quote:

Originally posted by Splitcoil in the Newark Infection thread:

...if some putz like me who has never learned much about photography was interested in reading something on the topic, sort of an intro to it, what could he read?...

Good question. I would start with the basics, and that would be books. Yes, books- those things one thumps onto tables and hides under coffee cups.

By far the most comprehensive and cheapest resource-set for someone looking for a grounding in photography would be the Life Library of Photography. It was a series of coffee-tablish books, published in 1971. It really does start at the egg, and covers a whole lot of ground through a dozen volumes- history, techniques, darkroom basics, photographic themes and styles, great photographers, significant photographs...

And it's dirt cheap. Every other secondhand book or junk store will have a complete set on offer, at maybe $1 to $5 US per volume. Stray volumes are easy to find to round out a set, as well.

It's certainly dated now, but still very much worth it. Filled with scrumptious pictures, too.

The first thing to do is.........

Don't buy a camera.

I know it sounds stupid, but read the books that MoM has suggested, go into some art book stores & look at every photography book that doesn't have clear plastic sealing it.

The decide what kind of photography interests you, are you interested in shooting portraits, wildlife, still lifes, sports, landscapes or candid people stuff. If it is anything but the last item, pick a 35mm single lens reflex. But don't buy new; and don't buy off ebay. Go to a used camera store and feel the damned things in your hand. Stick with the people who are known for their optics, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax. Don't buy a zoom lens; stick with the 50mm standard optics. Make sure it has through the lens metering & be sure it works. Do not buy the camera unless it has a warranty (even if it is only 30 days). Used cameras are dirt cheap nowadays with everyone switching to digital.

Get as much film as you can afford & start shooting.

Remember I said that the SLR was the weapon of choice except for candid people work; well if that is the way you want to go, you are going to have to follow in the footsteps of the master (Henri Cartier-Bresson) and go with a coupled rangefinder camera. This used to mean Leica, but nowadays the Japanese have re-introduced the Voigtlander range and these are good entry level cameras for this kind of work. But coupled rangefinder cameras, whilst much quieter than SLRs are much more complex to operate and not exactly intuitive.

Cameraquest.com; who MoM linked in the previous thread are Voigtlander distributors and often sell of end of range stuff at ridiculously low prices. My suggestion would be to buy a Voigtlander body and a used M series lens (50mm Summicron, or Summilux if you can stretch to it). And as with the SLR, buy all the film you can afford & start shooting.

LN

Well, i partially disagree with LN's second line in the above post. It's kinda like telling somebody who wants to play guitar not to touch a guitar. Doesn't work that way.

You need to get a good book that has a nice detailed description about photography starting with the basics. I'm sorry but i can't give you any titles. Try looking for one that covers both technique and style.
At the same time, get a good allround camera. Even new analog reflex cameras these days are starting to get fairly cheap. Or go to a second hand store that seems thrustworthy and get a second hand one for even cheaper. Next, go buy some cheap (say, Kodak Gold) film, and load up.
While reading the book, you'll came across terms and techniques that will be explained. When that happens, take your camera and try what the book explains. For instance, if it talks about aperature, go out and take a series of pictures with different aperature settings, then see what the result is. While you're doing this, you'll learn all about the technique of shooting photos, but you'll also find out what kind of style or subject interest you the most. Once you know that, you can start looking for more specific books on the topic and then do the same thing (read and practise).

You might have the response "why analog in this digital age?". One simple reason: it's the best way to learn. Many people that have digital cameras take hundreds of pictures, barely looking at what they take pictures of, not caring about light, framing, colour. It's like trying to paint a masterpiece by throwing paint at a canvas from 10 feet away. If you try long enough you're bound to get lucky. But if you really want to learn and be good at it, try taking your pictures in a way that you end up with a good photo every time you press that button. When you're working with film, you're really forced to do that.
Also, because those digital cameras can only almost exclusivly (except when you buy one of those expensive digital SLR's) be used in "automatic" function, you don't get to experiment with different techniques at all... you basicly don't learn shit.

oh what a stinky can of worms we've opened...

i would never tell anyone not to get a digital camera, that's like saying don't bother with a computer, typewriters are how real novels are created...

the thing to remember here is the tool is just a tool, it's YOU learning how to use it properly that counts. just cause you have a great typewriter or great computer doesn't mean you will be a great novelist, right? same thing with cameras.

now, film is very nice. if you want to do things that route, it's a lot of fun. so is digital. and if you look hard enough, you can find plenty of digital cameras that have manual control of things like apeture and shutter speed. the important thing to know about digital cameras is most of them are very low end automatics intended for consumers who just want xmas morning type pictures. but you could say the same thing about film cameras before digital appeared...

i will agree you should look into how cameras work and what exactly terms like apeture and shutter speed mean, and how that controls things like your DOF (look it up) and how ISO affects the image and ability to control the other metrics of the capture mechanisms... and how film ISO relates to digital camera ISO simulation and all the other myriad of details about cameras there is to learn. having a bit of understanding of all these things will help you decide what kind of camera to buy. (and really, if it becomes a passionate hobby of yours, you probably won't limit yourself to one camera. you'll need different tools for different jobs. so don't sweat over getting the RIGHT camera. no such thing...)

now, digital cameras are cheaper in the long run, because you buy the camera and a memory card, and don't really worry much about film development costs. and you can do all your manipulating and experimenting in photoshop and print it perfect the first time. but i think it's tougher to understand what the hell you are actually doing. and there's a satisfaction in working with film, and making your own prints by hand. of course not everyone can build their own darkroom, or live in a city with access to a public photo lab that rents their facilities out...

also i am more of a hands on person. i think just reading a book about photography is going to be horribly boring for 99% of people, like reading about how to play basketball. you just got to get hold of a ball and get on the court. and if you find a real person who can teach you this stuff face to face it'll make a lot more sense...

"shutter speed"....
So that's what it's called.

Anyway, to get serious. Unfortunatelly I belong in the category that ED just described.
My stinky little Olympus digicam is my first camera. I just bought it for the Olympics August 2004 and taking pictures was something I started doing consciously barely this past spring.
Damn, the first time I actually had any of my pics printed was last week.

oh i just had a thought, if you do use film and intend to get hands on with it, try learning with black and white. this is the method almost every damn Photo 101 class uses. if you can't compose good B&W photos forget about color...

another thing with film is you tend to think more about whether you really need to take a shot of something. the cost per image is higher. i always noticed the difference when i worked in the lab and compared wedding reels to portrait reels. with portraits you have a few shots of a pose, to be safe, but only a few poses, and maybe only one or two strips used. weddings would have shitloads of images, almost all one shots during the event, and then a few portrait like shots of the bride and groom and family members, etc. you could really tell when other people were paying the film stock costs, like with the weddings, or film was an expense, like the portraits.

school portraits were the worst, maybe only 1 pose of a kid, 2 if the photographer noticed they were blinking. they have to take pictures of everyone for the yearbook, but only make real money off the number of prints ordered, so they try and save money on film stock by cramming as many different kids onto one reel as possible...

and yes, i really do mean reels, we would develop rolls and rolls and splice them together for proof printing in bulk, so one or two reels was an entire grade of kids. i still remember hand numbering hundreds of images per reel...

quote:

Originally posted by Wanderer:
You might have the response "why analog in this digital age?". One simple reason: it's the best way to learn. Many people that have digital cameras take hundreds of pictures, barely looking at what they take pictures of, not caring about light, framing, colour. It's like trying to paint a masterpiece by throwing paint at a canvas from 10 feet away. If you try long enough you're bound to get lucky. But if you really want to learn and be good at it, try taking your pictures in a way that you end up with a good photo every time you press that button. When you're working with film, you're really forced to do that.

OTOH, photography requires the taking of a ton
of pictures, which is obviously cheaper in
digital. When I took my photography class (and
everybody pipes up, "He took a photography
class? It certainly doesn't show."), I had
insufficient funds to really experiment a whole
lot.

quote:

Also, because those digital cameras can only almost exclusivly (except when you buy one of those expensive digital SLR's) be used in "automatic" function, you don't get to experiment with different techniques at all... you basicly don't learn shit.

Then there is this. Yeah, maybe you could borrow
somebody's digital SLR. I often consider getting
one, but most of my picture taking is of the
snapshot variety.

Take pictures. Find something that supports manual settings and focus, and take pictures consciously setting everything.

Many thanks, all. I'll definitely try to get my hands on that series of books, MOM. I'm the kind of guy who generally likes to kick around with a cheap example of a device for awhile before seriously studying up on them. I get to know the basics of it, then study obsessively and go out and buy the device I think I will really want/use/need. To that end, I'll probably kick around with my wife's old Canon Rebel a bit, then put it away and do my research and find something I really want (if I decide to stick with it). She's also got a reasonably good little digicam that's pretty adjustable. I'll see if I can't steal that away from her for awhile.

I've done a bit of photography before, but I've never put effort into making the pictures actually look good. That might be kind of fun.

Besides, I love small, old machines that still work perfectly well in the contemporary age... and those old Leicas arouse a strange latent otakuity in me.

Look at lots of photographs. Preferably prints, if you can get out to galleries what show photography.

Then take lots of pictures. With a digital cam. Why? Because these days the technical bits, stops, and exposure, and shutter speed, even printing is relatively easy to deal with. Your main focus should be lighting and composition. These are, of course, the most difficult part of making photographic art. And digital lets you make lots of mistakes without an enormous economic burden.

But don't take my word for it. I suck.

Oh, I'll be back here in a coupla days.

For now, I'd like to disagree with just about everything LN said.

Unless you can afford a villa in Tuscany, go digital instead of film for starting out. You can see immediately what's good and bad about a shot, it's cheaper, print what you want etc. Maybe one guy out of every twenty or so will be able to tell the difference

And, again, buy for versatility, not to keyhole yourself in a specific genre before you've even pressed a shutter. What you like looking at mightn't be what you like or can shoot. I don't think you could do desert landscapes in Seattle.

The only real way to get better - as with guitar - USE IT. You didn't decide to start playing guitar, then forced yourself to read theory for six months before you picked one up. You will not want to shoot as much if you have to pay to see the end results.

Later, move on to film. But you might like digital. Who knows?

And, of course, I am going to disagree with everything that L said.

When I learned to play the guitar I did so with a book, that is how you learn the fingering & chords. Just picking up a guitar and making discordant sounds is hardly the way to learn.

Telling people to start with digital is fine if what you are in search of is 'snaps' but the thread is about photography; which is about composition, exposure and depth of field. None of which you will learn from the vast majority of digital cameras.

Shooting tons of images and then picking the serendipitous one is anathema to any true photographer, read Cartier-Bresson's thoughts on this here. But if you have fallen under the sway of the Nike strap line & think that the correct way to commence any complex task is to "Just do it"; then I suppose we shall have to file that under 'the impetuousness of youth' and move on.

You see picking a genre or a camera style as 'limiting' whilst I see it as focussing your efforts; remember that mastery of any craft is best expressed through the limitations of the form itself.

I still fail to see the relevance of a Tuscan home to this thread; oh, and by the way, calling it a 'Villa' is pretentious; something of which you could never accuse me. The preferred usage is 'place' or 'house'.

You are aware that in arguing with me over the relevance of book study before embarking on photography, you are also arguing with MoM, who advocated the same course immediately prior to my post? I admire your cojones in so doing, I think everyone should argue with MoM, just once in their life.

LN

Oh, LN, I've agreed with MoM many, many times before. But Mean Old Man never said to not touch a camera until you've read the books.

Aren't hobbies meant to be fun?

Y'see, photography (as with most art) isn't neurosurgery, so if we underexpose an image here, or be out of focus there, it doesn't matter, no one dies. Unless you're doing it for money, there's a gun to your head or you're doing it (like I am) for study, there's no rules. I could say that Steve Vai's the master of guitar, just as you drop Cartier-Bresson's name, and that Splitcoil should study his style when he plays (which we all know would never happen). You're assuming there are fixed attributes and rules for art.

You won't learn DOF with most digitals, true, you won't learn DOF with most film cameras either. What's your point? Somehow, I don't a beginner's gonna dive right in and buy an Leica M3.

Wait, you actually own a house in Tuscany? Shit, I was being metaphorical. Oh, and I think it's pretentious to say you could never be accused of pretentiousness, but that's just nitpicking .

Splitters, approach a camera the same way you approach a guitar, and you'll be fine. I think it's better to get something that does as much as possible - you can always limit yourself mentally into a genre but damned if you won't be pissed when you see that perfect shot and you find your hardware can't cope.

You can take good photos on any equipment. Because a good photo is a matter of opinion.

And what matters is the final image, not what you took it with. That's all.

Photography's only hard if you choose to make it hard.

But here's some food for thought. I've taken over 1400 shots with my Pentax. Now go out and find the processing costs of the 52-odd rolls of film that would equate to.

quote:

My stinky little Olympus digicam is my first camera. I just bought it for the Olympics August 2004 and taking pictures was something I started doing consciously barely this past spring.

I wouldn't expect you buy any other brand considering your location and the occasion for which you bought it, striv . Zeus knows where you live.

there's reading books, and there's just-doing-it.
marvellous how many famous photographers were of the "just do it" cathegory.
mapplethorpe started out with a polaroid camera.
i'm just sayin'.

What's that old photography saw?

The best camera is the one you have in hand when the shot presents itself.

Oh it's so marvelous how we twist things around just to have any excuse to argue with one another (and I totally include myself here). Going back to the beginning, it was quite clear Splitcoil asked for books about the subject. I have no idea why LN started talking about cameras.

Personally, I have two different books on black and white photography which were required for the Beginning Photography courses I took (different schools at different times). They both say the same stuff, and most of it was also gone over in lecture. I can't say I spent much time reading either one, so I won't bother recommending either one.

The biggest difference between the first time I took a class and the second time was, besides my already being employed working custom enlargements in a pro photo lab the second time, is the internet. There is so much information about DOF and controlling exposure on the internet it hurts. But since the internet is also so capitalistically ad-driven, there exists a huge amount of pro quality commercial photography to examine and learn from.

So the internet can be a great resource for learning about cameras and image control. Another good place is the photography section of your magazine rack. Tons of photo mags to look through (and I ain't just talking Penthouse). I always liked the big magazine that didn't fit anywhere called Shutterbug. You should buy a current issue of one of these at least once in the beginning so you can look through those oversized pages of camera shop ads...

Beyond that, I do think a good set of reference books is essential, the key word being reference. I don't adhere to LN's theory of choosing a genre. This almost implies market to me, as if a picture of sports is somehow less artistic than a distant sun drenched mountain. But those two pictures probably have different technical requirements for the basic capture. Quick shutterspeeds and film which stop the action for sports are also useful for candid nature shots of fast winged hummingbirds. And long setup times and very fine grained films for that mountain capture also work marvelous for intimate portraits. This is where reference books are useful, for examining different approaches and deciding which one is appropriate to the given task...

I don't know anything about photography, and never even started seriously working on the subject (although I entertain the idea that someday I will), but I strongly suspect that there's a powerful camera fetish at work here.

I know two photographs.

Number one is a professionnal photo-reporter, who learned everything on his own, and after more than ten years of experience, is flying way above the techno fetish.
If ther's going to be a quantity of shots required, he'll go digital, and will use Photoshop later on.
If it's only a few shots, he'll go the old way, and tweak around when developing, if such thing is required (not often).

Number two is a beginner (but talented and trained), and has a fascination for Leica.
I don't see how it adds to the quality of what it produces.

I love the digital pictures of the experienced photograph much more than the ones from the Leica in the hands of a beginner.


All this to say that I agree with doggo.
You can have the best shot ever with a Polaroid.
You can have shit with a Leica.

quote:

Originally posted by LeitzNoctilux:
You see picking a genre or a camera style as 'limiting' whilst I see it as focussing your efforts; remember that mastery of any craft is best expressed through the limitations of the form itself.

There's this little voice in my head that keeps saying "but how do you know what you like the best if you don't try various things?". See, i started with photography doing mainly nature- and cityscapes. It's by trying different things that i found out i actually like portrait photography quite a lot. According to you i'd have to dismiss one style and just limit myself to one trick. But what's the point in doing that if you enjoy both?

Or if you have no experience of the genre?

It's like saying "I don't like the taste of lobster" if you've never eaten lobster in your life.

quote:

but I strongly suspect that there's a powerful camera fetish at work here.

Leitz-Noctilux ain't a brand of baby powder .

Gentlemen! Gentlemen! It's all good. As usual, when I get advice from extremists on various sides of an issue, I'll end up doing something in the middle. But it's all helpful advice. I don't have enormous quantities of time to devote to yet another new hobby, so I'll be doing whatever I have time for. And the types of shots I find myself wanting to take are nearly always landscapes or candid people shots. Therefore, I appreciate LN's subject-specific advice. It's something I'll take into account.

As for learning from people rather than books-- I really like to start with books on most subjects. I tend to be impatient with people who are trying to teach me the super basic stuff of any subject, because I tend to pick up and retain the basics faster than they expect, and I start resenting all the repetition. So I like to pick up the basic knowledge from a book, play around with the device, then perhaps seek out someone with knowledge for more. I am also very much a visual person, and I'm more likely to retain information longer if I either see it on a printed page or write it down myself.