Shop Talk-cameras, film, lighting, etc.

[geolarson2]

I know Rob was planning on a thread where folks could go to talk about cameras, &c., but I also know he's a pretty busy guy so I thought I'd start a thread for all those photographers, aspiring photographers, camera buffs . So if you have a camera, come here whether you're using digital or film, have a nice lighting system with softboxes & spots, use a shoe mount system, or use a built-in flash, use an SLR or P&S, here's a thread for you to come and discuss anything and everything from your first camera to what type of photos (or video) you like to shoot and so on.

(Please, no in the buff cameras though--put that lens cap back on Nikon! And just where do you think you're putting that card? )

[geolarson2]

So since I've given it nearly a month since posting, I figured I'd toss in my own story (Rob did post his story about starting FTV elsewhere, which is a really great read BTW).

When I was maybe 6, somewhere around 1976 and atFleet Week San Francisco I got to use a camera for the very first time. It was a 129mm point & shoot thing--crap, really, but when I got back my first photos, one of the USS Coral Sea, another of the USS Halsey, some of the aircraft & Blues Angels, I was thrilled. Skip forward roughly 6 or 7 years and I dug out my dad's old Kodak Retinette 1A. This is a rangefinder camera, meaning you look through the little window that runs through the body giving you an approximation of what your photo will look like--the disposable cameras you buy at the store work on the same principle. The difference is that with the Retinette you are in control of the shutter speed & aperture. That means a bit of doing math in your head. Along with the camera went a Sekonic light meter (a pain in the butt to use, but something, in the electronic form, which some photogs use even today in conjunction with the metering systems that are built into more and more systems), and a Honeywell Tilt-a-Mite parabolic flash. This is a wicked cool flash system that uses one-off flash bulbs. Where that one day circa 1976 had gotten me interested, it was pulling out this dusty old case full of retro photo equipment circa 1983 that got me going. This was pure trial and error for me. I hadn't taken a photography course anywhere, I just had the owner's manual for the camera, the instruction book for the light meter, and a guide for reconciling the shutter speed, flash bulb & distance from subject. There was a lot I quite simply didn't get, but I learned even if it took I don't know how many rolls of film to get a single decent shot. Two things came out of the Retinette. First, I learned some of the basics about balancing speed & aperture, what an f-stop is (hint: the smaller the number, the larger the opening, thus the more light that gets to the film, the question, then is for how long). Second, I showed how much I was willing to learn about photography and so fir Christmas 1984 I found under the tree an extra-special gift from S. Claus, namely a Minolta X-370 with normal (50mm) & telephoto zoom lenses, UV filters & electronic flash. I got my first opportunity to try out the kit a short time later at the Monterey Bay Aquarium which had recently opened, and managed to get one decent shot, but a few months later, on a trip to Yosemite, I did a lot better. In my junior year of high school (maybe it was my sophomore year--I'd have to dig out my transcripts, but I'm too lazy and its not that big a deal) I took photography to meet my art requirement and wound up spending quite a lot of time taking photos after school and almost as much time in the darkroom spooling my film (or the film of my classmates--turned out I had dexterous fingers in the dark!), or using the enlargers to make prints. This was all black & white work; I never got around to learning how to process colour film or develop prints. One thing I do regret is not taking more photography courses in college, or pursuing something which has given me a lot of pleasure through the years. Anyway, I continued to use that very same Minolta kit right up until 2007. Early that year, I bought a "last years'" Canon Rebel Ti 35mm. It has some drawbacks--the light metering system, which like my Minolta is internal, is on a different scale than I was used to, but it was something that I got used to pretty easily, and unlike my other cameras the body is plastic instead of metal, but it was what I could afford. To be honest, if I wasn't getting older and my eyes less reliable I'd probably still be using the Minolta, but the Canon offered me something that I didn't have before--autofocus! I love composing photos--its the best part of photography for me it what leads up to pressing that shutter release button. Its adjusting the dials, paying close attention to what I'm seeing through the viewer (and with the Minolta and Canon, what I see really is what I get in many ways--unlike the rangefinder system, these other two cameras are SLRs, which is short for Single-Lens Reflex, which means that there's a mirror inside the body that when the shutter's closed reflects what you see through the lens up into the eyepiece). I often switch back and forth between a wide-angle lens and a telephoto zoom, but I'm still sorting out the E-TTL flash (this is a newer flash, electronic as with the Minolta, but one which gathers information from the camera and adjusts itself so that, in theory, it casts just the right amount of light on the subject (TTL is short for "Through-the-Lens, BTW). On the plus side, I don't have much call to use the flash, yet. Most of my work has been done with landscapes, frequently at sunrise or sunset--things that you wouldn't use a flash for in the first place, and things that are more inclined to make me adjust my settings manually to get just the right exposure. Now that I'm comfortable with the Canon EOS system, though, and since I'm tired of paying processing fees, I'm actually contemplating yet another change, this time to a digital system from Canon which means that my lenses & flash will work just fine. So there's a "brief" outline about my own foray into photography. There's a bit more, such as studying the work of photographers such as Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Eliot Porter and others, but I'll leave that alone for now (whew!). The important thing here is really to show how I started off building the fundamentals and mentioning that there's a difference between book-learning (in this case reading the instruction manuals) and real-world practice (i.e., actually getting out in the field and taking photos), and even if one out of a hundred is gold and the rest are stuff you wish you hadn't gotten on the bottom of your shoe, that's the way just about anything works--you learn by doing.

[geolarson2]

So I noticed that there are a few of you who have questions about finding models and figured that I'd bring this thread back to the fore so you can discuss.

I believe it was CK1 who suggested to whomever (this under willi's ...pure romantic ... thread), building a portfolio to start with. Very good advice--who would take anyone serious without proof of talent. That could be landscapes, portraits, &c., something that shows you aren't just out to get some girl's knickers off.

I think it was glennc in the Anything under the Sun! thread who asked about finding models. Well, first off, you're in Omaha, so go to the University and check out the bulletin board that I'm sure is posted in the art department. That's usually where professors often post requests for artists' models, and where students offer themselves as models. You may want to enroll in a class, too, to make contacts as well as work on your technique. You might also check out model sites like Model Mayhem and OneModelPlace to see if there are any models in your area, as well as to get an idea about fees or if any are willing to work TFP (Time for Prints). If you do manage to find someone willing to work for you, make sure you have a properly signed release that explains both your role and the model's (what the images can/cannot be used for, &c.), make sure you follow the law (Federal as well as local--you may be cool Federally with 18 USC 2257, but not necessarily with the local ones), and always get ID.

Beyond that, I'm told just asking someone you see if s/he is interested is always a good place to start, and I've been told that once you ask that first time (and get rejected that first time) it gets easier to do.

Addendum: Nearly forgot to mention what Texasdrake brought up, re: photo clubs. If you can find one, see about joining up. Check your yellow pages for camera shops in the area (not the 1-hour variety, the good old fashioned pro shops that still use darkrooms and supply the local studios & wedding photogs). They can often be a wealth of information for you.

[CK1]

you beat me to the punch. i was thinking about starting a thread like this. i will post my advice here and delete my other post.

1- Take pictures. like anything in life, practice makes perfect. you will know your camera, lenses, etc. start with friends, family, your dog, anything. that is your best time to experiment. don't experiment when you have an actual model because you are wasting her/his time. plus you will probably not get the images you want. if you want to try to experiment with a couple of extra shots, then by all means. but, for example, if you want to take underwater pictures, know that you have the right equipment for it and how to use it. reading the manual while the model is freezing is not good form.

2- build a portfolio. you know the difference between a guy with a camera and a photographer? the work they do. and what will have people thinking of you as a photographer is the work you show them.

3- when working with models. know what you are going to shoot. if its your idea, her idea, a combined idea. because you will be able to get better shots. you don't have to know every shot you want to get but having a general idea will help.

4- know and respect a model's boundaries. Models always know other models. because they work with them or because they talked about their work. if you get a bad reputation, it will be impossible to overcome. but if they speak highly of you, then you will have models coming to you.

That covers the basics of working as a photographer... even if its just as a hobby.

[tigger]

All I know is ya look thru the little hole and point the big hole at what ya want to capture and push the button on top.

[geolarson2]

Originally Posted by CK1

you beat me to the punch. i was thinking about starting a thread like this. i will post my advice here and delete my other post.

Sometimes, I've noticed, a thread gets started, forgotten and then whammy people begin to discuss said subject and there it is, way, way, way back in the index!

One word of caution--for those of you (like me) who still use good ol' celluloid (actually I think mine's made of polyester) film. If you're goingt o shoot nudes, you might not want to drop your film off at a 1-hour or drug store lab. Back in college, I did a friend a favor--he had a class to get to, and a project due the same day. Well, you know how college can be--you put off 'til the last minute what you should have done last month! Anyway, he asked me to pick up his prints & negatives from a 1-hour lab, and when I got there, I was greeted by two very frosty people. The young woman spoke up when she took the prints out, then asked me a few questions, ultimately asking if the girls in them were 18 or older. I explained I was just picking them up, and she wasn't buying, but I guess the look on my face when she pulled the prints from the envelope out was proof enough (I must have been somewhere between tomato red and beet purple!). Apparently the project was life studies of the female form, aka, nudes. Anyway long story short, the female tech was cool about it, said if my friend needed anything else to be developed, bring it to her, not to the male tech who had been very embarrassed by the photos. This was also way back in 1988 or 89, long before digital was common so maybe this is immaterial, but still food for thought (or a humorous anecdote--BTW, my friend set me up a bit--he was too embarrassed to pick up the photos himself and admitted as much to me, although he never explained why he didn't just use the school's darkroom ...).

[CK1]

if you are going to take nude pictures, i would recommend using digital. although i personally still love using 35mm film, digital gives you some advantages.

1- it is cheap. i mean. you can take one picture or a hundred and it doesn't cost you any more... unless you print out every picture you take. with 35mm you have to develop the pictures to see what you got and what you will keep and what you will toss.

2- You don't have to worry about getting it developed and "copies" ending up in the wrong hands.

3- you can edit, correct, etc before printing out. if you use 35mm and you want to edit you would have to scan the pictures and then edit them. more time, and more equipment is needed.

4- you are only limited by the size and number of memory cards you carry. film takes a lot of space to carry around and can be damaged over time and conditions it is kept in.

5- Digital can be more forgiving when it comes to image corrections. in my experience, if an image is too dark but digital, you can salvage it more times than if it is a 35mm. at least digitally. there are plenty of things you can do in a dark room but most people can't afford the equipment and chemical needed for that.

[eastbill]

i still enjoy film cameras but dont use mine that often. have gotten very used to digital. right now i use an upper point and shoot cannon that i love.
what kind of cams do you all use? i am using currently the Canon S2IS it has taken about ten thousand pics and am thinking of upgrading to the s10IS i have been very happy. i also have a smaller point and shoot canon that i carry with me each day. What i like about what i have is that they use regular AA batteries. Convenient for sure.

[geolarson2]

I'm using a Canon 35mm with autofocus now. A couple years ago I had to finally retire, after 20 years of faithful service, my trust Minolta X-370. What can I say? My reflexes and eyes aren't what they used to be, so capturing anything moving, or just getting the frame in focus has become more of a challenge, but its one I still love.

[eastbill]

my fave cam of all is my nikon fm2

[geolarson2]

Originally Posted by CK1

if you are going to take nude pictures, i would recommend using digital. although i personally still love using 35mm film, digital gives you some advantages.

1- it is cheap. i mean. you can take one picture or a hundred and it doesn't cost you any more... unless you print out every picture you take. with 35mm you have to develop the pictures to see what you got and what you will keep and what you will toss.

2- You don't have to worry about getting it developed and "copies" ending up in the wrong hands.

3- you can edit, correct, etc before printing out. if you use 35mm and you want to edit you would have to scan the pictures and then edit them. more time, and more equipment is needed.

4- you are only limited by the size and number of memory cards you carry. film takes a lot of space to carry around and can be damaged over time and conditions it is kept in.

5- Digital can be more forgiving when it comes to image corrections. in my experience, if an image is too dark but digital, you can salvage it more times than if it is a 35mm. at least digitally. there are plenty of things you can do in a dark room but most people can't afford the equipment and chemical needed for that.

It is possible to convert your older 35mm film & slides to digital. Nikon makes a unit that plugs into your PC that you can scan your negatives through and create digital copies at up to 4000dpi (other companies, Canon, Pacific Image) make scanners with varying degrees of resolution. Then again, if you have a nice photo lab/supplier in your neighborhood, you might even find them with an even better scanner. I converted most of my images from film to digital that way with the end result as images of 1000x1500 ranging in size from around 300-400kb in size. Its good for up to 11"x14" or 12"x18" with acceptable grain, a generous amount of which can be edited out. But, having said that, converting to digital with something along the lines of a Canon 10 or 12mp body (since I have some decent lenses & filters already) is something I'm looking to do, eventually. Oh, one good thing about the 35mm-digital conversion is that you then have 2 copies of the image, an original imprinted by the sun's own rays on celluloid, and a digital image burned into an aluminum wafer that can be played with.

[CK1]

the problem with conversion is that the original is NOT digital. however the final print comes out, that is what you have to work with. unless you go back to the negatives or use slides, what you see is what you get.

Slides were more popular with photographers for that reason. you could could improve the quality of the image as you procesed it into an actual print. and why slide scanner are still very popular and much more expensive (compared to flat bed scanners) because is a nitch marget and you get better results.

[geolarson2]

Originally Posted by CK1

the problem with conversion is that the original is NOT digital. however the final print comes out, that is what you have to work with. unless you go back to the negatives or use slides, what you see is what you get.

Slides were more popular with photographers for that reason. you could could improve the quality of the image as you procesed it into an actual print. and why slide scanner are still very popular and much more expensive (compared to flat bed scanners) because is a nitch marget and you get better results.

With conversion you are still able to use any of the programs you would use if the image was purely digital, from Picasa to MS Paint to PhotoShop and so on, so adjusting saturation, sharpness, contrast, cleaning up red-eye, digital airbrushing, and other image manipulations are still applicable. And with the scanners I'm not talking flat bed, strictly back-lit scanners that would be used on either 35mm film or slides, or in some cases on up to medium-format images (120 or 220). If you do convert from film to digital, going with the higher resolution is almost always the best way to go, especially if its something you really care about (just as using a camera with higher pixel resolution is always the better way to go if you really want to capture an exceptional image). As an example, I offer Rob's earliest work which, if memory serves, was done using 35mm (I'm not sure if film negative or slide) and converted to digital. Its been a long time since I used Kodachrome, but to be honest when I used it, I used it primarily because the colours were richer, but then to show them you needed access to a projector (and I was never satisfied with prints made from slides as opposed to from negatives--different formats, different papers, different results. When I carried around my first portfolio, it was comprised of 8x10 transparencies, but that wasn't as easy to show as 8x10 prints from negatives, or 8x10 prints from digitally converted negatives are--it was harder for someone else to visualize the end product, I guess. Nowadays, I noticed, many photographers carry around multiple formats in their portfolios--prints, transparencies, slides made either direct or printed from digital & on a master CD--that way the prospective client can see an image in whatever format they find easier, and it also shows the client that the photog knows her/his way around a lab, traditional dark room as well as the PC "darkroom".

[CK1]

I think i over explained my opinion. just, once an image is digitized (scanned) it is a digital image. only point i was trying to make, you can't make a lost picture a perfect picture. you can make a good pictures great or even perfect. if it has some imperfections, then of course you can fix it. but that applies to digital too. just saying that if you are already digital, you can save steps.

[geolarson2]

Originally Posted by CK1

I think i over explained my opinion. just, once an image is digitized (scanned) it is a digital image. only point i was trying to make, you can't make a lost picture a perfect picture. you can make a good pictures great or even perfect. if it has some imperfections, then of course you can fix it. but that applies to digital too. just saying that if you are already digital, you can save steps.

Yep, precisely, I gotcha now. And with whichever format you choose to start, whether digital or film (negative or slide), it helps to start with higher grade equipment. I don't think I'd bother with digital less than 8mp (I'd rather go with 16mp, but I'd be happy with 10 or 11), and with film I don't use anything higher than 200ASA--400 has too much grain for me. I'd like to switch to digital myself, simply because it would save on lab costs, and as you said CK1, it does save steps and that means time. In the interim, getting your old family negatives, or your older work-product digitally scanned with a good, high-powered, high-resolution scanner and burned to CD does make sense to me--film can break down fairly quickly if not stored properly, and while the aluminum that makes up the CD wafer does corrode, its at a very slow rate--just saying if you have some photos/negatives that are irreplaceable, you might want to make that little investment (the place I go to can scan up to 100 negatives/slides onto a CD for under $5.00US) then stick them someplace safe (i.e., safety deposit box) so if the worst happens (i.e., fire, flood), you still have those memories.

[CK1]

and you bring up a great point. its best to start with great quality and have to reduce the size,resolution, etc of an image because you won't loose quality. but you really can't go the other way around. and again, the best MP (mega pixels) you can afford the better. that gives you the flexibility of making large or small prints. now if you just want to print 4x6 pictures then you can go with the lower end of the mega pixels (again, around 8 would be a good starting point... no less than six if you just want family pictures) and i agree with backing up old pictures to CDs, DVDs, etc. because of things like environment and time can destroy pictures over time.

[Anoree]

Speaking of archives of photos (or any valuable data), it's allways a good idea to save them more than once. I'd go for two or more different medias, like CD/DVD and external hard disk.

I already got my first complete failure of (cheap) CDs, and have seen external hdds fail, too. My backups to MO aren't accessible anymore because my only MO drive failed and can't be replaced at a reasonable price.
(Those drives actually were cheaper when I bought mine.)