Quote: (03-07-2018 02:16 PM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

Fuji X-A10
I really liked this one. Huxley is probably laughing now. It is a bit pricier than D3400, but it offers unique feel compared to DSLRs. Sturdy metal body, much heavier than D3400 and with XC kit lens. Despite being a simple box, it has good ergonomics. Guy in the store says it is a very good option, despite him and his friends not having experience with Fuji.

A good camera, but more for snapping pics of friends and food on vacation.

If you're going to go X series, get the Fuji X-T2 and never look back at any of the substandard, plastic stuff Canon or Nikon is making these days.

You're not a photographer if you don't recognise this one in an instant. Why is it so unique? Yes, it's the first photograph ever taken and by the inventor of the photographic process - Daguerre. It is a scene in Paris, early in the morning, perhaps 8am but what makes it stand out it tells a story (worth reading upon it). Truly interesting photographs aren't pictures of things out there, but provide the viewer with compelling narrative and story, often full of ambivalence.

Everything else comes the second.

The first step is actually to take pictures with your eyes. True, you won't freeze your snaps for posterity but you can make amazing ones for yourself at any time with no time lag. What matters, is that you can imagine at any time when you're out and about how'd you frame and freeze the things you look at. But then, of course, one day you'll need a tool anyway. However, that's way less important than you think. You get lots of people coming to photography courses armoured to teeth with the best and latest gear and what they produce is... mediocre. What matters is the person behind the camera, the tool not really - most modern cameras are so advanced the differences are small and matter only for professionals (and for big-sized print outs).

If you learn to conceptualize the problems you want to shoot, learn a bit about philosophy of photography, then you'll produce intellectually stimulating, provocative for the viewer and/or aesthetically appealing photographs.

Have a look at Barthes' Lucida Camera, Sontag's On Photography, Waldnen's Photography and Philosophy and, of course, study masters' photographs, from Adams to Cartier-Bresson to Winograd (I'm partial to Street Photo). Very quickly you'll notice that mastering tools is much easier than mastering truly interesting photographs.

Thanks to proliferation of cheap digital cameras and phone cameras, it is so much more difficult to stand out because there are some 2 billion pictures snapped and uploaded every single day. Probably the best site to read upon technical stuff is http://www.dpreview.com but it's like going down the rabbit hole - you can spend hundreds of hours reading upon reviews, comparisons, lenses, technology. In the end, you will be none the wiser and a photography student with some philosophical-theoretical background and a pin-hole camera will yield superior photographs. I wouldn't recommend to post your pictures to the myriad of online galleries - unless you just want to stroke your ego a bit - you'll get opinions from black to white, amateurs playing pros. All in all, this may stifle your creativity and make you follow certain trends. I'd rather abstain, and focus on the masters and philosophy of the subject. Probably the best thing is just to build your on website - otherwise your pics will quickly vanish in the enormous ocean of pictures upon pictures.

There are some pro-photographers that do projects just with phone cameras. Heck, Soderbergh just made a full feature film with a phone camera only. Becoming either an artist or commercial photographer very difficult because the entry level is so low unlike in the past when the only option was analogue and the skill to develop the film.

However, few people do think philosophically and conceptually about photographs - if one does some serious reading in the history, development and contemporary photography, one can quickly raise a level above people with the best and most advanced gear.

To become successful is a mixture of technical skill, conceptual artfulness, luck, what is en vogue in the art scene and knowing the right people and owners of the right galleries. For shooting for your own pleasure, almost any camera will do.

So why does the auto setting on a camera underexpose the object in focus if the background is backlit strongly?

Quote: (03-17-2018 02:22 PM)kbell Wrote:  

So why does the auto setting on a camera underexpose the object in focus if the background is backlit strongly?

It doesn't depend on the mode. Even manual will do that. It depends on the metering system you are using. The default metering system in most cameras is set to evaluative metering which works by exposing each part of the picture by assigning an average exposure to each element. So if something is too bright, the average exposure will go down and hence the subject which is not in highlights will go down. To correct this, you can change the metering system to spot or central metering. Then the camera will give weightage of the overall exposure to where the focus point of the camera is pointing at (your subject). This will then create a new problem where your subject will be well exposed but the already bright background will become even brighter. So the best way out of this situation is to stick to evaluative metering but using a flash to light up your subject. Then you get the subject and negative space properly exposed. If you're resorting to a flash, you'll have to learn using an external flash and firing it through a modifier or bouncing it to avoid getting that harsh looking flash effect.

Quote: (03-16-2018 07:29 AM)ksbms Wrote:  

There are some pro-photographers that do projects just with phone cameras. Heck, Soderbergh just made a full feature film with a phone camera only. Becoming either an artist or commercial photographer very difficult because the entry level is so low unlike in the past when the only option was analogue and the skill to develop the film.

However, few people do think philosophically and conceptually about photographs - if one does some serious reading in the history, development and contemporary photography, one can quickly raise a level above people with the best and most advanced gear.

I'll agree to a point, but the right camera can make someone feel addicted to taking photos. An iPhone X will not. The tool won't make you any good, true, it's in your creativity, but a good tool will give your more power to your creativity. It doesn't have to be top of the line, but very good.

I have been thinking this past week. I could consider option of buying better phone and use it to take photos according to books and resources; honing my beginner skills and buying first camera later. So why I suddenly put this as one of the options?

The thing is, my current phone is Chinese one (Prestigio) and 5 years old. Battery life rapidly declines, phone is plagued with bugs, sound problems, etc. But the biggest deal is camera. It is 8 mpx but since I know significantly more in theory than I did 5 years ago, I know that mpx is not something that makes camera better than other. There are much more important things to consider, which my phone simply doesn't have. I have been playing this past week with manual settings, using what I learned. I got just slightly better pictures.

Buying another better phone might killing two birds with one stone. In any case, I would also publish online and follow the original plans. Any opinions?

I've had an entry level DSLR for a few years before moving to a high end DSLR, and also have a high end smartphone.

In decent lighting, and with still subjects, the smartphone does a great job. The smartphone's huge advantage is that you have it with you all the time.

For casual photos taken while out and about, the smartphone is fine - it's what I use most of the time. However, everyone has a smartphone, and it's harder for these photos to really stand out. For the promotional photos I need for work, I always use the DSLR.

DSLRs (and mirrorless) are much more customisable. You can change lenses to suit the situation. You can add flashes and bounce light off ceilings and walls. The autofocus is much faster and you can take photos much more quickly - essential for things like sports photography or photos of fast moving animals. The larger image sensors create better photos in low light situations, and can allow more blurring of the background (when using a lens with a large enough aperture). Example of blurring the background to draw more focus to the subject:


You're also given more respect for having a "proper" camera. You're more likely to get a positive response if you go up to a girl and say you're a photographer with a DSLR in hand, rather than an iPhone.

Decent smartphones are great for casual photography, but you will quickly reach the limits of what you can do.

I would get an entry level DSLR or mirrorless, start with the kit lens and then quickly add a cheap prime (35mm or 50mm f1.8). These have a much larger aperture than the standard kit lenses and so are much better at blurring backgrounds.

I was thinking about picking up a 50mm 1.2 or 1.4. I have a 24-70 2.8 but find that I don't get enough bokeh. Using a full frame.

Quote: (03-20-2018 06:18 AM)player Wrote:  

You're also given more respect for having a "proper" camera. You're more likely to get a positive response if you go up to a girl and say you're a photographer with a DSLR in hand, rather than an iPhone.

Decent smartphones are great for casual photography, but you will quickly reach the limits of what you can do.

I would get an entry level DSLR or mirrorless, start with the kit lens and then quickly add a cheap prime (35mm or 50mm f1.8). These have a much larger aperture than the standard kit lenses and so are much better at blurring backgrounds.

I agree with everything you said but don't you think it all comes down at the end to what is priority at the moment and what is the secondary goal?
New phone will be necessary soon, and I cannot afford at the moment both phone and camera. And I would rather have new phone now and buy camera later this year instead of vice versa.

Anyone know good affordable phones with good cameras? I like Sony Xperia XA2, seems like a killer for its price.

Quote: (03-20-2018 10:26 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

Quote: (03-20-2018 06:18 AM)player Wrote:  

You're also given more respect for having a "proper" camera. You're more likely to get a positive response if you go up to a girl and say you're a photographer with a DSLR in hand, rather than an iPhone.

Decent smartphones are great for casual photography, but you will quickly reach the limits of what you can do.

I would get an entry level DSLR or mirrorless, start with the kit lens and then quickly add a cheap prime (35mm or 50mm f1.8). These have a much larger aperture than the standard kit lenses and so are much better at blurring backgrounds.

I agree with everything you said but don't you think it all comes down at the end to what is priority at the moment and what is the secondary goal?
New phone will be necessary soon, and I cannot afford at the moment both phone and camera. And I would rather have new phone now and buy camera later this year instead of vice versa.

Anyone know good affordable phones with good cameras? I like Sony Xperia XA2, seems like a killer for its price.

Google Pixel phones have very good cameras. Mind you, you never shoot RAW with phone cameras, the files get heavily processed with the in-house algorithms so you get particular output making, in turn, the files less customisable (due to lossy compression and algorithmic settings) with Adobe Camera Raw. Still, for what it's worth it's so much better than 5 years ago.

I am aware of Pixel, Pixel 2 is probably among the best phones at the market, but they are too expensive. I am shooting more for up to 500$ range. I know that pictures are not in RAW format, but could they still be customized in the Lightroom?

Quote: (03-20-2018 06:18 AM)player Wrote:  

I've had an entry level DSLR for a few years before moving to a high end DSLR, and also have a high end smartphone.

In decent lighting, and with still subjects, the smartphone does a great job. The smartphone's huge advantage is that you have it with you all the time.

For casual photos taken while out and about, the smartphone is fine - it's what I use most of the time. However, everyone has a smartphone, and it's harder for these photos to really stand out. For the promotional photos I need for work, I always use the DSLR.

DSLRs (and mirrorless) are much more customisable. You can change lenses to suit the situation. You can add flashes and bounce light off ceilings and walls. The autofocus is much faster and you can take photos much more quickly - essential for things like sports photography or photos of fast moving animals. The larger image sensors create better photos in low light situations, and can allow more blurring of the background (when using a lens with a large enough aperture). Example of blurring the background to draw more focus to the subject:


You're also given more respect for having a "proper" camera. You're more likely to get a positive response if you go up to a girl and say you're a photographer with a DSLR in hand, rather than an iPhone.

The biggest thing is definitely respect. You're gonna look silly with an iPhone even though technically you do shoots with them. Compact point and shoots can be very useful as they are stealthy and you want draw attention if out shooting. A lot of places 'pro' photography is not allowed.

This is an example of an advanced point and shoot camera(full frame sony rx1).

That camera is 3000+. An rx100 would be a better point an shoot for a starter since its like 440.

Quote: (03-20-2018 08:28 AM)CaptainChardonnay Wrote:  

I was thinking about picking up a 50mm 1.2 or 1.4. I have a 24-70 2.8 but find that I don't get enough bokeh. Using a full frame.

What system are using? The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 in terms of bokeh isn't really all that noticeable. I have used the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 on Canon and was really impressed with it, the build quality was top notch. The image quality was superb and the bokeh was super creamy and very pleasing. This coming from owning the Canon 85mm 1.2 which came out about the same time as the 50mm 1.2, so their optical formulas and build quality is very similar. The autofocus was much faster and the lens itself is not as heavy or bulky as the Canon 85 but it is bigger than the 50mm 1.2. If t you can get a Sigma used I'd say go for that.

Quote: (03-20-2018 01:39 PM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

I am aware of Pixel, Pixel 2 is probably among the best phones at the market, but they are too expensive. I am shooting more for up to 500$ range. I know that pictures are not in RAW format, but could they still be customized in the Lightroom?

Rather, try to answer the question from a functional perspective. Where this skill is supposed to take you? Once you can answer it, you choose gear accordingly, practice particular skills, read relevant literature and enjoy the process.

Lightroom in its latest iterations is integrated with Adobe Camera Raw. By virtue that RAW files keep all the information (the light that is reflected from the surfaces of objects or directly emitted by the sun) that can be captured by the (particular design of) sensors and converted and stored in a digital form. When it comes to jpeg/tiff files, some of that information is post-processed by the hardware and discarded, hence Camera Raw can act upon less information stored in a file and the changes applied to the file will be less fine grained. Still, with high quality lens/sensor and a good exposure, with today's best phone cameras and medium to high-end digital cameras, you can get good to excellent results. However, I wouldn't get too much obsessed about the technical side of compositionality of the photograph - the content matters more. Some of the iconic photographs were anything but technically masterful, yet they captured, to use famous Cartier-Bresson's expression, "a decisive moment".



Here we have Patrick D. Pagnano, a US photographer. To an untrained eye, this picture is bad. On your typical photo-aggregated website it would get bad ratings and get lambasted. Its partially underexposed, the background blurry, colours are muted, the pictures isn't "nice" looking but... the photograph seems to tell a story and drive the viewer's imagination.

Quote: (03-20-2018 10:49 PM)TheUsual Wrote:  

Quote: (03-20-2018 08:28 AM)CaptainChardonnay Wrote:  

I was thinking about picking up a 50mm 1.2 or 1.4. I have a 24-70 2.8 but find that I don't get enough bokeh. Using a full frame.

What system are using? The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 in terms of bokeh isn't really all that noticeable. I have used the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 on Canon and was really impressed with it, the build quality was top notch. The image quality was superb and the bokeh was super creamy and very pleasing. This coming from owning the Canon 85mm 1.2 which came out about the same time as the 50mm 1.2, so their optical formulas and build quality is very similar. The autofocus was much faster and the lens itself is not as heavy or bulky as the Canon 85 but it is bigger than the 50mm 1.2. If t you can get a Sigma used I'd say go for that.

I'm using a 5d m3. My buddy who is a pro actually just told me about the Sigma art. I'll look in it now that its been mentioned twice. I would only pick up something up if I can get a ridiculous deal for it because this is just a hobby I do every now and then.

Quote: (03-21-2018 09:32 AM)ksbms Wrote:  

Rather, try to answer the question from a functional perspective. Where this skill is supposed to take you? Once you can answer it, you choose gear accordingly, practice particular skills, read relevant literature and enjoy the process.

Practical and affordable way to hone skills. Something to learn and have fun with.

Few months ago I was traveling with a buddy and he had his GoPro kit with him which included a set of three diving filters. I messed around by holding the filters in front of my Sony alpha 6000 and got some really good results.

Do you know if Sony or a third party makes equivalent filters for these?

Anyone shoot film?

I did when I was a kid/teen. It was old Zorky camera. That is why I want to get into digital age. Can't find it anywhere in the house now but even if I did, I really don't know who develops film around me anymore.
It was this one:



Looks really cool in my opinion. Fuji mirrorless cameras remind me somehow of it.

Man that sucks to hear.still hope you ind it though.im lucky to have a shop that still develops where i am. I got about 12 rolls i need developed.
Might be buying another camera today.


Lets see some pictures fellas.

What do you plan to buy?

A nikon film camera

I already got two Nikon FE's.

Wouldnt mind grabbing a third or something of similar to it.

Just picked up a canon 50mm 1.2L for 700 bucks! Very happy with the bokeh so far.

any videographers here?