Recommendations for a beginner photographer

[Prodo123]

1. I'm mostly self-taught, but I'm taking classes at the nearest community college. I want to fit my school's photography class into my schedule but I can't, so I have to unfortunately learn by myself.

2. Just get a DSLR from the get go. Something like the T3i, D5100 or even the 60D will do you fine. As for your learning needs, your kit lens will be more than fine. If you want some convenience maybe a 18-135 kit will do you good, but the typical 18-55 is more than good enough. Although I did meet the limits of the lens quite quickly...

I did notice that most kit lenses lack a distance scale. However inaccurate they may be, I've discovered that distance scales are very, VERY useful in many applications, for example astrophotography, trap focus and DSLR video. Depending on your style, their usefulness may vary but I tend not to get lenses without them now.

The point is, although your kit lens is a convenient learning tool, you will grow out of them. This is the point when photography becomes an expensive pastime, and try not to get addicted to gear hogging.

3. I'd like some recommendations too

 

[Designer Dale]

My photography has been rather evolutionary. We always had a camera around for vacations and such, and I got a film slr when I was in High School. I started shooting race cars at the local drag strip and became the "Staff Photographer", which got me in free in exchange for photos to the owner. I met a number of pros who encouraged me to spend more time with cameras.

My sister's wedding photographer recommended that I take classes and wound up with a Fine Arts degree majoring in photography from Ohio University. We were prohibited from using our own cameras during the first year and had to use school issued 4x5 view cameras. They changed this rule a year later and all incoming students had to make their own pinhole camera. It served to eliminate the advantage (usually perceived) that the kids with the Nikons and Hassselblad rigs could take better photos. Beyond the technicals of film chemistry, the focus of the program was on composition and lighting. That's what the art is all about, after all.

I never got into photography as a profession but it did spark my artistic interest. I have taken several years of graphic design classes on the community college level and these served to help me understand what goes on in the viewfinder quite a bit. The principals of good design and good photography are interchangeable.

I've been in photography long enough to have seen huge changes in equipment, but all the basic concepts are unchanged. Anything that is able to capture an image is a good starter camera. I went from a film Canon to a Panasonic point and shoot as my first digital. It worked out so I went with a used Canon XSi. I now have a Canon 7D and one too many lenses...

I'm a learn by doing kind of guy. I have books on photography, but tend to rely on my intuition and trial/error/trial... someday I'll get with the program and read something worth while

I have found that looking at photography is the best way to gain inspiration and motivation. I'm not talking about the Web, here. Go to the library and read everything you can find on Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Art Wolfe, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Annie Liebovitz, Dorothea Lange, Yousef Karsh, Alfred Stieglitz and others. They will help you find your vision.

Here's a Wiki link to photographers who have Wiki Pages.

Good luck with your shooting. Keep us posted and feel free to ask questions.

Dale

 

[driftless]

I am really enjoying hearing how folks became interested in photography.

 

[a.jfred]

I am really enjoying hearing how folks became interested in photography.

Mine started out with a friend who would take me along with him when he went geocaching (how many prepositional phrases can I fit in one sentence?). I always found myself out where I'd want to take pictures, but without a decent camera. He let me borrow his Olympus E300 when I was off for a week, and I knew from the first click that it was the right hobby for me. I struggled a long time more with spending the money than anything else; it was a lot of money for me (it still is), and finally justified it to myself: if I was going to spend that kind of money on something I didn't really need, I was going to get out and use it.

Funny how I found later that it really was something I needed. I walked off 30lbs within 6 months of getting my camera (I gained it all back later, but that's a whole other story). I was more focused, in a better mood, and happier than I'd been in a long time.

I still think it's a lot cheaper than therapy, and I get a lot more out of it

 

[MCAsan]

How the hell did a $700 hobby past $2k in half a year!!!!???

Wait until you price our a nice Gitzo tripod with a RRS 55 bullhead on top. Did I mention the RRS L plate/bracket you will want on all camera bodies?

 

[LeeRod]

I'm a beginner as well. I decided to just take the plunge and pick up a DSLR. I ended up getting a Canon 60d a little over a month ago and I couldn't be happier with it.

 

[Alameda]

My main goal is to become enough of a competent photographer to take some good pictures while I'm studying abroad in England next year.

The four parts of a great picture:
1) Exposure
2) Focus
3) Lighting
4) Composition

A professional-looking photo must be razor-sharp, and that means you've correctly focused and exposed the image. Today's cameras, including DSLR's, greatly automate this, but a DSLR gives you the ability to control focus and exposure, and give you an idea of the effect.

DSLR's also have histogram displays, which are very important to use if you want to capture a perfectly exposed image. Each pixel in the image sensor captures light and outputs this value to storage. At the bottom end is pure black and at the top is pure white (or pure red/green/blue). If you underexpose, dark tones get "crushed" into solid black, and if you overexpose, bright colors and details become solid white.

Focus is simpler: Blurry pictures simply aren't sharp.

Lighting is, in my opinion, more complex and difficult to master. Photography is the capture of light. How light falls on your subject greatly affects how it will appear as a photograph. Our eyes are a poor indicator of lighting: We are able to focus on just one thing we see, and our irises adjust to its brightness, and we focus on it, and as we take in other objects, we refocus and re-expose very rapidly. Anyway, where and how light falls on your subject affects the way it appears, sometimes in ways your eyes don't report to you.

 

[twiggy0]

1) I'm self taught.

2) I'd recommend picking up a secondhand DSLR, like a Nikon d60 or canon T2i for around $400 with a kit lens included. (Amazon or eBay is a great place to find those)

As for learning, the online world has so much information that you can easily get to know the basics quickly. You can always start with fully automatic to get the feel of the camera and learn the buttons, but then try aperture priority and shutter priority in the months to come.

 

[ChristianVirtual]

I got once a very old roll-fim camera (9x9 ?), plastic lense, nothing to control. A toy, but one I still have in my shelf today.
Later I got a fim SLR from my parents as they couldn't manage it (Canon AE1). With that I just shot around and learned some basics.

Later in school years I learned more about the basics like DoF, the physics, dark room etc. One of those "Plattenkamera", with towel over the head and hand-stopped exposure. Was fun. In that school I also had the first time feedback from teachers and class mates; an important part of learning.

Then for some years I didn't really photographed anything and got back into it when digital became available (Nikon 990 and Canon 10D). Since then I shooting lots. The direct feedback loop from modern digital cameras makes it much easier to see the mistakes done in exposure. Still need critics from other to improve style and composition.

I suggest to get a SLR and shoot in manual mode only. Avoid the magical program and full automatic modes; learn the mechanics of aperture and shutter speed, of ISO and light.

Later you still could use simple modes like Time automatic or aperture automatic. But keep control about one parameter (at least).

This will give you all the control about exposure and sharpness.

Happy shooting ... A nice way to spend time.

 

[ChrisA]

....
So my question(s) to the more experienced photographers here are:
1) How did you learn about photography? Are you self taught or did you take a college class on photography or something similar?
2) I want to become experienced enough to buy and use a DSLR effectively eventually. Do you recommend springing for a beginner DLSR right away or do you recommend a "bridge" camera or perhaps one of the new mirror-less cameras?
3) What books do you recommend for an absolute beginner?...

Knowing how to work a camera is dead easy and getting easier every day. Learning "photography" is not about camera settings. What you need to learn is how to visualize the final image. then once you know the image you work to make it.

The best way to learn is to look at art and travel books and find images you like. Figure out why you like them and then try and make some of your own in the style(s) you like.

OK there is a technical end you need to learn but you can't llearn without first having a goal.

I'd say the same to a new musician. I'd tell him "LISTEN" at lot and then listen more and find what you like. Yes there is a technical end of music too.

Like music pictures have rules of composition too. There is the "rules of thirds" and another that says triangles are good as are repeating forms. And other rules like "watch the edges of the frame". Then there is color, some colors harmonize and others contrast. You want to hunt down some art books that explain this. Study the art and the dial twiddling will take care of itself.

There are a million books and web sites that will tell you how to twiddle dials and what "ISO" means. But first go and get some of those big coffee table books from the library.

The LAST thing you want is 1,000 images that are technical perfect but poorly composed and boring.

Today you can do good work without need to know much technical stuff. Shoot in full automatic and use RAW format and then you can fix almost any exposure problem in "post". Yes this is a dumb way to work but you could actually do that.

 

[dkersten]

Thanks for all the replies! You gave me a lot to think about. I'm super excited to jump in to the world of photography!!

 

[Alameda]

Shoot in full automatic and use RAW format and then you can fix almost any exposure problem in "post". Yes this is a dumb way to work but you could actually do that.

In my opinion, it's much easier to learn how to correctly focus, light, and expose an image than to learn the use of image software tools. And, I believe it's much faster to spend a little more time creating the image in-camera than correcting it in the computer. Imagine if you're a wedding photographer, for example, and you have to correct every image you shoot. Wouldn't that drive you nuts?

 

[guzhogi]

I'm self-taught, but might eventually take a class the local community college.

I bought a Sony Alpha 65 on eBay awhile ago that works great along with a bunch of lenses. I also suggest a good walk around lens (18-55 is good) and a good zoom lens (200mm+). I personally have an 18-250mm which is good.

The only thing I've found with DSLRs & their lenses is that they are EXPENSIVE! If you're serious about getting a DSLR, many of the lenses I've found are several hundred dollars with a few over $1,000. I'd really like to get a 200-500mm lens, but even on eBay they're $950 minimum.

One difference I've found between point & shoot cameras & DSLRs is speed. With point & shoots, there's a noticeable shutter lag. With DSLRs, it's pretty much instantaneous. However, setup speed is a lot quicker on point & shoots. All you have to do is grab it & turn it on. With DSLRs, you have to put the lens on the body, take off the lens cap, etc. So if you're on a nature hike or whatever with a DSLR, make sure you set it up at the beginning or you might miss a great shot due to putting on the lens.

 

[talmy]

One difference I've found between point & shoot cameras & DSLRs is speed. With point & shoots, there's a noticeable shutter lag. With DSLRs, it's pretty much instantaneous. However, setup speed is a lot quicker on point & shoots. All you have to do is grab it & turn it on. With DSLRs, you have to put the lens on the body, take off the lens cap, etc. So if you're on a nature hike or whatever with a DSLR, make sure you set it up at the beginning or you might miss a great shot due to putting on the lens.

I've never seen anyone with a DSLR going around without a lens on. It's not even a good idea because dirt and dust will get in the camera. Also, a DSLR can be left turned on for weeks or months without draining the battery completely so you can easily go around with the camera turned on, cap off (but hood on for protection), and take pictures very quickly. The P&S consumes lots of battery power when turned on (mostly to keep the LCD active) and typically shuts itself off automatically to save the battery, so you have to deal with startup time as well as shutter lag.

 

[a.jfred]

Trust me - if you play with your DSLR long enough, and learn where all your buttons are, you'll have no problem with missing shots because of set-up. One of the tips I've even read is to take your camera into a completely dark room, and start trying to change settings (white balance, iso, exposure valuation, aperture, metering, etc). The more you do it, the faster you'll get at it.

I'm pretty speedy with my Olympus, which I've had for 5+ years; the Nikon I've had for a month, however, is a whole other story. I'm definitely faster than I was when I first bought the camera, but not nearly as fast as I am with the Olympus (it also drives me bonkers that the lenses attach completely opposite from each other, but that'll just take time).

 

[guzhogi]

I've never seen anyone with a DSLR going around without a lens on. It's not even a good idea because dirt and dust will get in the camera. Also, a DSLR can be left turned on for weeks or months without draining the battery completely so you can easily go around with the camera turned on, cap off (but hood on for protection), and take pictures very quickly. The P&S consumes lots of battery power when turned on (mostly to keep the LCD active) and typically shuts itself off automatically to save the battery, so you have to deal with startup time as well as shutter lag.

The DSLR & lenses I have have lens caps on both ends so dust is minimal. Plus, when I'm on a hike, I usually keep mine on so I don't miss anything. I'm just referring to those times where you're not planning on taking pictures.

Also, one thing I like about my Sony DSLR is it has built-in GPS so it can geotag your pics automatically. Pretty fun.

 

[ChrisA]

In my opinion, it's much easier to learn how to correctly focus, light, and expose an image than to learn the use of image software tools. And, I believe it's much faster to spend a little more time creating the image in-camera than correcting it in the computer. Imagine if you're a wedding photographer, for example, and you have to correct every image you shoot. Wouldn't that drive you nuts?

Wedding photographers DO correct every image. Back in the film era it was a specially done in the lab. Now it is done on a computer. One would hope they are not correcting technical errors but the are likely at least fine tuning the white balance cropping and maybe fixing skin problems or a stray bit of hair and taking out some background item. All of that is pretty normal stuff to do. For "people pictures" many times I'll make a mask and very slightly de-saturate the backgrounds and I like to apply a slight vignetting too, not so that it is obvious but more to darken the edges very slightly.

The camera captures a very accurate image but it you are there and see the same subject your eye is not like that. It is selective, so I try and make the photo mimic what the eye does. You do this with framing and light but also in "post".

Photography uses some technical tools and you need to learn them. But learning them like the way a novelist needs to learn to spell and type.

What kind of camera system to buy? If the goal is photography then buy a USED DSLR. There is no need for anything new. A Nikon D50 would be ideal because the in-body focus motor allows use of some older lenses. That is the way you have to think and DSLRs -- what lenses do you want, then buy whatever body fits them.

----------

I'm self-taught, but might eventually take a class the local community college.... If you're serious about getting a DSLR, many of the lenses I've found are several hundred dollars with a few over $1,000. I'd really like to get a 200-500mm lens, but even on eBay they're $950 minimum....

What subjects are you shooting. A 200mm+ lens is a very specialized lens that not many people would ever use. Wildlife photographers would use them. Or many you are into birds?

But what you said is correct. the lenses and the lighting equipment will cost MUCH more than a DSLR body. Choose the expensive items FIRST.

 

[ntoren]

Skip the zoom lens

As far as lenses go, I have a zoom lens but never use it. i much prefer my 35mm Nikon prime lens. If I want to zoom in, I just walk a step or two closer. Zoom out, move back. In exchange for this little effort I get a small, lightweight lens that I can easily carry on my camera all day. So my advice, skip the zoom lens! Plus this little lens allows me to make lots of shots without needing the flash, especially indoors.

KenRockwell.com has some good tips.

Happy shooting!

 

[a.jfred]

Also check out Thom Hogan's site - which has a plethora of information and several lens reviews; it's good additional material

 

[steveash]

So my question(s) to the more experienced photographers here are:
1) How did you learn about photography? Are you self taught or did you take a college class on photography or something similar?
2) I want to become experienced enough to buy and use a DSLR effectively eventually. Do you recommend springing for a beginner DLSR right away or do you recommend a "bridge" camera or perhaps one of the new mirror-less cameras?
3) What books do you recommend for an absolute beginner?

1) My Dad taught me how to use an old SLR camera that I inherited from my Grandfather along with a light-meter as the one in the camera was broken! I then did a design degree. I now make my living with a camera.

2) DSLR (or mirror-less if you like) for sure. You will soon feel like a beginner if you don't have a viewfinder.

3) Tom Ang's Digital Photography Masterclass covers a lot to get you interested. Also, read the camera manual - not very exciting but it will teach you more than most books. Once you know how to use the camera look for something on composition and lighting relating to an area you're interested in.

 

[cableguy619]

Be careful and budget yourself because it gets freaking addictive.

---

I went out earlier this year and got a T3i with a personal budget of under $700

Within the first month I picked up a refurb T3i with 18-55mm kit lens for around $500, a case-logic sling bag, lens pen, giotto blower, and a decent Manfrotto tripod which kept me right under $700 as planned.

A month later I picked up a Canon 50mm f/1.8 ($100), Black Rapid RSSport Strap ($70), canon remote ($30), and the book: Understanding Exposure ($15).

A month later I picked up a new Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 ($1100), EW-83J Lens Hood ($50), B&W UV Filter ($70), a macro kit, and another giotto blower (small).

A month later I picked up a Canon 430ex II flash ($275) and upgraded my crappy case-logic sling to a Crumpler Million Dollar Home ($100) – luckily these two were gifts from my super supportive fiancé.

Now I have my eyes set on a 600ex-rt, 35mm f/1.4L lens, more lighting gear – and maybe a 60d.

How the hell did a $700 hobby past $2k in half a year!!!!???

Very easily in 2010 I think it was I went in thinking 700 was a good price for decent dslr. I walked out of best buy spending 2000 on the 7d. Few weeks later a 17-40l for 800 and a 70-200l is f4 for 1400.

2 yrs later I know own a 5diii with 24-105 at 4300.00 and a 70-200 2.8 is for 2000.

Price catching up or adds up quickly.

 

[dmax35]

2 yrs later I know own a 5diii with 24-105 at 4300.00 and a 70-200 2.8 is for 2000.

Price catching up or adds up quickly.

How do you like your 5d III? I've been considering the upgrade from my 5D II or
possibly making the switch to a Nikon D800 for the 36 mpixel feature.

 

[cableguy619]

How do you like your 5d III? I've been considering the upgrade from my 5D II or
possibly making the switch to a Nikon D800 for the 36 mpixel feature.

I love it, but again it is my 1st full frame as well. I love the fact i can go to a High iso and get a pretty clean picture when I forget to bring my flash. It feels great in my hands, reminds me alot of the 7d.

My co-worker pretty much says the same thing for his d800. He loves it.

i don't think you can go wrong with either model, just a matter of what preference is yours.

 

[ChrisA]

...
2 yrs later I know own a 5diii with 24-105 at 4300.00 and a 70-200 2.8 is for 2000. ...

It can get expensive but you can buy good used gear. For example the market price of an early model Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 lens is about $600 and that lens is still as sharp as the day it was made and it covers a full frame.

A while back I wanted studio lighting and found a Norman 800 watt-second power pack system for just a couple hundred dollars. (there is one on Craigslist right now for that price.) It is like night and day different between a canon/nikon "speed light" shoe mount unit and a studio flash head. That 40 year old unit can take endless accessories and they are cheap on the used market. I'm not saying to buy one of these. It is useless if you are hiking or at the beach. Just pointing out that older used gear is still as good as it was and now cheap. Another example is my macro lens from about 1964. It is very old but sharper than my CCD sensor can record.

 

[Pikemann Urge]

A lot has been said already so I'll keep it brief:

- A camera with interchangeable lenses is advisable. DSLRs are great, but overall no more great than mirrorless cameras like micro 4/3 or NEX.

- It takes time to become good at photography but that doesn't mean that you can't take good photos while you're learning. Take lots of photos and look at lots of photos.

- Don't bother studying photography at a college. If you want to do further education, photography is the last thing a photographer needs. You'll be wasting money which could be otherwise spent on a useful degree, traveling or more equipment (or all three).

- I do some work pro bono. Perhaps when you become better you might do that as well. It's a good way to keep your skills sharp and to shoot subjects that you otherwise wouldn't.

I'm not a full-time photographer, BTW.