itself about 19 times already. That’s pretty good for a bit of an upfront investment and saving in the long run.
Hmmmm..... maybe I could apply that logic to convince my husband that i can afford to buy new gear .... or not!
I am curious Akos, given that transparency was generally considered the most versatile of medium with its capacity for handling large variations of exposure within the frame, do you think there has been any compromise in the quality of your shots? I am not very experienced in post production or in top end digital image to print stuff, so I wouldn't really know.
Sunshine Coast Queensland
I was dragged kicking and screaming into digital with my work,clients wanted everything on disk and scanning negatives was a lot more expensive back then.
I did most of my own processing but it was still expensive,now i look back i cant believe i took so long to make the change.
I only gave my D2 nikon away last year.
If i went out just to shoot landscape i would not consider anything less than 120 medium format even today.
We are getting ready to move house and i had a tear in my eye while dismantling my dark room.
So Sparrow, were you a professional photographer then? Or in a related field that required photography?
Sunshine Coast Queensland
BEW Sparrow, I am subscribed to this site and his regular newsletter. I love his photography and the really informative stuff he sends with it. Just thought you may be interested.
http://www.birdway.com.au/
I could spend hours going through his galleries :)
Sunshine Coast Queensland
BEW Sparrow, I am subscribed to this site and his regular newsletter. I love his photography and the really informative stuff he sends with it. Just thought you may be interested.
http://www.birdway.com.au/
I could spend hours going through his galleries :)
Sunshine Coast Queensland
I believe digital has reached par with 35mm a long time ago as far as image quality. There are many cameras for different applications. I am sure many pro photogs I know around the globe would disagree with the DSLR v 120 comment. I will pop the question to a few of them to see what they reckon. I think a Canon 1Ds MkIII is more than enough for all but the fussiest pixel peepers. But then again, for me, landscape is not something that interests me at all. As long as there is some wildlife in it, then that is what does. :)
That's interesting Akos and good to hear. It will be a very long time (if ever) that I can afford an EOS 1D or anything like that, and I would first off be looking at a better lens than what I am using. In the meantime I will have to be satisfied with the 1000D and the very ordinary 75-300 lens that I own now! I would love an L lens but it is always good to learn to get the very best you can out of your existing equipment, and I would say that there are quite a few things that I can still improve on in peripheral areas anyway. Recently I got a good quality remote control for my birthday that I haven't even taken out of its packet yet so I can start there and with a tripod!
Perthwings, I don't really see the need for all the talk of revamping all the time. As you can see... there is a discussion happening here on a particular subject and under a general heading. and not cluttering up the best photo thread... it seems to be working OK :) Those who wish to contribute to it are doing so and those not interested will not bother.
I am very hesitant to criticise what is obviously a free service provided on very little funding by a service dedicated to knowledge and the well being of the birds of Australia.
Sunshine Coast Queensland
birdie,you know those really BORING photos you see in brochures and catalogs of an item like a microwave, stove,book or can of soup no background just stuck there,i took photos like that in a studio set distance light i controlled, until i Nealy died of boredom,now with stock photos and the right program they can do it all themselves.yaay!
Hi windhover,I wasn't trying to start a film V digital thing,god no,being an old fart i still like the look of film but i know it has had it's day,I can now do in minutes what could sometimes take days in the dark room.
I use the medium format because not only do i like the look of film,but i already have the cameras.
If i had a spare 10or 12 grand to throw at a camera i would have a nikon D3x and i'm sure it handle landscape ok,but my wife knows what they cost and would gut me
I agree, I don't want that either. Just making comment based on what some pros have told me. I love 120 as well myself, but digital has changed me now...mate, older cameras are cheap as chips now! No need to spend 12k. If I really wanted to, I could pick up a used 1Ds MkII for around 2k. That's pretty good for a full frame 16megapixel sensor I reckon.
Have a good day mate. :)
Hi guys
Hopefully when the new forum is up and running - and I know you are sick of me saying it but I promise it is getting there (I am sick of promising it to you too) - I will look at maybe creating a subforum in the photography section. Great suggestion!
Holly