Thanks, much appreciated
and the site receives a small commission
What camera and lens?
- Thread starter sisu
- Start date
Thanks, much appreciated
I'm disputing it
An artist is still learning the day they die...........
- Messages
- 25,297
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
You've had advice on cameras and lenses.
And you've had advice to spend a significant chunk of your budget on lighting (as soon as we understood what you were trying to shoot)
Ive told you a s/h camera for £200 would get you started (not thousands) others have said the same or similar.
I don't understand when you've had such great advice why you're concentrating on the perceived negatives
Yup, and when ive asked why such and such is, or isnt right or wrong, apparently its insulting? Funny old world......
- Messages
- 25,297
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Bloody auto correct. But I'll keep it.I like that. I shall use it frequently in future.
Well said.
Ive stated, several times, im NOT going into this blind!!!!!!!!!!!!!............ If i was, id of just gone into my local jessops or currys and simply bought any camera etc and just hoped it worked.......... I know all too well that isnt the case. Obviously not all new comers are the same eh?..
You've had advice on cameras and lenses.
And you've had advice to spend a significant chunk of your budget on lighting (as soon as we understood what you were trying to shoot)
Ive told you a s/h camera for £200 would get you started (not thousands) others have said the same or similar.
I don't understand when you've had such great advice why you're concentrating on the perceived negatives
Its the way you talk down to people, but anyhow, surely i wouldn't be learning anything if i didnt challenge and ask people why they say what they do?......
You say its all about the lighting, yet you couldn't recommend that until apparently i had described what i wanted to shoot?......so are you now saying its only sometimes all about the lighting depending on what you want to shoot?...... See, things can get easily confusing eh?......
And thankfully, some kind gentleman did step in and actually recommend some lighting, instead of just moaning at me and 'trying' to pick me apart........
B
BrynBoru
Guest
A rather fractious thread needs some further light thrown on it!!
A photon stopped at the bar and asked if there was a room to rent. The bartender said "Sure thing. Can I take your bag up to your room?" The photon said "No, I am travelling light."
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 15,723
- Edit My Images
- No
Have you searched through the Google page I suggested back in post #10 for any useful aquarium photography tips and advice that has been addressed??? I reiterated that question in my post #67
Your aim is very specialised and it appears clear to me that no one at TP has yet done anything similar or close enough to share the specificity of "how to" that is part of what seek!
- Messages
- 15,723
- Edit My Images
- No
auto correct?...... Surely PS and LR are the photographers auto correct though?
I'll get the popcorn..........PS & LR auto correct, really?
- Messages
- 25,297
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
No
Photography is always about 'light' (you said you knew that
)You want to freeze motion which requires a lot of light in a short space of time, that means lighting (flash) equipment.
That's all perfectly logical.
The problem is you started from a position of 'superiority' asking esoteric questions about cameras, it took a while to realise you were actually completely ignorant of the craft, and that you don't like to admit it.
There's a dozen 'what camera' threads a month, they only rarely turn into a bunfight, and it's generally because the OP comes with preconceptions which are incorrect.
Amazing photographs have been shot on equipment nowhere near as good as the worst DSLR on the market today, I've got tons of gear but I'm yet to take an 'amazing' photograph, I'm the opposite of smug. Taking amazing images is hard, people who assume it's easy are obviously going to bristle photographers.
Have you searched through the Google page I suggested back in post #10 for any useful aquarium photography tips and advice that has been addressed??? I reiterated that question in my post #67
Your aim is very specialised and it appears clear to me that no one at TP has yet done anything similar or close enough to share the specificity of "how to" that is part of what seek!
I have indeed searched it and book marked several pages thank you. I don't think what im trying to shoot is too specialized etc, afterall, isnt everything, to a degree, just a variation on something else? But, alas, im told by experts its just 'all about the lighting' so surely its as simple as dimming the lights
and yet they make it out to be so hard and professional.........yes, theres alot of sarcasm in that, unfortunately indeed its intended, but not towards you my good man. A pont is a point, and points need expressing on deaf ears.
- Messages
- 2,559
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was new here earlier this year. People have different personalities and you just have to filter out the patronising comments and take the advise given genuinely.
Once you have your camera you can start taking shots and show some to ask what you need to do to get the results you want.
Once you have your camera you can start taking shots and show some to ask what you need to do to get the results you want.
- Messages
- 2,616
- Name
- Glenn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Dr. Cooper, is that you?
Yeah, what happened to being good enough to take a good photo? Why the need to chop, change, and fannying about with it before its apparently 'good' enough to show? Thankfully there's still photographers out there that don't need it eh.
B
BrynBoru
Guest
Indeed and there are many more!
B
BrynBoru
Guest
Indeed and there are many more!Dr. Cooper, is that you?
No
Photography is always about 'light' (you said you knew that
You want to freeze motion which requires a lot of light in a short space of time, that means lighting (flash) equipment.
That's all perfectly logical.
The problem is you started from a position of 'superiority' asking esoteric questions about cameras, it took a while to realise you were actually completely ignorant of the craft, and that you don't like to admit it.
There's a dozen 'what camera' threads a month, they only rarely turn into a bunfight, and it's generally because the OP comes with preconceptions which are incorrect.
Amazing photographs have been shot on equipment nowhere near as good as the worst DSLR on the market today, I've got tons of gear but I'm yet to take an 'amazing' photograph, I'm the opposite of smug. Taking amazing images is hard, people who assume it's easy are obviously going to bristle photographers.
Id love to read with your eyes because my eyes that have written are seeing completely different to yours.........where, please show me where, ive been ignorant and superior and not admitted it, hahahahahaha......... my ignorance is me asking questions and for advice, i obviously wasn't born with automatically all the knowledge of photography needed from day one, sorry if you were, and that puts me below you, but hey ho, ive never said im an expert, never said im better than anyone else, never said im right, unlike some eh.........shame you cant read aswell as you say you can see pictures.
- Messages
- 2,616
- Name
- Glenn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Photographers have been using various darkroom processing techniques, e.g. cropping, dodging, burning, pushing, pulling, etc. pretty much since photography began. Lightroom is literally a digital darkroom. Most images benefit from some degree of post processing in order to arrive at the required end result. Some of the processing is to compensate for the effect of printing the image. Going straight from the camera to the printer is no guarantee of producing the finest image, even if the photographer managed to capture/create it in the first place.
No
Photography is always about 'light' (you said you knew that
You want to freeze motion which requires a lot of light in a short space of time, that means lighting (flash) equipment.
That's all perfectly logical.
The problem is you started from a position of 'superiority' asking esoteric questions about cameras, it took a while to realise you were actually completely ignorant of the craft, and that you don't like to admit it.
There's a dozen 'what camera' threads a month, they only rarely turn into a bunfight, and it's generally because the OP comes with preconceptions which are incorrect.
Amazing photographs have been shot on equipment nowhere near as good as the worst DSLR on the market today, I've got tons of gear but I'm yet to take an 'amazing' photograph, I'm the opposite of smug. Taking amazing images is hard, people who assume it's easy are obviously going to bristle photographers.
Esoteric questions..........beyond belief........well excuse me for being stupid enough for coming onto a photography forum to ask about photography.......what a silly boy i am.......tut tut tut........ heard it all now!
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,674
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
This is my first post here and I haven't read the whole thread so ignore me if this has been said before...
I'd suggest a mirrorless camera as the lighting / white balance may be tricky and putting it right in post may be difficult as it may be easy to forget exactly what colour the subject and scene should be but with mirrorless you can do a custom WB at the scene or adjust whilst looking at the screen/EVF and get it as close as you can and not have to rely on so much on memory or go for what you think looks right and find out later you're wrong. You can always check your shots and adjust accordingly but doing so takes longer and you may miss something you wanted to capture.
Just a thought.
Oh, and I agree about not having to spend too much on gear. I don't know if a macro lens would be required for reasons of low distortion etc or not but you may need one to fill the frame if you're shooting quite small fish, you may need to check minimum focus distances and think about if a standard zoom will do (they may well be cheaper than primes or macro lenses) or if a macro / close focusing lens is required.
You'll also need some processing software, don't forget to budget for that if you haven't got it already.
Good Luck with it and come pack and post some results!
I'd suggest a mirrorless camera as the lighting / white balance may be tricky and putting it right in post may be difficult as it may be easy to forget exactly what colour the subject and scene should be but with mirrorless you can do a custom WB at the scene or adjust whilst looking at the screen/EVF and get it as close as you can and not have to rely on so much on memory or go for what you think looks right and find out later you're wrong. You can always check your shots and adjust accordingly but doing so takes longer and you may miss something you wanted to capture.
Just a thought.
Oh, and I agree about not having to spend too much on gear. I don't know if a macro lens would be required for reasons of low distortion etc or not but you may need one to fill the frame if you're shooting quite small fish, you may need to check minimum focus distances and think about if a standard zoom will do (they may well be cheaper than primes or macro lenses) or if a macro / close focusing lens is required.
You'll also need some processing software, don't forget to budget for that if you haven't got it already.
Good Luck with it
and come pack and post some results!
Last edited:
Yes totally true, but i read more and more relying on software for the end results, to me, that seems like its taking the skill away from the photography? Two sides to every coin i suppose?
This is my first post here and I haven't read the whole thread so ignore me if this has been said before...
I'd suggest a mirrorless camera as the lighting / white balance may be tricky and putting it right in post may be difficult as it may be easy to forget exactly what colour the subject and scene should be but with mirrorless you can do a custom WB at the scene or adjust whilst looking at the screen/EVF and get it as close as you can and not have to rely on so much on memory or go for what you think looks right and find out later you're wrong. You can always check your shots and adjust accordingly but doing so takes longer and you may miss something you wanted to capture.
Just a thought.
Oh, and I agree about not having to spend too much on gear. I don't know if a macro lens would be required for reasons of low distortion etc or not but you may need one to fill the frame if you're shooting quite small fish, you may need to check minimum focus distances and think about if a standard zoom will do (they may well be cheaper than primes or macro lenses) or if a macro / close focusing lens is required.
You'll also need some processing software, don't forget to budget for that if you haven't got it already.
Good Luck with it
Cheers, i fully intend to come back and show results
Ive not looked into mirrorless, i shall research them before i make any purchases though, do you use mirrorless then?
B
BrynBoru
Guest
In your introduction you said that you wanted to produce "professional size prints". Therefore what Glenn has advised is completely relevant in that processing for professional prints is a necessary and inherent part of the today's printing techniques.
- Messages
- 2,616
- Name
- Glenn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In the end, for me it's the final image that constitutes the result of the whole process. This starts with identifying the subject I want to photograph, choosing a time of day, angle or creating the lighting that I find interesting, deciding on a composition that pleases me, choosing the camera settings that might capture the scene in the way I want, taking the photograph(s) and then processing the images as desired to produce that final image.
The processing bit, might simply be to import them into the computer. Even that simple step applies some processing to the image, for example converting RAW/NEF files into something I can see.
From my point of view, the skill of photography extends from beginning to end, i.e. seeing the final image in your head, capturing it in some way and then making the image a reality. I wish I could achieve that more often than I do, but therein lies the challenge.
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,674
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Cheers, i fully intend to come back and show results
Yes, I use mirrorless. I shot film for decades before moving to DSLR's and then to mirrorless. I didn't initially move to mirrorless for reasons of image quality but because the bodies are generally more compact than DSLR's but I then saw the other advantages they offer such as the opportunity of seeing the whole scene (not all DSLR's give you a 100% view of the scene you'll capture,) with mirrorless you can see the depth of field, exposure and focus you'll capture, they enable very accurate manual focusing and they allow you to use a multitude of different lenses. For example I have some old film era lenses which I love using on modern digital cameras and as an artist you may appreciate the "look" older lenses can give you when used creatively.
I have a couple of Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras and also a FF (35mm equivalent) Sony A7.
I think you should have a look at mirrorless. You may end up going down the DSLR route but you may see some advantage mirrorless can offer you.
By the way, I'd consider myself an artist rather than a photographer
I was producing pictures on paper before I first picket up a camera PS.
You could take a look at the APS-C Sony A6xxx system. There are some good deals at the moment also on the FF Sony A7x system.
Lots of people here use Fuji but personally I'd side step Fuji due to processing peculiarities.
Last edited:
See, this is the kind of advice im trying to figure out etc, i don't, and never have, claim to be an expert, hence being on a forum asking for advice and opinions in the first place. So, is PS and LR compensating for MP's then, compensating for the photography being 'digital'?....... If it was shot on the old style cameras that used film, PS and LR weren't invented in them days.....is that correct?
Would the OP be able to do manual focusing using mirrorless as it does not sound to me autofocus would suit what he hopes to achieve?
Theres some amazing digital only artists out there that use PS etc, totally amazing
Im not, by a long, long long shot knocking PS etc, all im kind of saying is that digital photography seems to be a blend of hardware and software nowadays?Yes, I use mirrorless. I shot film for decades before moving to DSLR's and then to mirrorless. I didn't initially move to mirrorless for reasons of image quality but because the bodies are generally more compact than DSLR's but I then saw the other advantages they offer such as the opportunity of seeing the whole scene (not all DSLR's give you a 100% view of the scene you'll capture,) with mirrorless you can see the depth of field, exposure and focus you'll capture, they enable very accurate manual focusing and they allow you to use a multitude of different lenses. For example I have some old film era lenses which I love using on modern digital cameras and as an artist you may appreciate the "look" older lenses can give you when used creatively.
I have a couple of Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras and also a FF (35mm equivalent) Sony A7.
I think you should have a look at mirrorless. You may end up going down the DSLR route but you may see some advantage mirrorless can offer you.
By the way, I'd consider myself an artist rather than a photographer
PS.
You could take a look at the APS-C Sony A6xxx system. There are some good deals at the moment also on the FF Sony A7x system.
Lots of people here use Fuji but personally I'd side step Fuji due to processing peculiarities.
I will absolutely look into them now, your post just piqued an interest Im 'open' to all 'ideas' and advice, pointless being here otherwise eh, as im here to learn after all. The mirrorless sounds like it could have interesting advantages for certain projects etc. Totally respect your views, love how you state yourself as an artist rather than a photographer, that will probably make some cry like babies on here though hahaha, but yeah i totally get that, and definitely understand where your coming from, amazing what an open mind can achieve really Personally, i love the idea of manually doing things, more natural, more rewarding. But i also totally get and respect that manaul and auto would be advantageous in different circumstances, and obviously suit each person differently.
- Messages
- 15,723
- Edit My Images
- No
I have indeed searched it and book marked several pages thank you. I don't think what im trying to shoot is too specialized etc, afterall, isnt everything, to a degree, just a variation on something else? But, alas, im told by experts its just 'all about the lighting' so surely its as simple as dimming the lights
In the case of what you describe it the lights, lighting and how you control the illumination (be it continuous and/or flash) will be an immensely important factor in the quality of the final image.
Keep it simple and don't beat your chest too much
Digital cameras are not as good for manual focusing as film cameras used to be but I do not have a clue about mirrorless hence my question.Cheers, any recommendations for any lighting? just an idea/point in a direction of your choice.
- Messages
- 2,616
- Name
- Glenn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
At each stage of producing a photograph, some compromises are made.
Lighting - Level, temperature, direction, natural, artificial, continuous, flash, moving, coloured, diffused, hard, soft
Subject - Big, small, complex, simple, near, far, smooth, textured and probably more importantly, how do I want the subject to look?
And so it goes on right through...
Having got some images in the camera.
We now have to decide whether they actually represent the scene as we saw it or want it to appear in the final image.
How they look on whatever screen we're looking at depends on the screen calibration.
How they look on a print, depends on the information sent to the printer and how that is interpreted by the printer software, the inks being used and the paper/medium being used to produce the final piece. So adjusting say the colour balance, saturation or sharpness in Lightroom so that the final print is what we want, is an important step in the process. It may be that nothing is required, but usually some compensation is needed.
Understanding each of these steps and how to process an image to achieve the desired results is a key skill set for achieving professional results.
- Messages
- 15,723
- Edit My Images
- No
Since the days of Talbot manipulation of the final image has occured. Digital has just changed the 'playing field'. However, because as I perceive it you will be 100% in control of the lighting setup & configuration that you will likely end up (once perfected) images sooc that will require none or very little post processing....... but note I say once you have perfected the technique to suit your original concept.
Keep it simple and don't beat your chest too much
Oh i plan on keeping it simple
i fully expect to make many mistakes, that's how we learn, just trying to avoid 'expensive' mistakes.