Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Photography


bazzatron
 Share

Recommended Posts

thanks again mate. thinking of getting the 18-55mm lens for now, and can upgrade later if necessary. how much zoom/flexibility will this give me?

I reckon that is the best way to go. Get used to using the camera fist, then you can look at buying more equipment later on if you want. As I said previously, you dont want to over capitalize. You may find that the 18-55mm lens is perfect for what you need.

The 18-55mm range with give you a fair amount of flexibility. A good lens to get a feel for things and get you excited about shooting.

Nikon-Focal-Range-Comparison-18mm-55mm.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry Richardson. He makes hipsters weak at the knees and new skool "rock and "roll" portrait photographers regurgitate ten page essays. He gets to photograph some of the most famous/interesting people on the planet and gets paid shit loads to do so... I dont get it!

Am I missing something here? It seems that his talent lies in convincing people to relax and then then blasting them with an almost over exposed flash. I know that getting people to relax is a talent and not an easy thing to do, and yes his signature "candidness" is an instantly recognized cool, but I dont see what the fuss is all about!

Any Terry Richardson fans on here? Can you help me out here?

terry-richardson-obama-photo-2.jpg

terry-richardson-justin-timberlake2.jpg

odd-future-photoshoot-for-xxl-by-terry-richardson-1-620x413.jpg

terry-richardson-macaulay-culkin_large.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have seen his work from time to time.

That's the thing with portraiture, though.

The main objective is to encapsulate a part of the subject's character and personality in the shot, and each photographer focuses on different things, and has their own way of expressing it.

I don't mind his style...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Its not that I dont like his style as such. I just cant see why he is one of the most sort after photographers on the planet. I cant see why he is considered so much better than other photographers who take just as, if not more interesting portraits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

was getting a d5100 but switched to getting a 550d with an 18-135, interested in also picking up a nifty fifty pretty soon after.

the fuji mirrorless systems have also caught my eye, and am currently seriously contemplating whether to get a DSLR or mirrorless.

EDIT: i have watched like every video from digitalrev, (spare the no-life comments please - i was bored.) if you havent seen their channel and wish to learn more about camera, lenses etc in general, you should check them out. humorous whilst informative. great channel, tbh.

Edited by macrrii
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Have been using my 600D heaps lately, I love it. Also recently picked up a EF 50mm f/1.8 lens, it is the definition of brilliant. Got it for a great price also from Teds Cameras for $130.

Really been looking into getting a fisheye lens, preferably a Samyang 8mm f/3.5 lens. Anybody got any thoughts?

Edited by tomby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Very nice. What is it that you dont like about the 18-55 lens?

Don't get me wrong it does the job and I'm no photographer but the zoom is abit limited. It's fine with urban style shots (which is what I'm after) but for sports and other stuff I can't quite get the shots what I imagined I would. Maybe I just suck. I only bought it to take pics for a boutique tshirt business I'm starting this year and I wasnt keen on paying a photographer for simple shots I could easily take myself. I've only taken a few shots without auto mode coz im still new to the DLSR world but so for its been fun. It does the job I bought it for so I'm still giving it 8/10, but I guess coming from a point and shoot background anything will look amazing at first.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vice magazine can often be so frustratingly up-its-own-arse-cool that it often makes me feel sorry for those who actually care enough about the opinions of the "elite" to take this shit seriously- particularly the photography section. Which is why I was so pleasantly surprised to come across this refreshingly honest piece regarding just how wanky photographers can really be, particularly when poo-pooing the work of an amateur whilst making out what they do is soooo much better- you're just too ignorant to understand the difference.

In a moment of precocious insight, I once quizzed my photography teacher on how she marked all the high-saturation fashion shoots and black and white pictures of people smoking she had handed in to her, "When, like, taste is all personal opinion and stuff." She gave me a laughably vague answer that involved the words "composition,” "depth of field," and "lighting,” but I knew she just wanted rid of me so she could go back to drinking coffee and flirting with her graduate assistant. Ever since then, the concept of what makes a photograph "good" has baffled me.

Photography isn't like painting or illustration or sculpture. Literally anyone with hands can take a photo (sucks to be you, bomb victims), but you still hear some photographers' names being bandied around in hallowed tones. What makes Nan Goldin's picture of some people having sex better than the amateur porn photo booth session I just finished? And why does that pretentious photo blog editor you know sneer at the monochrome portrait you took, but holds a daily commemorative circle jerk over one that Irving Penn shot 40 years ago?

Now that everyone with a smartphone and an internet connection is a pro photographer, I've decided it's time to work out an easy system to identify the good from the bad. That way, we can finally all pat ourselves on our backs in a haze of pseudo-cultured self-satisfaction, and slam everyone else for being complete fucking idiots.

http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/what-makes-a-good-photo-i-have-no-idea

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole good photo/bad photo debate is naive.

It's just another addition to the "What is art?" discussion.

In the end, it's all subjective.

One can analyse lighting, balance, positioning, composition, etc., but sometimes the photos taken against the rules, so to speak, are actually desired by others.

It is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the more you practice potting that ball the more frequently you will get the desired result.

Personally I think there is far too much emphasis on the technicalities of photography. For example if someone takes a pictures using a cheap camera on auto-settings, he/she is a hack and lazy. If a pro takes the same image using an expensive camera using manual settings and spends hours setting up, its for some reason a better shot. I dont understand why this is if the outcome is exactly the same.

Thats not to say photographers should know how to shoot manually, but personally I am more interested in shots being interesting rather than the process in which it was made.

Edited by KSK_47
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ye I tend to shoot with auto most of the time and if I'm not happy with lighting or something I simply edit the images. I use photoshop for a living so I can usually get the result I'm after with a few simple clicks.

Auto settings can't do everything though. I love long exposure photography, it's one of my favourite techniques, that's half the reason I bought a DLSR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auto settings can't do everything though.

Absolutely! Knowing how to use proper shutter and aperture can sometimes be crucial in order to get your shot the way you want it, but I just hate the way a lot of photographers feel that this knowledge somehow makes them a genius- even when their finished work is (in my opinion) no better than someone using instagram on their i-phone.

Long exposure photography is so much fun! My tripod is pretty sketchy though which can often make shooting open-shutter really frustrating, (especially in the outdoors) but when it works out its a great feeling!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...