What They Don' Tell You, Starting Outin Tutorials |
|
By stormfront/Paul (1,576)
Introduction Introduction"The obvious is often overlooked." (probably a paraphrase of a real quote.) This is the first draft of this article. Some of the sections are quite sparse. As I learn more I will update regularly.
I am a first rate beginner in the world of photography, having only in December '02 bought my first film SLR. I should be keeping very quite and learning from the masters by reading their articles, buying their books and browsing their collections. Naturally I should also be taking as many photos as I can ensuring that I bracket and critique the results so that I can learn what works and more importantly how it works. Yet over the last few weeks I have realised there are things that the professionals are not coughing up. Things which I am figuring out and which could be of great help to other beginners maybe one step behind me. The professionals are not holding out on us newbies intentionally, far from it. Instead they are as human as us and so make assumptions as well as forget what it was like starting out. Being in the stratosphere they cannot always look back and realise that they too were unsure as to what shutter speed is borderline holdable or that at first Sunny16 sounded more like a sun screen than a light zone system. Also remember a good professional is also still learning, always, always learning. To this end their current learning focus at the time of writing an introductory article or book may blind them slightly to things that a beginner would find to be an obvious neccesity to explain in the opening stages. Why didn't Dan Heller ever tell me that if I want a subject to be saturated and accurate at the sacrifice of some of the background that I should meter on the subject and not an inbetween area? Probably because at the time he wrote one of his tutorials he was focusing on landscape shots which need an averaged metering. He did nothing wrong except being a human, which I hope most of us are. At my stage I should not be worrying too much about negative space, filter stacking or shape balancing. These things just add confusion and undermine the learning of the basics. I want to get the basics right so that I can then really start exploring in a confident and directed manner. All too often I blindly point, bracket and pretend I am being creative, meanwhile the result could be totally different to what I expect, or spot on. Yet I would not actually know why. Naturally with the method I am taking this article will be updated regularly and will be made up of distinct sections to which facts and experiences are added. I may even take the plunge and upload failed shots and explain what I expected and offer my best explanation of why it did not work. Hopefully the shots should improve with time. Also please note this is more technical than artistic. Basic compositional ideas will be included but anything bordering on or right inside the "creative, explorative, adventorous" area will not be included as it is far too subjective to be of much worth to us beginners. I do 35mm. Have never tried any other format, larger or smaller. So all that I am learning and talking about applies to 35mm photography. Some may map over to larger formats, but I would find another source if that is your interest. One final note: I will get things wrong. Sometimes horribly so. This is part of learning and in fact one of the reasons beginners are so shy in telling their first experiences. We fear being laughed out of the forum for having made a naive metering comment, so we don't comment. Instead of laughing at me and writing me off, have a good laugh and then tell me were I went wrong. I can then learn and update the article and we all win. Plus there will be things I will advise for beginners which will not apply to professionals, things which are good to start out doing but then as you progress you drop. Thanks. Most tutorials teach you lens, aperture, shutter speed, composition and lighting first. To be frank this is wrong. The first thing you should learn is the difference between what you see, and what your camera sees. It is vast! Learn this now and you will take better photos. I have been finding out the hard way how different they are. (Many thanks to Chris Robinson for overhauling, correcting and re-writing the following paragraphs. I had macro confused with wide-angle and got it all horribly wrong at first. Note to beginners: Wide-angle and macro are not the same thing.) What are wide-angle and telephoto lenses you ask? Well wide-angle and telephoto are more a label for the extreme ends of the focal length range. Wide-angle being the small end (17mm, 25mm, 35mm) and telephoto being the large end (200mm, 300mm, 500mm etc.) In between is the 50mm standard lens, and the medium telephoto rage (85mm, 105mm) which are most useful for portrait work. You can get a prime lenses in the sizes mentioned in the last paragraph, so you can have a telephoto prime lens with a focal length of 300mm for example. Common zoom lenses being made today are the wide-angle zoom (17mm-35mm), the wide-angle to medium telephoto zoom (35mm - 105mm) and the telephoto zoom (100mm - 300mm) There are a few special definitions for some of these focal lengths especially when considered in a prime lens. The 50mm "standard" lens is the prime lens that was supplied with all 35mm SLR cameras as standard. This is because it approximates the pespective and the magnification that we see with our naked eye. If you put a standard lens on your camera or set your zoom lens to 50mm and hold it to your eye, you'll notice that when you move the camera away the pespective and magnification of what you see with the naked eye won't change much. The 17mm lens and smaller is a wide-angle lens that is normally referred to as "extreme wide-angle" or "fish-eye" lens. This is because of the extreme distortion that you get with such a wide angle lens. One reason that extreme wide angle lenses are so expensive is the designers go to great lengths to design them with the minium disitortion characteristics. The term fisheye came from the era when a typical 17mm lens distorted the view so badly that only a circular image of almost 180 degree view was possible. The photographer had to be careful not to get his own feet in the photograph! Over 300mm focal length the lens can be considered a "super telephoto" lens. This distinction is made because a lens of this focal length becomes extremely difficult to use except on a rigid tripod. These lenses are extremely heavy due to the necessary diameter of the objective lenses and the long barrel length. There have been attempts to make more managable and useful super telephoto lens using the same technology as that used in reflecting telescopes but these have the major drawbacks of being extremely expensive, suffer from many distortion effects from the mirror, and tend to have dim spot in the centre of the field of view. Be warned though, even a prime telephoto will cost you a pretty penny. Most photographers will tell you that a quality lens is crucial to getting superb photographs. A fantastically cheap 28mm-90mm zoom lens may sound enticing but the quality will invariably not be that good. However I cannot afford high quality lenses of any type or length and so a medium quality 28mm-90mm is what I chose, a Canon EF 28mm-90mm 1:4-5.6 II to be exact. So far, so good, the lens has been perfect for my needs and my untrained eye does not notice any abberations. So if you are like me, then that lens (or a make which fits your camera but has similar properties) is a good choice. Quickly: "28mm-90mm" is the focal length range of the lens. This is a zoom lens as you can see. 28mm is the bottom end providing wide, panoramic shots. 90mm allows me to close in enough onto most subjects. "EF" is the "mounting" as I think of it. EF can be used on most Canon cameras. "1:4-5.6" denotes the lowest f/stop (aperture) value at each end of the focal length of the lens. i.e. At 28mm the lowest f/stop is 1:4 (this equals 4.0 on the camera display) and at 90mm the lowest f/stop is 5.6. A bettter quality lens would have smaller f/stop values (e.g. 2.8 or 3.5), allowing for more varied lighting and speed situations. Generally this aperture part is what costs the money as the lower f/stops are harder to manufacturer (remember a low f/stop means a more open aperture, letting in more light.) "II" as far as I know is simply a model, like you get a Pentium II one year and then the next a Pentium III etc. This lens is also an AF (auto focus) lens. This means that my Canon EOS 300v which has AF capabilities can control the focusing of the lens itself, meaning that you do not have to focus. The lens can be switched to MF (manual focus) which is very important, especially in night shots or featureless subjects where the AF fails. And yes, I have been made to use MF a few times, so try and make sure your lens has it too. It also puts a bigger smile on your face when you know you focused the photo and not the focusing chips. Frankly flexibility is my primary concern, I want to do all types of photography. So I had to sacrifice some of the value of the lens from quality towards flexibility. As a beginner I recommend you go for flexibility. It is no good buying a high quality prime lens of 50mm and then becoming frustrated because you are missing shots, even though the shots suitable for a 50mm are coming out very well. Also with flexibility I believe you learn more. With that prime 50mm you will learn only how to take 50mm photographs and you will be excluding other situations. You could spend a great deal of money on a high quality flexible lens and still get back bad pictures (over exposed, blurred, bad composition etc. etc. all the things that do not cost much money at all.) As a beginner thinking of the $1000 you spent on the lens and seeing the poor results would probably be more detrimental to your photographic future than it would be to a professional. Lastly, no matter how professional you may start out to be there will always be situations which call for snap shots. Your family will demand it and as a beginner it is good to get support from all angles, not having the flexibility to take medium quality shots will make your family and friends wonder just what you are actually doing. Just try explaining to your mom that "my prime 50mm lens cannot do that shot mom, it is a brilliant quality lens, but this is the wrong situation for it." But then I am a practical guy with non-exacting standards and you may be the opposite, in which case do what makes you happy. Apart from the lens cover (do not loose, keep handy, put it back on quickly) I do not have any add ons. There are however three filters that I am interested in. A UV filter (more for protection apparently), a polariser (enhances the blue in skies and filters out reflections from glass windows) and a neutral density filter (I will attempt explaining this once I have one.) The UV filter a friend recommended I get straight away. Invariably you will end up dinging your lens, into a doorknob, a rock or a platypus and as my friend puts it "rather break the filter than the lens." That is effectively the sum total of my reasoning for getting a UV filter, it also happens to be the cheapest. Originally I was under the assumption that a UV filter does not reduce the amount of light coming into the lens, but this is incorrect. Apparently, thanks to an email from Patrick Sinke (thanks!), even a UV filter stops the light down by 1/2 to 1stop of light, so compensate accordingly. Also a UV filter cuts down on glare and haze. Make wise, I cannot comment but for now price is the deciding factor. For cleaning lenses I have a generic blower which gets off the easy particles. For tougher particles a lens cleaning clothe works well, virtually the same as what I use to clean my eye glasses. You may think that it is pointless getting a tripod when you are just a beginner. Think again. I have found countless uses for my tripod, even in the mid day sun where I have been using shutter speeds of 1/1000. Actually I have found the benifits of composing, planning and shooting with a tripod to be as good as those provided for slow shutter speed shooting. Mountains are a good example. It was a crystal clear day and the sky was blue as can be, I did not even wish for a polariser for once. I wanted to get in a range of mountains but also have some detail rather than the usual one-grand-but-detailess-mountain type shot. So I planned on zooming in on sections of the range, taking about 4 shots to shoot the entire width of it. I could then stitch that together into one big panoramic shot eventually. Without a tripod I would have been very lucky to have been able to rotate on the spot getting in 4 shots all with the subject at the same level and distance. With the tripod though I could rely on it to remember the composition and all I had to do was swivel the head for each shot. It is also very useful for shots that keep you looking over your camera to compose properly. The camera on the tripod remains rock steady and pointed at your subject, while you are free to stand up and wander around looking for maybe a better angle or a different subject. If nothing new comes up, then you can just step back to your tripod and take the shot you originally planned. Sometimes you walk past a scene and kick yourself because it is gorgeous but the light is just not right at that time of day. You just know that if you come back at sunset or sunrise that the scene will come to life and be a good shot. Bring your tripod! Plan and setup your shot during the day, composing exactly what you envision. Spend a good hour wandering around looking for other angles. Each time you find a good angle, setup the tripod and mark down the position of the legs on the ground (chalk if you can, or a pebble or three you will recognize.) Now you can leave and spend the remaining hours doing other things. Then when the time is right, you come back and can very quickly place your tripod and take the shot all without having to waste those precious sunset minutes figuring out what will work best. This is a subject which I feel gets very little attention from experienced photographers. Dan Heller has a good article on storage, but unfortuanatley he mainly shoots slides and offers no advice for negative film. Storing your negatives is quite different from storing slide film. As a beginner you may say you do not have much film to store and a plastic packet will suffice for now. IMO this is wrong and you should, like anything, start out right and avoid future problems. If you don't then you will find yourself with hundreds of strips of negatives and a burgeoning problem on your hands. It can be quite infuriating going back to your first shots and not being able to tell when or even where the shot was taken. Where, you can normally figure out, but you may loose some important contextual detail if you do not label properly. When is harder, especially with scenes that do not stick in your memory, like landscape shots or macro photography. Events, family celebrations, concerts etc. are easier to place naturally. Equally important are the technical details. I do not go so far as to record every frames shutter, aperture and focal length setting, you do not learn very much from doing that. What I do though is label the roll with the film speed (negatives do not show the film speed) and what lens(es) I used. It is not meant to be perfectly accurate, but rather as a general record which will help you monitor your progress and look back on what works and what does not (e.g. ISO 200 is not good for night photography which I know from a label on some negatives of night scenes which came out poorly.)
Read 6,472 times
|