Photography for newbies

[serothis]

Ever wondered how to take pictures like the professionals? Don't want to buy a big expensive SLR and pay for classes to learn how to use it? Well the internet has you covered!

All joking aside it's actually a lot of fun to mess around with. I ran across this a couple days ago and keep messing with it. But I still suck with SLR, soooo....

[conan]

Killrob will love it.

[Killrob]

Hehe, pretty well made actually! They seem to have thought of everything, even ISO noise and motion blur and camera shake. Thanks for sharing, this is a good tool for newbies to learn... get's Killrob's Seal of Approval (TM) I'll show that to my photography students at some point.

Edit: Although... the simulation parameters focus on newbie equipment too (well, rightfully so) For dim light you need better than f/2.8 or a decent flash. Also, minimum shutter speed of 1/2000 of a second? Hrrmm... If you need some pointers Serothis, do tell.

[Azurael]

Suitably impressed with this - it's a pretty realistic simulation of a basic Canon APS-C SLR. Although Killrob, I'd say if anything the equipment it simulates is too good. I can't think of that many constant f/2.8 kit zooms. Well, not that people actually buy anyway!

Something like this might be pretty handy for some of the people I deal with at work - you'd be amazed how stupid people can be with regard to photography. The number of times I've had panicked customers come into the shop with 'faulty' cameras that under or overexpose all the time baffles me. Strangely, it usually fixes itself when I turn the exposure compensation off Likewise 'the flash isn't working', well, let me take that out of continuous mode for you then. Or the best yet 'can you edit this image for me' - well, firstly, this is a major high-street photographic retailer, not an editing studio and no, I can't 'Shop it so that this photo of the back of somebody's head is a lovely portrait anyway.

Ahh, breathe deeply, I can still appreciate photography when I'm out with my collection of lovely (and very flare-prone) old manual focus primes

[Killrob]

Hmm well, now that the third-party manufacturers push into the market with f/2.8 zooms that are rather affordable (only cost as much as a decent camera body ), I think they are getting more common. But you are absolutely right about this aspect in general.

Those are some awesome (horrible) examples for how ignorant people are when it comes to photography everything that goes beyond pushing one button is considered to complex to bother. The same applies to the simplest rules of composition

[JZavala]

its a good idea. but if you really want a lot of good experience. go pick up a functioning pentax k1000/km. its basic, cheap, reliable, and a great beginners 35mm slr camera to learn proper exposure and whatnot.

there are a few digital cameras that are better than basic point and shoots. but eh, something about film myself. digital doesnt get b&w quite right compared to film.

[Azurael]

As a photo processor, I can quite comprehensively say that in an idiot's hands, digital cameras (even compacts with their diminutive sensors) will produce far better images than film under the same circumstances (mostly because nobody knows how to push-process any more and most use the generic cheapo ISO 200 film they get given for free by their photo processor in all lighting conditions and with ugly unconstrained direct flash.) Of course, we all know the truth, that there are some areas where the right film, scanned or direct printed with the right equipment still outclasses digital, even at 35mm and very much so in medium format, even if only because of the ridiculous cost of high res medium format backs.

If I could burn down the Lomo factory, I would

I have to say though, that as much as I love some of my 35mm (and 120) cameras, they really don't see much use these days, the convenience and low cost of digital has got me (even if I am still using manual focus lenses older than me for most part )

[Killrob]

You make a very valid point, Azurael, a photography n00b would fare much better with a compact clicky-cam than with an analogue film camera.

I don't agree on 35mm film outclassing 35mm modern (!) digital sensors though. It has been shown that this is just not true any longer. See this link for example. The battle analogue battle is definitely there by now too... but where you are correct (in some ways) is medium format and larger! Although the Phase One P65+ or especially the new Hasselblad H4D-200MS have higher resolution than film, analogue medium format cameras are sold for a few hundred bucks off eBay, while the modern contestants cost ~30-50k for just the camera body... so I would still give the win to analogue here.

On a different note, my first ever photo classes are starting soon (me being the teacher) weee! Having a test run first though to improve lesson structure and material before paying customers are getting in... the queue is growing.
*ahem* shameless plugging

[Azurael]

Sure, there's more resolution with less noise/grain in digital sensors and has been since things like the 5D2/1Ds3, D3X and A900 came out but I still don't think digital (at least on FF 35mm) is matching the highlight retention of good C41 film at lower sensitivities. The best sensors come close in conditions that aren't too contrasty. With postprocessing of RAW (or 'cheat' modes like ALO/ADL/DRO) a large degree of highlight detail can be reclaimed but it's at least nowhere near as easy. They've definitely improved the dark end of the tone curve in newer sensors - I'm seeing a lot less crushed blacks and lost shadow detail. Even those who can't be bothered to process RAW are benefiting from better JPEG engines which seem to pretty much eliminate the artifacts we used to see in dark areas. Of course there's no way you can get the kind of detailed & low noise high sensitivity results the latest sensors provide with film (in fact, I think even the better APS-C sized sensors will probably outdo 35mm for detail at ISO 800+, and of course they're essentially noise free at lower sensitivities, where film grain is always visible.)

I'm not saying it's really sane to prefer film to digital these days... To be fair also, I've never played with a 1Dx, D4 or D800 (if only), the situation with highlight detail retention for a given exposure may have reversed with the latest crop of FF sensors.

I had a quick flick through some of your photos by the way, and really enjoyed looking at them. Makes me wish I had a better eye for composition