Beginner Enthusiastic beginner needing advice......

Messages
5
Name
Stuart Taylor
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone on TP, I took the plunge to go from point and shoot to a DSLR back in January of this year.... after spending a while reading magazines and lots of posts on the TP forums about what camera and which starter lenses to go for, I decided to go for a Cannon 600d with a 18-55mm stock lens. Slowly but surely i'm working my way through the glut of information out there on the web..... I'm really interested in Nature and Landscape photography, so if anyone has any suggestions that would help, it would be greatfully received.......
 
Welcome Stuart to the forums. Sounds like your doing all the right things so far. I would also suggest watching a few videos on Youtube, plenty of help there and on here. Also look at a wider angle lens say the Sigma 10-20mm is a good choice for landscape work.
 
Thanks.. I've just started watching a few youtube videos, a lot to take in at first.. but really helpful....
 
Hello Stuart and welcome to TP. Don't know how much you have learnt so far but for any subject you need to understand aperture, shutter speed, how they relate to each other and the impact they have on the image. There are tutorials on this site and many other. The Cambridge in Colour site http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/ has some good ones but there lots more.

Best thing to do is take lots of photos and see if they come out the way you wanted. If not, check the exif data to see if you can work out what went wrong. If you are stumped, post the shot up here. There will be plenty of people willing to help.

Two useful things for Landscape photography are

the Photographer's Ephemeris - http://photoephemeris.com/ It is free for PCs and Macs and shows the time and direction of sunrise and sunset, and
the OS map of the area I'm interested in. Bing maps have an OS map overlay that helps to check a new area before you decide whether to buy the map or not.

Nature photography covers quite a lot, eg wildlife, flowers, macro. If you are after shots of wild birds and other animals you are going to need a bigger lens, but that can be for the future, just enjoy learning and taking photos.

Dave
 
Hi Stuart like you beginning on this road, used to do a bit in the days of film, inti flowers at moment but open to try any photography, there is a lot of good advice on her as well..
 
Thanks for the good advice .... I guess trial and error will be my guide in the early days.......
 
I'd concur on the notion of a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 - can be quite a useful lens for some landscapes, and won't break the bank. If you go that route, you might also want to obtain DxO ViewPoint, which DxO is currently giving away over here, until the end of June - that'd allow perspective correction quite easily. For landscape work, consider a circular polariser, to bring out the best of skies and water, as well as reducing reflections from shinier objects like leaves. Bear in mind lenses come in various diameters, so you'll either want to buy one for whichever lens(es) you want, or go with a "universal" solution like Cokin's, where all the filters are larger than required, and use adapters to hold them securely in place. I'm primarily wildlife, so I just have a single filter suitable for the 10-20mm; but, you might also find utility in a graduated filter, to reduce the impact of a bright sky on a scene, and possibly even a neutral density filter, for prolonging the exposure time on a shot, for anything from "softening" the look of moving water, to even removing people and other moving objects, with a long enough exposure.

On the mapping front, I've been (mostly) very pleased with Ordnance Survey's MapFinder app. The cost of the 1:25000 tiles works out comparably to the paper maps, but rather more convenient, and they won't fall out of date. The tiles are (or can be, as per your choice) downloaded to your device, so there's no need for a signal.

Another possibility that comes to mind is a set of extension tubes, if you think you might want to try out macro work while out and about - not an overly expensive proposition, at around £40 for a set that'll carry the signals between the lens and body, so you're not stuck operating fully manually.

For some scenes, you might also want to stitch photos into a panorama. On the free side of things, Hugin generally works quite well; paid, I've been happy with AutoPano; both are cross-platform, available for OS X, Linux, and Windows.

Most importantly, however - go out often, and use the camera plenty. ^_^ You'll soon find out where your equipment priorities lie. In my case, it was moving from my first lens, a Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3, to a Nikkor 300mm f/4D, as I'd realised I was spending most of my time at the far end.
 
........I'm really interested in Nature and Landscape photography, so if anyone has any suggestions that would help, it would be greatfully received.......

Hi Stuart and welcome :wave:

Have a look at the Photos section on here and if there are photos that interest you / are what you are after doing / would like to do, pop a question up on the thread and the aurthor will be able to offer help and support on how they took the shot. You can use this as a starter point to see if you can replicate it...

Hope this helps and enjoy your time here
 
A lot to take in at this early stage, but I think the sigma 10-20mm will be the first acquisition in my foray into Landscapes..... Thanks for the advice...
 
A lot to take in at this early stage, but I think the sigma 10-20mm will be the first acquisition in my foray into Landscapes..... Thanks for the advice...

I've the Sigma UWA and it's a great lens and certainly opens a new perspective - 1 thing though, mind your feet aren't in the shot as well :rolleyes:
 
I'll just offer a couple of caveats.

1. Polarising filters. The effect on darkening of blue skies depends on the angle of lens to sun. With an extreme wide angle lens, this means that the degree of darkening will not be constant across the frame - and may therefore look unnatural.

2. Use of wide angle lenses.

There are two properties of lenses that are related to the focal length: the size of the image produced (double the focal length and the size of the image produced doubles (for distant subjects) and hence you get less in the frame; and for any given focusing distance and aperture, the depth of field (area covered by acceptably sharp focus) changes, getting bigger as you reduce the focal length. The converse of the first point is that as the focal length gets less, the image gets less, and as your sensor remains the same size, you get more of the scene in. The angle of view has increased - hence wide angle.

So if you need to "get more in" and can't step back far enough, a wide angle will make it possible. As will creating a panorama and stitching the photos together - and for some purposes this will give a better result. But that's another topic.

"Stepping back" introduces a second - and more important point. The apparent size of an object depends on how far away it is, and this applies to our eyes and a camera lens equally. If we double the distance to a tree, the image size halves. Now consider what happens with the archetypal landscape with a big rock in the bottom corner of the frame and a very distant view beyond. Suppose the rock is 20 feet away; the rest of the scene we'll take as being at infinity. Move 10 feet closer, and the rock appears to have doubled in size; but the effect on the backdrop is negligible. Hence, to make an object bigger, move in close (and when expressed like this, it's trivial). But if we want to include the same angle of view - well, we've moved in close and reduced the amount we're getting in, so we need a wide angle lens to get it back in.

And that's the rationale for using a wide angle lens for landscape photography. You need (except that you don't always) a sense of scale, so you need a prominent foreground object (although there are other ways to introduce a sense of scale); or, you need a sense of depth (except that you don't always), and a prominent foreground object is one of many ways to do this, so you need a wide angle lens...

What you need depends on how you "see" the subject. You use your camera position to control the perspective effect you want, and then use a lens to "get in" what you need to. I personally don't have a great deal of use for a wide angle lens for landscape photography, but that's down to the way I see the landscape and interpret it. I usually use lenses that give the angle of view that you would get with a focal length of about 30mm - but in my case, they are 110mm and 150mm, as I use film cameras with a larger frame size.
 
Last edited:
Stuart I would not bother with the 10 -20mm Sigma, not yet at least. Not that there is anything wrong with that lens, its just I'd work with the kit lens, for now. If later you feel you need something wider then go for it. Stephen's post above makes some good points about the use of wide angle lenses. WA lenses are probably the most used for landscapes but as you go wider the chances of having a photo with vast areas of empty and possibly uninteresting foreground increase - I have done it many times.

The brain is very good at picking up detail and areas of interest as you look at a scene. The camera 'sees' areas of light and shade and colour. What to the eye looks, for example, an impressive snow covered peak becomes a small white speck on the image and the wider you go the smaller distance objects appear.

Dave
 
Can I make a suggestion around software? Adobe Lightroom has been the single biggest contributor to the quality of my finished images. You can download a free trial. It catalogues as well as processes and makes it as easy to shoot RAW as jpg. Loads of YouTube tutorials to get you started...
 
forgive me if this has been said. Learning how to expose is the first step for sure. I would recommend to put yourself in a controlled situation like your back yard where there is plenty of light and take shots and looking closely at each one as you make adjustments. Seems obvious but I find most beginners will go walking around taking shots trying to learn exposure and by doing so they put themselves in different lighting situation. It's my opinion that staying in one lighting environment keeping consistent lighting will help you see what your adjustments are doing for your exposure more clearly.
 
Stuart I would not bother with the 10 -20mm Sigma, not yet at least. Not that there is anything wrong with that lens, its just I'd work with the kit lens, for now. If later you feel you need something wider then go for it. Stephen's post above makes some good points about the use of wide angle lenses. WA lenses are probably the most used for landscapes but as you go wider the chances of having a photo with vast areas of empty and possibly uninteresting foreground increase - I have done it many times.

The brain is very good at picking up detail and areas of interest as you look at a scene. The camera 'sees' areas of light and shade and colour. What to the eye looks, for example, an impressive snow covered peak becomes a small white speck on the image and the wider you go the smaller distance objects appear.

Dave
I would agree wholeheartedly with this. Whilst the Sigma 10-20 is a great lens (I had a Canon 10-22, v. similar), I think it's an intimidating piece of equipment for a beginner to use effectively. When you're starting out, I think it's natural to "shoot what you see" - and the kit lens (18-55mm) will do a better job of realising such shots, whilst still giving a bit of width at the short end.

OTOH, if Stuart goes in with the attitude that an ultrawide like the 10-20 is not for "fitting it all in", but more for "letting you get close", then some fun can be had, and some striking results obtained.

I loved the 10-22mm lens on my 550D.

Finally, if no-one's mentioned "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson, I'll suggest it as an excellent read for getting the basics of exposure, aperture and ISO sorted.
 
Can I make a suggestion around software? Adobe Lightroom has been the single biggest contributor to the quality of my finished images. You can download a free trial. It catalogues as well as processes and makes it as easy to shoot RAW as jpg. Loads of YouTube tutorials to get you started...
Not to mention the Adobe TV channel for Lightroom.
 
Can I make a suggestion around software? Adobe Lightroom has been the single biggest contributor to the quality of my finished images. You can download a free trial. It catalogues as well as processes and makes it as easy to shoot RAW as jpg. Loads of YouTube tutorials to get you started...


My advice is forget about software for now. So long as you can get the images off the camera, that will do. Concentrate on getting the best possible images that you can by learning about exposure, metering, framing, and camera controls... and lighting... never forget lighting. If you load up with image manipulation software now, you'll start using it to correct things that should really be corrected in camera.

By far the most common mistake beginners in the digital era make is learning to correct things in software that really should be dealt with in camera.

There's nothing wrong with adjusting levels, and curves or white balance.... but you won't stop there... you'll be tempted to start browsing the net for tutorials on how do do all manner of things and before you know it, your camera will be reduced to a mere recording device, and all your creative decisions will be made while you're sat on your arse in front of a computer.

Learn to walk before you try to run.
 
Best advice i can give is to get out and use it as often as possible. Get used to how and why the same scene/shot can look completely different dependant on any settings input by yourself. Whenever you find something you want to shoot take mutliple shots with different speeds and aperatures etc, this way you'll have numerous images of the same scene to compare if you need to get your head around something that you're not 100% with. When you're happy with this try different angles and perspectives for any shots you take.

(Apologies is you're abilities lie beyond this) don't feel that you must be shooting in fully manual either, if you appreciate how the shutter speed, aperature and iso work together you can choose when and how to use the programmed settings to your advantage or when you want to go fully manual. Fully manual doesn't always mean better, if just means that with the exception of any autofocus system it's you that's making the decisions.

I know it all sounds a bit prescriptive but if you understand the basic variables then you can add your own spin to anything you see or at least appreciate why you didn't get "that" shot

Most of all enjoy yourself..
 
Back
Top