| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/25/2006 11:18:54 AM · #1 |
Years ago, before family and kids, I earned a degree in art with an emphasis in photography. I then found that if I could not have dark room time and control the entire process I wasn't much interested in photographing more than with an old point and shoot. I'm now ready to get seriously involved again- face a whole new aray of technical challanges - and have been looking around for cameras. I have narrowed my choices to a Nikon 50 or D70 and am not yet sure about the lense. I will probably be photographing still lifes and people, and who knows what will elvolve. (My first love is black and white) Any suggestions in terms of equipment or just starting up would be appriciated. By the way, this web site has been insturmental in getting my creative juices flowing again...the work is great....thanks to you all. Dax in Colorado, USA
PS I don't actaully own a digital yet, the cannon is my husbands, so this is all really new...... |
|
|
|
04/25/2006 11:38:28 AM · #2 |
welcome to the addiction :)
advise: start slow, don't second mortgage the home on equipment just yet (that comes later) - get the cheapo 50mm 1.8 and a cheapo zoom and start shooting, your immediate wants/needs will become obvious with more and more shooting. You'll upgrade the cheapo zoom eventually, most likely the 50mm will stay with you forever. |
|
|
|
04/25/2006 11:45:07 AM · #3 |
Hello and welcome. Always great to have more peeps here representing Colorado. I wish I could be more helpful with your camera choice(don't know much about Nikons). You really can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon, just be prepared to stick with a brand as you invest in lenses. Hopper's advice is good, really gives you chance to see which lenses you'll want before you invest heavily.
Again, welcome!!!
~Mark |
|
|
|
04/25/2006 11:54:34 AM · #4 |
Welcome and enjoy the new addiction.
Let the lens addiction begin.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2006 12:10:15 PM · #5 |
I agree completely with hopper on this one. I'm a returnee to photography after many years of doing more important stuff. I remember with great affection, the days of the manual only film SLR, and the techniques one had to master to get the envisioned result. I think that the amazing technology available on the high street today can sometimes get in the way of the learning process that is necessary to develop as a photographer.
I'm very happy with a cheap little fuji...it feels enough like an old fashioned manual for me to be relaxed with it, rather than a computer with a lens on the front.
The camera is just a blind machine...it's your eye and your vision that takes the photograph.. |
|
|
|
04/25/2006 11:03:15 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by shots:
I agree completely with hopper on this one. I'm a returnee to photography after many years of doing more important stuff. I remember with great affection, the days of the manual only film SLR, and the techniques one had to master to get the envisioned result. I think that the amazing technology available on the high street today can sometimes get in the way of the learning process that is necessary to develop as a photographer.
I'm very happy with a cheap little fuji...it feels enough like an old fashioned manual for me to be relaxed with it, rather than a computer with a lens on the front.
The camera is just a blind machine...it's your eye and your vision that takes the photograph.. |
I guess I am kind of new school in this regard. I had shot film right up until I got my 20D, but I find that shooting digital, in particular with a big card in the camera (1 gig or more) allows me the freedom to fire away and mess w/ setting to see what I get. I lost the concern over having to pay to get them developed since I can delete bad ones in camera or simply leave them on the hard drive un-printed. I guess I am a learn-by-doing person, so going digital helped me a great deal because I can read about a new technique, but going out and shooting 100 shots using that technique teach me that much more. |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 10:19:03 AM · #7 |
thanks all for your replies concerning my start down the digital road.
My training in photography was quite specific in terms of shooting what I want to get and thinking about the final picture then. (teacher was not big on cropping) Thus I didn't use too much film. I realize that going digital will change many things. One thing that I have noticed about many of the digital pics on this website is that they seem on the commercial side and both technically and visually arresting. What have people found about shooting b&w with digital? |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 11:57:25 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by dax:
thanks all for your replies concerning my start down the digital road.
My training in photography was quite specific in terms of shooting what I want to get and thinking about the final picture then. (teacher was not big on cropping) Thus I didn't use too much film. I realize that going digital will change many things. One thing that I have noticed about many of the digital pics on this website is that they seem on the commercial side and both technically and visually arresting. What have people found about shooting b&w with digital? |
I've found shooting B&W with digital to be quite a process. It's like constant learning. I guess very much like a dark room, you really have to know the feel of a photo and how you want your B&W to look *before* you shoot, to give it the right properties for conversion.
I've also noticed that Nikon/Pentax provide a look straight out of the camera that tends to lend itself to a more "film" like B&W conversion right off the bat, where with Canon, it's too clean and packaged, and you have a lot more work in front of you.
That's just my observation, of course. Whatever you choose, you'll probably have a lot of fun figuring things out. Good luck! |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 12:02:36 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
I've also noticed that Nikon/Pentax provide a look straight out of the camera that tends to lend itself to a more "film" like B&W conversion right off the bat, where with Canon, it's too clean and packaged, and you have a lot more work in front of you.
That's just my observation, of course. |
I'm quite surprised about this finding as I have noticed very little difference INDEED in the quality of files created by the Nikon D70 and the Canon 20D. Provided the cameras are both set not to apply any saturation, sharpening, contrast adjustments etc in-camera there shouldn't be a marked difference in JPEGs either.
I have found I've had to follow a pretty much identical workflow for both types of RAW files and have not noticed any discernable difference in results (when converting to both colour and black and white files).
What kind of differences have you found?
(Not saying you haven't found any - just utterly intrigued)
|
|
|
|
04/26/2006 12:26:11 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by Artyste:
I've also noticed that Nikon/Pentax provide a look straight out of the camera that tends to lend itself to a more "film" like B&W conversion right off the bat, where with Canon, it's too clean and packaged, and you have a lot more work in front of you.
That's just my observation, of course. |
I'm quite surprised about this finding as I have noticed very little difference INDEED in the quality of files created by the Nikon D70 and the Canon 20D. Provided the cameras are both set not to apply any saturation, sharpening, contrast adjustments etc in-camera there shouldn't be a marked difference in JPEGs either.
I have found I've had to follow a pretty much identical workflow for both types of RAW files and have not noticed any discernable difference in results (when converting to both colour and black and white files).
What kind of differences have you found?
(Not saying you haven't found any - just utterly intrigued) |
The D70 (and Pentax DS), tend to have a naturally "grainer" look. Granted, I've not played with the 20D much with settings and such, but straight out of the camera, it is like the difference between say.. ISO 800 Film and ISO 50 film exposed properly in a slightly shaded area.
Although that's not the best analogy either.
As you'd seen me bitching about in chat, It's tough for me to get an uber-smooth B&W image, even if usually I prefer a more natural one (and although I was in ISO 800, the same is true for ISO 200).. so it's all about what you want. The Canons will *give* you uber-smooth B&Ws without any trouble at all. But the D70 will give you a more natural look, without as much trouble.
I dunno, if you find that there are settings for the Canon that allow that kind of look right out of the camera, then I stand corrected, but It's always been the biggest difference between Nikon and Canon from what I've seen. |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 12:35:27 PM · #11 |
I too find this interesting as from what I have read, most people seem to feel that the largest difference in 'grain' in the Nikon vs Canon vs whatever area reveals that the Nikon features more of it's noise in luminance, where the Canon's feature more of their noise in the chrominance.
Wouldn't this somewhat negate itself in B&W? |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 01:11:02 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by dax:
thanks all for your replies concerning my start down the digital road.
My training in photography was quite specific in terms of shooting what I want to get and thinking about the final picture then. (teacher was not big on cropping) Thus I didn't use too much film. I realize that going digital will change many things. One thing that I have noticed about many of the digital pics on this website is that they seem on the commercial side and both technically and visually arresting. What have people found about shooting b&w with digital? |
If you've already done a lot of b&w film photography, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised by how much of your skill translates directly to digital b&w. All your intuition on lighting, shading, texture, and composition carries over. You can still mix your light sources without worrying about color temperature. Dodging and burning is much easier because now you have an "undo" button! Playing with contrast by blocking certain colors is still just as important, although I personally am not fond of Photoshop's standard approach for that (the Channel Mixer). I've had much better luck with DigiDaan's Photoshop action. |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 02:52:01 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by dax:
Years ago, before family and kids, I earned a degree in art with an emphasis in photography. I then found that if I could not have dark room time and control the entire process I wasn't much interested in photographing more than with an old point and shoot. I'm now ready to get seriously involved again- face a whole new aray of technical challanges - and have been looking around for cameras. I have narrowed my choices to a Nikon 50 or D70 and am not yet sure about the lense. I will probably be photographing still lifes and people, and who knows what will elvolve. (My first love is black and white) Any suggestions in terms of equipment or just starting up would be appriciated. By the way, this web site has been insturmental in getting my creative juices flowing again...the work is great....thanks to you all. Dax in Colorado, USA
PS I don't actaully own a digital yet, the cannon is my husbands, so this is all really new...... |
I would reccommend that you consider the D70s, it's similar to the D70 but more up to date. And for a first lens I'd tell you to get the Tamron AF 28-75 f2.8 XD Di LD. It' s high quality lens with a very useful zoom range.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:02:16 PM EDT.
