Please help me decide if a DSLR is right for me

[mikegood2]

That is a good point... many people don't realize that it takes some know how in processing to really make most images shine. It's no different than when we toil away at the enlarger in the darkroom.

Thanks photo_chick, now I'm going to have nightmares about working in a darkroom from my college photography classes. I don't miss those days.!

 

[WanderlustNZ]

What i would like to add is that often people see pictures that are posted and get really excited about them (for good reason, there are alot of very talented photographers on this board). What i dont think people realize is that it is next to impossible for a beginner to get any of those terrific images. I say this because most of these amazing night shots are layered and heavily worked on in photoshop or lightroom or photomatix ect, ect. Understanding software in this day and age is just as important as any other factor in photography (IMO).

thoughts?

Good point - I agree.
I'm fully aware of the editing that goes on and it's part of the reason I've started learning how to use Lightroom.
But I have to admit it took me a while to reach this understanding. Initially when I started admiring people's photography, I couldn't work out how these cameras managed to capture these amazing cloud formations that I never seem to see when I'm looking at the sky myself
It also took me a while to realise that firework pics are often of multiple bursts taken over time. They often capture an image that is much more impressive that what was actually observed with the naked eye.

To be honest, I had issues with it at the start. It felt a bit like cheating - taking photos and editing them to the point that they don't represent reality. But I realise now that photography is an art. If a photograph looks appealing to the eye (edited or not), it's a success in my books.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

I leave the game with 200+ shots, but less than 10 good shots.

Lol. That sounds like me.
I'm just so grateful for the era of digital photography. I still remember the days of spending heaps of money to get films developed only to discover there were only a small number of photos I liked.

 

[photo_chick]

Thanks photo_chick, now I'm going to have nightmares about working in a darkroom from my college photography classes. I don't miss those days.!

I'm taking a silver class and an alt processing class again next fall for my last photo studios before finally graduating. So I'll pretty much never see the light of day for a couple months.

 

[PythonFan888]

As for fireworks. Yes a tripod is used but its not possible (again, in my limited experience) to get the proper exposure on the burst and also the castle, liberty bell, and so on in 1 exposure.

@nbaresejr: I checked out your shots on flickr - a very nice collection of WDW images.

I also checked the EXIF data on some of your fireworks shots. Something I noticed was that you were saving in JPG format in-camera and not in RAW. (Compression: JPEG (old-style))

In my experience you can compensate to a significant degree when you shoot in RAW instead. I use the Adjustment Brush in ACR (or the Control Points in Nik) to selectively adjust settings in areas of the image that need adjustments. I'm sure LR has something similar to the Adjustment Brush. Bringing out the details in shadows is much easier when I'm dealing with RAW files. (Although blown out highlights harder to fix that's why ND filters come in very handy for fireworks.)

Here's an example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/7220691570/in/set-72157627344397028
The bottom part of the image was in total darkness/shadow in the original RAW file. i used the Adjustment Brush in ACR to bring out the crowds and the topiary display.

Most of my other fireworks shots were processed in a similar way - keep the highlights in check while you selectively bring out details in the darker areas of the image. This is much easier to do when you have a RAW file.

Just my humble suggestion.

 

[mikegood2]

I'm taking a silver class and an alt processing class again next fall for my last photo studios before finally graduating. So I'll pretty much never see the light of day for a couple months.

Believe me, i remember feeling like i never saw the light of day. In all seriousness, I wish I took my photography class more seriously and enjoyed it more, but it was the one class I could take it easier on and still get a good grade. That was the toughest semester i had in college. I was taking 4 (difficult) studio classes along with a part time job, which in reality was full time, and another small part time job. Add to that spreading myself to thin and being sick a good portion of the year made for a miserable semester. It was also an 8am 2 hour, twice a week class. I don't handle mornings well and probably attended more classes without sleep than with. Agh the good old days, or bad old days? Or in reality probably both!

 

[nbaresejr]

@nbaresejr: I checked out your shots on flickr - a very nice collection of WDW images.

I also checked the EXIF data on some of your fireworks shots. Something I noticed was that you were saving in JPG format in-camera and not in RAW. (Compression: JPEG (old-style))

In my experience you can compensate to a significant degree when you shoot in RAW instead. I use the Adjustment Brush in ACR (or the Control Points in Nik) to selectively adjust settings in areas of the image that need adjustments. I'm sure LR has something similar to the Adjustment Brush. Bringing out the details in shadows is much easier when I'm dealing with RAW files. (Although blown out highlights harder to fix that's why ND filters come in very handy for fireworks.)

Here's an example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_c...57627344397028
The bottom part of the image was in total darkness/shadow in the original RAW file. i used the Adjustment Brush in ACR to bring out the crowds and the topiary display.

Most of my other fireworks shots were processed in a similar way - keep the highlights in check while you selectively bring out details in the darker areas of the image. This is much easier to do when you have a RAW file.

Just my humble suggestion.

All of my photos from my last 2 disney trips including the fireworks from the Halloween Party were shot in RAW. At that time i think i had Lightroom and possibly Photoshop Elements. They were converted to JPEG in one of those 2 programs. I was looking at the Exif and it seems i did some strange things with them so i can see how that may be confusing.

I have soooooo much to learn when it comes to editing. I am pretty much self taught through trial and error and and some of what people have suggested to me. I know there is alot more in my files then i can get out of them at this time.

Currently I am using: Lightroom 4, Photoshop Elements 10 (have no idea what i am doing with this), Photomatix and the Nik Complete plugin collection.

Any advise you can give on any other those would be much appreciated. Your images are amazing Allen!

 

[PythonFan888]

All of my photos from my last 2 disney trips including the fireworks from the Halloween Party were shot in RAW. At that time i think i had Lightroom and possibly Photoshop Elements. They were converted to JPEG in one of those 2 programs. I was looking at the Exif and it seems i did some strange things with them so i can see how that may be confusing.

I have soooooo much to learn when it comes to editing. I am pretty much self taught through trial and error and and some of what people have suggested to me. I know there is alot more in my files then i can get out of them at this time.

Currently I am using: Lightroom 4, Photoshop Elements 10 (have no idea what i am doing with this), Photomatix and the Nik Complete plugin collection.

Any advise you can give on any other those would be much appreciated. Your images are amazing Allen!

Sorry Nick, my mistake. I do see your other images saved in CR2 RAW format.

You should be able to bring out more shadow detail with LR.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

And as Pea repeatedly yells at me

And let's also remember that experienced photographers make take a ton of pictures and post only the best.
Sharing the 1 pic that came out great, not the 99 failures to get the shot.

So nobody should expect to just point their camera on auto, and get great shot after great shot.

I've been taking little league pics of my son on weekends. I leave the game with 200+ shots, but less than 10 good shots.

Yeah. I once took care of a professonial photographer of over 30 years who told me that (in his opinion, of course), in a lifetime, a photographer only gets about a dozen really great shots. I mean, he was insistent about it.

I don't know that I completely agree with that assertion, especially today, where far more non-professionals can get excellent images. But perhaps it was true in his day. Something to think about, anyway.

What i would like to add is that often people see pictures that are posted and get really excited about them (for good reason, there are alot of very talented photographers on this board). What i dont think people realize is that it is next to impossible for a beginner to get any of those terrific images. I say this because most of these amazing night shots are layered and heavily worked on in photoshop or lightroom or photomatix ect, ect. Understanding software in this day and age is just as important as any other factor in photography (IMO).

thoughts?

I'd just like to say that there are still a few people around who strive to "get things right in camera" and use pp minimally. Zackiedawg is one of those who comes to mind, and I am myself, too. I spent a few years (not having much fun) pouring over RAW images and "fixing" them. But I realized something one day as I was working on that day's images: I was leaving the vast majority of them alone; I liked them as they were. It was then that I reverted back to shooting JPEG (as Zackiedawg does also) and it was very freeing for me, because honestly, pp isn't something I enjoy much.

Mentally, it was a little tough, cause it's easy to get caught up in the "pressure" of pp (among other things in photography). But I guess that's where experience comes into play. I had to remind myself of what my goals were in photography (i.e. to get good images; ones I liked) and since I was doing it as a hobby in part to get away from the stress of my daily work, to remember to have fun while doing it. This is when I had to really analyze what it was I liked about what I was doing, and what I didn't like, moreso than what "everyone" was doing, or what I thought I was "supposed" to be doing.

Which brings me back to the three things I posted about earlier (re: what you must master before becoming good at this, IMO): 1) the camera itself, 2) principles of photography, and 3) post processing. Over time I realized that what I really enjoyed was #2. Not surprising since, in retrospect, that's what I always enjoyed and what lured me in to taking on more. (Much like many people reading this thread, I imagine.) And yes, I was able to do that even before I bought my first dSLR! I found it fascinating to learn that I could improve my pictures greatly with something called composition. And steadying the camera. What a revelation! Once I got into it more, I learned what I had to learn about #s 1 and 3. Out of the two, I liked #1 best. I'd always wanted to learn to use an SLR camera, so I jumped into a dSLR, finally, and never looked back.

I can't imagine ever giving my dSLR up completely, because I enjoy using it so much. But I also enjoy other cameras (currently having a lot of fun with the iPhone5 camera) and I enjoy the freedom sometimes of taking cameras with me other than the dSLR and big, honkin lenses. (I shoot a lot of baseball.) I like knowing that I can get good pictures with any camera I use. This is the message that many of us try to convey here: get good at photography in general, and you can get good pictures with just about any camera.

To the OP, I had a fairly long thread here called The Learning Curve several years back. It chronicled my experiences as a complete newb and using a system not many used. There were times I felt like I was on a desert island by myself. But the good news was that it got better with time and experience. (Just like we tell our kids!) To other people reading, remember what your own goals and likes/dislikes are, and keep them in mind as you're learning. You don't have to have the latest and greatest all the time, and you don't necessarily have to do what everyone else is doing. (Of course, you can if you want to!) Just be yourself and strive to get good pictures. That's what it's all about.

 

[PythonFan888]

I'd just like to say that there are still a few people around who strive to "get things right in camera" and use pp minimally. Zackiedawg is one of those who comes to mind, and I am myself, too. I spent a few years (not having much fun) pouring over RAW images and "fixing" them. But I realized something one day as I was working on that day's images: I was leaving the vast majority of them alone; I liked them as they were. It was then that I reverted back to shooting JPEG (as Zackiedawg does also) and it was very freeing for me, because honestly, pp isn't something I enjoy much.

Mentally, it was a little tough, cause it's easy to get caught up in the "pressure" of pp (among other things in photography). But I guess that's where experience comes into play. I had to remind myself of what my goals were in photography (i.e. to get good images; ones I liked) and since I was doing it as a hobby in part to get away from the stress of my daily work, to remember to have fun while doing it. This is when I had to really analyze what it was I liked about what I was doing, and what I didn't like, moreso than what "everyone" was doing, or what I thought I was "supposed" to be doing.

Which brings me back to the three things I posted about earlier (re: what you must master before becoming good at this, IMO): 1) the camera itself, 2) principles of photography, and 3) post processing. Over time I realized that what I really enjoyed was #2. Not surprising since, in retrospect, that's what I always enjoyed and what lured me in to taking on more. (Much like many people reading this thread, I imagine.) And yes, I was able to do that even before I bought my first dSLR! I found it fascinating to learn that I could improve my pictures greatly with something called composition. And steadying the camera. What a revelation! Once I got into it more, I learned what I had to learn about #s 1 and 3. Out of the two, I liked #1 best. I'd always wanted to learn to use an SLR camera, so I jumped into a dSLR, finally, and never looked back.

I can't imagine ever giving my dSLR up completely, because I enjoy using it so much. But I also enjoy other cameras (currently having a lot of fun with the iPhone5 camera) and I enjoy the freedom sometimes of taking cameras with me other than the dSLR and big, honkin lenses. (I shoot a lot of baseball.) I like knowing that I can get good pictures with any camera I use. This is the message that many of us try to convey here: get good at photography in general, and you can get good pictures with just about any camera.

To the OP, I had a fairly long thread here called The Learning Curve several years back. It chronicled my experiences as a complete newb and using a system not many used. There were times I felt like I was on a desert island by myself. But the good news was that it got better with time and experience. (Just like we tell our kids!) To other people reading, remember what your own goals and likes/dislikes are, and keep them in mind as you're learning. You don't have to have the latest and greatest all the time, and you don't necessarily have to do what everyone else is doing. (Of course, you can if you want to!) Just be yourself and strive to get good pictures. That's what it's all about.

I understand your point of view and i do respect the fact that some people just don't enjoy PP as much.

I have a different experience with PP altogether. I feel PP not only makes my photos look better, it has also taught me to take better pictures.

There's an important feedback mechanism when you spend time in post. I've gained a better understanding of what works and what doesn't. It has helped me improve my technique and composition. I've become more comfortable with my gear and what settings to use for different situations. PP has also expanded my creativity since you have total control of how the final shot looks like.

When I brought my first DSLR to WDW in 2011 I felt like I was in way over my head. Post processing has made the learning curve that much easier for me.


BTW, I think we should point out that by shooting in JPG you let the camera do the post-processing for you. The camera's firmware will apply its own WB adjustments, contrast, saturation, noise reduction and sharpening. By shooting in RAW and spending time in post you take back control of the image. I prefer the latter.

 

[photo_chick]

BTW, I think we should point out that by shooting in JPG you let the camera do the post-processing for you. The camera's firmware will apply its own WB adjustments, contrast, saturation, noise reduction and sharpening. By shooting in RAW and spending time in post you take back control of the image. I prefer the latter.

But with many cameras you can take command of this aspect, having the camera apply the same settings you would choose at the computer for the RAW file. I know some photographers who do get really detailed with this at each shoot and end up with finished images coming out of the camera. I personally find this approach more difficult for me than working with RAW at the computer because you have to know exactly what you want going into it.

But saying in camera jpegs are letting the camera do all the work just is not true for everyone. For most, yes. But not all.

 

[havoc315]

I prefer shooting in raw, to really give me the most freedom to correct exposure and white balance, recover highlights.

But then there are times, I download 300 shots from the memory card, and Lightroom already has 500 I haven't gotten around to. And I think that most of the shots would have been just fine as jpeg. Even doing batch adjustments gets time consuming.

So for some bulk shooting, I'm trying to shoot more in jpeg.

 

[photo_chick]

I prefer shooting in raw, to really give me the most freedom to correct exposure and white balance, recover highlights.

But then there are times, I download 300 shots from the memory card, and Lightroom already has 500 I haven't gotten around to. And I think that most of the shots would have been just fine as jpeg. Even doing batch adjustments gets time consuming.

So for some bulk shooting, I'm trying to shoot more in jpeg.

You're using RAW as a crutch. And that's what many use it for. There is nothing wrong with that when you're learning. But at a certain point I'd think people would want to nail some of those things, especially exposure, in camera.

 

[havoc315]

You're using RAW as a crutch. And that's what many use it for. There is nothing wrong with that when you're learning. But at a certain point I'd think people would want to nail some of those things, especially exposure, in camera.

I wouldn't put it that way. It allows me to concentrate on issues like composition and focus, knowing I can do the other things later. So it's setting priorities.
Then the seperate issues-- there are things I can simply do better than my cameras processor. Most particularly, noise reduction which my camera tends to over-apply, leading to some mushy jpegs.

But I am trying to shoot jpeg more when I'm in good light, sticking to one lens and one white balance, and just firing off a ton of shots. Nail my settings, then use those settings for an hour.

Contrast that to when I was shooting overnight at the Museum of Natural History. Lots of low light and high ISO. Every room had different lighting. Lots of shadows that I would have lost in jpeg. Shooting raw was the best way to make sure I got what I needed.

 

[mikegood2]

I have soooooo much to learn when it comes to editing. I am pretty much self taught through trial and error and and some of what people have suggested to me. I know there is alot more in my files then i can get out of them at this time.

Currently I am using: Lightroom 4, Photoshop Elements 10 (have no idea what i am doing with this), Photomatix and the Nik Complete plugin collection.

Any advise you can give on any other those would be much appreciated. Your images are amazing Allen!

There is nothing wrong with being self taught, but I understand that at some point you want to get more out of them. I haven't looked recently, but Adobe has more than a few videos on there site and YouTube can also be very helpful. I would also suggest looking into like lynda.com or kelbytraining.com. They are paid sites, $20 or $25 a month, but I feel that price is well worth it. They have more than a few training courses for those apps, along with many others, and there are a few hours of training for each course. Kelbytraining is aimed more at the photographer, but both are great sites. Also, you can look at all their courses without being a member and some portions are also free to view. They also may offer a few day trial period that could help you decide if you want to become a member.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

But with many cameras you can take command of this aspect, having the camera apply the same settings you would choose at the computer for the RAW file. I know some photographers who do get really detailed with this at each shoot and end up with finished images coming out of the camera. I personally find this approach more difficult for me than working with RAW at the computer because you have to know exactly what you want going into it.

But saying in camera jpegs are letting the camera do all the work just is not true for everyone. For most, yes. But not all.

Exactly.

I'm going to go out on a limb here (and probably get flamed, but so be it) and say that - as my own observation - men seem to enjoy the techno aspect of pp more than women do. It's not to say women don't enjoy using it as well, cause we all know they do. (I will use it myself if I so choose, too.) It's just that men often seem to take it to another notch.

Which is fine and good. More power to you. Just let it be known (all you users out there who are trying to figure this all out) that you don't HAVE to. OR, you can use it minimally.

I seriously hope Zackiedawg chimes in here so he can explain his reasoning for shooting primarily JPEG (as he has many times before on various threads). We all know his pictures are seriously amazing.

Nobody, either, has said that RAW doesn't have it's time and place. If a particular session is very important and you only get one shot at it, then it makes sense to shoot in RAW. (Some people do RAW and JPEG together). But to shoot in RAW every day can indeed become cumbersome. And when something's cumbersome, people are more likely to give up on it.

 

[PythonFan888]

But with many cameras you can take command of this aspect, having the camera apply the same settings you would choose at the computer for the RAW file. I know some photographers who do get really detailed with this at each shoot and end up with finished images coming out of the camera. I personally find this approach more difficult for me than working with RAW at the computer because you have to know exactly what you want going into it.

But saying in camera jpegs are letting the camera do all the work just is not true for everyone. For most, yes. But not all.

Correct me if I'm wrong but with this method don't you put the settings in even before you take the picture? I guess some situations may call for this especially if the shooter needs to capture a lot of JPG's and has no time for post.

If so then I think it's like using one of the Scene Modes on your camera but with finer adjustments. In the end it's still the camera's firmware that does the PP. I know some cameras let you process RAW files in-camera but I find this feature underwhelming and difficult to get right. I don't think I can post process correctly on a camera's 3 inch screen.

 

[PythonFan888]

I'm going to go out on a limb here (and probably get flamed, but so be it) and say that - as my own observation - men seem to enjoy the techno aspect of pp more than women do. It's not to say women don't enjoy using it as well, cause we all know they do. (I will use it myself if I so choose, too.) It's just that men often seem to take it to another notch.

No flame from me because I plead guilty.

 

[havoc315]

But with many cameras you can take command of this aspect, having the camera apply the same settings you would choose at the computer for the RAW file. I know some photographers who do get really detailed with this at each shoot and end up with finished images coming out of the camera. I personally find this approach more difficult for me than working with RAW at the computer because you have to know exactly what you want going into it.

But saying in camera jpegs are letting the camera do all the work just is not true for everyone. For most, yes. But not all.

Different cameras allow vastly different level of jpeg processing control. It is one of the weaknesses of my own camera. And of course, there is still a difference when fine tuning each individual shot.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Different cameras allow vastly different level of jpeg processing control. It is one of the weaknesses of my own camera.

It is actually a strong point of my own.