When I was in high school, I wanted to be a photographer, possibly in part because I admired my grandfather and my uncle who had 35mm cameras (Minolta and Canon, respectively. See? I remember it still.). Also, I got my hands on the Time/Life series on photography from the early 70s, I think, more or less because my grandfather did want them any more.
RICHARD AVEDON, BABY!!!!!
HENRI CARTIER-BRESSON, BABY!!!
HASSELBLAD!!! LEICA!!! CONTAX!!!
Anyway, I would spend all my study halls in the library reading books on photography. I would read the library's copy of Popular Photography cover-to-cover and marvel at the advertisements in the back for those NYC camera store that seemed foreign and exotic to me.
I thought my fellow classmates, who looked at photography magazine as if they were pornography, were total pigs. I was especially disdainful of those said they wanted to be professional photographers so they would (of course) get to have sex with fashion models. Philistines!
I took notes from my readings and filled two loose leaf notebooks. I hand-copied aperture charts.
And then I gave up. I couldn't afford so much as an Instamatic.
There was a group of photographers in the early 20th century, most of them based in San Francisco, who formed a club, the f/64 Club, dedicated to super sharp focus photography. The two most famous members were Ansel Adams and Edward Weston. They were almost religious about never using an f stop larger than f22.
Confusing, isn't it? Why all the numbers? Why such strange numbering systems?
ISO is very important. It relates to the sensitivity of the sensor. Like a slider, very very very sensitive, a high number, results in grainy photos, so a lower number is desirable, say, 200. I shoot at undesirably high 400 because of my light situation. I shot 1600 at le Central for grainier photos. But they still came out ace with the help of Photoshop and because I shot in RAW format, all the data, not compressed JPG as cameras do for savings in memory. Nobody notices this tremendous step down anyway, it's all amateur stuff for the internet. Best to have small files and convenience, the cameras do all this unless you tell it not to and use larger memory as I do. Man, those Nikons sure can hold a lot of memory on a card. I shoot all day in memory-hogging RAW format and never ran out. Batteries too. They're awesome. ISO is analogous to film speed in the old days. I always did like the faster film back then in High School, that related to the size of grain on the surface of the film, the finer the grain then the more sensitive the film. Now that's in the sensor and you set this number first depending on your light situation and the capabilities of your camera. Indoors / outdoors, the ISO gets changed first. This is a lot to keep in mind for amateur photographers who don't do it every day. It's a bit much. I mean, who thinks of that?
I do. Because I take my shot and look at the result and adjust accordingly. And if somebody is at the dinner table with me it doesn't do for me to sit there and fiddle with my toys when I'm in the presence of friends. I don't like it when they do that and I try real hard not to do it. To compensate, I involve them in my problem. They're often apparently interested in the solution if I vocalize what I am doing. But that only gets me so far. I am not very good at taking photos outside my own little setup.
So, you have you ISO set to low because you want nice clear photos and the camera will adjust everything to that. Put it on automatic.
Seriously. And see what it does. Allow the camera to show you its choice of f-stop and shutter speed. So you can go, "hmmm."
Like ricpic said, you want the highest f-stop possible for the clearest pictures with the greatest depth of field to infinity. That's where everything in the photo is in focus. The whole thing in focus, every detail near and far, like Ansel Adams. You want the aperture to be tiny as a pinhole. The larger the aperture then the worse the photo, the more light that floods in and messes things up, scrambles things bouncing around blending on sensors and shrinking the depths of field the lower you go. I shoot at undesirably low f-stop like a wide open eyeball. Slight changes in a lamp make a difference in my shots. My light conditions are poor and my camera must compensate. You want that number to be high and compromise with each stop making it lower.
The shutter speed is how fast it blinks. You want it to blink really fast. My shots are slow. A tripod can make up for this and allow me to snap photos accurate to the pixel.
So, ideally outside in bright light even somewhat overcast, your camera will be highest f-stop it can go and fastest shutter speed it can go and lowest ISO that you can go. Those are ideal. But light is almost never ideal, and you're shooting in shadows not full on straight sunlight so all that steps down and here is where your craftsmanship comes in, understanding your light situation and understanding these three ways to control it.
Oh, We're forgetting about flash. That's awful. It's a last resort thing utterly devoid of art. Forget it's even on your camera. If you use flash, then you lost. Cameras today don't need flash.
I think Ansel Adams said it pissed him off that people didn't understand his work as artist began in the darkroom. That is where he created his art. Seeking out the spots, being prepared when the sun is best, great composition, yes, yes yes, but the real work is all in darkroom. He is manipulating his equipment and his chemicals every bit as much if not more than his camera. More time is spent in the darkroom than behind the camera. Today it is Photoshop and AfterEffects.
tl:dr
iso= sensor sensitivity, try for low A aperture f-stop = aperture size, try for tiny hole, high number S shutter speed, the blink, try for fast, high number
Step down until you see the results you want
Correct post processing.
[my d-90 just turned over speedometer the 3rd time. I must start new albums because the numbers repeat. I end up with photos of hotdogs in my cheese omelet set when I post them]
As to cost, the way to justify is by education. Any of your classes cost as much as a camera.
I too dream of the day I can own a full-frame camera, one that matches the 35mm of old. These would be the top of the line Canons and Nikons.
The Nikon I wanted is $8,000 and that is too much for my little hobby. So I sacrifice with sub-pro 3/4 frame while I build up my expertise and gather my lenses before I pop for a professional camera.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
Nikon developed lesser full-frame cameras without all the super duper bells and whistles and that was fine by me. All I wanted is the full frame, not all the extra studio-related stuff that makes it impossible for their flagship to take a bad picture. I don't want that. I just want the full frame, to match the old 35mm. It's a thing. I'm mentally stuck on that. So now my focus is changed to get the less expensive full frame.
As I'm saving, meanwhile back at the ranch.
Nikon's flagship camera has shifted to another tippy top of the uppermost tip top of the line and the original object of my desire slipped from it unattainable position to the same as the new lesser models. I can have older flagship for the same cost as new wannabe.
$2,000 is not so bad. I can justify that as education. I can pop for that any time. And I will. But in the meantime, back at the ranch, my ranch, the d-90 is doing just fine and dandy and I am still learning on it. And when you think about it, a larger one might become a giant pain in the beautox.
Famous New York photographer goes to a dinner party, where the hostess gushes over his published photos: "Your pictures are so good, you must have a wonderful camera" to which he replied "This dinner is so good you must have a wonderful stove."
8 comments:
When I was in high school, I wanted to be a photographer, possibly in part because I admired my grandfather and my uncle who had 35mm cameras (Minolta and Canon, respectively. See? I remember it still.). Also, I got my hands on the Time/Life series on photography from the early 70s, I think, more or less because my grandfather did want them any more.
RICHARD AVEDON, BABY!!!!!
HENRI CARTIER-BRESSON, BABY!!!
HASSELBLAD!!! LEICA!!! CONTAX!!!
Anyway, I would spend all my study halls in the library reading books on photography. I would read the library's copy of Popular Photography cover-to-cover and marvel at the advertisements in the back for those NYC camera store that seemed foreign and exotic to me.
I thought my fellow classmates, who looked at photography magazine as if they were pornography, were total pigs. I was especially disdainful of those said they wanted to be professional photographers so they would (of course) get to have sex with fashion models. Philistines!
I took notes from my readings and filled two loose leaf notebooks. I hand-copied aperture charts.
And then I gave up. I couldn't afford so much as an Instamatic.
Kind of funny how things work out.
There was a group of photographers in the early 20th century, most of them based in San Francisco, who formed a club, the f/64 Club, dedicated to super sharp focus photography. The two most famous members were Ansel Adams and Edward Weston. They were almost religious about never using an f stop larger than f22.
Confusing, isn't it? Why all the numbers? Why such strange numbering systems?
ISO is very important. It relates to the sensitivity of the sensor. Like a slider, very very very sensitive, a high number, results in grainy photos, so a lower number is desirable, say, 200. I shoot at undesirably high 400 because of my light situation. I shot 1600 at le Central for grainier photos. But they still came out ace with the help of Photoshop and because I shot in RAW format, all the data, not compressed JPG as cameras do for savings in memory. Nobody notices this tremendous step down anyway, it's all amateur stuff for the internet. Best to have small files and convenience, the cameras do all this unless you tell it not to and use larger memory as I do. Man, those Nikons sure can hold a lot of memory on a card. I shoot all day in memory-hogging RAW format and never ran out. Batteries too. They're awesome. ISO is analogous to film speed in the old days. I always did like the faster film back then in High School, that related to the size of grain on the surface of the film, the finer the grain then the more sensitive the film. Now that's in the sensor and you set this number first depending on your light situation and the capabilities of your camera. Indoors / outdoors, the ISO gets changed first. This is a lot to keep in mind for amateur photographers who don't do it every day. It's a bit much. I mean, who thinks of that?
I do. Because I take my shot and look at the result and adjust accordingly. And if somebody is at the dinner table with me it doesn't do for me to sit there and fiddle with my toys when I'm in the presence of friends. I don't like it when they do that and I try real hard not to do it. To compensate, I involve them in my problem. They're often apparently interested in the solution if I vocalize what I am doing. But that only gets me so far. I am not very good at taking photos outside my own little setup.
So, you have you ISO set to low because you want nice clear photos and the camera will adjust everything to that. Put it on automatic.
Seriously. And see what it does. Allow the camera to show you its choice of f-stop and shutter speed. So you can go, "hmmm."
Like ricpic said, you want the highest f-stop possible for the clearest pictures with the greatest depth of field to infinity. That's where everything in the photo is in focus. The whole thing in focus, every detail near and far, like Ansel Adams. You want the aperture to be tiny as a pinhole. The larger the aperture then the worse the photo, the more light that floods in and messes things up, scrambles things bouncing around blending on sensors and shrinking the depths of field the lower you go. I shoot at undesirably low f-stop like a wide open eyeball. Slight changes in a lamp make a difference in my shots. My light conditions are poor and my camera must compensate. You want that number to be high and compromise with each stop making it lower.
The shutter speed is how fast it blinks. You want it to blink really fast. My shots are slow. A tripod can make up for this and allow me to snap photos accurate to the pixel.
So, ideally outside in bright light even somewhat overcast, your camera will be highest f-stop it can go and fastest shutter speed it can go and lowest ISO that you can go. Those are ideal. But light is almost never ideal, and you're shooting in shadows not full on straight sunlight so all that steps down and here is where your craftsmanship comes in, understanding your light situation and understanding these three ways to control it.
Oh, We're forgetting about flash. That's awful. It's a last resort thing utterly devoid of art. Forget it's even on your camera. If you use flash, then you lost. Cameras today don't need flash.
I think Ansel Adams said it pissed him off that people didn't understand his work as artist began in the darkroom. That is where he created his art. Seeking out the spots, being prepared when the sun is best, great composition, yes, yes yes, but the real work is all in darkroom. He is manipulating his equipment and his chemicals every bit as much if not more than his camera. More time is spent in the darkroom than behind the camera. Today it is Photoshop and AfterEffects.
tl:dr
iso= sensor sensitivity, try for low
A aperture f-stop = aperture size, try for tiny hole, high number
S shutter speed, the blink, try for fast, high number
Step down until you see the results you want
Correct post processing.
[my d-90 just turned over speedometer the 3rd time. I must start new albums because the numbers repeat. I end up with photos of hotdogs in my cheese omelet set when I post them]
As to cost, the way to justify is by education. Any of your classes cost as much as a camera.
I too dream of the day I can own a full-frame camera, one that matches the 35mm of old. These would be the top of the line Canons and Nikons.
The Nikon I wanted is $8,000 and that is too much for my little hobby. So I sacrifice with sub-pro 3/4 frame while I build up my expertise and gather my lenses before I pop for a professional camera.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
Nikon developed lesser full-frame cameras without all the super duper bells and whistles and that was fine by me. All I wanted is the full frame, not all the extra studio-related stuff that makes it impossible for their flagship to take a bad picture. I don't want that. I just want the full frame, to match the old 35mm. It's a thing. I'm mentally stuck on that. So now my focus is changed to get the less expensive full frame.
As I'm saving, meanwhile back at the ranch.
Nikon's flagship camera has shifted to another tippy top of the uppermost tip top of the line and the original object of my desire slipped from it unattainable position to the same as the new lesser models. I can have older flagship for the same cost as new wannabe.
$2,000 is not so bad. I can justify that as education. I can pop for that any time. And I will. But in the meantime, back at the ranch, my ranch, the d-90 is doing just fine and dandy and I am still learning on it. And when you think about it, a larger one might become a giant pain in the beautox.
What happened on Mad Men?
Twitter was all, "Oh no!"
What happened?
I've never seen Mad Men... Except for bits here and there over the years.
An apochryphal story:
Famous New York photographer goes to a dinner party, where the hostess gushes over his published photos: "Your pictures are so good, you must have a wonderful camera" to which he replied "This dinner is so good you must have a wonderful stove."
Post a Comment