Question for the Photography experts

[itogator]

I need some advice, please.

My wife is a very good amateur photographer. People have actually offered to pay her to go to their parties and take pictures. She knows how to use the basic features of her Canon SLR pretty well but is interested in taking some classes. I just bought her the new Canon T1i so I figure this is a good time to start taking her skills to the next level. Can someone recommend some good ways to accomplish this? Are on-line classes the way to go or should I look for live classes where we live (Miami)? Any and all tips regarding this subject are appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I recommend community college classes. You can audit them for a very low price and learn the ins and outs of the camera. If they still offer a non-digital program I'd take that, too. By far the most fun I ever had with photography was in the dark room, developing and printing. I still shoot these days but it seems like most of the joy is gone from the process now that it's digital from start to finish.

[Swampmaster]

Related question: is it worth getting the new Canon T1i or is XSi OK for an amateur who is looking to take a lot of nature photos, etc.? Costco has a great deal on the XSi and 2 lenses ($849).

[G8RCB]

the new Canon's got great reviews...http://www.steves-digicams.com/ look on the left at "Our Reviews" or Best Cameras

[slmdLS1]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

great forum, with lots of great info.

[itogator]

Thanks for all of the replies. I signed the wife up for a digital photography class at Miami Dade Community College. $129 for 21 hours of class.... not bad.

[TimCasey67]

That's a good start.

Photography is something you learn by doing. Reading and talking to people will help understand why something isn't happening like you want it to, but actually getting out and taking photos is what will make the most improvement.

The high school I went to had a great art department. I was able to take three full years of photography every day. Then I went to a state college in NJ, and took 13 photo courses there. That was back before digital camera existed. I'm fortunate to have learned how to work in a darkroom, develop film, make prints from slides, B&W film and color film. I was only taught the very basics of studio lighting and using flashes.

However, once I had the basics down (the relationships between shutter speed, aperture and film speed), all I gained from the classes was the feedback from my professors and classmates. I was also required to view other photographs and learn how they were made by going to museums in NYC and looking through books. The second-best way to get better as a photographer is to look at other photos and think about how they were made. The wonderful thing about the internet is that you can do both of those things from home for free. Posting photos to online forums, or joining groups on flickr.com is a good way to get feedback and ask questions about how to do things. I'd be happy to help as well.

I learned 90% of what I know from covering events and working in photography. I learned a lot of what I know from working as a photographer's assistant doing weddings. I can usually make a fairly accurate guess on what exposure to use without using a light meter. That's all from experience. In fact, I only use my cameras in manual modes. I don't trust automatic settings or in-camera light meters.

For anybody, any basic camera with a fully-manual setting will do just fine. The camera is the third-most important piece of equipment involved in making a good photo. The most important thing is the light. For a beginner, the sun should be the only light source being used. The next most important thing is the lens. The lenses that come in "kits" or packaged with the cameras usually aren't very good, but will provide a decent start. They aren't manufactured very well and tend to degrade in quality somewhat rapidly.

The first piece of advice I give to anybody with a camera is to "get closer. Move your feet, don't 'zoom' the lens." Photos taken with a wide angle lens are more compelling. Wide lenses are a lot less expensive than telephoto lenses too. The reason telephoto lenses are used is because the photographer must stay away from the subject for whatever reason. Sports photographers aren't allowed to walk around on the field, nature photographers don't want to get too close and scare away the animals, etc.

Photography courses in a classroom, book, video, internet site, etc. provide basic info and then a lot of busiwork to help you understand the information and put it into use.

One of my favorite tutorial websites is http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/ It may be too advanced for most people, but I still check it out and continue to learn from it. The best thing it teaches is that you don't need expensive lighting equipment to make good photos.

[itogator]

Tim:

Thanks for your reply. I've seen your pictures on the site and I really admire your work. She has a great "eye" for photography in that she always seems to get some amazing shots. She hasn't really ventured into all that her camera can do and has relied alot on automatic features. I figure this class will teach her the different things her camera can do so that she can then go out and practice it. The class consists of 12 hours of classroom and 9 hours of field shooting.

You mentioned lens as one of the big 3. With the exception of a Canon 75-300 for sports and wildlife, she has always shot with the kit lenses. Either an 18-55 or a 28-80. What lens do you recommend I buy her?

Thanks

[LakeGator]

Tim,

That is great information and advice for anyone considering photography. Your advice is very insightful and the great pictures we see from you is proof that you are an excellent photographer.

I do have to admit that it took me a few times to understand what you were saying in this sentence, however:

I was able to take three full years of photography every day.

At first I thought it was like the old joke of “I spent a week in Philadelphia one night.”

Thanks again for the great information and pictures, too!

[TimCasey67]

haha, sorry for the confusion... my high school had a great art department, including a full ceramics studio. There was a classroom devoted to photography, including a full darkroom. If I remember correctly (graduated in 1995), we had 9 periods each day, for about 45 minutes. I took Photography 1 my sophomore year, Photo 2 as a junior, then an independent study of Photo my senior year towards AP credit. Each course met every day. Almost every week for my last two years, I spent at least one day after school to use the darkroom for a couple of hours. (Can't get much done in 45 mins, that's barely enough time to develop and rinse a roll of film.)

For the lens, you get what you pay for. The f-stop (aperture) is generally the key thing to look at. A bigger aperture requires more glass (larger elements, but also more optical pieces within the lens), so it will be more expensive and sharper.

The f-stop numbers are inversely related to the size of the aperture opening.

A large aperture allows more light to enter the camera. For example, f2.8 allows TWICE as much light into the camera as f4 does, the same way that a shutter speed of 1/500th of a second allows TWICE as much light to enter that camera that 1/1000th does.

f-2.8 is a large opening (what I use for shooting stuff at night and indoors)
f-4
f-4.5 (a lot of "kit" lenses are limited to apertures of 3.5, 4.5 or 5.6)
f-5.6
f-8
f-11
f-16
f-22 is a very small opening (will result in a large depth of field, requires a lot of light or a very slow shutter speed.)

I would advise purchasing a lens with an aperture of 2.8 or 4 made by Sigma or Tamron instead of buying a comparable focal length lens but with an aperture of 4.5 or 5.6 made by Canon or Nikon.

This is generally counter-intuitive. People tend to think they need a good camera, lots of megapixels... A few friends of mine have bought the basic Canon Rebel or equivalent Nikon camera, but spent the money on a better lens and have thanked me for it. A big part of the reason to spend on a lens instead of a camera is that the lens will last a lot longer than the camera will.

The Canon 70-200mm lenses are very good. Expensive, but they make it without the Image Stabilizations (I never use it), and they make it in f4 instead of f2.8. If you take care of them, they will last forever. They are built to last.

I but all of my camera gear from B&H Photo in NYC. Their prices can't be beat, they are the industry leader in volume and do a good job with customer service. www.bhphotovideo.com

I used to work at Unique Photo in NJ, they will match B&H prices and usually have better customer service, but not as good of an inventory. www.uniquephoto.com

[TimCasey67]

Originally Posted by Swampmaster

Related question: is it worth getting the new Canon T1i or is XSi OK for an amateur who is looking to take a lot of nature photos, etc.? Costco has a great deal on the XSi and 2 lenses ($849).

Yes, you will like that camera.

Are you looking to do a lot of close-up (macro) photography? If so, you'll need a lens that can focus at short distances (a macro lens).

If you are looking to take photos of birds and other animals at a distance, you'll need a longer lens, like 200mm or 300mm. The 70-300mm lenses are affordable, but not very "fast." The aperture will be f5.6 when extended to 300mm. That's fine for daytime photos under a sunny or partly cloudy sky, but worthless for anything indoor or at night outside.

Photography is full of tradeoffs... Until they can make sensors that don't have any noise at high ISO settings, expensive lenses will be important... Kinda makes you wonder if they intentionally keep from making better digital sensors...

[itogator]

Tim:

Thanks for the awesome info. This thread had been very educational!

I am thinking of replacing the kit lens with the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens for around $600.
Any thoughts? I have heard it is an excellent "all around" lens.

Thanks again

[TimCasey67]

The one issue with that lens is that it won't work with every Canon camera. The EF-S lenses are made for the lower-end cameras only and won't fit on all of the cameras.

I never use the IS feature on the lenses I have. Unless you do a lot of photos from moving boats, airplanes or helicopters, I've yet to see many applications where it is very useful. IMO, it's not worth the extra money.

For "all-around" lenses in the sub-$600 price range, take a look at these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._5_5_6_IS.html

I had an earlier version of this lens, a good value: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ephoto_EF.html

70-200mm f4 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Autofocus.html

The Canon version of this lens is $1300, but Sigma makes decent stuff http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_EX_DG.html

Keep in mind that the camera has a built-in magnification factor of either 1.3x or 1.6x unless it is a "full-frame" camera like the Canon 5D or 1Ds. Basically, that means the sensor in the camera isn't as large as a 35mm film negative (the basis for "full-frame"), so it "crops" the image in-camera. For example, a 100mm lens on a camera with a 1.6x crop factor will produce the same magnification as a 160mm lens on a full-frame camera. Think of it as "built-in zoom."

[Swampmaster]

Tim: great stuff! Thanks for the info.

[itogator]

Awesome info. I think this thread should be a sticky at the top of the board....

[TimCasey67]

Happy to help, feel free to ask me any photo questions!

In case you have trouble understanding what "depth of field" is, check out this site, it does a good job of explaining it.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Didn't notice your wife has a Canon. She absolutely needs this lens:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8...6462551&sr=1-2

[TimCasey67]

Good call, that's a very sharp lens, I've used a few times. It might be the best value of all Canon lenses.

I have the f1.4 version, which gives me half an f-stop, but costs 3.5x as much. The f1.8 version has a lot more plastic components to it, and doesn't focus as quickly as the f1.4 version, but don't let that stop you from getting the f1.8 version.

I feel that anybody starting out in photography, or looking to improve your skills, should only use prime lenses, not zoom lenses. It will teach you to think about composition more, and to move your feet and look for angles instead of lazily zooming.

I tend to think that zoom lenses should only be used when the situation keeps you from being able to move while the subject is moving.

If not a 50mm lens (because it would really function as a 50mm due to the crop factor of the sensor), get a 35mm, 28mm, 24mm or 20mm lens.

This is all counterintuitive, I know. After getting more comfortable with getting CLOSER to your subject and moving around, you will get better photos than you would have if you stand far away and just zoom in.

[slmdLS1]

a lot of people on the Canon message boards like the 85mm prime as a second to the 50mm. i have the 1.8/50mm and love it(i use it the most, and more than the 18-55mm). i dont really see why they like the 85, although a lot of those people use the 85mm for a little more distance for weddings....i want a 12mm-24mm-ish lens next.

[itogator]

Thanks for all of the help everybody. My wife starts her class this week. Once she starts applying what she is learning, I'll post some shots here so you guys can check em out.