Digital photography/camera for beginners

Some great suggestions and tips here - many thanks, folks.

kend posted:

John Hedgecoe has written some very good books on photography, I would recommend his book titled "Introductory Photography Course"  It starts from the basics.

Unless she's a verbal learner and specifically from the reading subset, learning by going out with someone and using the camera will be FAR better than trying to learn by reading about it.   (Auditive learners will learn by hearing the description they give, visual learners will learn by watching them and kinaesthetic learners will learn when they are guided through doing it themselves.)

The books are almost useless for teaching the basics, as until you understand the basics you don't have the foundation to intuitively understand all the basic concepts and the terms used to name them.  This makes them appear far too complex until you really understand the basics of how to use a camera.

The books are useful for two things
1  For reference
2  To hone your technique by learning variants on the basic technique that can achieve specific effects.

Initially, please don't expect her to learn a visual skill by reading about it!

Huge - I'm sure she can find all she needs, tutorial wise on YouTube. It's what young people do 

notnaim man posted:

Ok, I am guilty of ignoring the heading and talking about film, simply because as Eloise said, paraphrasing, digital cameras are so complex.

Interesting take away from what I wrote... wasn’t intending to express that thought at all.

I was more aiming for “all digital cameras are good, but some will suit an individual photographer more than others”.

Huge posted:

The books are almost useless for teaching the basics, as until you understand the basics you don't have the foundation to intuitively understand all the basic concepts and the terms used to name them.  This makes them appear far too complex until you really understand the basics of how to use a camera.

That’s why a basic film camera is the way to go.

One of the perceived advantages digital has over film, is with digital you can learn better by being able to take a lot more photos. But actually the opposite is true.

When my son started university, (artistic design) the students where asked to take photos of various subject, people, buildings, structures. For the first three months they where not allowed to use digital, only film. Having a limited number of shots concentrates the mind on getting the shot right, both technically and artistically. With digital they’d have just fire off a couple of hundred shot at a subject, with the hope a few of them would turn out OK, aided by modifications made in photoshop.

james n posted:

Huge - I'm sure she can find all she needs, tutorial wise on YouTube. It's what young people do 

Ever tried watching a YouTube tutorial whilst trying to take a photograph at the same time?
(Particularly outside of tightly controlled studio conditions!)

james n posted:

Huge - I'm sure she can find all she needs, tutorial wise on YouTube. It's what young people do 

Gary Fong does good youtube portrait tutorials, but it’s mainly aimed at promoting the pieces of plastic he sells.

fatcat posted:

Huge posted:

The books are almost useless for teaching the basics, as until you understand the basics you don't have the foundation to intuitively understand all the basic concepts and the terms used to name them.  This makes them appear far too complex until you really understand the basics of how to use a camera.

That’s why a basic film camera is the way to go.

One of the perceived advantages digital has over film, is with digital you can learn better by being able to take a lot more photos. But actually the opposite is true.

When my son started university, (artistic design) the students where asked to take photos of various subject, people, buildings, structures. For the first three months they where not allowed to use digital, only film. Having a limited number of shots concentrates the mind on getting the shot right, both technically and artistically. With digital they’d have just fire off a couple of hundred shot at a subject, with the hope a few of them would turn out OK, aided by modifications made in photoshop.

That's the way to test if someone has the patience and single-minded dedication to use a photography as professional tool.  For other purposes, it a closed minded, short sighted approach.  Learning is in the attitude not in the tool.

On the other hand, making them think by not allowing them to take a large number of shots, and not allowing them to use post processing is justified.  However this can be simply done using the shot counter in the camera and requiring them to present an unedited RAW file; film or digital is an irrelevance in this discussion.  (Incidentally using negative film still allows for significant post processing without a sniff of photoshop!)

Hmm. Where talking arty type lectures at a university, not a sergeant major at selection process for the SAS.

It’s simply the best way to teach the basics. (film speed, aperture. shutter speed, manual focus and depth of field). That’s the only control you have on a basic film SLR.

fatcat posted:

Hmm. Where talking arty type lectures at a university, not a sergeant major at selection process for the SAS.

It’s simply the best way to teach the basics. (film speed, aperture. shutter speed, manual focus and depth of field). That’s the only control you have on a basic film SLR.

 

 

...or simple digital ‘rangefinder’ as mentioned above. The key thing is manual control to learn the fundamentals.

G

fatcat posted:

Hmm. Where talking arty type lectures at a university, not a sergeant major at selection process for the SAS.

It’s simply the best way to teach the basics. (film speed, aperture. shutter speed, manual focus and depth of field). That’s the only control you have on a basic film SLR.

 

 

GraemeH posted:

fatcat posted:

Hmm. Where talking arty type lectures at a university, not a sergeant major at selection process for the SAS.

It’s simply the best way to teach the basics. (film speed, aperture. shutter speed, manual focus and depth of field). That’s the only control you have on a basic film SLR.

 

 

...or simple digital ‘rangefinder’ as mentioned above. The key thing is manual control to learn the fundamentals.

G

Or a Digital SLR (or SLT, or mirrorless interchangeable lens camera) with full manual control (in addition to any automation) - then she won't need to buy and learn a new camera as she becomes more proficient.

It's the manual control that's important, not the technology.

I think a fixed lens helps train the eye initially. Reduce the variables to shutter speed, aperture & film speed. Learn the relationship between these three things by taking lots and lots and lots of photos (the fun part) and start to think ‘what do I like here’...then try to refine it.

I’ve seen so many students ‘tool-up’ with SLR’s & lenses so that the ‘feel’ like a photographer - A fad that soon passes.

G

Huge posted:

fatcat posted:

Hmm. Where talking arty type lectures at a university, not a sergeant major at selection process for the SAS.

It’s simply the best way to teach the basics. (film speed, aperture. shutter speed, manual focus and depth of field). That’s the only control you have on a basic film SLR.

 

 

There's also film type and speed, whether to 'push' or 'pull' the film, development time & temperature, print exposure, dodging and burning, unsharp masks, contrast masks, print paper and print development.

Hell, why not do the job properly: Insist on a 1/4 plate view camera (to teach them about the image inversion), no zoom or vari-focal lenses and then also force them to make their own silver halide plates and papers and prepare the development solutions!

Silver halide photography isn't any more 'basic' than digital, just a lot slower and a bit different in a few ways.

That’s not basics.

f stops, shutter speed and film speed used in basic film SLR’s are the same as those used in digital slrs. The knowledge is transferable, I’m not suggesting they learn on a brownie box camera, or use some wierd obscure film types.

Huge posted:

GraemeH posted:

fatcat posted:

Hmm. Where talking arty type lectures at a university, not a sergeant major at selection process for the SAS.

It’s simply the best way to teach the basics. (film speed, aperture. shutter speed, manual focus and depth of field). That’s the only control you have on a basic film SLR.

 

 

...or simple digital ‘rangefinder’ as mentioned above. The key thing is manual control to learn the fundamentals.

G

Or a Digital SLR (or SLT, or mirrorless interchangeable lens camera) with full manual control (in addition to any automation) - then she won't need to buy and learn a new camera as she becomes more proficient.

It's the manual control that's important, not the technology.

So, you think a teenager is going to use a camera in manual mode, when auto is available Because Her Dad Told Her Too.

fatcat posted:

Huge posted:

GraemeH posted:

fatcat posted:

Hmm. Where talking arty type lectures at a university, not a sergeant major at selection process for the SAS.

It’s simply the best way to teach the basics. (film speed, aperture. shutter speed, manual focus and depth of field). That’s the only control you have on a basic film SLR.

 

 

...or simple digital ‘rangefinder’ as mentioned above. The key thing is manual control to learn the fundamentals.

G

Or a Digital SLR (or SLT, or mirrorless interchangeable lens camera) with full manual control (in addition to any automation) - then she won't need to buy and learn a new camera as she becomes more proficient.

It's the manual control that's important, not the technology.

So, you think a teenager is going to use a camera in manual mode, when auto is available Because Her Dad Told Her Too.

 

Mine did!

G

fatcat posted:

That’s not basics.

f stops, shutter speed and film speed used in basic film SLR’s are the same as those used in digital slrs. The knowledge is transferable, I’m not suggesting they learn on a brownie box camera, or use some wierd obscure film types.

Exactly, the 'basics' are independent of using halide film or digital, so why specify?

fatcat posted:

Huge posted:

Or a Digital SLR (or SLT, or mirrorless interchangeable lens camera) with full manual control (in addition to any automation) - then she won't need to buy and learn a new camera as she becomes more proficient.

It's the manual control that's important, not the technology.

So, you think a teenager is going to use a camera in manual mode, when auto is available Because Her Dad Told Her Too.

 

A)  "Daughter " was specified, not "Teenage Daughter"

B)  Does she want to learn, or does she want to play with a camera?
If the former, then she will do so.
If the latter than full auto is the appropriate mode and a manual camera will piss her off, then she'll give up photography as a 'bad job'.

Nick, see what happens when you ask a forum for advice...

Perhaps we ought to ask said daughter for a bit more information?

Compared to the price of a camera in an iPhone, what is mid-price, it could be half way between £29 for a compact at Argos and a Hasselblad at £43000.

Then what does she use her camera for and intend to use it for? What does she expect from a "better" camera?

Perhaps set her an exercise, look at the Nice Pictures thread pick some images that stand out and ask the author what equipment they used.

I know this is getting technical, but my thinking here, there was at one time with 35mm cameras a fashion for taking views where a telephoto lens produces compressed perspective, rooftops or telegraph poles seemingly on top of each other. Using a 200mm or 400mm equivalent lens on a micro 4/3 camera does not produce this effect. There are endless examples because in much literature and instruction there is a tendency to refer to digital equipment in a 35mm relationship. So answers might pin down what type of camera she wants.

There is as much opportunity in photography to get brand conscious as hifi...a perilous road....

notnaim man posted:

<snip>

I know this is getting technical, but my thinking here, there was at one time with 35mm cameras a fashion for taking views where a telephoto lens produces compressed perspective, rooftops or telegraph poles seemingly on top of each other. Using a 200mm or 400mm equivalent lens on a micro 4/3 camera does not produce this effect. There are endless examples because in much literature and instruction there is a tendency to refer to digital equipment in a 35mm relationship.

<snip>

If you change the aspect ration for 4:3 to 3:2 (and get the framing right), the effect comes back again.  For that and many other perspective effects, the framing is critical.

(4:3 gives a very 'stable' and 'normal' impression to an image, reducing the perceived strength of quite a few image effects.)

Thanks all, but this thread has stopped being constructive. I’ll ask [@mention:1566878603942595] to close it now.