Still Photography

Adam, by the sounds of it, a digital camera might be the best thing for you. With the right camera, say a Canon S45/50 or Canon G3 (just to name a brands high end camera) you can shoot all the pictures you want, and it will cost you nothing, other than the cost of the camera. It's a great way of learning, and it's how I've learned all of my photography skills. I used a Pentax MX 35mm camera from the late 70's for a year before I got into digital with a Canon G3, and I spent well over 500 dollars (Canadian) in one year on film and getting it developed. When your learning, ALOT of those pictures will be garbage and a waste of money. I guess it all depends on preference though.

Photo.net is great for film info, but most of it also applies to digital. A great site though.

DPreview is a good site for anything digital. It has great reviews, lots of info on the forums, but is mostly geared towards digital photography.

I'm going to go differ and suggest an inexpensive SLR body camera that uses 35mm film to start off with. I love digital photography and I currently own only a digital camera, but I think for truly learning the ropes of photography as an artform that starting off w/ film is the way to go. It teaches you more of the process..

Stay the F$%^ away from Digital. Get a Nice Manual Camera Maybe a Nikon F1 with a 50 1.8 Lens. The Good thing about Nikon is that the lens mount has not Changed on the F Mount so a Lens For an N will fit on a New F. There is no Digital camera on the market that will let you adjust Shutter and F stop for under a grand.


Shoot Using Slide Film it is less expensive then Print Film Since you only have to pay for the developing and not the prints. That way you know its the camera and not the lab doing any Touching up.


make sure that you right down all the info on each shot Time of day Cloudy sunny (Overcast day is the best Since you will have less hot spots and less contrast then a Sunny day) Shutter speed and F stop. so when you get the film back you know what you did right and what you did wrong.


Example Picture of my house. Sunday 2:25 Pm Slight Cloud Cover. Film Speed ASA 100, (when Shooting outside use 100 DO NOT use 200 under any Circumstances it sucks) Shutter 125 F stop 5.6.


Good luck


Mark C Sherman CPC (Certified Photographic Consultant) and thats no BS I am a CPC


One more thing Adam i noticed that you Live in Trojan Cental would that be USC? If so Fight On

i'll side with the 35mm camp. can you even do stuff like shutter speed, f-stops, etc with a digital?

you just can't beat the feel of a true 35mm camera in your hand. i really feel it would be the way to go for you.

you may also want to check out your local camera shops. they often have classes that you can take. also, try a community college or (i think they're called) "outreach" classes. basically you sign up for a one day type thing - they usually don't cost more than about 30-50 bucks.

btw - i've been thinking about selling my gear for about your budget. if you're curious just send me a pm or email.

Mark and Ted, you guys NEED to read up on the current Digital technology!!!! You can get digital cameras for cheaply that have FULL adjustment of EVERYTHING and MORE than a 35mm film camera. Infact, with a good digital, you can adjust WAY more than any SLR type camera, so don't go saying that a digital is a bad way to go because it has no adjustments, as that is FAR from the truth. My canon G3 has shutter priority, aperture priority, manual, and many other shooting modes. Full ISO adjustability, without having to by new film or pushing your current film. Taking videos up to 3 minutes long with sound. The ability to see the picture you just too INSTANTLY, and for FREE.


You sure don't sound like a consultant, as most consult their client to go with what best suits their needs, not too tell them to "stay the f$*# away from digital".

thx for the info on digital cam. i guess i need to do some reading. in all seriousness....how do you feel the final picture quality is compared to film? do you feel the digital gets every little bit of oomph out of the pic?

i'm still not so sure digital is that good yet. if so, i would think we'd see it used more professionally? again, just guessing here.

oh yeah...one other aspect i thought about is the ability to develop your own film. not sure if that's an issue for adam, but i found it an enjoyable aspect of photography.

I am also looking to get into photography, and from the little I have read, there is absolutely nothing wrong with starting off (STARTING OFF!!!) with digital.

--
Holadem

A very small percentage of people actually do this, especially people just starting off. I too started off with film, with my Pentax MX. It was great, but WAY too expensive to buy and develop film, and again, most of which will be garbage due to experimenting. If I hadn't gotten into digital I would still be trying to figure out the different effects that the F-stop has on the pictures, mainly DOF. With digital, that would take me a short photo session and cost me nothing but my time and enjoyment.

As for picture quality compared to film, that is a bag of worms. To ME, I don't see the difference between pictures taken with my Canon G3 to those pictures taken with my Pentax MX. But these are my eyes and MY opinion. Now if you get a cheaper camera, there is NO DOUBT going to be a difference in picture quality, as with digital, you get what you pay for. With 35mm film, even a cheapo camera can produce nice pictures in the right hands. To me, digital makes all the sense in the world, and because of that, I havn't used my Pentax MX SLR in some time now.

On a side note, on my one wall I have 7 8"x10" pictures that I have taken in the last year. Three are from the Pentax MX, two from a Casio QV3500ex digital, one from a Canon S30, and one from a Canon G3. I actually prefer the look of the digital pictures to those taken with the SLR camera, even the cheaper digital cameras such as the S30 takes wonderful pictures. But your opinion may differ.

Check out my my website that I threw together to show some of the digital images I have taken in the last year.
CS Digital Photography

Pardon me Cam. But It's Better to learn on a real camera that opens a real shutter and aperture and puts Light on to a piece of acetate then a CCD. that way you know what the picture looks like and you can then make the proper Lighting adjustments based on what the film looks like.


I here to many people say Oh I want to do Photography they Buy a digital camera FUCK up the shot and Fix it in Photo shop That is not Photographer.

The digital vs. film thing:

1) digital is not as good as film if you are looking for a good-sized enlargement and spending the same kind of money on the camera. Yes, you can get very nice 8x10s from a variety of digital cameras in the under $1000 range, but you can also get gorgeous 24x36s from a good 35mm neg from a $100 used SLR kit. What's your target?

2) digital solutions with interchangeable lenses are pricey. If you are interested in using a wide variety of focal lengths and especially fast lenses (I agree that you should pick up a fast 50mm, a 1.8 or 1.4, as a starter lens, unbelievably flexible), 35mm is still the way to go, especially if you are on a budget. Some people pooh-pooh Pentax gear as "student" cameras, but their optics, especially from the mid to late '70s up to now are first rate, and can be had quite inexpensively. Of course, changing with the times, Pentax have announced a sub-$1000 digital SLR body that should hit the market at the end of this summer, which would be an excellent starting camera, if it is within your budget.

3) if you are processing your own b&w, it is very cheap. Here are the prices (in Canadian dollars, so shave 30% off of them if you are in the US) right off of the shelf here in my lab --

Agfapan APX 100, 36 exposures: $3.49 a roll, $2.99 a roll in quantities of 10

Agfa Rodinal film developer: $7.99 for 125mL. You use 5 mL per roll for processing, so this bottle will process 25 rolls.

Edwal or Kodak stop bath: $10.99 for 500mL. You mix this 1:32, so you can use this one bottle for more than 60 rolls of film, and even more since you can re-use it.

Agfa Agefix Fixer: $8.99 for enough to process 14 rolls, or $24.99 for enough to process 140 rolls. No joke -- the 5L jug from Agfa is the best bargain out there.

So, including all those costs, you're looking at less than $3.70 per roll. Plus, you have the flexibility of processing your own film.

Equipment-wise, all you need to process negatives are a couple of measuring cups or graduates that are appropriately marked and a tank and reel. AP make a nice tank with two reels for $20 (again CDN), and the graduates can be found at a kitchen store or dollar store.

4) digital totally rules for printing. The darkroom of the new century is a digital darkroom, and that's not hyperbole. Last year I shut down our colour darkroom in favour of a digital solution, and not because of convenience or cost (in fact, a digital 8x10 in colour is significantly more expensive in terms of raw materials than a chemical 8x10), but because of quality. If you are interested, let me know and I can give you a rundown of what we were using and what we've switched to, and the associated costs.


As to good photographic books and magazines, I have to say that most of the mass-market magazines are all advertising and no substance. Their "reviews" are not critical, and therefore hold virtually no value.

Books, though...if you are going to shoot b&w film, I heartily recommend Ansel Adams' The Negative. My personal favourite photographic reference is The Ilford Manual of Photography. My own copy dates from the late 1950s, and it was out of print for a number of years but I hear that it has recently been updated and republished as just The Manual of Photography. I have no experience with this new edition, but if it's anything like the old one, it's great.

I've heard good things about John Hedgecoe's beginning b&w books.

Cam -- I was going to note that your subjective evaluation of your chemical vs. digital 8x10s will also depend a lot on how they have been made: a razor-sharp digital print made on a modern inkjet printer will thoroughly thump a fuzzy, blocky, crappy 8x10 turned out at one of those cheap, speedy minilabs. Good labs are harder and harder to find these days. This is another area where digital has the upper hand -- if you are making the prints, you're a lot less likely to do a bad job than some part-time minimum wage slave who isn't necessarily into photography at all. Of course, this also holds true in a good old-fashioned home darkroom.

This is all really simplified, of course. It's too long as it is, so I'm not going to get into contrast controls or comparing optics or why your enlarger isn't giving you as sharp a print as your scanner...but just like the traditional darkroom, you have to spend some money to get the good stuff.

While I will preach the superiorities of film over digital at this stage of the evolution of both (not just in resolution, but also tonal range), I find this argument totally silly. Who cares what the media is that accepts the image? How can one be "real" and one not be, based solely on the method of storage? For, make no mistake, film is merely storing the "bits" on celluloid instead of in numbers.

My argument against digital capture, today, is that it still does not store the same number of "bits".

The number of times I have had to deal with frustrated customers who can't understand why their $500 camera won't give them a good 16x20 like their old $100 camera would...well, it makes me kind of sad.

well said aaron...

very incorrect.


haha, do you realize pretty much any published photo has almost certainly been touched by photoshop in some form or another? be it for color correction or whatever.

i love film cameras and think they're capable of many good things that digital has yet to rival. but let's stick with facts rather than this namecalling stuff. calling digital photography "not real" is asinine. there are a lot of working photojournalists (a WHOLE lot, especially in the sports world) whose primary cameras are now D-SLR..

Josh I do realize that some shots are Touched Up. Whether its a smudge or a zit something that you really did not see first hand. But when you take a shot Knowing that no matter what you can always "FIX" it is no way to become a Better Photographer. Like Shooting under Fluorescent lights Knowing that if you have Daylight balanced film it will come out green so instead of doing the old easy Fix in Photo shop Put a Green Filter on. Thats what a good Photographer would do Knowing how the shot is going to look even before he/she hits the shutter.


Going Digital is good as soon as you cover the basics of Regular Photography

I shot a lot of film when I was in high school and college. I moved away from the hobby after I got out of college. Last year I bought a digital camera and got back into taking photos in a pretty big way.

There are a lot of things about film and digital that are essentially the same and a few things that are significantly different. If you get a good enough digital camera -- one that allows manual adjustment of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO setting -- the basic skills of camera management will be similar if not identical. The things you learn about lighting and composition will also be fundamentally the same with both types of cameras. There are also, of course, some things that are significantly different with the two formats.

My suggestion would be to start with digital for one reason: instant feedback. I don't know how many rolls of film I wasted doing experimental things and really didn't learn from because of the time between taking the photos and seeing the results. With digital you can get some idea of the results immediately and get full feedback as soon as you can download the images and check them on a large display. (The little display on the back of the camera is inadequate for checking much beside the facts that you took a picture and got the intended subject in the frame.) I've done a bit of experimental work with the digital camera in my "studio" (more commonly known as my garage) and kept the camera hooked up to my laptop so I could check each image immediately and make adjustments. I found this instant feedback invaluable.

The other big plus for digital, particularly when learning, is that there's no marginal cost for each photo. There's no film to buy or develop. It costs the same to take one shot or a dozen of a particular subject. You can experiment with camera angles, distance to subject, shutter speed, aperture speed... pretty much all the settings and it costs you nothing. I find this no additional cost situation encourages me to experiment. Last year during the solar eclipse I set up outside and took one shot every 10 seconds during the whole event. It ended up being over 350 shots. I would have never dreamed of doing something like that with film. (Okay, the shots didn't turn out all that interesting, but the point concerning experimentation is still valid.)

ok, we have established the fact that you HATE digitals, and I pitty andy client that comes to your for consulting wanting to know more about digital photography. Pro Photo guys/girls edit every single picture in one way or another before it gets printed, whether it be digital or film. So your point is invalid. With digital, ya you could mess up the shot, but just as easily with a film camera, but atleast you'll be able to SEE your mistake instantly and retake the shot within a few seconds. With film, that's impossible, and you may never have a chance at taking that picture again.


I'm not even gonna touch this one, I think Aaron summed it up nicely.

I think the instant feedback of digital is actually a good reason not to start off with it as it promotes "spray and pray" photography vs. taking time to compose and think through your shot. I suppose it comes down to what you want to do: If you just want to take snapshots of friends and family, then I suppose it doesn't matter. But if you're looking to use photography as a means of self expression or as artistic expression, then starting off with film may be a better choice as it forces you to be more thoughtful about what you're doing. I started off with film because digital simply didn't exist when I first picked up a camera..

Hey cam . I Have been a photographer for over 7 years I own My own Business I have shot weddings done a couple album Covers for local bands products shots for local businesses ,Taught several Photo Classes, Given many lectures on Photography, not to mention winning a couple of awards for my work. So people that I talked to about Photography listen to what I have to say. can you say the same?

If you had Brain One you would see that what I am trying to say is that it is better to start out with a basic Camera(SLR) so and work your way up to a more advanced camera maybe Digital. if you want to be a race car driver do you get right into F1 no you start out with a Go cart.

Why is My point invalid. A person Should learn By doing and Setting up the shot and NOT RELYING ON A COMPUTER to fix its Mistakes. That was the point I was trying to make.


And Cam a CPC is some one who is able to look a Picture That was not taken properly and give advice on how to take it better and that process does not involve a computer. DO YOU GET WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY?

hey mark - i sent you a pm.

It can't be that hard to avoid relying on a computer to fix mistakes if you're serious about this hobby. The digital camera does not grab your arms and force you to rely on the computer, does it? . we're talking about options here fer crissakes.

A digicam can be used like an SLR - with some discipline. Can the same be said of an SLR as far as ease of use goes?

--
Holadem

Regardless of the camera you choose, I'd suggest signing up on a website like http://www.photosig.com. You can submit photos for review and you will receive (some) professional feedback. Be sure to record your camera settings for each photo and post them with the pic.

FWIW, I started out last year and got a digital. A few important considerations I've come across:

- a lot of digital cameras don't accept common lens sizes. This causes problems (in terms of selection) when you want to add different lenses or filters to your camera body.
- the digital is a cheap way to experiment. I agree that "spray and pray" is not a good method. However, you can bracket your exposures (try different settings for the same shot, etc.). This is also recommended when learning with a film camera... it's just cheaper with the digital.
- You can get a cheaper tripod (the digital doesn't have heavier moving parts which would require more dampening from vibration).
- I try to avoid using a photo editor except to crop my pictures. Sharpening filters and other methods of covering bad technique are obvious in the end result. Most photo reviewers will instantly spot this...

It's obvious what the answer is here: THERE IS NO ONE ANSWER. People can produce amazing photos with both digital and traditional film. If Adam really gets into the hobby, he is going to eventually upgrade to a better camera, just like 99% of all photo geeks out there. If he starts w/ an old Nikon, he'll probably eventually go to an F80 or F100. If he starts w/ a digital, he'll go to a D100 or Canon DSLR or whatever. The bottom line is that it's up to Adam. Either way, an eventual investment in a decent digital darkroom (ie film scanner, good inkjet) can help ANYONE. After that, the source doesn't matter.

And hey Mark, while you're at it, why not figure out how to punctuate and capitalize your posts properly. They would be a *lot* easier to read -- not the 3rd grade English they are now.

Thanks Tom we all Cant be AS Perfect as you now can we?

Adam pick up a couple of books on Ansell Adams. He has a whole series on his southern California work. Also a great book would be Herb Ritz. Both are Great B+W photographers.

here are a couple of things I have my students do. Take a roll of 36 exposures and take 36 shots of your bath room. Makes you think of many other ways of looking at one subject. And no i did not get this idea from One Hour Photo. I have been doing this for years.


Another thing thing that I have my students do is photograph the alphabet. What that means is going out and finding Items that look like letters and not the letters themselves. For example a manhole cover for the letter O. Or the pedals and crank on a bike for a Q. This is a great way to open up your eyes and see the world alot different.


Or Just take at least a couple hundred shots of Tommy Trojan in the middle of SC. B+W of him will look awesome

Hi Mark-

I sent you a PM. If you don't mind, I have a question for you. Thanks!

not a problem pamela. I just replied