View Full Version : New to this
Hullo all
I have recently found myself with a lot of time on my hands and it has been suggested that I take up photography.
This really appeals to me but I don't know how to start. I've read this forum for a while now and it seems to be full of good advice and I think I might enjoy a rangefinder camera. I am not very technical and they seem simpler than these fancy devices advertised in High Street shops. I had a Kodak disc camera a few years ago.
Can anyone give me some basic rules for getting good pictures and also buying a first camera?
Todd.Hanz
07-23-2006, 13:00
Practice, practice, practice.
If you're not sure about rangefinder cameras yet, I would look at getting a Yashica GSN or Canon QL17 from ebay, don't pay more than 30-40 US dollars for either (that way your initial investment is low).
If you want to shoot Black and White film I suggest using Ilford XP2 Super or Kodak BW400CN, they can be developed at your local camera shop or wherever you get your film developed (they use the same process as color film).
Go to a bookstore or library and read up on photography, the information is endless.
Good Luck,
Todd
Well depending on your budget, get the best camera you can.
you may want to start with something that has auto-features if you want to, as you learn the basic principles of photography.
If you go fully manual, its a pretty deep end to jump into.
As for good photo's, you'll define your own style. Look into the Zone system, rule of thirds, depth of field etc.
Hope those pointers will help, but I think first you need to get a camera and take some photo's.
clarence
07-23-2006, 13:18
If you're around in London in Fall / Winter, we could meet and I could show you the basics of camera operation. Of course, that's some time away, and I'd suggest you take the advice of the good people in this forum and get yourself a cheap but good rangefinder to start learning with soon.
You will probably need to send your film to a lab for processing. I would recommend West End Camera on Tottenham Court Road, next to the Spearmint Rhino gentleman's club. They charge only 3.99GBP for 35mm C41 dev and scan (processing and a Compact Disc of standard 135 format film which most cameras use), which is the cheapest price I know in London.
Unfortunately brick and mortar shops often charge very high prices for their equipment. You will find that it's cheaper to buy cameras online from reputable sources. As for film, you can trust the prices on 7dayshop.com to be very competitive, and often half the price of that in the shops. You can also buy plenty of expired film on ebay for very low prices, without adverse results.
Do let us know if you need any help!
Clarence
ClaremontPhoto
07-23-2006, 13:45
Buy a few disposable cameras and enjoy taking photos.
I would recommend West End Camera on Tottenham Court Road, next to the Spearmint Rhino gentleman's club. but pop the film in for processing before going inside the lapdance club, cameras in such places are not encouraged.
just get a small and quiet-shutter compact camera, with slow speed dial - they'll never notice :D
clarence
07-23-2006, 14:20
but pop the film in for processing before going inside the lapdance club
An interesting and convenient way to spend a one-hour wait.
cameras in such places are not encouraged.
Certainly not unless you're from spycameraforum.com. But our methods on rff are one step closer to theirs.
Clarence
Heh, I'd never get away with it. Just ask Tony (Fred) about the London meet in june. I took a photo and everyone around stopped dead in their tracks - Zorki's are like a hefty door slamming shut in an echoing alleyway.
nearog, if you're ever down towards swindon, then the same offer applies as Clarence has offered. I can show you the ropes with an FSU camera, just so you know what you're getting into before you think they're a bargain and easy thing to start with!
shutterflower
07-23-2006, 16:03
Rules for taking good pictures :
1. see something you want to take a picture of.
2. Take a picture of it.
Of course, there are many lines in-between like those about composition and metering, but the real root of taking good pictures is having a good eye for subject/composition and taking the picture when you see it. This means, for me, walking around the city of Seattle (or wherever I may be) and waiting for an interesting subject to present itself. I'm not a creative person, so I vastly prefer reactive photography to proactive photography.
Buying cameras:
buy something that feels nice in your hands
buy something that isn't so pricey that you'll regret it if things don't work out.
buy something that does what you want it to do - as a beginner, you'll likely want something with a meter in it.
Buy something that is well made - don't buy a cheap camera just because you're a beginner - you'll get alot more out of the experience if you're working with a pleasant tool.
Buy a Bessa R2A or R3A or R2, and a Nokton 40. That will amount to nearly $1000, though. You could get a Bessa R and Skopar kit for $500ish - and this would be very decent as well.
Go out, and instead of looking directly at your subjects through the viewfinder, look at each scene as though you were putting a frame around it to hang it on a wall. Pay attention to all your subjects, pay attention to what your camera is metering on, pay attention to where the focus is, and pay attention to the depth of field according to aperture.
and maybe a couple FSU (russian) lenses in the Jupiter line. Maybe an industar.
shutterflower
07-23-2006, 16:07
oh yeah, and BUY USED. Buying a new camera for your first. . . just not a good idea. If you buy used, you'll have no trouble (so long as you research pricing well and choose a good dealer) selling the thing and getting every penny back if things don't work out.
My choice would be to go online and find a used Voigtlander (make sure it has a well-aligned vf/rf) and some used glass.
It may seem a little blasphemous to advise this, but it might be wise to start with a non-RF camera. The Fed 50 is cheaply available new via e-bay. Although largely automatic, the viewfinder displays shutter speeds and apertures, and gives some focussing indication and parallax correction. It is also very simple to use. A couple of weeks with a FED 50, would perhaps boost your confidence and prepare you for a rather more complex camera, whilst suggesting the different effect of various speeds and apertures.
All the best, Ian
Learn to talk to people and take pictures simultaneously.
Hi and welcome - this a very friendly and kind place. I got my first RF by accident when the man in my favourite camera shop offered me a Zorki 4 for £15 just to get it off his shelves. I couldn't resist!
All the advice offered (with the possible exception of the bits conerning lapdancing) is great. Give it a go and have some fun.
All the advice offered (with the possible exception of the bits conerning lapdancing) is great.
I quite agree Donald. King Vidor said that the only things worth photographing were women, wheat and steel - so better go pole-dancing and bring a loaf of bread to ensure a perfect picture! :D
Cheers, Ian!
Hi Nearog!
Well, the first thing is: what kind of photography are you interested in doing ? General photography, landscape photography, portrait photography, or street photography in particular?
The rangefinder really only comes into its own for street work. You will find that more people here worship Henry Cartier-Bresson than Ansel Adams. The rangefinder is compact, ostensibly quieter and more discreet, ideal for street work. But if your main interest is portrait or landscape work, then I'd advise you to buy an SLR - it is also more versatile for general photography and more useful when learning the basics of composition. The rangefinder MAY look like a simpler machine to use, but really - a basic rangefinder is pretty much the same as a basic SLR in terms of user functions. Get a good, manual 35mm SLR - not one of the new-fangled types with 1001 buttons and display screens designed to confuse and befuddle even experienced photographers.
So plan according to your budget. The camera body doesn't matter as much as the lenses, so if you're planning to build a system, buy the best lenses you can afford once you have decided what camera system to go for.
An aside: funny and perhaps quite ironic that you won't usually find TRUE gentlemen in so-called "gentlemen's clubs"...
Good luck to you!
Jin
Well it seems like that saying about there being no strangers, just friends I haven't met is really true. Thank you all for your kind comments and thoughtful advice. I must say the comments about the "gentlemans club' made me sit up and take notice - not my sort of thing at all.
I have been doing some research and trying to understand what other people think about good photography and it seems there is at least one convincing answer for each person you ask, so I am having to think very hard.
One thing I have noticed is that there are some pictures in the gallery (for example):
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=34800&cat=500&ppuser=2846&sl=j
that I found unsettling. I asked the photographer what was in his mind but didn't understand the answer really.
I think I may be interested in less controversial pictures. Does anyone here enjoy taking photographs of steam trains or old cars? I think I could really enjoy that.
Those pictures are absolutely disgraceful. The sort of person who would give cider to Elmo should have no place in RFF.
Remember to post comments! Enjoy!
Thank you, Ian!
Unsettled by pure and innocent sensuality? How quaint!
Perhaps appreciation of these particular images demands a certain degree of maturity and/or experience, but I find them gentle, and sensitive, and remarkably respectful...
Diggin99
07-26-2006, 11:05
I think I may be interested in less controversial pictures. Does anyone here enjoy taking photographs of steam trains or old cars? I think I could really enjoy that.
The short answer is yes! People have many different styles and preferences for what they like to take images of...as well as what they like see images of. I love to take shots of old cars...I guess what I prefer would be called more documentary or still life...Generally I take all kinds of shots that usually do not have people in them...nature photography, rural stuff, old buildings, old farm equipment...that sort of thing!
I agree with the recommendation of a good used SLR...I love the canon AE-1 for example! But one of the Nikon fm cameras would also be great...something with full manual controls and a decent built in meter. Once you start taking photos and get some experience with general stuff (how to expose an image, getting used to varieties of light, composition etc) then you can explore other types of cameras if you like.
Here is what I would do...get a used slr...get some color film like Fuji and also black and white that can be processed in color (like Kodak 400), then find a car collectors club that (hopefully) meets locally and take pictures!
Nancy
Generally speaking, in the making of every picture there was SOMEthing that caught the interest of the photographer. Very often the result fails to clearly exhibit this, but we keep snapping away in hopes of doing better. I'd suggest you do the same, and just snap things that interest you. Have fun! :)
Nearog, below you will see the first photograph I ever took, using a Kodak 127 Starmite. It was March 4, 1978. I was 14 and “interested in trains”. Not for long, I might add, although I did discover camera shake.
As my pictures appear to have confused you, I’m going to give a straight answer regarding my attitude towards photography. I see the camera as a tool which may be used either as a simple instrument for recording images or as a means of self-expression, and perhaps more importantly, self-discovery.
At 14 I photographed trains. This followed a period of great turbulence and with hindsight I can understand these pictures as marking a shaky but growing awareness of my gradual progress on the journey of life. Most - perhaps all - of what we photograph is a metaphor, even if we fail to understand it. As Doug neatly puts it, there is always a “SOMEthing” behind the thing we picture. Photography allows us to focus on this point, to select and go beyond facile surfaces, exploring ourselves and our particular vision.
I get the impression that you feel uncomfortable with the intimacy of co-creation between photographer and subject. I base this in part on your earlier question to me. I think this is a universal attribute: our culture would not constantly prate about “love” if there were no equal counterforce - not hate, but fear. The camera, I believe, is an instrument of love. We want to hide and look away, but it makes us look - to gaze unblinkingly into the face of another and, with biting precision, at the great world around us. Most photographers will tell you that photography has made them “see” with an ever-more profound intensity. As with Zen archery, what begins as a craft turns into a path to the expansion of consciousness.
Steam trains and old cars are fascinating objects, but they will lead to greater things - perhaps the things you fear and will come to understand and love. The camera certainly lies - but it tells the truth about the photographer. That first click of the shutter begins a great adventure in life, one which hopefully will teach a most important lesson: that by changing one’s viewpoint one alters reality, breaking free from preconceptions and the mental limitations that normally distort our vision.
The result is a richer understanding of the world, of the implicit grace and wonder of creation and of every being, animate and otherwise. As our old friend John Keats observed -
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty” - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
Embrace beauty without fear, be it present in the face and in human desire, in the studious chomping of a hairy caterpillar or the serendipitous chaos of apartment house doorbells.
I’d like to recommend two books which deal with this area, both by Ralph Hattersley, described in the 60s as “photography’s most controversial writer”. The most accessible is the hilariously miss-titled “Beginners’ Guide to Photographing People”, which regularly appears on e-bay for pennies, and the vastly more ambitious “Discover Your Self through Photography”, easily available second-hand via services such as Alibris.
Success to all!
Ian
This just about (perfectly!) covers it, Jocko. I wish I could express my reasoning, my sentiments, half-so-succinctly.
I also wish that my debut photo was as lovely as this one is: despite the inexperience of a mere 14 summers, despite the Starmite, and despite the shake of trains rumbling by...
planetjoe
07-27-2006, 09:20
Most photographers will tell you that photography has made them “see” with an ever-more profound intensity. As with Zen archery, what begins as a craft turns into a path to the expansion of consciousness.
Jocko, all I have to add is "thanks." This says it, but exactly. I'm bookmarking this thread.
Cheers,
--joe.
Lynn and Joe, thankyou so much. That means a great deal to me, it really does.
All the very best, Ian
I have been following this debate with interest. It certainly seems to have wandered a long way from the beginning made by someone looking to start a new hobby. I think I may be about to send it further – my apologies for this and also the fact that some will find my views controversial. I am posting this because I feel very strongly about the issue.
There is an argument implied by Nearog (I think) that some things may not be fit subjects for photography. For me this is bad news and something I can’t accept. I am absolutely against censorhip in any form.
I don’t want anyone to think for a moment I am in favour of exploitation or abuse (and in fact there was a story in the UK news today about a vile pervert who had been abusing English children over a webcam – lock him up with some sweaty sex-starved old lags, I say, and let him get some insight about the impact he’s had on these young lives).
It’s just I think that the more censorship you have, the more abuse you get and the less chance there is of confronting it and rooting it out. Think about societies where there is heavy censorship. Iran, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, USSR in the Stalin era, etc etc. Would you like to live there? No of course not – tyranny and censorship are handmaidens. And these are also societies with very definite repressive views about sexuality and it’s representation.
There’s another reason – more psychological – I am against censorhip because it creates a climate where “out of sight = out of mind”. In Victorian times, child prostitution – that is to say the kidnap and rape of children – was common. The delicate middle classes were able to deny the problem because the standards of the day censored such subjects from the public gaze and so the abuse had a licence so long as it wasn’t spoken about. What sort of world is that?
And finally, Neaorg, I hope this doesn’t come too near the bone for you but a world where we can take pleasure in each others bodies in relationships based on respect and imagination seems like one I’d like to live in.
If pictures of cars and trains float your boat – enjoy! We’re a long time dead.
shutterflower
07-29-2006, 13:26
Hi Nearog!
Well, the first thing is: what kind of photography are you interested in doing ? General photography, landscape photography, portrait photography, or street photography in particular?
The rangefinder really only comes into its own for street work. You will find that more people here worship Henry Cartier-Bresson than Ansel Adams. The rangefinder is compact, ostensibly quieter and more discreet, ideal for street work. But if your main interest is portrait or landscape work, then I'd advise you to buy an SLR - it is also more versatile for general photography and more useful when learning the basics of composition. The rangefinder MAY look like a simpler machine to use, but really - a basic rangefinder is pretty much the same as a basic SLR in terms of user functions. Get a good, manual 35mm SLR - not one of the new-fangled types with 1001 buttons and display screens designed to confuse and befuddle even experienced photographers.
So plan according to your budget. The camera body doesn't matter as much as the lenses, so if you're planning to build a system, buy the best lenses you can afford once you have decided what camera system to go for.
An aside: funny and perhaps quite ironic that you won't usually find TRUE gentlemen in so-called "gentlemen's clubs"...
Good luck to you!
Jin
about using an SLR for landscape work . . . probably not as good as a rangefinder, actually. Unless you want to shoot with long lenses. You generally have longer exposures for landscapes, which means camera shake can be an issue. Rangefinders, thanks to the lack of any mirror, have little vibration upon shutter release. Best you could do for landscapes in the 35mm format would be to find something with a leaf shutter - no vibration of any substance. Hexar AF would be a fine choice. Contax t3 I think is leaf shutter.
I shoot with a medium format rangefinder, and I like it best for everything except portraits. For portraiture, a Mamiya RZ67II is hard to beat.
go here : http://www.shutterflower.com/RF645%20review.htm
Can anyone give me some basic rules for getting good pictures and also buying a first camera?
Take lots of pictures. Pick out the ones that catches you eyes. Take a better look at them and try to figure out why you like them. Then start thinking how it could be better.
Look at other peoples work and do the same.
Read peoples comments on photos and try to see what they see. You don't have to agree, just try to understand.
My best advice for buying your first camera (assuming you want a rangefinder) is to buy something you like. I find you'll want to use it if you like it. I started with a FED 2. :)
P.S. Ian......brilliant.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.