Been shooting a bit more seriously lately - and getting paid for it - so I need to upgrade my gear...

For starters, I need an AF fast normal prime. For those who're gonna about AF being the spawn of satan, I challenge you to focus at f1.4 through a pentamirror finder with a split screen or microprism patch.

So I'm looking at prices for lenses here.

The Pentax FA f1.4 50mm goes for $339AU at the cheapest online supplier here. In the US, from, say, Adorama (who flogs cameras for Amazon) it goes for $189US.

Considering that now the exchange rate is about 92 Greenbacks to my dollar...that would what economist term a "huge fucking discrepancy" in the prices.

And considering the cost of the simply godlike FA* f1.9 43mm is only $459 in the States (so about $500 AU) compared to fucking $779AU here...

Why? Hell, we're about the same damn distance from the factory.

World Press Photo Joop Swart Masterclass 2007, online only until the 25th of november. I haven't seen it yet (which is partially why i post it here, to remind myself); but it should be good.

This photo was taken on sunday previous to last, at the photo club trip.
I'm posting this here I guess mostly cause it's not my shot and because I really like it as a group shot.
I think it describes my photog geek club perfectly.

Greek geeks?

Holy shit! That guy on the far right - that Zeus, isn't it? Judging from the beard?

And fili's got a Pentax 'round her neck...sexy.

Helluva shot. Like if Martin Parr shot BW, though thankfully it lacks naked babies and Englishfolk sunbathing.

Martin Parr, incidentally, features heavily in a series the BBC are showing at the moment called The Genius of Photography. Each week they take a few well-known photographers and analyse their work and their approaches to the subject. Last week's show featured Diane Arbus and Richard Avedon; the week before they discussed Robert Frank and William Eggleston. Boy, he was a *real* bundle of laughs...

The trouble is, the first time I noticed Martin Parr's work he was doing something a bit different!

best,
Chris H

Thinking about how, no matter how many shots I take of a thing, the first one is almost always best in terms of framing and content.
I can't seem to reproduce a good shot consciously, which is annoying if the first shot is blurred or has bad lighting.

Is that normal?

Yes.

Ha! My Pentax K10D showed up yesterday afternoon, bitches! I took yr advice, lith, got the body only and ordered the 16-45mm zoom. It's a bit daunting. I've only owned point-and-shoots in my life. Someone, recommend a decent intro-to book? I know next to nothing about the actual how-tos of photography.

Try the National Geographics PHotography Field Guide. Or guides, actually, there are several different guides on different topics. The general one though is a good introduction into photography.

Or go back to page 1 of this thread, where various wigbers threw pointy objects at each other while arguing the best place to start.

I still think digital is a bad way to go if you really want to learn about photography. The nature of the medium doesn't push you to be good, where as film actually does push you. But hey... maybe i'm just too damn old fashioned.

Meanwhile, i'm getting a Minolta 9000 - the first ever professional autofocus SLR, and at the time way ahead of anyting Nikon or Canon were doing - shipped to me, the package includes a motor drive and a professional flash. I love that you can now get pro gear for a fraction of what it cost when it came out, while still getting the same value. Another advantage of analog, that.

quote:

Splitcoil said: Or go back to page 1 of this thread. . .

Ah, yes. Lots of titles there. I figured the question had probably come up before. Didn't think to check the first page! Doh!

Fuck the books.

Shoot. Shoot, motherfucker! Pentaxes aren't easy to break! Yours is even splashproof.

Press the buttons. Play with the menus. For the love gods, take it off AUTO.

Don't listen to the Belg; you're not shooting film, so don't get in the mindset of "wasting frames is bad." Digital does push to you be good. A good frame is a good frame is a good frame - and, hell, it's harder to shoot trannies than it is digital, and it's easier to shoot colour neg than it is digital.

The 16-45's good glass - getting a super-wide angle (16mm for your Pentax, 24mm in 35mm format) is normally a fairly expensive proposition in digital. Granted, it's not the fastest (ie, it's got a fairly small aperture of f4 - means it doesn't let as much light in as something with a smaller f number) but it's still a notch up from consumer lenses, which is something you'd have gotten tired of quickly.

If you want, no doubt myself and others will be willing to explain what everything does on your camera and lens. But books cost money (and you've got a web connection, obviously) and often, I find, get a little preachy in regards to style.

Also, they tend to be written by the same old coots who say "you really should've started on film..."

People only say this because it's what they started on. Trust me, there's nothing more disappointing than buying film, shooting film, paying to get said film developed, and then realising you've got less than 36 good frames, and the total cost comes to over $20.

Remember what Wayne Gretzky said: "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." I can't remember if he was some sort of hockey player or possibly a rampant militiaman gun-nut with aspirations of sniperhood, though; he spent some time in the States so it's kinda hard to tell.

What I like about digital, is being able to see, straight away, whether what you are trying has worked. Theres no way I could hae afforded to have learnt as much as I have so far with film, and I know I don't have the patience to develop myself.

if you see something you like, ask that person how the acheived what they did. Look at pictures you like, and use those ideas when out taking pics.

More than anything though, damn, just have some fun. Hobbies are there to be enjoyable, and if you only ever go trying to take the perfect picture, it can get boring and stressful.

quote:

Originally posted by Wanderer:
I still think digital is a bad way to go if you really want to learn about photography. The nature of the medium doesn't push you to be good, where as film actually does push you. But hey... maybe i'm just too damn old fashioned.

Meanwhile, i'm getting a Minolta 9000 - the first ever professional autofocus SLR, and at the time way ahead of anyting Nikon or Canon were doing - shipped to me, the package includes a motor drive and a professional flash. I love that you can now get pro gear for a fraction of what it cost when it came out, while still getting the same value. Another advantage of analog, that.

And I believe it would allow you go DSLR with a Sony α...

I agree with Lithos: shoot.

You want to learn about photography? Take pictures. Don't worry about what with. When I worked in Tampa, a colleague told me how her father had met Ansel Adams, and had asked him for advice suitable for a novice starting out. His reply:

"Take ten thousand snaps. Then you might be ready to take a photograph."

Best,
Chris H

Well, yes, martini, that's what the poor bastard's left with...

Well, at least de Belg'll get a good sensor.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris H:
I agree with Lithos: shoot.

You want to learn about photography? Take pictures. Don't worry about what with. When I worked in Tampa, a colleague told me how her father had met Ansel Adams, and had asked him for advice suitable for a novice starting out. His reply:

"Take ten thousand snaps. Then you might be ready to take a photograph."

Best,
Chris H

The reason the SAS shoot so well is that they put thousands of rounds in training so with photography shoot shoot shoot and the best (maybe only) way to do that is with digital. Mind you one of my favourite shots was taken with a disposable film camera cos I didn't have anything else available

deconstructing_Pakistan.jpg (134 KB, 34 downloads)