[nonhuman]

So, I'm starting to get into digital photography, but don't really know where to start. In the past, my approach to pictures has been largely 'Hey, that looks cool! *click*'. Now, I'm starting to try and experiment with framing, light, and color, but I don't really know what I'm doing. Is there a good place to start? Also, is Aperture good photo processing software? Currently I'm using GraphicCoverter, but I can get a copy of Aperture for $40 (yes, legally).


This is my favorite picture that I've taken so far:

[- - e r i k - -]

Get Aperture. If you have the hardware to run it that is. Also consider shooting RAW. What camera do you have? Get a good book on Photography. I'd recommend Photography, which is a large coffee table style book with lots of pictures and an amazing amount of information.


As for that photo itself, I like the muted leaf colors, but the composition leaves a bit to be desired. I'd crop closer to the cat on the left side and get all of his ears in. Actually I'd move the cat a bit to the left instead to have less of the leaves covering him up. Or you move a bit to the right maybe. There's some distracting stuff up in the right corner.

[vinster]

Hi there - Photography can be a fun (and expensive) hobby. Definitely recommend the book erik mentions. You can find it here.

I would concentrate on your picture-taking skills first before trying to get too in-depth on the software side. Graphic Converter will certainly suffice for basic work. You might want to consider getting Photoshop elements or the full version at some point. Aperture is more of a RAW workflow converter, so if you're into the flexibility that RAW capture offers and have the hardware to support the program, then iit might be good to have.

Re. your picture. I like it, too, but technically you'll end up getting criticized for it (backighting w/ no fill flash, blown highlights, etc.). Plus everyone seems to love taking pics of pets!

[- - e r i k - -]

Sorry. I was meant to put the link in there, but Amazon wouldn't respond when I tried so I just forgot about it.

[Dr Reducto]

There are no rules for good photographs. Only good photographs

-Henri Cartier-Bresson

[RAILhead]

photo.net Forums

A wealth of knowledge exchanged by knowledgeable people.

[OreoCookie]

It also depends on what kind of pictures you want to take. The pictures I publish on my flog are far from perfect, the artistic quality of most of them is pretty bad, I must say (partly due to the point-and-shoot camera I was using most of the time in Japan). But on the other hand it's thought to tell a story, some funny peculiarity.

That doesn't mean I haven't taken any `artistic' pictures there.

Get a feel for what you want to do and say. I think that's the most important thing, really. I have a knack of taking pictures of people in trains and subways, for instance. Background info certainly helps, but personally, I wouldn't overestimate it.

BTW, what kind of camera do you use?

[mac128k-1984]

Pick up Ansel Adam's triology
The Camera book 1
The Negative - book 2
The Pring - book 3.

While being an accomplished photographer and dealing mostly with film these books are packed full of ageless information regarding how cameras work (yes even digital), film exposure, framing etc.

Also check out Ron Reznick's dvd tutorial Sure Shot I purchased this but I have not found the time to start viewing it. It comes pretty highly acclaimed over at dpreview.com

As for your request about buying aperture (legally) for 40 bucks, I don't think your going to find it. Even if you see an ebay auction, this is too good to be true and will probably be a scam.

Aperture is a great workflow, DAM (Digital Asset Management) tool but from the sounds of it, you need to hone your photography skills before worrying about how to store/categorize them on a computer.

[nonhuman]

Cool, thanks. That book looks good, I'll probably head down to a bookstore tomorrow to flip through it. I could always take a class, I guess, but since it's free to take and process digital photos, I see no reason to to teach myself to trial and error. Some pointers would definitely be nice though.

Right now I don't even have my own camera. All I have is my camera phone (Motorola e815, which I've actually gotten some decent shots out of) and my girlfriend's camera, a Kodak EasyShare C340. I'll probably stick with the Kodak for now, but I'd definitely like to get a camera that can handle RAW images. My dad has a Ricoh that does both RAW and JPEG, and comparing the exact same shot in both formats (it will save a single picture in both at once) you can really see the huge effect that the JPEG compression has.

As for software, the main reason I'll probably go with Aperture is that I can get it for 7% of the retail price. I find that's a pretty good argument for making most software choices (being an Apple Consultants Network certified member has some really good perks!).

And yes, I've taken quite a few pet pictures. Mostly because our cat is always around, loves attention, and will strike a pose whenever you look at her. Plus she responds to her name, so it's easy to get her to look at the camera. Sadly she won't let you pose her...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

As for your request about buying aperture (legally) for 40 bucks, I don't think your going to find it. Even if you see an ebay auction, this is too good to be true and will probably be a scam.

Getting it for that price isn't the problem. I can get it for $40 from Apple. I already got iWork for $20, and OS X Server for $100.

[mdc]

I've upgraded to a Nikon D50 since I wanted the freedom to play around with the shutter speed, focal length, and all that other random stuff.
The camera is still a lot more than I need, but I am having a lot of fun taking photos like you are. "That looks nice. click"

mikecosentino.com has a bunch of my photos.

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It also depends on what kind of pictures you want to take. The pictures I publish on my flog are far from perfect, the artistic quality of most of them is pretty bad, I must say (partly due to the point-and-shoot camera I was using most of the time in Japan). But on the other hand it's thought to tell a story, some funny peculiarity.

That doesn't mean I haven't taken any `artistic' pictures there.

Get a feel for what you want to do and say. I think that's the most important thing, really. I have a knack of taking pictures of people in trains and subways, for instance. Background info certainly helps, but personally, I wouldn't overestimate it.

BTW, what kind of camera do you use?

i too, use my photos to tell the story of a trip. while i will try to capture the moment (like having a full day view of all of Mt. McKinley in alaska; which many people never get to see) and take that artistic photo, but the "shooting from the hip" makes the photos that more interesting.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It also depends on what kind of pictures you want to take. The pictures I publish on my flog

Oh no you did not just say that.

[crabsandbeer]

You may also want to subscribe to the following Podcast:

http://www.tipsfromthetopfloor.com/

It's pretty informative for beginners.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell

Oh no you did not just say that.

Huh?
Have you even cared to understand what my flog is about? It's mostly about text, not art. So as long as you can see what the picture is about, the picture quality is not as important if it illustrates the text.

If you want to judge what forum members are capable of, take a look here and here.

[Eug]

Yeah, get Aperture. It's not a Photoshop replacement, but it's easier to use, and it has photo organizational capabilities that are very useful. Furthermore, for that price, you can't lose.

You have a Power Mac G5 right? If so, which one? Aperture is quite slow on my iMac G5 with Radeon 9600, and it won't even run on a G4 desktop Mac. The G5 Power Macs with GeForce FX 5200 Ultra aren't supported either. I'm not sure if it will run on that 5200U (unsupported), but previous versions of Aperture didn't, which was kinda stupid since Aperture 1.1.2 runs on my MacBook, even if it's an unsupported machine.

If you're planning on running it on a laptop: It's tolerable on my MacBook 2.0, but by all accounts it sucks on G4 PowerBooks. The current version of Aperture won't run on any iBook, which is also stupid since a previous version of Aperture ran on the last iBook with Radeon 9550.

However, Aperture is nice on my 24" iMac with 7600 GT.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Eug

Yeah, get Aperture. For that price, you can't lose.

You have a Power Mac G5 right? If so, which one? Aperture is quite slow on my iMac G5 with Radeon 9600, and it won't even run on a G4 desktop Mac. The Power Macs with GeForce FX 5200 Ultra aren't supported either.

It's tolerable on my MacBook 2.0, but by all accounts it sucks on G4 PowerBooks.

However, Aperture is nice on my 24" iMac with 7600 GT.

Yeah, I've got a dual-2 Gig with 2.5 GB RAM, the 9600 Pro, and a Dell 24" LCD. It should run Aperture just fine. Besides, I need to do something to fill up those two 250 GB HDDs that are on their way.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Yeah, I've got a dual-2 Gig with 2.5 GB RAM, the 9600 Pro, and a Dell 24" LCD. It should run Aperture just fine. Besides, I need to do something to fill up those two 250 GB HDDs that are on their way.

It will run on that machine just fine. However, it may not be the best experience, especially if you're dealing with large RAW files with lots of Core Image edits.

I haven't seen Aperture benches specifically for your machine, but it does leverage Core Image quite a bit, and here are benches of that with iMaginator:





My Core 2 Duo iMac 2.33 with 7600 GT should be faster than that Dual G5 2.0 Power Mac with X800, or at least comparable. OTOH, I also have the G5 2.0 iMac with Radeon 9600 128 MB, and it's quite slow. How much graphics memory do you have by the way?

Note: Like I said it will run on your machine fine, but I'm just warning you in advance that you may see some significant slowdowns depending on what you do. Mind you, if you shoot JPEG only, it should be much better.

[Dark Helmet]

That cat shot is cute but be more aware of framing as the ears are cut off.

Also shooting with the light going into the camera is a no-no.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

That cat shot is cute but be more aware of framing as the ears are cut off.

Also shooting with the light going into the camera is a no-no.

Yeah, didn't meant to cut off the ears. :/

But I kinda like back-lit shots. Always have.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Eug

It will run on that machine just fine. However, it may not be the best experience, especially if you're dealing with large RAW files.

I haven't seen Aperture benches specifically for your machine, but it does leverage Core Image quite a bit, and here are benches of that with iMaginator:

*snip*

My Core 2 Duo iMac 2.33 with 7600 GT should be faster than that Dual G5 2.0 Power Mac with X800, or at least comparable. OTOH, I also have the G5 2.0 iMac with Radeon 9600 128 MB, and it's quite slow. How much graphics memory do you have by the way?

Mind you, if you shoot JPEG only, it should be much better.

Hmm, well I've also got a MacBook 2.0 with 2 GB RAM. I suppose I could run it on that. Yeesh, the G5 only has 64 MB of VRAM...

Oh well, for now I'll just be dealing in JPEG. I'm definitely going to be getting a camera that can shoot in RAW at some point though. Hmm, maybe my dad will replace his soon and I can get it...

[Eug]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Hmm, well I've also got a MacBook 2.0 with 2 GB RAM. I suppose I could run it on that. Yeesh, the G5 only has 64 MB of VRAM...

Oh well, for now I'll just be dealing in JPEG. I'm definitely going to be getting a camera that can shoot in RAW at some point though. Hmm, maybe my dad will replace his soon and I can get it...

The MacBook 2.0 also has 64 MB of (shared) video RAM, but relatively poor OpenGL performance, noticeably worse than the 9600 Pro.

Like I said it runs tolerably on the MacBook, but it's not great. It probably will run tolerably on your Power Mac too. And, you said you're taking all JPEGs for now so consider that a bonus in Aperture speed.

Tell us your results once you receive your copy of Aperture.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Hmm, well I've also got a MacBook 2.0 with 2 GB RAM. I suppose I could run it on that. Yeesh, the G5 only has 64 MB of VRAM

I wouldn't run Aperture on the Macbook for a couple of reasons.
First the GMA950 intergrated GPU is not the most powerful and Aperture is soo dependent on GPU power. Your going to see a definite drop in performance.

Second, the 13" display (unless you have it hookup to an external monitor) is quite small and the aperture screen will be somewhat crowded.

Third (again if your not using an external display) is the glossy display. The display will over saturate the images producing an unnatural color, and editing photos on a display w/o realistic color depth will give you headaches.

I use Aperture my MacBook to hold images when I'm away from my desktop. I don't do any editing there however its really just for me to setup the storage and catalog information. Once I get home I export the project and do my editing there.

[Oisín]

For what it’s worth, regarding speed: I use Aperture on my PowerBook (G4) with 1 GB RAM, and it works just fine. Not exactly snappy™, but not much slower than Photoshop either; definitely tolerable.

[nonhuman]

Well, sounds like I'll want to run Aperture on the G5 then. Will be much nicer on the 24" screen anyway.

So today I had to take the T out to Lexington to run an errand. I meant to advantage of the outing and go to the bookstore to check out that book but forgot. On the plus side I did get some more practice.

[memento]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

That cat shot is cute but be more aware of framing as the ears are cut off.

Also shooting with the light going into the camera is a no-no.

no-no? I like to think that there are no rules in photography. If it works, do it. Here are some examples looking into the sun. The last 2 shots were of a fountain in Chattanooga on the river. The water looked disgusting and dirty. The only pictures that really worked were the ones where I faced directly into the hot sun.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by memento

no-no? I like to think that there are no rules in photography. If it works, do it. Here are some examples looking into the sun. The last 2 shots were of a fountain in Chattanooga on the river. The water looked disgusting and dirty. The only pictures that really worked were the ones where I faced directly into the hot sun.

Ooh, I love that second one.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by residentEvil

i too, use my photos to tell the story of a trip. while i will try to capture the moment (like having a full day view of all of Mt. McKinley in alaska; which many people never get to see) and take that artistic photo, but the "shooting from the hip" makes the photos that more interesting.

Yeah, sometimes you have no choice. I like shots when people don't notice they are photographed. However, that's kinda difficult when you have a 1+ kg klotz at your hand, so you have to be quick

Also, when you take pictures of friends for events or just want to document a funny sign, there are often not meant to be artistic in any way. But still, that doesn't mean it's a `bad' picture. You just won't see it at a photography contest.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by memento

no-no? I like to think that there are no rules in photography. If it works, do it. Here are some examples looking into the sun. The last 2 shots were of a fountain in Chattanooga on the river. The water looked disgusting and dirty. The only pictures that really worked were the ones where I faced directly into the hot sun.

I agree. I have a few shots like this as well which worked out just the way I wanted them to. In my experience you get more of a halo effect with digital cameras.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I agree. I have a few shots like this as well. Somehow you get more of a halo effect with digital cameras.

Yeah, I try to avoid it as much as possible with point and shoots especially, or even SLRs with less than stellar lenses. Halo, flare, and haze galore. It's a different story though when you have a camera with a nice lens.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

funny sign

Tastes like chicken?

[OreoCookie]

Yeah, I suspected as much. In particular since digital slrs are more sensitive to cheap lenses.

And: I wouldn't know

Here's a rather extreme example I took with my F80:

[memento]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Ooh, I love that second one.

That's a local crematorium. spooky place.

You can see a bunch of my pictures on my flickr site. These were just a few that are into the sun.

Flickr: Photos from ratbert

[memento]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I agree. I have a few shots like this as well which worked out just the way I wanted them to. In my experience you get more of a halo effect with digital cameras.

That an infrared shot that I took with my relatively ancient Nikon Coolpix 950. It's like the grandpappy digital IR camera.

The 2 fountain shots and the crematorium were taken with my Digital Rebel.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by memento

That an infrared shot that I took with my relatively ancient Nikon Coolpix 950. It's like the grandpappy digital IR camera.

Hey, I'm not that young, I remember that camera, a former colleague of mine got one when it came out (well, could've been a 990, too)

[Eug]

Oh yeah? I have an Olympus C-3030 sitting on my desk right now. It's not quite as old as the 950, but I just bought it last month.

(I need it for work, as the camera attachment for a microscope here is built specifically for it.)

[OreoCookie]

I had a C-4040 for quite some time …�

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I had a C-4040 for quite some time …�

Heh, I had a C-5050 hooked up to this thing after my last C-3030 broke. They fit the same parts, but there's a bit of light falloff at the edges with the C-5050. So I finally found an old used C-3030 on sale somewhere. I got it for $95, which is a far cry from the $1300 or whatever I paid for it the first time around.

As old as it is, it does take some cool pictures.

[OreoCookie]

Nice
So resolution isn't much of an issue, I take it?

(I remember when the C-4040 just came out, I was thinking of getting one instead of my deceased F80. Well, I saw it, took a look through the viewfinder and took a look through the F80's viewfinder and though `nah.' )

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Nice
So resolution isn't much of an issue, I take it?

Not that much. eg. A lot of the actively-cooled pro cameras used for low light photography for microscopes are only 3 MP. (They cool the sensor to reduce sensor noise. Some of them have physically bigger sensor pixels too which also reduces sensor noise.)

We just use a higher power lens objective on the microscope if we need to focus in on something.

[memento]

Few cameras can match the great IR capability of the coolpix 950. I actually bought it a few months ago for like $50. I'm getting better with IR on my rebel, but it's all long exposure.

I took this one with my rebel and a Holga toycamera lens adapted to it, holding the IR filter in front. Still it was full daylight and a 20 second exposure.

[itschestercopperpot]

I think you guys need to quit applying fancy pants filters to all your shots to make them all colored weird.

[memento]

like this one?


If you took the time to look at my link you'll see that I have many "unfiltered" photos. But I happen to love infrared photography and there's no way to shoot IR without a filter unless you have a dedicated IR camera, which means buy a digital rebel for $500 and then have it modified for another $300, and then you can't use it for regular pictures. I'd rather use a $40 filter. The colors look "weird" because in IR, things like foliage reflect IR and water absorbs IR. It's a whole different world.

[itschestercopperpot]

Yeah.... more like that one, less like fancy photoshopped versions.

Here's one I took, NO touchups, NO filters, NO post modification:

[Railroader]

Here's a picture i particularly like of a woman and her children on a ride at the Mall of America.

[CMYKid]

Originally Posted by itschestercopperpot

I think you guys need to quit applying fancy pants filters to all your shots to make them all colored weird.

still missin the point...its not a 'fancy filter' applied to the image, its a filter over the lens. that IS the real color of the photographed subject, your eyes just cant see it.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by itschestercopperpot

I think you guys need to quit applying fancy pants filters to all your shots to make them all colored weird.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Huh?
Have you even cared to understand what my flog is about? It's mostly about text, not art. So as long as you can see what the picture is about, the picture quality is not as important if it illustrates the text.

If you want to judge what forum members are capable of, take a look here and here.

I was balking at the word "flog." I suppose I should have edited down your post a bit more.

[memento]

NO filter, NO touchups, NO post modification:







Thanks for the explanation CMYKid. Photography is painting with light. Whether visible wavelengths or not. I was only intending to illustrate that you CAN take pictures into the sun and that I believe there are no hard rules. Those pictures were the first few I grabbed from my flickr site.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell

I was balking at the word "flog." I suppose I should have edited down your post a bit more.

So, what's wrong with `flog'? It's short for fotolog … and?

[Chester'sCopperpot]

Originally Posted by CMYKid

still missin the point...its not a 'fancy filter' applied to the image, its a filter over the lens.