Photographers of CCS?

[zack54attack]

Just got a camera. I've gone out a few times but I'm still getting used to it.

 

[Cerebral]

This is something i've wanted to get into for awhile now. As of now, the funds aren't there for me to get one but hopefully in the next year or two I would love to buy one. Instead, I just use my cell phone -_-

 

[Cerebral]

So i've thought about biting the bullet and working a lot more overtime and buying a camera but I really don't know the first thing about photography or editing pictures or even what kind to get. I hear that Canon is the standard as far as cameras go. Can anybody school me on this topic?

 

[cubsneedmiracle]

your best shot is Nikon or Canon.. Either one is the standard now.

I personally shoot Nikon.. but know a bunch of guys who use Canon's too.

 

[cubsneedmiracle]

Well boys.. Almost had the shot to do it.. but it doesn't pay enough to warrant the move..

Was contacted by Disney for a photography position.. Wish they'd pay more.

 

[nvanprooyen]

I don't know anything about the position...but could it be a resume / network building thing? I would think shooting professionally for Disney could open some doors. Something to consider.

 

[Cerebral]

your best shot is Nikon or Canon.. Either one is the standard now.

I personally shoot Nikon.. but know a bunch of guys who use Canon's too.

I ended up buying a Nikon D3200 with a 55-200 MM lens. I went to Utah over the weekend and took some shots of the mountains. I'm still learning how to maximize all of the features but that's half the fun.

 

[nvanprooyen]

Nice camera! A good place to start is understanding exposure (ISO, aperture and shutter speed ). Here is a pretty good explanation of that:

http://www.exposureguide.com/exposure.htm

And an interactive thing you can play with from Canon that simulates changing the values of these settings:

http://canonoutsideofauto.ca/play/

 

[gpphat]

Back in HS I took a photography class and loved it, but once I graduated I didn't have time or funds to continue the hobby. Fast forward to today and I am wanting to get back into it. I loved taking B&W photos and developing them myself, it always fascinated me and had fun with the developing side. So I am going to sign up for a class to get me acclimated with photography again...just bought a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 SLR (got it off of amazon for $85 after shipping). Not expecting this to be some great camera, but from what I read about it...it should do the job in getting me back into photography.

 

[Cerebral]

Nice camera! A good place to start is understanding exposure (ISO, aperture and shutter speed ). Here is a pretty good explanation of that:

http://www.exposureguide.com/exposure.htm

And an interactive thing you can play with from Canon that simulates changing the values of these settings:

http://canonoutsideofauto.ca/play/

Thank you for your posting. The article is still somewhat confusing but I now have a better understanding of it. I would like to take some pictures where i'm focusing on one thing and everything else in the background is blurred. I also love taking B&W photos. I saw a video and someone was talking about how they only shooting in RAW instead of JPEG but i'm still not sure why that is. They said something along the lines of you can modify your RAW but you can't JPEG but i'm still unclear how they're doing that.

 

[Monk]

Thank you for your posting. The article is still somewhat confusing but I now have a better understanding of it. I would like to take some pictures where i'm focusing on one thing and everything else in the background is blurred. I also love taking B&W photos. I saw a video and someone was talking about how they only shooting in RAW instead of JPEG but i'm still not sure why that is. They said something along the lines of you can modify your RAW but you can't JPEG but i'm still unclear how they're doing that.

I shoot with a Canon 40D and the software that comes with it allows you to really manipulate curves and play with other things. If you shoot in JPEG there are just some basis editing. If you don't plan on doing a lot of manipulation after shooting JPEG is much easier to deal with. I use RAW for my artsy stuff but JPEG for family stuff.

 

[nvanprooyen]

Thank you for your posting. The article is still somewhat confusing but I now have a better understanding of it. I would like to take some pictures where i'm focusing on one thing and everything else in the background is blurred. I also love taking B&W photos. I saw a video and someone was talking about how they only shooting in RAW instead of JPEG but i'm still not sure why that is. They said something along the lines of you can modify your RAW but you can't JPEG but i'm still unclear how they're doing that.

To take a picture like you are describing, you need a lens that has a really wide / low aperture (represented by f stop). This means that the field of view (focus) is very shallow. Think of it like this...if focus is defined by two vertical planes from the ground that would determine what is in focus, a deep field of view means those 2 planes are very far apart. Everything between those planes would be in focus. If you moved them very close together, only what is between them would be in focus leaving the rest blurry. This takes a wide aperture to accomplish. See my flower pot picture above. Hope that made some sense.

Re RAW vs. JPEG...I always shoot RAW. There are only 2 good reasons (that I can think of anyways) where you wouldn't want to do this. First, storage. RAW files take up more room than their JPEG counterparts. Second, you aren't going to do any post-processing to the image. Shooting RAW allows you to correct a lot more things (primarily exposure) after you've already taken the shot. This requires software that can do this post processing like Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture (software, not to be confused with what I was talking about above) etc. You can edit a JPEG in post, but you don't have nearly the level of control you have with a RAW file.

Disclaimer: I'm a total amature, so still learning too. Some more experienced people here may be able to give more complete advice.

 

[Monk]

Panoramic phone shot of the grand canyon. Which btw was made quickly during a global flood instead of over millions of years as some would have you believe.

Thanks I'm here all week.

 

[nvanprooyen]

**** man. Lol. You've officially raised derailing to an art form.

 

[Monk]

**** man. Lol. You've officially raised derailing to an art form.

It has a freakin picture in it!!!

Other than the comments what do you think of the picture? It took it with the galaxy note2. I had just figured out it had a panoramic feature.

Pictures can't capture the canyon though. I walked around the whole day with my jaw open.

 

[Monk]

Overlooking Phoenix

 

[Monk]

Anybody tried shooting indoor or night sports. I tried shooting an ECU basketball game for the yearbook but had to put the film speed up so high to get good stills that weren't too dark that they were really grain. They didn't select any of my pictures.

Other than buying a really expensive lens I don't know what to do about those shots.

 

[Cerebral]

To take a picture like you are describing, you need a lens that has a really wide / low aperture (represented by f stop). This means that the field of view (focus) is very shallow. Think of it like this...if focus is defined by two vertical planes from the ground that would determine what is in focus, a deep field of view means those 2 planes are very far apart. Everything between those planes would be in focus. If you moved them very close together, only what is between them would be in focus leaving the rest blurry. This takes a wide aperture to accomplish. See my flower pot picture above. Hope that made some sense.

Re RAW vs. JPEG...I always shoot RAW. There are only 2 good reasons (that I can think of anyways) where you wouldn't want to do this. First, storage. RAW files take up more room than their JPEG counterparts. Second, you aren't going to do any post-processing to the image. Shooting RAW allows you to correct a lot more things (primarily exposure) after you've already taken the shot. This requires software that can do this post processing like Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture (software, not to be confused with what I was talking about above) etc. You can edit a JPEG in post, but you don't have nearly the level of control you have with a RAW file.

Disclaimer: I'm a total amature, so still learning too. Some more experienced people here may be able to give more complete advice.

That makes sense as far as the RAW vs JPEG conversation. I did notice that RAW used up more memory but I didn't think it would be a problem. Since I probably won't be doing post picture editing maybe i'll go back to JPEG. At least for now. As far as the f stop conversation goes. I'm still unsure what capabilities my lens have for blurring images.

 

[malcore]

Anybody tried shooting indoor or night sports. I tried shooting an ECU basketball game for the yearbook but had to put the film speed up so high to get good stills that weren't too dark that they were really grain. They didn't select any of my pictures.

Other than buying a really expensive lens I don't know what to do about those shots.

High ISO settings can definitely result in grain, especially indoors with fast moving subjects. A larger aperture (lower F-stop) will allow more light in, but is not great for sports shots due to depth of field issues, unless you are only focusing on one subject. And of course, increasing the exposure time would eventually cause blurring of moving subjects. You just may need to buy a lens more suitable to this type of shooting. Doesn't have to be expensive necessarily.

 

[Monk]

High ISO settings can definitely result in grain, especially indoors with fast moving subjects. A larger aperture (lower F-stop) will allow more light in, but is not great for sports shots due to depth of field issues, unless you are only focusing on one subject. And of course, increasing the exposure time would eventually cause blurring of moving subjects. You just may need to buy a lens more suitable to this type of shooting. Doesn't have to be expensive necessarily.

I looked into it a little. The one's I was looking at were specifically for sports with the big zoom. They were pretty for if you're getting paid, not recreational. So they were crazy high.