Suitable DSLR for A level student

in message

I think the point that has been missed (and likely will be
in the course) is what all we old-fashioned snappers who
were brought up with film all know - you should do as much
as possible to get the picture right in the camera. To the
non-pro film was expensive and processing and printing even
more so, so unless you had your own darkroom the only/best
option was to get it right first time.

Basically budding photographers need to be made to think. I
was always told that if the subject is of something
predominately upright - even a person - then you should turn
the camera upright to be able to get the most effective shot
or to emphasis the height. You only have to see how many
people these days think that you can only use a camera
horizontally and waste perhaps 2/3 of the frame with a tiny
subject cowering in the middle.

I fear that there is now so much post processing on the
computer that the true skill of photography is gradually
dieing. Yes, someone who knows their way around
PS/Elements/Lightroom/PSP can do an awful lot, but the final
result is often nothing like what the eye originally saw.
Surely that is what photography as a skill as distinct from
an art form is all about? I know I try to do as much as I
can in-camera such that post-processing is often limited to
cropping and perhaps a little sharpening here and there and
I would encourage anyone new to photography to do the same.
Only when they have achieved the capability to see and take
good 'pictures' should they be let loose with software to
turn their results into something more artistic if that is
what they feel it necessary to do.


I'll get my flame-proof suit..........

 

Conversely you get people taking movie clips with their camera held in
portrait mode - and video/cine is *always* shot in landscape, unless you
want the audience to turn their heads on one side every so often!

You could argue that darkroom/Photoshop modifications are part of the
process of photography - though I do agree that there is no substitute for
getting things as good as possible in the original in-camera photograph.


What I do disagree with is the assertion that film is the best way to
acquire the skills of being a good photographer. I think those skills can be
acquired equally well with digital equipment and Photoshop post-processing,
as opposed to film camera and darkroom post-processing. Either way, the
skills need to be learned, but the immediate feedback with digital may make
it easier to learn those skills.

What is important is to have a camera whose automatic adjustments (which are
very useful for quick results in many situations) are capable of being
over-ridden where you want greater control over the results.

I'm always a bit unsure whether auto white balance is a good thing or not.
Auto-balance against a white card in the relevant lighting (sunlight, shade,
tungsten, warm fluorescent, daylight fluorescent) but then fix the white
balance at that setting for that lighting - otherwise (in my experience)
dominant colours in the subject can alter the white balance. And yes, I do
tend to leave AWB turned on - but I'm not sure whether I really ought to!

 

Hello Stephen.
I've done darkroom work albeit only in B&W. There wasn't, for me, a firm
relationship between backing out a room, keeping chemicals at 1/2 degree
temperature tolerance and framing a decent picture.

Regards, Ian.

 

Hello Mark.

I suggest browsing the LCE web site (especially if there is a branch near to
you). Canon EOS350D with basic lens will be well under £200. It is old but
it is a good DSLR.

Regards, Ian.

 

But you do deal with stuff like film speed, push/pull processing,
choosing a paper grade (or filter), dodging and burning, enlargement
factor, all of which contribute to the production of good pictures.

 

I would agree with that - my son has one - but beware that
the 'standard' lens with that camera, a 18-55mm zoom, is not
really up to the standard of the body and a country mile
worse than the 18-55 that is current and was probably
supplied as standard with the EOS1100D. Consider getting
something a bit longer, say something like 18-135 which is
far more useful. I would also advise NOT to get the IS
version - it will make your daughter learn more about
shutter speed and hand holding. Also you don't have to stick
to Canon; Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron also make some very nice
lenses.

 

And all of that can be learned much more quickly and with immediate
feedback with digital camera and (simple) processing.

Mike
--
Michael J Davis
[photographing the public for over 50 years]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman/

<><
"I never have taken a picture I've intended.
They're always better or worse."
Diane Arbus
<><

 

So you recommend we return to plate cameras, then? ;-)

--
Michael J Davis

Now with added pictures on http://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman

<><
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.
Dorethea Lange
<><

 

There may come a time that film stock is no longer available, then wet
plates will be the easiest option.

 

Hey, give a newbie a 5x4 camera and tell them that each exposure is going
to cost them at least a quid and *then* you'll see discipline!

--
Stephen Thomas Cole.
UK Usenet Head of Social Media and PR.

This post was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking, so may have typos
or bizarre auto-corrects.

 

The "slowness" of the analogue process, compared to the instantaneous
response of digital, does tend to build somewhat more discipline into the
budding photographer though, and that's where I think the extra value comes
in. It encourages, and rewards, a thoughtfulness in methodology that
digital doesn't.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole.
UK Usenet Head of Social Media and PR.

This post was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking, so may have typos
or bizarre auto-corrects.

 

You'll also see them learn very slowly because they won't want to
experiment. I learn best by making mistakes when I try "I wonder what
happens if I break this rule" and "I wonder what correction I need to make
to the metered exposure in this situation".

Being able to see the result in the viewfinder or on the back screen allows
you to say "not enough, too much, just right".

If every exposure costs money, you'll always go for the safe approach and
you may still miss unrepeatable shots because you won't take a lot on the
basis of "at least for some of these I'll have pressed the shutter at the
right moment". Ideally you'll learn eventually *when* the right moment is so
as to avoid taking a lot of other pictures when you haven't framed the
subject correctly.

The ability to analyse your mistakes and work out *why* some pictures work
and some don't (in the technical rather than artistic sense) is an important
one to acquire.

 

I don't agree with that at all. I think it's more accurate to say that if
every exposure costs money, you'll be considerably more invested in getting
it right, quicker.

And can be just as well acquired in analogue, plus the inherent lag and
expenses when using film makes the acquisition a much more valuable prize;
"I'd better stop making mistakes sharpish, let me put some *real* thought
into the next exposure".

 

I wasn't trying to start a war about film vs digital ;-) In this case
the school insists on digital cameras and I doubt they have any
facilities for developing film.

 

No, I'm sure. They do tend to flare up easily though... Heh. I'm not even a
huge advocate/zealot for Film=Proper Photography, indeed, I make my living
through digital. But having learned both analogue and digital from scratch
at more or less the same time getting on for a decade ago I feel I can be
quite objective when I argue that learning on film makes for a "better"
(more disciplined, more thoughtful, more understanding, more fluid)
photographer than learning on digital.

I don't doubt it. It is for this reason that I'm currently negotiating
hiring the darkroom I run to a few local educational institutions. They all
jacked in their darkrooms years ago and are living to regret it.