Photography (Off Topic)

I agree, Tim. The photo's shared here by some of our photo masters have been a great diversion from what we are dealing with, and a way of showing beauty in life and in the world we live in. Bravo to the photographers at HW, and for sharing their art.

david

I agree that Canon or Nikon are the way to go. I have a Nikon D300 which is a more expensive camera than I or most people really need. The important thing with buying an SLR is recognizing that you are making a lifetime commitment to your collection of lenses. So whether start with a Canon or a Nikon camera body you will need to buy lenses that fit that particular brand of camera. If I wanted to buy another camera in the future I'd need to buy a Nikon camera body because it would work with all my lenses. Both make a range of SLR's from about $500 into a couple of thousand. But even if you started with one of their less expensive camera bodies, you'd be able to later trade up to a fancier camera body and still use your lenses.

Either Nikon or Canon will be able to shoot in black and white or in sepia. But what you really want to do is shoot using the camera's RAW format. This captures and saves much more digital information than is stored in any single jpg file. Once you have that RAW file you can edit it in any good Photo editing program, PhotoShop (very expensive), PhotoShop elements (about $100), or any of several very good free programs such as Gimp.

You can think of the RAW file as being something like a negative (even though it is a positive image) and think of the photo editing software as your darkroom. In the world of black and white photography, Ansel Adams was king of the hill. But the prints you see of his photographs (I saw an exhibit of his original prints last year at the Peabody Essex Museum in Massachusetts) are the result of hours of darkroom work. None of these prints would look the way they do if they were simply printed from his negatives.

What Adams did in the darkroom, we can now do much more easily with our digital RAW files and editing software. Not that any fancy software will make any of us Ansel Adams. Using Adams as an example - his prints all have a very high "dynamic range" - the range of shades from black to white.

An example, which applies to either a color or a black and white photo would be a landscape shot with say water and trees in the foreground and a complex sky with both deep blue and detailed clouds in shades of gray to white. If you just took the picture and let the camera save it as a jpg file, the camera's algorithm would average out the exposure to do its best to keep every thing more-or less exposed properly. The result will be disappointing because the sky might be exposed well, but the trees will be too dark, or vice versa; the reflections of the clouds in the water may be indistinct, etc.

Using your software "darkroom's" ability to edit your RAW file you can turn it into multiple different exposures -- one exposed properly for the blue sky, one exposed to bring out the details of the clouds, one exposed to bring out the light and shadows in the tree line; one to bring out the reflections in the water, etc.

Having now turned your single RAW file into a collection of specific exposures, you can now take them into your main photo editor, put each of these images in its own layer, and then use the software's tools to combine the best exposed parts of each layer into a single image that shows better and greater range than would otherwise have been possible.

This is just one of the many things that this kind of "post-processing" make possible. Look at nearly any calendar photo -- Audubon, Nature Conservancy, etc. and you are looking at pictures that didn't come that way straight out of the camera.

One book I highly recommend is "The Photoshop Darkroom" by Davis and Davis. Even if you are using a different editing program such as the free and excellent Gimp, the techniques described here will apply, even though the software's interface will be a bit different.

I hope this helps a bit.

Great info guys! I really enjoy Ed's photos. I am amazed at his skill. I keep pondering the idea of buying a digital SLR but I am so busy already. Some day. Thanks for the excellent tips.
SC

I love photography and especially black and white photography. I used to take photographs of barns on our car trips and really enjoyed it.

Happy to see the pictures that have been posted here.

Know what you mean, Peter.

I feel silly sometimes with my entire HD Camcorder rig. While the camera is small, by the time I hook up the light bar, with as many as 4 LED light modules, and have the shot gun microphone on top - with the furry looking cover on it to keep down wind noise, it looks huge. At highest resolution and in cinema quality, it really sucks up the memory. It's recording at 25 mps, which is amazing, and you can fill up a 32 GB SD card pretty fast. I use the 10x speed cards, just to keep up with the camera.

Only problem is on the display side. The camera can record higher resolution than even my best TV can display, which is 1080 HD, 120 hz. Not sure what a person would need to see films at the highest resolution.

I was so into photography when I was in high school. Bought my first 35mm camera new for all of 20 bucks from a drug store. When I went into the Navy, one of my job choices was to be a photographer, but they didn't have any slots at the time. So when I was stationed in the P.I., I went nuts and bought just about everything Minolta at the time made. This is the same camera and lenses that my daughter uses to this day. Would have to say its some durable gear.

David

I agree on not dropping a bundle on a camera system unless you are sure you are into it. I have been using a Nikon Coolpix for quite a while. I have framed landscape photos on my wall that I took with a simple camera like that. One big hesitation I have about moving up to a DSLR so speak was mentioned by Peter: I hate the thought of travelling everywhere with the gear hanging around my neck. With the little camera, I just keep it in my pocket and it is always available.
SC

A big consideration, whether buying a DSLR or a point-and-shoot camera, is the size of the sensor - the optically sensitive digital device that captures the image delivered into the camera by the lens (think of it as the digital "film"). Most camera ads make a big feature of megapixels but rarely mention sensor size. Don't be overly impressed with megapixels - 12 or so MP is plenty, but a larger sensor makes a huge difference in image quality, sharpness, and in your ability to crop, blow-up, or otherwise effectively post-process your images.

Most of the point-and-shoot type cameras have very small sensors - even at the higher end of the price range. But even the entry level DSLRs (e.g., Canon EOST3 or Nikon D3200) have a hugely bigger sensor. about $500 - $600 will buy either the Canon or the Nikon with a "kit" zoom lens that will take very good pictures, especially combined with the cameras' large sensor, and you would have the possibility of adding other specialized or higher quality lenses later on.

Another way to go would be to go with a 4/3 format camera, such as the an Olympus. This 4/3 size sensor is smaller than you'd get in a DSLR but is still way bigger than you'd find in almost any point-and-shoot camera. The lower end of the Olympus line is price competitive with most of the decent quality point and shoots. My wife has an Olympus EPL-2, which takes truly excellent pictures. I often use it instead of my Nikon when I want to travel light. It has the full range of controls I have on my Nikon D300, but because there are fewer knobs and buttons they aren't all as quickly accessible. However other than having the advantage of compact size, this model Olympus is in the same price range as an entry-level SLR.

Any camera will give you the ability to learn to see and frame interesting pictures--and this is 95 percent of good photography. But my personal feeling -- just my opinion -- is that even a beginning photographer needs a camera that -- in addition to having a simple point-and-shoot mode (which BTW the Canon and Nikon mentioned above do have)-- also give the photographer the option
to control shutter speed, f-stop, and focus. Mastering these three controls will open up worlds of possibility.

Here's a link that better explains what I mean about digital image sensor sizes:
http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/camera-system/sensor-sizes

Post Edited (Bohemond) : 7/28/2013 1:27:47 PM (GMT-6)

Tim,
I'm a lot like you. I did fairly serious photography back in the days of Kodachrome with the SLR I bought while I was in the Navy (in the 60s). But as film fell out of fashion I eventually bought a low-end Kodak digital camera - which was fine for family photos, but not up to snuff for real photography.

Finally, about 3 years ago, when I was planning to retire and recognizing that I may not dare to spend really serious money on cameras and lenses again, my wife told me to do what I really wanted to do and buy some high-end photo equipment and software. It was a bit of a re-education -- learning a whole bunch of nice-to-have; but not need-to-have capabilities that are now built into digital cameras. I actually had to dumb-down some of my camera's options to make it more like my old main-squeeze SLR from the 1960s. But I've since learned to selectively take advantage of many of the new features that digital SLRs make possible (and to ignore the ones that I think are just bells and whistles). I now take quite a few pictures for artistic reasons, but also take quite a few for practical reasons--pics of guitars, ukuleles, etc. that I've built, to send to customers as photos of work-in-progress, or to put on my web site; pics of activities on local conservation land (overseen by a non-profit corporation of which I'm an officer) to send to local newspapers or to submit with grant applications, etc.

I highly recommend the books by David Busch. I have his book for the Nikon D300, but I think he has books for most of the other popular cameras also. The great thing about his books is he gives advice in context and with his opinions; as opposed to the book that typically comes with a camera that only describe features and functions.

I'm overdue to put up a Flickr site with some of my photos. I have quite a few done over the last couple of years done with my newer Nikon digital gear. But I also have digital conversions of old Kodachrome color slides I took in Vietnam with my old - and now obsolete -- Petri FT 35mm SLR--the camera on which I learned all about depth-of-field, f-stops, etc. My ex-wife sent me these slides a year ago. I thought they were long gone. I'm really grateful to her for saving them.
Jim

142,

Glad to hear I wasn't the only one. My daughter was thrilled when I gave her the entire outfit. Was quite a large case with just about every available option at the time, telephoto and wide angle lenses, adapters, meters, etc.

When I was shipped back home, most of my personal belongings were stolen. But my some miracle, all my camera gear made it back. Will never understand that, as the rest of the stuff stolen wasn't really worth much in money.

Daugther says though, it's getting harder and harder, and more expensive, to get developing done, so she's thinking about learning to do it herself, assuming you can still buy all the gear and chemicals.

I never learned to do that part.

And yes, that Minolta 101 was a manual everything camera, in my opinion, the best way to learn and control what one is shooting. However, its hard to argue the simplicity and resolution of most modern cameras. Look how amazing even our cell phone cameras can be

Glad to hear that many here find enjoyment in this hobby/craft. Its definitely GFMPH!

david

Bohemond said...
Tim,
I'm a lot like you. I did fairly serious photography back in the days of Kodachrome with the SLR I bought while I was in the Navy (in the 60s). But as film fell out of fashion I eventually bought a low-end Kodak digital camera - which was fine for family photos, but not up to snuff for real photography.

Finally, about 3 years ago, when I was planning to retire and recognizing that I may not dare to spend really serious money on cameras and lenses again, my wife told me to do what I really wanted to do and buy some high-end photo equipment and software. It was a bit of a re-education -- learning a whole bunch of nice-to-have; but not need-to-have capabilities that are now built into digital cameras. I actually had to dumb-down some of my camera's options to make it more like my old main-squeeze SLR from the 1960s. But I've since learned to selectively take advantage of many of the new features that digital SLRs make possible (and to ignore the ones that I think are just bells and whistles). I now take quite a few pictures for artistic reasons, but also take quite a few for practical reasons--pics of guitars, ukuleles, etc. that I've built, to send to customers as photos of work-in-progress, or to put on my web site; pics of activities on local conservation land (overseen by a non-profit corporation of which I'm an officer) to send to local newspapers or to submit with grant applications, etc.

I highly recommend the books by David Busch. I have his book for the Nikon D300, but I think he has books for most of the other popular cameras also. The great thing about his books is he gives advice in context and with his opinions; as opposed to the book that typically comes with a camera that only describe features and functions.

I'm overdue to put up a Flickr site with some of my photos. I have quite a few done over the last couple of years done with my newer Nikon digital gear. But I also have digital conversions of old Kodachrome color slides I took in Vietnam with my old - and now obsolete -- Petri FT 35mm SLR--the camera on which I learned all about depth-of-field, f-stops, etc. My ex-wife sent me these slides a year ago. I thought they were long gone. I'm really grateful to her for saving them.
Jim

I, too, did a lot of photography while in the Navy (I was hoping to get into Photographers Mate school, but that didn't happen)  I'm on the cusp of retirement and am again considering phototgraphy as a hobby.  I studied Ansel Adams' books when I did photography 40 years ago, and took photography classes  throughout high school.  I also studied the history of photography and how the War Between the States was photographed by Matthew Brady and others.  Doubtless its just nostalgia, but B&W photography still has a strong appeal for me.  Sepia photography has quite a history, too, with various methods used. There's a guy in Oregon who does sepia photography using the old methods.  I'd love to see your Vietnam photos.  I was there in the Blue Water Navy on a destroyer.  I have limited experience with SLRs and mainly used a German Rolleiflex twin-lenses reflex camera (2 1/4 square negatives) years ago.