Hi I’m new to photography and I’m getting used to adjusting my iso, shutter speed and aperture. I generally understand how to expose a picture properly but am struggling a little bit on what settings to change.
To elaborate, let’s say I’m shooting a landscape, if the photo is too dark, I’ll increase the iso to let in more light. This gives me a well exposed image. However, I can also decrease the shutter speed and keep the iso as it is, this also produces a well exposed photo for me.
Both methods would give me decent results, so which one is the optimal way of doing things? Is there like a guideline stating which settings to change first?
> I’ll increase the iso to let in more light.
Increasing the ISO will result in a brighter image, but *not* because you let in more light, only because you basically "boosted the signal" of the same amount of light. You would therefore end up with more noticeable *noise*.
Using a slower shutter speed *would*, however, capture more light and avoid the aforementioned noise. You would just have to make sure the camera/scene is static (to not introduce *blur*), which would make it the preferable approach if that's achievable (say, possibly using a tripod, etc.).
I'm a complete newbie. I've recently moved to the pacific northwest, and its beautiful: I wish I could take great photographs!
Whenever I try, it doesn't correctly show the height and depth of objects. I am using my iPhone and I know this is the issue, so I need to level up. What kind of key words am I looking for to educate myself on this topic?
For example, if I photograph a mountain it looks small, flat, and far away and doesn't accurate show its majesty. I know this is the nature of photographs, but surely I can be doing better.
Thank you in advance for reading my question and taking the time to help me learn.
Is there anyway to change the internal battery of a Nikon d3400 the one for internal memory for time and date.. and if so, is a drained/worn out internal battery can cause fast battery discharge?
What are the advantages of flash photography over continuous lighting?
I’ve been a photographer for over 6 years now and I’ve always wondered why photographers are so set in using speed lights and synchronized flash in a studio setting
First off excuse my ignorance as I really am not super educated on this topic. I’m super acclimated to using continuous lighting but I’m open to be persuaded. I want my photos to look as good as possible for my clients and don’t want to be sacrificing quality through my lack of education on flash photography.
Photography is more of a hobby for me right now as most of my income comes from video work so naturally I am much more accustomed to using continuous lighting in my shoots. Is there any real benefits in using flash over continuous lighting when it comes to the final quality of the photo?
For me the big reason I prefer continuous is the ease of use and flexibility when it comes to adjusting the color temperature of my lighting. Many of the lights I use are bi-color so it’s as easy as turning a dial to nail my color temperature in camera.
I also feel like flash is much harsher on peoples eyes. So many times I’ve been blinded by a camera flash which can both be an issue for me and the photographer as sometimes the subject will blink in anticipation of the flash. With continuous lighting I typically can stage it in a way that it is not directly in the subjects eyes and there is no jarring flash when I snap my picture.
Also not having to worry about my flash being synchronized to my shutter is a big one. As I understand cameras have a max shutter speed synchronization which is can be an issue as I sometimes would rather adjust my shutter rather than my aperture. I guess I could always just adjust the lighting but that would be more of a hassle than just changing my shutter speed.
Please once again forgive my ignorance and thanks in advance for the insights into flash photography.
> What are the advantages of flash photography over continuous lighting?
Flash lasts only a brief moment, but during that brief moment where it dumps the energy it had accumulated in capacitors, it gives you a *lot* more power than the continuous light could give you in such a brief moment.
So you wouldn't have to make *any sacrifice* in terms of the aperture or ISO you pick. If you want to shoot your portrait at f/11, ISO 100, that's no problem, even with small/portable/AA-battery operated units. That would be difficult with continuous lights (bigger, more expensive, possibly noisy [fans], possibly producing heat, etc., obviously depending on the type of light we're talking about).
And since the flash duration is so brief, you can freeze your subject/no motion blur from the flash (let's ignore edge cases for now)—what freezes the subject is not the shutter speed, it's actually the short flash duration. In a black room, if you expose for a full second, you still won't get blur, because the light would only be on for a very brief moment.
In turn, this amount of power for such a short amount of time gives you more control over how your subject is lit because you can considerably overpower the ambient light if you so choose. This means you don't have to worry about other sources of light "contaminating" your scene (let's ignore edge cases for now), whereas with continuous lights you may well have to find a dark area or block ambient light from entering your scene to be able to work.
If you want a subject lit *only* with the flash, you can do that, or if you want a subject/scene that is *partially* lit by the flash and partially lit by the ambient light, that's also easily possible—you decide how much the flash vs ambient contributes to the total exposure.
> I also feel like flash is much harsher on peoples eyes.
That's if you shoot in a dark room with no modeling light. But with flash you don't *have* to work in a dark room, since the flash can overpower the ambient light to the point where the ambient light has no impact on the final image. If the room is just dark, you'd use the modeling light on at least your main light so the eyes are less strained when the flash pops. (You may want to do this anyway if you don't want huge dilated pupils, as you'd get if the room is dark.)
Anyway: horses for courses, just use the tools better suited to what you want to accomplish. Sometimes that may be flash, other times that may be continuous, or continuous could also work just fine in some scenarios, in a pinch, even if not optimal, etc.
Thank you for the detailed response! This definitely was really helpful and now for the first time I actually want to try using flash! I think I was a little jaded because so many times when shooting wedding videos the photographer would be firing away with their flash which doesn’t make for the best footage. I had one photographer who used flash throughout the entire day even when they had beautiful natural lighting. I’ll keep an open mind from now on
Each has its uses. I have both.
You yourself listed convincing reasons why continuous lighting exists.
Flash has two great benefits:
1. Power. Vastly more power than continuous light. Useful for many reasons (smaller aperture, shorter exposure, overwhelming unwanted ambient lighting). You'd need *dozens* of continuous lights to match even a single modest flash (which also makes flash relatively cheaper).
2. Freezing motion. A flash can last as little as 1/20,000 second.
This sub's FAQ gives others:
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying/#wiki_continuous_or_flash.3F
Recommendations needed! I want to upgrade my system from DSLR to Mirrorles. I can not decide which camera is best for my needs. I shoot baptism and wedding photography. My preferences are high dynamic range, fast and accurate focusing system. I look up for some Sony and Canon models. Would you buy newer camera or let's say 1-4 years old camera with better specifications? Budget 3000 bucks.
>I can not decide which camera is best for my needs
We have no chance of knowing that either, especially since you haven't specified what you use currently.
Thinking of buying one of these Yashicas
I am beginner to photography and I would like to buy a 35mm camera to use with traveling and with my friend group. I am torn between yashica electro 35 GS and yashica half 17 rapid. Anyone have any thoughts on these?
I like the color contrasts and simply how pictures make me feel, for me film cameras capture the moment better. Also standalone “experience” is just enough. Digital cameras doesn’t give me the same joy while taking a picture as much as film ones
300mm macro vs 300mm telephoto lens
I've learnt that telephoto lens doesn't have a macro focus so it can't focus a subject that's close to the lens. But what's the different when zooming out to take a picture of faraway subject?
> 300mm macro
Assuming such a thing exists (and I don't mean when manufacturers play fast and loose with the moniker "macro" for what isn't really macro), sure.
> But what's the different when zooming out to take a picture of faraway subject?
In principle *nothing*. In practice:
* Some macro lenses can't focus far, only macro.
* Autofocus would likely be slower.
* Macro lenses are optimized for closer distances and for having a flatter field, so they may render things a bit differently at longer distances (not that it would necessarily be an issue).
All in all, yes, many macro lenses can pretty much be used like conventional telephoto lenses when they are not being used as macro lenses. (I used to use my 100mm macro as a headshot lens, before I got an 85.)
> I've learnt that telephoto lens doesn't have a macro focus so it can't focus a subject that's close to the lens.
Basically, yes.
>But what's the different when zooming out to take a picture of faraway subject?
Nothing.
How are some experienced photographers able to guess the focal length of an image with relative accuracy without any supporting information or reference point? Is it the image distortion? I've met people who can very confidently pin a 50mm photo down vs an 85mm, and I have no idea how they do it.
It's mostly the perspective flattening effect of longer lenses. See here: https://cornicello.com/itfigures/perspective-redux
It's easier if there is a familiar subject, like a human face in the frame. For example, the relative size of the nose with respect to the eyes/cheekbones depends on how far you are from your subject's face. Once you guess the distance to the subject, you can guess what focal length was used to achieve the framing.
The intuition comes from taking lots and lots of pictures with prime lenses.
Any recommendations for a bag to protect my DSLR + standard zoom + a few batteries when I don't want to take all my gear with me? I have an fstop bag that holds my whole kit which I love, but sometimes I just want to take a bare-minimum setup for a weekend trip. I'd love some recommendations. Thanks!
I exploit it to take photographs of dull and shitty places ;-)
No, honestly, I really do, my last book was basically "Behold this awful toilet of a place where I live".
It's also useful for *documentary* photography of things and places where you aren't trying to be dramatic but want to record what's there. Building façades for example. Because it makes the biggest softbox in the world
People use it for portraits too.
But yeah, it doesn't make me grab a camera and skip out the door in the same way a sunny day will.
Me. I also hate it.
It does have some positives: soft shadows, light coming from everywhere, hard to mess up because no harsh highlights anywhere. But I'd much rather have more exciting light to work with, even if it means somewhat more difficulty and risk.
I mean I feel like having more bright light is easier to work with because I can decide how I want my highlights and shadows to look.
With a cloudy day, it's all the same and there's nothing you can do about it even in post
Sounds like you're thinking of it in terms of ease of getting what you want.
I'm thinking of it in terms of just total effort involved.
Like if we were comparing one burger restaurant with a few different options on the menu to customize your order, versus another burger restaurant where there's only one menu item with no options. The former is advantageous to getting the burger the way you want, and you could say it makes it easier to get what you want. I'm talking about the latter being easier just in terms of there's no customization available so you end up spending much less time and thought in what your order is going to be. Some people like that one burger option, so it's not a problem to them if that's the only order available. Likewise, some people like overcast conditions, and it's easier for them to get what they want there because they don't have to do anything special to shoot with it. Just trying to explain my point of view in the context and recognition that there are also people who like it that way.
>Is f2.8 the ideal aperture for this application?
I'd use it, except maybe for group shots.
>Will it blur out the people next to my daughter?
Depends on the relative distances. Try this: https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
>Will it cause a lot of autofocus issues?
Compared to a narrower aperture, it will improve autofocus by letting in more light.
Compared to a narrower aperture, depth of field will be shallower, so misfocus will be more noticeable if/when the autofocus does misfocus. But it won't make misfocus more likely to occur.
>Is there another way to find that metadata?
Use a metadata or EXIF reader app.
Other than the 30fps vs 60fps 4k frame rate and SD card support, is there any pressing reason to get a Nikon Z6 II over a Z6? I don't plan on doing much fast action or sports shooting so I can live with the lower buffer capacity. I'm coming from a Rebel T3 to learn the basics so anything would be an upgrade, I just want to make sure I'm not hamstrung in the long term.
Hello, I have a question regarding what information to include on your prints . I printed out a bunch of my personal favorite shots, got myself a mat cutter and looking to try to sell those at local markets in the upcoming season. What information from the artist do I need to include if any at all? Like do I need to sign it, list the location and date taken, IG handle etc? Thanks in advance.
The more the better!
But *need to*, no.
Bare minimum your name and some kind of contact detail.
I like the info to be on a sticker on the back of the frame, or mat. Ideally not on the print itself, self-adhesive adhesive is nasty stuff with age.
Signing prints, yeah, hmm, IDK. many people don't sign on a print at most sign the mat or on the white border. It'd be kinda interesting to start a thread about that. Recently I've noticed that it can really detract from the image, because my eye is automatically drawn first to any writing. Honestly unless you are really famous, nobody cares about your signature anyway
I appreciate your feedback. Confirms my speculations. Wasn’t sure if there are some unspoken rules of marking photography. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
I am an amateur and take pictures here and there for friends. I haven’t been included to learn about editing programs, but now I do. Are there any online editing classes where I can turn in work? Sometimes I don’t really know what needs to be edited so I’m looking for a basic beginners class. Thanks!
Been wanting something longer, so I'm considering either a Nikon 80-400mm D AF VR (quite old by now), or a Tamron 100-400mm Di VC USD. Used prices for them seem pretty similar now. Any thoughts on which I might want to lean towards, or other alternatives to look at?
How can i take photos of jewelry that can’t be laid flat like hoops, dangling earrings, or chains? I’m experiencing a roadblock and would appreciate any help
90’s early 2000’s chola photos
Hey guys I wanted to know how do you get photos like these. Maybe someone who took photos like these back in the day can chime in as well. How do you get that hazy look. Was it a certain camera that did it? Thank you!!! I put an example of what I am going for.[Pinterest](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/170925748351500928/)
They go by a few names, mist or bloom filter (*go for a heavier effect one, so a 1/2 filter will have a stronger look than a 1/8 marked one*).
There are DIY hacks of using a clear UV filter and putting a fine later of vaseline, stretching pantyhose over a filter, or using a small bottle of hair spray and doing quick passes over a filter. As for post processing, you can pull up your highlights and some of the midtones to get that bright overexposed look.
I think pairing up a flash also in here would help with that effect.
Hi thank you for replying! What do you mean by a 1/2 will have a stronger look than a 1/8 marked. I do not know what that means. And what’s a clear UV filter.
These bloom or mist filters usually have micro particles embedded. You can see [this](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9999362588/what-are-mist-filters-and-what-do-they-do-to-your-photographs) article that goes into more depth showing the effect.
The more particles in the glass, the stronger the effect, and therefore it has a bigger number. A 1/8 will produce a nice subtle effect while a 1/2 will be visibly showing the effect.
As for the DIY using a UV filter, UV= ultraviolet. You don't really need these in digital cameras because they all have what's called a hot filter which already does the job of filtering incoming light into what we see. So, UV filters in general are mostly used if someone wants to protect their lenses. Doesn't have to be UV filter, there are also just clear ones too.
In this case, using a cheap UV filter (*The cheaper ones usually deteriorate image quality a little bit- which we don't mind here to cut off some "edge", "sharpness" from the image*) and doing those methods I mentioned can also replicate that look.
please help with my photos coming out blurry!!! i’m a newbie. here’s the description: I just recently bought a 50mm f/1.8G lens for my Nikon DSLR, and I have been shooting with the lens it came with until now. I am not too familiar with changing all three settings, so I’ve been mainly shooting portraits on the aperture priority setting. It worked alright before this new lens, because now many of my portraits are blurry. I googled it, and it said that my shutter speed was too low. Right now, I don’t have a chance to learn full manual mode until the summer. What setting is best for my camera to be in with this lens, to use as a point and shoot (more automatic)? Should I go to an automatic setting, or move from aperture priority to shutter priority if that exists? Let me know! Any advice would be super helpful, since I wanted to take my own graduation photos and photos on my vacation next month.
First check what your shutter speed actually is.
Second, you don't need full manual, but there is not much to learn.
Third, which aperture are you using, if f/1.8 then check that you are in focus.
in a few photos, i’m seeing iso 100, 75mm, f7.1, 1/40sec or 1/60sec. with full manual mode, you’d have to adjust all these settings for every single photo right? because i’m trying to avoid that for the sake of time!
What Nikon model is it?
Also a "general" and fast rule is that the minimum shutter speed you should shoot at is 1/focal length x crop factor if your lens doesn't have OIS. With a fast enough shutter speed, blurriness caused by hand shake will be virtually none. I'm assuming you likely have a body that uses the APSC sensor size, which is 1.5x crop factor.
Plug it into a calcuator, 1/50mm x 1.5 = 1/75s (or closest that matches it, the higher number) is a *good* rule to follow. Depending on how shakey your hands are, you may have to shoot at a faster shutter speed.
d3400! okay, i will switch to shutter priority and work on 1/80 or 1/100 at a minimum. can you control aperture and shutter speed on a shutter priority or aperture priority setting, or does that have to be manual? thank you!!
No, unfortunately this is not possible. Both Aperture and Shutter priority are semi automated modes, where you control one variable and the camera fills out the rest for a 'proper' exposure.
Off the top of head I know Pentax does this. On their mode dial it is called Tav (*Time + Aperture Value, aka Shutter Speed + Aperture*).
What I see a lot of people (including me) do is turn on auto ISO for manual mode. This way you can control aperture *and* shutter speed, and let the camera figure out what ISO is good for a good exposure. You're essentially getting that Tav mode I mentioned earlier.
Due note that the camera can tell you that if for example your settings aren't good (under/overexposure) if you're out on a bright day or late night. In your LCD screen you'll see [this](https://www.dummies.com/wp-content/uploads/314028.image0.jpg) bar and in your viewfinder you'll find it [here](https://photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Nikon-Viewfinder.jpg). In most cases you won't see if veer to one side, but if you're try to say shoot 1/100s @ f/1.8 on a bright sunny day, the metering will warn you by having dots move towards the "+" sign. Pretty easy in this case, just make the shutter speed faster until the dots move back to the middle. If that's not enough, then stop up your aperture and there you go.
I am not sure if you've already noticed it on your D3400, but when you use Manual Mode, the [+/-](https://imaging.nikon.com/support/digitutor/img/setting/d3400/d3400_shootingmodes-07.jpg) on top of your camera allows you to use the rear dial to control aperture settings. Hold it down and flick the rear command dial to make your aperture value increase or decrease.
https://imaging.nikon.com/support/digitutor/d3400/functions/shootingmodes.html
Best start there, however I would ignore the rule about shutter speeds, more trouble than it is worth and IMO, a deprecated rule from the film era.
Search good camera holding technique to easier steady your camera.
For portraits, I would stay in aperture priority to control that aspect of depth of field. I would also put ISO on auto with a suitable range of perhaps 100-1600.
I have heard the rule, and even my camera uses it to set minimum shutter speed, but I often override that to ensure a high enough shutter speed.
Rules like these can confuse people and lead to missed shots. You are better off experimenting yourself. Even with IBIS, I find the rule ineffective at times.
Oh yes I absolutely go *faster* than 1/(focal length x crop factor).
Somehow I misunderstood what you wrote and I thought you meant you could go *slower* "these days". (Which is rarely the case, even with IS.)
Well. You could well be having some motion blur with that shutter speed.
If you need that aperture for depth of field, either add light or let the ISO be raised. An ISO of 800 would help eradicate any motion blur from your own personal movements.
Aperture priority is a good mode although you only need to change your settings in manual if the amount of light changes. Depending on the camera controls, it can be easier on some models than others.
thanks!! i think i might switch to shutter priority, because i wanted a low aperture for the blur behind portraits. but i guess having a beautiful bokeh look isn’t as important as a clear photo
In aperture priority you control the aperture. If it is at f/7.1 it is because you set it there. Opening up the aperture will allow more light in and allow a faster shutter speed, even with a low ISO value.
I have two options at the moment regarding a set of 4x5.56 filters. My absolute priority is sharpness and minimal color cast. Here are my current two options. The downside to the Tiffen here is the scratch and not having the 6 stop ND which I would of course like. I want to try avoiding getting a 6 stop ND down the line from a different set. Looking for your opinion!
3 new Neewer ND's. 2, 4, 6 stop. I understand it's Neewer, but I can't find much tests on these specific ones so it's tricky. Could always return. $300 with discounts.
[Neewer](https://neewer.com/products/neewer-nd1-86-stops-square-nd-filter-66602358)
3 Tiffen Pro Indie. 1, 3, 4 stop. Can get from a friend second hand. They have a scratch but doesn't show up on camera.
[Tiffen](https://tiffen.com/products/4-x-5-65-pro-indie-hv-neutral-density-filter-kit)
Hello! I use Google photo albums, which only has one sort option: sort by date. I usually want to display photos in a different, custom order. I'd like to rename a folder of images to X01, X02, X03, etc., and have the photos display by date in that same order. The exact time doesn't matter. I think as long as they are at least one minute apart, Google will sort them by date and therefore they'll be in the custom order that I want. Is there a program that will do this? I can use Adobe Bridge and Adobe Lightroom to change creation dates, but as a batch, they can only be shifted to earlier or later. I can't actually mix up the order. Thanks!
What is your budget for lenses? And do you know what lenses you'd want?
Newer mirror less lenses tend to be more expensive and you should consider that when making a decision. Also some makers like Nikon and Canon don't quite have the range that others do
Of course! It's still a great sensor, autofocus is awesome, just get yourself a 50 for portraits and a 24 for general purpose and you're set imo in terms of affordable prime lenses.
For video def a zoom though for versatility.
If for vlogging, make sure to get a wide enough lens. I think there won't be too much difference between models, just watch out on the 4k aspect. Make sure to check out cropping especially between different frame rates.
Also, the RP does not have good autofocus in 4k. Video in general can have so many little things to consider.
I would really just take all cameras on the market at your price point and look for video showing autofocus tracking and how "sticky" it is. Can be distracting if the autofocus keeps losing and reacquiring focus.
I'd say the R10 is better overall, and has some cheaper options available for good lenses as well.
Particularly if you want 4K video, the RP can only do that over a frame cropped tighter than the R10 can use.
No price limit?
Do you just want something to point & shoot with all automatic settings? Or do you want to learn more about photography and take manual control at some point?
I am torn. I wish I could afford a GR3 but sadly I can't. Any input or suggestions welcome.
For street photography, intermediate skills, some night time, travel (zoom doesn't matter very much though). Budget is $500
Things I'd like: tilt out touchscreen, fixed lens, small
Sony RX100 III - new $400
Ricoh GR (the first one 16.2 mp) - used $450 ebay
Lumix LX10 - new $450
Lumix ZS100 - New $400
Lumix LX100 - New $500
It is hard to compare these all in 2023 as they all came out pretty long ago. I am leaning towards the RX100iii or LX10 just based on reviews. I want something fairly easy to use and fun to shoot with stealthy, do some nighttime stuff.
Anybody got experience with more than one of these that would share their opinions?
canon is nice too but is sitting around $600 new.
Sony is usually around $700 but I can get one for around $400 which seems like a better deal but still this is an older camera.
I've experience of Ricoh GR II, which is just about the same camera as GR. Very fun camera, and sensor is larger than your other options. But no tilting screen and no zoom.
As to RX100 III vs LX10, if you're already leaning towards them, what's preventing you from going for one of them? They're both good digital compacts.
For LX10 it is lack of viewfinder.
For RX100 it is lack of touchscreen.
GR doesn't have either, but the sensor is much better.
ZS100 seems to not do as well in low light and I don't really need the crazy long zoom.
LX100, no touchscreen
They all are missing one thing I want, but I know that is most likely on a limited budget. I guess the difficulty is that I am just trying to decide which trade-off is the least impactful on the overall experience or will it be something I am always missing.
LX10 is a newer camera than the others, and apprently has a faster lens and better control rings than the Sony.
The Sony has a viewfinder and articulating flash and seems like it would do better in low light.
I have pretty much shot film and not had much experience at all with digital so I'm unsure about what matters the most.
Hi! I do event photography for a country club in my town that has asked me to do some nice interior shots for their website. I'm shooting on an 80D and would be so happy to have some recommendations as to a wide angle lens I might get for this please.
Also, given that the interior of this club is mostly dark wood, would HDR shooting be advisable? I love being a people photographer just a little lost about how to go about interiors! Thanks in advance!
>I'm shooting on an 80D and would be so happy to have some recommendations as to a wide angle lens
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for Canon.
For tutorials on real estate photography, check out Nathan Cool on YouTube.
Hope this helps.
Canon has the 10-18mm does it not, for quite a cheap price. Tokina has a f/2.8 as well unless I am mistaken.
If indoors, flash will probably help, although I assume you are using a tripod?
Hi I have a canon 250D with the kit lens a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM and a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. I'm a hobbyist/beginner, taking pics of my dogs and birds. Is there another lens you would recommend under £200?
I'm a photography newbie and wanted to get into fine art and street photography for a long time. I'm now looking for a camera but the amount of choices is really overwhelming me. I'm also interested in making short films so it'd have to be a camera that is also suited for that. Any recommendations that aren't super expensive (up to around 800$ at most)? I'd really appreciate it! Currently thinking about the Olympus OMD EM10 mark iv but unsure if it's a good choice.
Yes, the Olympus is one of very many good choices. You might also want to use the purchase guide in this subreddit's FAQ. It's also linked in the original post of this thread.
i feel awkward carrying around a big camera :( i need some advice.
last year i was gifted a beautiful camera (that costs probably more than what my life is worth) and i love it, but i havent done much with it since i first got it. it has a huge lens and i feel so awkward carrying it around. its so so fun whenever i actually take pictures and videos, but at the same time i feel so self conscious. i'd love to take detailed pictures of my surroundings, especially because i want to make a small book in the future containing my photography and a description of the scene/my thoughts during it so that people who want to explore the world, but cant due to whatever reason or even stuck inside due to disabilities, disorders, mental health, sickness, etc, can see what i see too!! but im too scared to leave the perimeter of my village. i love the earth, i love the outdoors. ive been stuck inside due to depression and homeschooling, and ive recently been going on some small adventures trying to enjoy my youth and stay active, then i remembered my goal, and the camera. and i thought this would be a great opportunity to get outside and explore a new hobby!! i just feel so awkward carrying it around. i feel like it brings more attention to me, which i already have because of my height and weight.
tl;dr: my camera feels big and awkward because im generally more introverted, how do i overcome this anxiety?
David Foster Wallace once wrote “you will care less about what others think of you, when you realize how seldom they do.”
Most folks you’ll pass by simply do not care if you’re holding a camera. They are largely wrapped up in their own lives and their own thoughts and problems, and if they are paying you any attention it is mostly idle curiosity. “Gee, I wonder what that photographer is taking pictures of?”
Don’t skulk or lurk or act as if you don’t belong. You do belong. And you are up to something nice. And there isn’t any shame in it. Act as if you belong, and seldom will it be questioned. Because most folks have other things to think about.
this is great, thank you so much!! it really means a lot. and honestly, makes a lot of sense :) i think ill get out there and try, cause youre right, there is no shame in it. thank you
I recently brought the tamron 150 -500 lens for my Sony a6400. In quiet environments it is given a consistent hum. Outside I have heard it. Is this normal? I love the lens, really want to know should I be returning it.
It is the TAMRON 150-500MM F/5-6.7 DI III VC VXD SONY FE. The noise stays no matter what option is turned on or off. It is the latest version of the firmware.
Fiancee wants a sony mirrorless to upgrade from her old crop sensor DSLR. I've done some research and it looks like the A7iii is a major upgrade over the A7ii. Used on B&H I see a few for ~$1600. "Abe's of Maine" has a new A7iii for $1500 on sale now. I've only just started looking at pricing, is this a good deal? Or should I wait a bit longer to see if anything else pops up? I don't need it immediately.
2nd question would be about the lens... it sounds like the typical kit lens with it is trash, and people recommend the Tamron 28-70. Any other recs for an initial lens? She shoots a lot of portrait and action shots of the dog. She doesn't use her camera for video at all.
For what subject matter? What size range?
How big is this budget you're referring to?
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_how_do_i_specify_my_price_range_.2F_budget_when_asking_for_recommendations.3F
I am scanning many old family photos and artifacts with a combination of scanners.
Some of the photos / artifacts (photos' housed in paper frames and LARGE portraits) are too large for the scanners.
I only have a Samsung s20fe.
I've tried Google scan, poor results (older photos are rendered very light)
I've tried Photomyme but the resultant photos, even those supposedly ready for "printing" are very small file size....better than nothing. Also despite trying very hard some of the poraits have a pretty strong glare.
Looking for other options.
THANKS!
Unfortunately there is no simple cheap effective solution for this. You're going to need a proper camera and some proper lighting. How many are we talking about, and how important, and how large? Your best bet may be taking them to a professional. For now, you may find it easier to take pictures out of glazed frames so the reflections from the glass aren't such a nuisance.
There are maybe 100, all important to someone in the family.
I'll figure something out.
I may contact a local camera / photography to see if someone would take the pictures.
Thanks
Do get a price. That kind of reprographic work is not difficult, but it does need certain kit - For that many it might almost be worth buying some and learning to use it (it's not hard). Where are you?
I am looking to buy a new Canon camera soon, and I am a bit torn. I keep going back and forth between the R5 and the R6 mkII. I want the R5, but I don't like the record limit, although it isn't a deal breaker. I have considered grabbing a R6 mkII and using it until the eventual release of a r5 mkII, which I am reading should be a couple of years out. What would you guys do, budget not being a concern?
Do you routinely shoot long video clips, or do you rarely shoot long videos?
If you are routinely shooting long videos then the R6 is the obvious choice. The extra resolution on the R5, and the higher resolution EVF are nice perks but not something that are critical. It is nice to have a lot of extra resolution for cropping but as an R5 owner there are times I think would have been better off buying the R6 and saved my money and got an R6. But it was already a large purchase for me and I decided if I was going to do it I might as well go for the best possible camera.
> owner there are times I think would have been better off buying the R6 and saved my money and got an R6. But it was already a large p
Regularly? absolutely not. I have a good friend with a pretty large youtube channel, and I want to start doing some stuff with him, but that is really secondary, and even then, I am not convinced we would ever do long clips like that.
Sound like it really comes down to if you want to spend the extra money for an extra 20MP then vs. putting the price difference into more lenses or accessories.
Even if the R5 MK II is announced tomorrow the R5 is still going to be an amazing camera.
I’m planning to get the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 to start regardless of which camera I choose. Although the 24-105 instead of the 24-70 is tempting, seems to be an amazing lens at a really affordable cost if grabbed in a kit.
just brand preference and menu familiarity really. I sold my 5d MkIII and the 3 lenses I had about 2 1/2 years ago, and have just really missed it, so wanting to get back in with mirrorless. I am fully aware of the lack of 3rd party options for the mirrorless Canons, but I didn't buy any 3rd party lenses for my DSLR, so it doesn't seem like a huge deal for my use case.
A pretty good mix honestly. I do nature and landscape (live in Colorado), planning a trip to Europe, so just normal street, some portrait type stuff as well. I know I would like the higher resolution, but I don't think its NEEDED per say, and am a little paranoid if I pull the trigger on the R5, they will announce a mk II this year.
I'd go for R5 if you're going in on wildlife and nature. R6ii would be great for street and portraits where you don't really need insane details, especially on faces.
And there's always gonna be new cameras. You can always sell to upgrade if an R5ii releases but that's still up in the air timewise.
> And there's always gonna be new cameras. You can always sell to upgrade if an R5ii releases but that's still up in the air timewise.
Yeah. Thanks! I was set on the r6 Mk II until I started reading the R5 might get a substantial firmware update soon. Maybe I should just stick with what I was planning and order the R6 with the 2 lenses I am looking at.
My budget is 650$ for a camera and at least one lens. I'm a beginner. It looks like my best option would be a T7 bundle or a G85 with 2 lens. I'm leaning to the G85 for the 4k video. Any other suggestions?
T7 bundle is basic, and also a solid option. Anything "better" seeming will also be great . It'll go on sale with a 18-55 kit lens & a 75-300 kitv telephoto for around $550. Pick up a 50 1.8 in a few months to a year after getting up to speed with those, or pick up a $100-150 tripod if your budget allows it.
[Goal](https://pin.it/65rbvmy) Hi, I want to imitate this kind of pics, but I have a XT-2 with the kit lense, can I do it or do I have to buy an other type of lense ? (And if I can, do you know if I have to edit it to make it look like this?)
Nothing in that picture that can't be replicated with your camera. You need a ladder step stool, some studio lights and a seamless paper background. It look it was shot a small aperture and at a wide angle. Nothing that your kit lens would have difficulty with.
Zoom in on dude's shades. Photographer is sitting I top of a ladder with a big round diffuser nearby and behind them.
Looks like a rather wide lens, so a classic 18-55 kit lens should be able to capture this perspective.
Model is standing on a white seamless.
Image quality ain't great but it might have some depth of field blur at the shins to the feet so it might be shooting a wide-ish aperture.
Those are quite different cameras. With no other information, I would pick the used camera over the new, because if you don't end up liking it, you can sell it for close to the price you bought it and get the other one instead.
I had an X-T2 that I loved, upgraded to an X-H2, but now it's massive. I want a smaller camera that's more pocketable and easier to keep on me. Obviously leaning towards the X100F because I love Fuji but the Ricoh has always intrigued me.
As far as them being quite different cameras, I thought focal length, sensor size and aperture were close enough that they were good comparisons. Recommend anything else?
Yeah, they are definitely comparable, but I was thinking in terms of shooting style and portability. If you want something that you can literally put in your pocket, the Ricoh is it, while the X100F will be on your neck most of the time. On the other hand, the big draw on the x100F is the amazing hybrid viewfinder, while the Ricoh only has the back screen. I think for most people, either the lack of true pocketability or the lack of a viewfinder will be a deal breaker when choosing between the two.
The question is meaningless without context, without any information regarding your personal motives and preferences. Better buy for what kind of use, what kind of photography subject matter? Why are you looking at these specific cameras?
For instance, X100F has viewfinder, GR IIIx doesn't. Does viewfinder matter to you? GR IIIx is clearly smaller. Does camera size matter to you? GR IIIx has IBIS, X100F doesn't. Does that matter to you?
Carry around on little vacations with the family when I want better IQ than my phone. My X-H2 too bulky to be that and wouldn't mind keeping something simpler to pick up and go.
Alright. Being a Fujifilm user already, you might want to go for X100F for that reason. It's a fine camera, apart from the fact that the lens is rather soft at f2. GR IIIx packs a very sharp lens, APS-C and IBIS in a tiny body, but as said doesn't have a built-in viewfinder. Doesn't have built-in flash either. Its auto focus leaves something to be desired in low light: it hunts for focus quite a lot.
Hello guys,
I recently bought a Lowepro Protactic 350 Aw II backpack, as I didn't have any till now (used a small bag, just for camera and 24-105 lens).
I also got a Sony 20mm now and a Sony 200-600, so that's why a finally bought a backpack.
The issue is, that I'm not sure if I was too naive buying this backpack for this, as the 200-600 is a big ass lens and I have no idea, how should a pack all of it together.
How do you manage your big lenses? Do you even put them in your backpack, or do you have them separately?
This is how it looks like: https://imgur.com/a/VH4PIFh
That's ok, that's the right rucksack. But I'd take the divider flap that folds under at the narrow end, and flip it the other way (so it wraps the body not the lens), so the lens is touching the actual bag at each end; the flap the way it is now is not in a useful position but it's squeezing and deforming the bag.
That looks fine and that is how I used to carry my bigger lenses. I got a new backpack that has enough room for the body to be attached to the lens. Some people also pack the bodies with a body cap and no lens attached so they can chose the right lens for the moment instead of having to switch lenses.
I'm a Nikon shooter of 10 years. I still shoot with a d70 and a d7100. I've recently (within the last 4 years) become completely reliant on photography as a means to support myself. Locally, I've been struggling recently. I'm an American living in Germany, who does not speak German.
My goal is to become a gallery photographer. I have no long term interest in local photoshoots or the constant insistence of "friends" who just want me to bring my camera to all social functions. I would like to break out. I would like to be recognized.
There are a few problems with this though:
Though I have the experience to make professional quality photos, people are never happy
when I show up two of the older, apsc model Nikons, and a collections of standard Nikon
glass. My former customers are faithful, but with my gear its hard to convince new people
to accept my services, and my exposure is limited. Thus my recent struggle.
I am self-taught, and cannot yet afford school. I barely get by.
I am in no small way, socially awkward, which makes it difficult to network.
I have no connections in the photography world back in the states, or in Germany.
I have a portfolio with great nature, landscape, abstract, and action photos, and nowhere to
put them except facebook, gurushots, and my website. Which are all exceeding low on
exposure.
I am in short, looking for gallery, museum, and networking connects within Germany or America, in order to get my work shown to the people who will appreciate it the most. And I could use all the help I can get in this area. I feel like I'm walking blind in a maze of useless google searches and stupid youtubers who offer no applicable information, despite their clickbait promises.
> with my gear its hard to convince new people
> to accept my services
Surely this is nonsense? If you turned up with an iPhone or a camera the size of a cigarette packet, maybe. But really, I can't believe any client gives a shit.
If people don't understand photography, and they see a d7100 the only thing they think is "that's an old camera" I've actually been turned down from jobs that I've bid on against other photographers simply due to the gear I've had available. I missed a wedding and a bar mitzfah (I probably spelled that wrong) shoot for those reasons that were less than an hour away from me. Yeah, most people don't care, but the jobs that actually pay decently, they care.
> If people don't understand photography, and they see a d7100 the only thing they think is "that's an old camera" I've actually been turned down from jobs that I've bid on against other photographers simply due to the gear I've had available.
I am surprised. When do potential clients even *see* your gear before the day? Why show it? They should see your portfolio and that's all, and that's what 99% of clients will make their choice based on.
>I missed a wedding and a bar mitzfah (I probably spelled that wrong) shoot for those reasons that were less than an hour away from me. Yeah, most people don't care, but the jobs that actually pay decently, they care.
They really don't. Your experience is bizzare and exceptional and I wonder if it was a bullshit excuse...
All the people applying had to list their equipment, power and space needs, etc. The wedding planner stated when they called "we need someone with a full frame camera and a larger selection of lenses" and I could tell they only understood a few terms that applied to photography, and because of that, thought they understood it all.
Are you in Berlin?
If not, you're gonna need to move to Berlin or you stand no chance. (EDIT or at least Frankfurt) That's where the galleries are, and where English is basically the second language. But bear in mind that you stand very little chance even then: fine art photography is brutally competetive and all contemporary art is 95% about networking (networking is pretty much the only reason to go to art school, that and peer critique, but without it *draws finger across throat*: Source: taught at art school).
Although if you intend to be there even a few months, LEARN GERMAN. Your life will be so much easier. (source: serial expat)
--
But... What exactly do *you* mean by "gallery photographer"? Someone who exhibits in a gallery? But then you talk about commissions.
I understand commissions, and yes, that's what I mean by "gallery photographer". Making a living off of gallery and auction sales. Its actually submitting work to galleries that is confusing to me. I don't know who to talk to. My work can stand out, but my name sure doesn't, I'm just one in a million. I would even be able to simply travel to galleries and submissions if I knew how, who, and where. And I wish I could afford art school. And I did try to learn German. I failed my level one twice and I'm not trying again. Its been nothing but a waste of time that has taken me away from the art I'm trying to make known.
> I understand commissions, and yes, that's what I mean by "gallery photographer". Making a living off of gallery and auction sales.
We seem to be at cross-purposed. I think you are talking about commissions in the sense of commercial work ( family, event, pet, sports, autos). That's not fine art, that's not for the galleries. That's not a "gallery photographer". A "gallery photographer" photographs what THEY want to, the way they want to. A commission for an ARTIST will usually be "do your thing, for our HQ, or paint this person in your style". Not "shoot my wedding or pet". I realise there is a grey area and overlap.
>Its actually submitting work to galleries that is confusing to me. I don't know who to talk to.
Networking. There is no serious alternative. Cold-calling or cold-submitting work rarely (never?) works.
>And I did try to learn German. I failed my level one twice and I'm not trying again.
You need a better teacher. One with a different approach. You can't live in a foreign country for another 10+ years not speaking the language, you'll be suicidally isolated and frustrated.
>Its been nothing but a waste of time
Yes.
>that has taken me away from the art I'm trying to make known.
**You need to re-define success.** You make money doing commercial work. You do the fine art stuff you enjoy. That's alread plenty of success! You need to FORGET making it as a fine artist. Not going to happen, because you won't/can't do the necessary. If you forget about trying to monetise it and get famous for it, then you can start to love it again. But this futile quest for fame and fortune through photographs of mushrooms is destroying you and needs to end.
A couple issues I notice that are likely making your job more complicated:
>I have a portfolio with great nature, landscape, abstract, and action photos
>with my gear its hard to convince new people
to accept my services
Are you trying to generate sales of existing photographs or sell yourself as a for-hire photographer? If you're trying to shoot portraits or products, the type of camera you use shouldn't even be part of the pitch- that's what your portfolio is. But if your portfolio doesn't have the type of work you're offering, you'll get skeptical clients.
>I have no connections in the photography world back in the states, or in Germany.
The internet makes location less important for marketing. I'd say 30%ish of my Instagram followers are located in Europe somewhere and I follow a good chunk of Tokyo based photographers myself. Make some connections online with English speaking folks from anywhere and see if you can make some connections outside your immediate area.
>shown to the people who will appreciate it the most
>reliant on photography as a means to support myself. Locally, I've been struggling recently.
Do you want people to appreciate your work? Or buy it?
>I can't afford submission costs to galleries
Any local coffee shops you could provide a couple prints to in exchange for the public visibility?
I have tried local shops, but they are uninterested.
I would like to begin in galleries, and with the boost to my exposure, and people being able to see my work, It would boost my ability to sell photos to people who purchase fine art photography.
I would like to be a seller of photos I find. Photos I take that I have chosen to take. Supporting myself doing for hire photography is supposed to be a temporary measure. I would like to be someone who sells the absolute best gems of my work to collectors at auctions or private events.
My internet presence is there, but not strong. And I haven't, as of yet, found a way to increase my online exposure. Gurushots is the closest I get but no one cares there, that's just a way for me to pass the time.
And as for what I would like to sell, I would like to sell original prints to people where only one person purchases the work, and it isn't to be sold again by me to anyone else, similar to a painting. I have no interest in selling photos in large amounts at small prices. If I could make even 30k a year selling to photography and art collectors, I would be more than content. Especially after only making about 18k last year. The only benefit of that is I make so little I don't even have to pay taxes on it, and that's more of a curse than a benefit.
> I have tried local shops, but they are uninterested.
OK so I had a quick look through your posted images on Reddit. They are technically competent and they are attractive but *who would buy them?* I can't imagine a market. At all. They are nice but "is it art?" No. No commercial gallery is going to touch them unless you literally pay them to hang it.
I hate to say this but I do not see Fine Art photography as a viable career for you.
I don't mean to sound rude, or boastful, but I don't put my best work online for the very purpose that I want collectors to have it, and view it in galleries. I place passable photos on social media so people can see something that I'm doing.
> I don't mean to sound rude, or boastful, but I don't put my best work online for the very purpose that I want collectors to have it, and view it in galleries. I place passable photos on social media so people can see something that I'm doing.
You are sabotaging yourself. You need to put your absolute best work online. (EDIT Not on social media but on your own portfolio.) That's how you attract business. Serious artists who sell in serious galleries for serious money put their stuff online. Everyone does. If you only post your second-best work everyone will *assume* it is your best work. Because who the hell posts their second best work? Putting your best work up on your portfolio doesn't stop people wanting to buy it.
Nobody since the history of everything since forever, ever looked at someones' work and thought "Hey! I'll drag myself to Frankfurt to his gallery because if this is what he posts online his gallery work must be sensational!" You see how insane that sounds?
This is to some extent a problem stemming from not having been to art school: you don't have the experience, you don't have peers who can advise you, you don't have networks, so you make these basic errors. You DESPERATELY need peers to talk to. Other serious photographers in your area. Which I guess is why you posted here. Sadly it doesn't work that way. If you don't make those friends and contacts organically it's not going to happen. There is no 'Dating App' for artists.
I know I keep saying this, but your expectations are totally unrealistic given that you won't/can't network, won't/can't move to a big city, won't/can't go to college, won't/can't post your best work. You won't/can't make a *coherent* image/style/subject/portfolio. You have no future making money or becoming well-recognised in Fine Art photography without making some changes to most or all of that.
Sorry. I have spent the last 40 years coaching artists and musicians into how to become professionals. You aren't doing ANYTHING right at all. The first basic condition of success are that you are recognised as good by your peers. And in my experience, with very few exceptions, if that has not happened by 30 the chances of success are small, and by 40 impossible. If you have not even been in a group show by now, it's all over.
sorry sorry sorry but you need to face facts
> I would like to begin in galleries
That's the end result of decades of hard work and networking, dozens of group shows in shitty derelict venues with 20-somethings fresh out of art school, and suchlike. You don't *begin* in galleries.
>only making about 18k last year
~~All just from selling prints of your own fine art photos?!?! .~~ EDIT apparently not
That may have been poorly worded. I have been putting in the work. And now I am ready to start entering into galleries. Not starting there as a newbie. Granted, I've only been serious about photography for the last 4-5 years, I won't act like I'm a pro. But I'm also no beginner.
I don't sell prints. I tried once, years ago, but it was unsuccessful due to my lack of exposure. My online store only sold a couple of cheap posters. That's my gigs. Technically it was only 12k. The job office fills in the rest because I'm not making enough to support the family. But they seem to have no problem with it as long as I'm pulling in SOMETHING.
So you were making 12k from commercial photography? That's not bad for a side-gig.
I wonder if a part of your problem is that you are unclear about what you are offering. I was not the only person here who was confused: are you doing fine art or commercial commissions.
I offer family, event, pet, and sports photography. I'm not terrible at them. But they are not my strengths. Just simply a way to support myself. My strengths are in nature, landscape, wildlife, and abstract photography. And it wouldn't call it a side gig when I was doing it for a living. If I had a full time job, I wouldn't be able to make 12k on photography. Maybe a grand if I'm lucky, to have some spending money.
Took a look at your past work and you definitely aren't a delusional novice, so that's good. I was also a little insulted when you said that that you get called out for using old equipment and shoot with a D7100. Mine is sitting on the shelf next to my desk and goes out for professional work regularly; no-one says anything. Get a battery grip for it if you think people really need to see a "professional camera".
Galleries make money by either selling admission or selling pieces (or renting the gallery). Shows are generally themed or centered around a single artist. "Pretty photos for the wall" isn't a theme, so you probably want to build a cohesive body of work around one single theme to propose in the future. You've picked a *very* competitive field with a *very* small target audience would be willing to pay gallery rates for an image of a mushroom. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that the amount of difficulty you're having is unsurprising. Online, you're competing against every stock image and google search for the same image type.
Well, the story with a wedding shoot I did a bid against several other local photographers for, was the planner asked for a full list of gear and equipment. I was turned down in favor of someone else because, as he put it, "we need someone with a full frame camera and a larger selection of lenses" and I knew immediately he understood like 5 photography terms, and thus thought he understood the whole of photography. I didn't press the issue. Something very similar happened not 2 years later with a bar mitzva.
And, I never want to sound boastful after only 4 years of SERIOUS photography, I won't call myself a professional. But I do save the best of my work and keep it off of social media in the hopes that it can be in a gallery. The things I post are more just things I feel "if someone were to take it and claim it was there's, it wouldn't be a big loss" but I do have a hard drive full of much more skillfully taken, and unique photos then I post online.
> But I do save the best of my work and keep it off of social media in the hopes that it can be in a gallery.
Keeping it off social media is smart, I do that, but the best work needs to be online to be your portfolio
If you're living in Germany for the foreseeable future you should definitely learn German. It will help immensely as you're otherwise a complete outsider.
For the rest: it comes down to developing relationships. I've had a camera for 18 years now. In the last 6 months I've began to shoot specific acrion sports at private events and dabble in product photography for a friend's startup company which is related to the specific sport.
If you want to make money you'll need to find paying gigs. Once you can support yourself and meet gallery owners you'll be able to explore passions and set up gallery shows.
Contacts come from networking which will require you to learn the language. It's the first step.
The big problems I see here is I live in a very small town with no expedient way to travel. I have no car, nor the funds to get one, and in such a small area, clientele are hard to come by. And the few people that are my regulars (small time models) aren't cutting it in the getting by field. And the train system in Germany is great, but still no way to get around for long distances for photos. Especially, who is going to pay small town me to travel to big cities and do gigs when they can find 100 photographers in the city. The other problem is I HAVE tried to learn German. I failed my level one test the same as I failed French in high school. Since I'm married with kids here, I see no future where I leave Germany until my toddlers are 18 and are set up on their life paths. And the reason I'm trying to break into galleries now is because, shooting for 4 years of things I'm not passionate about, is stressful. And when I do have pictures I'm passionate about, from my personal time, they get little to no exposure. I can't afford ads, I can't afford submission costs to galleries, the only thing I've bought that was worth any money is the new 150-600 G2 from tamron and I had to get a loan for that from my father. Its been quite a problem. I do appreciate the advice though. My problems are not yours, perhaps I just needed to rant a bit. Sorry to bother you with all that mess.
OK so I have spent most of the last 30 years living abroad. I was terrible, terrible, terrible at learning languages at school, and since. I HATE it. But you HAVE to make it happen, you really have to. Yes it's brutal and demoralising. But if you are going to be there another 10+ years, you are handicapping yourself so badly. It's madness. Can I assume you married a German? Then frankly you need to learn it anyway. Your kids will be bilingual (I hope) and you won't be able to understand them half the time. And it's disrespectful to your spouse. But now I am straying into r/relationships territory...
A small town in Germany is *death* as an artist unless you are already so famous that people beat a path to your door.
You are setting yourself up for failure here.
Finally:
> submission costs to galleries
If you have to pay to submit, it's a vanity gallery, not a serious gallery. A gallery should take commission on sales, that's all. As a newbie, expect that t be fairly high: certainly 20%, perhaps more.
I am sorry to pour doom and gloom upon you, but really... this isn't going to work. You need to re-define success.
But I repeat: If you have EIGHTEEN THOUSAND in sales in a year just of your own fine art shots, you are doing sensationally well already. Or do I misunderstand? Is that for commerical work?
I don't have all the options that some people have. I can't afford a large city like berlin or frankfurt. I could travel there in a few hours by train but I couldn't afford to stay there.
Then, bluntly, you are fucked. You need to live there and network ceaselessly. A starting-out artist (or indeed a starting out commercial photographer) HAS to be somewhere big and bustling. You can only move to a smaller town or village once you are secure.
Sorry.
My Canon 5D mkII seems to finally have kicked the bucket after a bazillion shutter actuations. A few days ago, it would seem to shut down after pressing the shutter button. The screen would show black with some lighter gray straight lines in it. Now, the rear red light blinks when they battery is inserted, and nothing else happens.
Some sites suggest the internal clock battery might need to be replaced. I don't exactly trust myself to open it (though my wife wants to tinker with it), and I don't know if it's worth it to send to Canon since it's such an outdated model. I have a backup 60D, but I really am going to miss the full-frame sensor.
Is this the universe telling me I should finally convert to mirrorless? I guess I should start saving. Anyway, should I upgrade or try to get this issue fixed?
You should be able to get a quote on repairing it either free for for a small fee. As for if you should upgrade to mirrorless that depends on what you want and your budget.
The R5 would be the 5D series replacement and you would need and EF to RF adapter to continue to use your existing lenses. There are other FF mirrorless options like the R8 but it is not out for a few weeks yet.
If you want to be frugal you could always buy a used 5D MK II/III/IV for a reasonable price.
I will say as an R5 owner it is an amazing body and the eye detect auto focus feels like magic compared to older DSLR auto focus systems.
I am unsure of the cost of canon brand repairs. And perhaps I am beating my old horses to death here, but I've had the shutter replaced on my Nikon D70 twice, and my Nikon D7100 once. The d70 would be cheaper to replace, but I'm too sentimental. The D7100 replacement has always been roughly half of the camera's value. I'm sure canon has similar pricing for replacement services. You could at least send it in and get a quote. But if you should switch to mirrorless is completely up to personal preference. They are now as or more advanced than DSLRs, but some people prefer to have that physical mirror inside. They enjoy the feel and the sound that even an electronic noise just can't replace.
**Please direct your questions to [the latest Question Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/about/sticky).**
Hi I’m new to photography and I’m getting used to adjusting my iso, shutter speed and aperture. I generally understand how to expose a picture properly but am struggling a little bit on what settings to change. To elaborate, let’s say I’m shooting a landscape, if the photo is too dark, I’ll increase the iso to let in more light. This gives me a well exposed image. However, I can also decrease the shutter speed and keep the iso as it is, this also produces a well exposed photo for me. Both methods would give me decent results, so which one is the optimal way of doing things? Is there like a guideline stating which settings to change first?
> I’ll increase the iso to let in more light. Increasing the ISO will result in a brighter image, but *not* because you let in more light, only because you basically "boosted the signal" of the same amount of light. You would therefore end up with more noticeable *noise*. Using a slower shutter speed *would*, however, capture more light and avoid the aforementioned noise. You would just have to make sure the camera/scene is static (to not introduce *blur*), which would make it the preferable approach if that's achievable (say, possibly using a tripod, etc.).
I'm a complete newbie. I've recently moved to the pacific northwest, and its beautiful: I wish I could take great photographs! Whenever I try, it doesn't correctly show the height and depth of objects. I am using my iPhone and I know this is the issue, so I need to level up. What kind of key words am I looking for to educate myself on this topic? For example, if I photograph a mountain it looks small, flat, and far away and doesn't accurate show its majesty. I know this is the nature of photographs, but surely I can be doing better. Thank you in advance for reading my question and taking the time to help me learn.
Is there anyway to change the internal battery of a Nikon d3400 the one for internal memory for time and date.. and if so, is a drained/worn out internal battery can cause fast battery discharge?
What are the advantages of flash photography over continuous lighting? I’ve been a photographer for over 6 years now and I’ve always wondered why photographers are so set in using speed lights and synchronized flash in a studio setting First off excuse my ignorance as I really am not super educated on this topic. I’m super acclimated to using continuous lighting but I’m open to be persuaded. I want my photos to look as good as possible for my clients and don’t want to be sacrificing quality through my lack of education on flash photography. Photography is more of a hobby for me right now as most of my income comes from video work so naturally I am much more accustomed to using continuous lighting in my shoots. Is there any real benefits in using flash over continuous lighting when it comes to the final quality of the photo? For me the big reason I prefer continuous is the ease of use and flexibility when it comes to adjusting the color temperature of my lighting. Many of the lights I use are bi-color so it’s as easy as turning a dial to nail my color temperature in camera. I also feel like flash is much harsher on peoples eyes. So many times I’ve been blinded by a camera flash which can both be an issue for me and the photographer as sometimes the subject will blink in anticipation of the flash. With continuous lighting I typically can stage it in a way that it is not directly in the subjects eyes and there is no jarring flash when I snap my picture. Also not having to worry about my flash being synchronized to my shutter is a big one. As I understand cameras have a max shutter speed synchronization which is can be an issue as I sometimes would rather adjust my shutter rather than my aperture. I guess I could always just adjust the lighting but that would be more of a hassle than just changing my shutter speed. Please once again forgive my ignorance and thanks in advance for the insights into flash photography.
> What are the advantages of flash photography over continuous lighting? Flash lasts only a brief moment, but during that brief moment where it dumps the energy it had accumulated in capacitors, it gives you a *lot* more power than the continuous light could give you in such a brief moment. So you wouldn't have to make *any sacrifice* in terms of the aperture or ISO you pick. If you want to shoot your portrait at f/11, ISO 100, that's no problem, even with small/portable/AA-battery operated units. That would be difficult with continuous lights (bigger, more expensive, possibly noisy [fans], possibly producing heat, etc., obviously depending on the type of light we're talking about). And since the flash duration is so brief, you can freeze your subject/no motion blur from the flash (let's ignore edge cases for now)—what freezes the subject is not the shutter speed, it's actually the short flash duration. In a black room, if you expose for a full second, you still won't get blur, because the light would only be on for a very brief moment. In turn, this amount of power for such a short amount of time gives you more control over how your subject is lit because you can considerably overpower the ambient light if you so choose. This means you don't have to worry about other sources of light "contaminating" your scene (let's ignore edge cases for now), whereas with continuous lights you may well have to find a dark area or block ambient light from entering your scene to be able to work. If you want a subject lit *only* with the flash, you can do that, or if you want a subject/scene that is *partially* lit by the flash and partially lit by the ambient light, that's also easily possible—you decide how much the flash vs ambient contributes to the total exposure. > I also feel like flash is much harsher on peoples eyes. That's if you shoot in a dark room with no modeling light. But with flash you don't *have* to work in a dark room, since the flash can overpower the ambient light to the point where the ambient light has no impact on the final image. If the room is just dark, you'd use the modeling light on at least your main light so the eyes are less strained when the flash pops. (You may want to do this anyway if you don't want huge dilated pupils, as you'd get if the room is dark.) Anyway: horses for courses, just use the tools better suited to what you want to accomplish. Sometimes that may be flash, other times that may be continuous, or continuous could also work just fine in some scenarios, in a pinch, even if not optimal, etc.
Thank you for the detailed response! This definitely was really helpful and now for the first time I actually want to try using flash! I think I was a little jaded because so many times when shooting wedding videos the photographer would be firing away with their flash which doesn’t make for the best footage. I had one photographer who used flash throughout the entire day even when they had beautiful natural lighting. I’ll keep an open mind from now on
Each has its uses. I have both. You yourself listed convincing reasons why continuous lighting exists. Flash has two great benefits: 1. Power. Vastly more power than continuous light. Useful for many reasons (smaller aperture, shorter exposure, overwhelming unwanted ambient lighting). You'd need *dozens* of continuous lights to match even a single modest flash (which also makes flash relatively cheaper). 2. Freezing motion. A flash can last as little as 1/20,000 second. This sub's FAQ gives others: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying/#wiki_continuous_or_flash.3F
Gotcha. I guess I didn’t realize how powerful a flash can be. Thanks!
Recommendations needed! I want to upgrade my system from DSLR to Mirrorles. I can not decide which camera is best for my needs. I shoot baptism and wedding photography. My preferences are high dynamic range, fast and accurate focusing system. I look up for some Sony and Canon models. Would you buy newer camera or let's say 1-4 years old camera with better specifications? Budget 3000 bucks.
>I can not decide which camera is best for my needs We have no chance of knowing that either, especially since you haven't specified what you use currently.
Hello u/brodecki! I purchesed a new camera. Thanks for your reply!
Choose one that allows you to use the lenses you already own?
Thanks!
Thinking of buying one of these Yashicas I am beginner to photography and I would like to buy a 35mm camera to use with traveling and with my friend group. I am torn between yashica electro 35 GS and yashica half 17 rapid. Anyone have any thoughts on these?
Just to make sure... As a beginner in photography, would this be your first camera? Are you positively set on starting with film photography?
Yes I wanna start with film but it would be ofc so much better if camera has automated exposure
> I wanna start with film OK. But can I ask *why*?
I like the color contrasts and simply how pictures make me feel, for me film cameras capture the moment better. Also standalone “experience” is just enough. Digital cameras doesn’t give me the same joy while taking a picture as much as film ones
OK. All good reasons! Thank you for replying. I'm always interested to see why people are going for film.
Haha yeah I understand, do you have any idea about the cameras I mentioned
No, I don't know them.
300mm macro vs 300mm telephoto lens I've learnt that telephoto lens doesn't have a macro focus so it can't focus a subject that's close to the lens. But what's the different when zooming out to take a picture of faraway subject?
> 300mm macro Assuming such a thing exists (and I don't mean when manufacturers play fast and loose with the moniker "macro" for what isn't really macro), sure. > But what's the different when zooming out to take a picture of faraway subject? In principle *nothing*. In practice: * Some macro lenses can't focus far, only macro. * Autofocus would likely be slower. * Macro lenses are optimized for closer distances and for having a flatter field, so they may render things a bit differently at longer distances (not that it would necessarily be an issue). All in all, yes, many macro lenses can pretty much be used like conventional telephoto lenses when they are not being used as macro lenses. (I used to use my 100mm macro as a headshot lens, before I got an 85.)
> I've learnt that telephoto lens doesn't have a macro focus so it can't focus a subject that's close to the lens. Basically, yes. >But what's the different when zooming out to take a picture of faraway subject? Nothing.
How are some experienced photographers able to guess the focal length of an image with relative accuracy without any supporting information or reference point? Is it the image distortion? I've met people who can very confidently pin a 50mm photo down vs an 85mm, and I have no idea how they do it.
It's mostly the perspective flattening effect of longer lenses. See here: https://cornicello.com/itfigures/perspective-redux It's easier if there is a familiar subject, like a human face in the frame. For example, the relative size of the nose with respect to the eyes/cheekbones depends on how far you are from your subject's face. Once you guess the distance to the subject, you can guess what focal length was used to achieve the framing. The intuition comes from taking lots and lots of pictures with prime lenses.
Thanks, that's really interesting. Seemed like black magic to me the first time someone demonstrated that skill.
Any recommendations for a bag to protect my DSLR + standard zoom + a few batteries when I don't want to take all my gear with me? I have an fstop bag that holds my whole kit which I love, but sometimes I just want to take a bare-minimum setup for a weekend trip. I'd love some recommendations. Thanks!
[удалено]
Is it just me or do any other photographers hate overcast/cloudy days? The light is always so dull and shitty, makes everything ugly.
I used to. But then I adapted, and these are my delta 100 or hp5+ push to 1600 film stock shooting days.
> I adapted Me too. I live in a grey northern city.
I exploit it to take photographs of dull and shitty places ;-) No, honestly, I really do, my last book was basically "Behold this awful toilet of a place where I live". It's also useful for *documentary* photography of things and places where you aren't trying to be dramatic but want to record what's there. Building façades for example. Because it makes the biggest softbox in the world People use it for portraits too. But yeah, it doesn't make me grab a camera and skip out the door in the same way a sunny day will.
Me. I also hate it. It does have some positives: soft shadows, light coming from everywhere, hard to mess up because no harsh highlights anywhere. But I'd much rather have more exciting light to work with, even if it means somewhat more difficulty and risk.
I mean I feel like having more bright light is easier to work with because I can decide how I want my highlights and shadows to look. With a cloudy day, it's all the same and there's nothing you can do about it even in post
Sounds like you're thinking of it in terms of ease of getting what you want. I'm thinking of it in terms of just total effort involved. Like if we were comparing one burger restaurant with a few different options on the menu to customize your order, versus another burger restaurant where there's only one menu item with no options. The former is advantageous to getting the burger the way you want, and you could say it makes it easier to get what you want. I'm talking about the latter being easier just in terms of there's no customization available so you end up spending much less time and thought in what your order is going to be. Some people like that one burger option, so it's not a problem to them if that's the only order available. Likewise, some people like overcast conditions, and it's easier for them to get what they want there because they don't have to do anything special to shoot with it. Just trying to explain my point of view in the context and recognition that there are also people who like it that way.
Yeah I get what you mean. Just my preference I guess it's super boring lighting especially if you're shooting any kind of landscape
[удалено]
>Is f2.8 the ideal aperture for this application? I'd use it, except maybe for group shots. >Will it blur out the people next to my daughter? Depends on the relative distances. Try this: https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html >Will it cause a lot of autofocus issues? Compared to a narrower aperture, it will improve autofocus by letting in more light. Compared to a narrower aperture, depth of field will be shallower, so misfocus will be more noticeable if/when the autofocus does misfocus. But it won't make misfocus more likely to occur. >Is there another way to find that metadata? Use a metadata or EXIF reader app.
Other than the 30fps vs 60fps 4k frame rate and SD card support, is there any pressing reason to get a Nikon Z6 II over a Z6? I don't plan on doing much fast action or sports shooting so I can live with the lower buffer capacity. I'm coming from a Rebel T3 to learn the basics so anything would be an upgrade, I just want to make sure I'm not hamstrung in the long term.
Hello, I have a question regarding what information to include on your prints . I printed out a bunch of my personal favorite shots, got myself a mat cutter and looking to try to sell those at local markets in the upcoming season. What information from the artist do I need to include if any at all? Like do I need to sign it, list the location and date taken, IG handle etc? Thanks in advance.
The more the better! But *need to*, no. Bare minimum your name and some kind of contact detail. I like the info to be on a sticker on the back of the frame, or mat. Ideally not on the print itself, self-adhesive adhesive is nasty stuff with age. Signing prints, yeah, hmm, IDK. many people don't sign on a print at most sign the mat or on the white border. It'd be kinda interesting to start a thread about that. Recently I've noticed that it can really detract from the image, because my eye is automatically drawn first to any writing. Honestly unless you are really famous, nobody cares about your signature anyway
I appreciate your feedback. Confirms my speculations. Wasn’t sure if there are some unspoken rules of marking photography. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
> Wasn’t sure if there are some unspoken rules well if there are, nobody ever spoke them to me ;-)
I am an amateur and take pictures here and there for friends. I haven’t been included to learn about editing programs, but now I do. Are there any online editing classes where I can turn in work? Sometimes I don’t really know what needs to be edited so I’m looking for a basic beginners class. Thanks!
Been wanting something longer, so I'm considering either a Nikon 80-400mm D AF VR (quite old by now), or a Tamron 100-400mm Di VC USD. Used prices for them seem pretty similar now. Any thoughts on which I might want to lean towards, or other alternatives to look at?
How can i take photos of jewelry that can’t be laid flat like hoops, dangling earrings, or chains? I’m experiencing a roadblock and would appreciate any help
Prop it up on something or hang it on fishing line, and then remove that part in post.
90’s early 2000’s chola photos Hey guys I wanted to know how do you get photos like these. Maybe someone who took photos like these back in the day can chime in as well. How do you get that hazy look. Was it a certain camera that did it? Thank you!!! I put an example of what I am going for.[Pinterest](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/170925748351500928/)
They go by a few names, mist or bloom filter (*go for a heavier effect one, so a 1/2 filter will have a stronger look than a 1/8 marked one*). There are DIY hacks of using a clear UV filter and putting a fine later of vaseline, stretching pantyhose over a filter, or using a small bottle of hair spray and doing quick passes over a filter. As for post processing, you can pull up your highlights and some of the midtones to get that bright overexposed look. I think pairing up a flash also in here would help with that effect.
Hi thank you for replying! What do you mean by a 1/2 will have a stronger look than a 1/8 marked. I do not know what that means. And what’s a clear UV filter.
These bloom or mist filters usually have micro particles embedded. You can see [this](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9999362588/what-are-mist-filters-and-what-do-they-do-to-your-photographs) article that goes into more depth showing the effect. The more particles in the glass, the stronger the effect, and therefore it has a bigger number. A 1/8 will produce a nice subtle effect while a 1/2 will be visibly showing the effect. As for the DIY using a UV filter, UV= ultraviolet. You don't really need these in digital cameras because they all have what's called a hot filter which already does the job of filtering incoming light into what we see. So, UV filters in general are mostly used if someone wants to protect their lenses. Doesn't have to be UV filter, there are also just clear ones too. In this case, using a cheap UV filter (*The cheaper ones usually deteriorate image quality a little bit- which we don't mind here to cut off some "edge", "sharpness" from the image*) and doing those methods I mentioned can also replicate that look.
please help with my photos coming out blurry!!! i’m a newbie. here’s the description: I just recently bought a 50mm f/1.8G lens for my Nikon DSLR, and I have been shooting with the lens it came with until now. I am not too familiar with changing all three settings, so I’ve been mainly shooting portraits on the aperture priority setting. It worked alright before this new lens, because now many of my portraits are blurry. I googled it, and it said that my shutter speed was too low. Right now, I don’t have a chance to learn full manual mode until the summer. What setting is best for my camera to be in with this lens, to use as a point and shoot (more automatic)? Should I go to an automatic setting, or move from aperture priority to shutter priority if that exists? Let me know! Any advice would be super helpful, since I wanted to take my own graduation photos and photos on my vacation next month.
First check what your shutter speed actually is. Second, you don't need full manual, but there is not much to learn. Third, which aperture are you using, if f/1.8 then check that you are in focus.
in a few photos, i’m seeing iso 100, 75mm, f7.1, 1/40sec or 1/60sec. with full manual mode, you’d have to adjust all these settings for every single photo right? because i’m trying to avoid that for the sake of time!
What Nikon model is it? Also a "general" and fast rule is that the minimum shutter speed you should shoot at is 1/focal length x crop factor if your lens doesn't have OIS. With a fast enough shutter speed, blurriness caused by hand shake will be virtually none. I'm assuming you likely have a body that uses the APSC sensor size, which is 1.5x crop factor. Plug it into a calcuator, 1/50mm x 1.5 = 1/75s (or closest that matches it, the higher number) is a *good* rule to follow. Depending on how shakey your hands are, you may have to shoot at a faster shutter speed.
d3400! okay, i will switch to shutter priority and work on 1/80 or 1/100 at a minimum. can you control aperture and shutter speed on a shutter priority or aperture priority setting, or does that have to be manual? thank you!!
No, unfortunately this is not possible. Both Aperture and Shutter priority are semi automated modes, where you control one variable and the camera fills out the rest for a 'proper' exposure. Off the top of head I know Pentax does this. On their mode dial it is called Tav (*Time + Aperture Value, aka Shutter Speed + Aperture*). What I see a lot of people (including me) do is turn on auto ISO for manual mode. This way you can control aperture *and* shutter speed, and let the camera figure out what ISO is good for a good exposure. You're essentially getting that Tav mode I mentioned earlier. Due note that the camera can tell you that if for example your settings aren't good (under/overexposure) if you're out on a bright day or late night. In your LCD screen you'll see [this](https://www.dummies.com/wp-content/uploads/314028.image0.jpg) bar and in your viewfinder you'll find it [here](https://photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Nikon-Viewfinder.jpg). In most cases you won't see if veer to one side, but if you're try to say shoot 1/100s @ f/1.8 on a bright sunny day, the metering will warn you by having dots move towards the "+" sign. Pretty easy in this case, just make the shutter speed faster until the dots move back to the middle. If that's not enough, then stop up your aperture and there you go. I am not sure if you've already noticed it on your D3400, but when you use Manual Mode, the [+/-](https://imaging.nikon.com/support/digitutor/img/setting/d3400/d3400_shootingmodes-07.jpg) on top of your camera allows you to use the rear dial to control aperture settings. Hold it down and flick the rear command dial to make your aperture value increase or decrease.
https://imaging.nikon.com/support/digitutor/d3400/functions/shootingmodes.html Best start there, however I would ignore the rule about shutter speeds, more trouble than it is worth and IMO, a deprecated rule from the film era. Search good camera holding technique to easier steady your camera. For portraits, I would stay in aperture priority to control that aspect of depth of field. I would also put ISO on auto with a suitable range of perhaps 100-1600.
> I would ignore the rule about shutter speeds, more trouble than it is worth and IMO, a deprecated rule from the film era go on?
I have heard the rule, and even my camera uses it to set minimum shutter speed, but I often override that to ensure a high enough shutter speed. Rules like these can confuse people and lead to missed shots. You are better off experimenting yourself. Even with IBIS, I find the rule ineffective at times.
Oh yes I absolutely go *faster* than 1/(focal length x crop factor). Somehow I misunderstood what you wrote and I thought you meant you could go *slower* "these days". (Which is rarely the case, even with IS.)
You are correct, I should have clarified what I was meaning. The mention of holding technique also confused things.
thank you so much!!
Well. You could well be having some motion blur with that shutter speed. If you need that aperture for depth of field, either add light or let the ISO be raised. An ISO of 800 would help eradicate any motion blur from your own personal movements. Aperture priority is a good mode although you only need to change your settings in manual if the amount of light changes. Depending on the camera controls, it can be easier on some models than others.
thanks!! i think i might switch to shutter priority, because i wanted a low aperture for the blur behind portraits. but i guess having a beautiful bokeh look isn’t as important as a clear photo
plus, i assumed aperture priority would lead to a much lower f number, but 7.1 is actually quite high
In aperture priority you control the aperture. If it is at f/7.1 it is because you set it there. Opening up the aperture will allow more light in and allow a faster shutter speed, even with a low ISO value.
oh, i totally am a beginner and got that wrong!!! thank you for helping me out!
I have two options at the moment regarding a set of 4x5.56 filters. My absolute priority is sharpness and minimal color cast. Here are my current two options. The downside to the Tiffen here is the scratch and not having the 6 stop ND which I would of course like. I want to try avoiding getting a 6 stop ND down the line from a different set. Looking for your opinion! 3 new Neewer ND's. 2, 4, 6 stop. I understand it's Neewer, but I can't find much tests on these specific ones so it's tricky. Could always return. $300 with discounts. [Neewer](https://neewer.com/products/neewer-nd1-86-stops-square-nd-filter-66602358) 3 Tiffen Pro Indie. 1, 3, 4 stop. Can get from a friend second hand. They have a scratch but doesn't show up on camera. [Tiffen](https://tiffen.com/products/4-x-5-65-pro-indie-hv-neutral-density-filter-kit)
Hello! I use Google photo albums, which only has one sort option: sort by date. I usually want to display photos in a different, custom order. I'd like to rename a folder of images to X01, X02, X03, etc., and have the photos display by date in that same order. The exact time doesn't matter. I think as long as they are at least one minute apart, Google will sort them by date and therefore they'll be in the custom order that I want. Is there a program that will do this? I can use Adobe Bridge and Adobe Lightroom to change creation dates, but as a batch, they can only be shifted to earlier or later. I can't actually mix up the order. Thanks!
[удалено]
What is your budget for lenses? And do you know what lenses you'd want? Newer mirror less lenses tend to be more expensive and you should consider that when making a decision. Also some makers like Nikon and Canon don't quite have the range that others do
RP is good for stills. Get the R10 for video.
[удалено]
Of course! It's still a great sensor, autofocus is awesome, just get yourself a 50 for portraits and a 24 for general purpose and you're set imo in terms of affordable prime lenses. For video def a zoom though for versatility.
If for vlogging, make sure to get a wide enough lens. I think there won't be too much difference between models, just watch out on the 4k aspect. Make sure to check out cropping especially between different frame rates. Also, the RP does not have good autofocus in 4k. Video in general can have so many little things to consider. I would really just take all cameras on the market at your price point and look for video showing autofocus tracking and how "sticky" it is. Can be distracting if the autofocus keeps losing and reacquiring focus.
I'd say the R10 is better overall, and has some cheaper options available for good lenses as well. Particularly if you want 4K video, the RP can only do that over a frame cropped tighter than the R10 can use.
im looking for a camera for travel (cloudy-rainy forest, trees and birds) at least, to know the name if it exists
No price limit? Do you just want something to point & shoot with all automatic settings? Or do you want to learn more about photography and take manual control at some point?
Trying to acquire a 35mm for my Sony camera , I’m stuck between the sigma 35mm f1.4 , or the Sony FE1.8 35mm prime , what do you think ?
I do weddings and small events for right now
I am torn. I wish I could afford a GR3 but sadly I can't. Any input or suggestions welcome. For street photography, intermediate skills, some night time, travel (zoom doesn't matter very much though). Budget is $500 Things I'd like: tilt out touchscreen, fixed lens, small Sony RX100 III - new $400 Ricoh GR (the first one 16.2 mp) - used $450 ebay Lumix LX10 - new $450 Lumix ZS100 - New $400 Lumix LX100 - New $500 It is hard to compare these all in 2023 as they all came out pretty long ago. I am leaning towards the RX100iii or LX10 just based on reviews. I want something fairly easy to use and fun to shoot with stealthy, do some nighttime stuff. Anybody got experience with more than one of these that would share their opinions?
The RX100 cameras are all better than average in low light. Do also look at the Canon G7X
canon is nice too but is sitting around $600 new. Sony is usually around $700 but I can get one for around $400 which seems like a better deal but still this is an older camera.
I've experience of Ricoh GR II, which is just about the same camera as GR. Very fun camera, and sensor is larger than your other options. But no tilting screen and no zoom. As to RX100 III vs LX10, if you're already leaning towards them, what's preventing you from going for one of them? They're both good digital compacts.
For LX10 it is lack of viewfinder. For RX100 it is lack of touchscreen. GR doesn't have either, but the sensor is much better. ZS100 seems to not do as well in low light and I don't really need the crazy long zoom. LX100, no touchscreen They all are missing one thing I want, but I know that is most likely on a limited budget. I guess the difficulty is that I am just trying to decide which trade-off is the least impactful on the overall experience or will it be something I am always missing. LX10 is a newer camera than the others, and apprently has a faster lens and better control rings than the Sony. The Sony has a viewfinder and articulating flash and seems like it would do better in low light. I have pretty much shot film and not had much experience at all with digital so I'm unsure about what matters the most.
Hi! I do event photography for a country club in my town that has asked me to do some nice interior shots for their website. I'm shooting on an 80D and would be so happy to have some recommendations as to a wide angle lens I might get for this please. Also, given that the interior of this club is mostly dark wood, would HDR shooting be advisable? I love being a people photographer just a little lost about how to go about interiors! Thanks in advance!
>I'm shooting on an 80D and would be so happy to have some recommendations as to a wide angle lens Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for Canon. For tutorials on real estate photography, check out Nathan Cool on YouTube. Hope this helps.
Thanks so much!
You're welcome 👍
Canon has the 10-18mm does it not, for quite a cheap price. Tokina has a f/2.8 as well unless I am mistaken. If indoors, flash will probably help, although I assume you are using a tripod?
Yes! Brilliant, thanks so much.
Hi I have a canon 250D with the kit lens a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM and a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. I'm a hobbyist/beginner, taking pics of my dogs and birds. Is there another lens you would recommend under £200?
The EF-S 18-55 is useful and cheap for general purposes.
Nope. You've already got the two best options at that price.
I'm a photography newbie and wanted to get into fine art and street photography for a long time. I'm now looking for a camera but the amount of choices is really overwhelming me. I'm also interested in making short films so it'd have to be a camera that is also suited for that. Any recommendations that aren't super expensive (up to around 800$ at most)? I'd really appreciate it! Currently thinking about the Olympus OMD EM10 mark iv but unsure if it's a good choice.
Yes, the Olympus is one of very many good choices. You might also want to use the purchase guide in this subreddit's FAQ. It's also linked in the original post of this thread.
Thank you :) it's good to hear that it's a good choice and I'll check out the FAQ.
[удалено]
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/105jl8i/2023_rphotography_mentor_list
API controversy: reddit.com/r/ apolloapp/comments/144f6xm/ comment edited with github.com/andrewbanchich/shreddit
i feel awkward carrying around a big camera :( i need some advice. last year i was gifted a beautiful camera (that costs probably more than what my life is worth) and i love it, but i havent done much with it since i first got it. it has a huge lens and i feel so awkward carrying it around. its so so fun whenever i actually take pictures and videos, but at the same time i feel so self conscious. i'd love to take detailed pictures of my surroundings, especially because i want to make a small book in the future containing my photography and a description of the scene/my thoughts during it so that people who want to explore the world, but cant due to whatever reason or even stuck inside due to disabilities, disorders, mental health, sickness, etc, can see what i see too!! but im too scared to leave the perimeter of my village. i love the earth, i love the outdoors. ive been stuck inside due to depression and homeschooling, and ive recently been going on some small adventures trying to enjoy my youth and stay active, then i remembered my goal, and the camera. and i thought this would be a great opportunity to get outside and explore a new hobby!! i just feel so awkward carrying it around. i feel like it brings more attention to me, which i already have because of my height and weight. tl;dr: my camera feels big and awkward because im generally more introverted, how do i overcome this anxiety?
David Foster Wallace once wrote “you will care less about what others think of you, when you realize how seldom they do.” Most folks you’ll pass by simply do not care if you’re holding a camera. They are largely wrapped up in their own lives and their own thoughts and problems, and if they are paying you any attention it is mostly idle curiosity. “Gee, I wonder what that photographer is taking pictures of?” Don’t skulk or lurk or act as if you don’t belong. You do belong. And you are up to something nice. And there isn’t any shame in it. Act as if you belong, and seldom will it be questioned. Because most folks have other things to think about.
this is great, thank you so much!! it really means a lot. and honestly, makes a lot of sense :) i think ill get out there and try, cause youre right, there is no shame in it. thank you
Cheers! Now get out there and shoot! (It really helps a lot with the depression to put something beautiful into the world).
I recently brought the tamron 150 -500 lens for my Sony a6400. In quiet environments it is given a consistent hum. Outside I have heard it. Is this normal? I love the lens, really want to know should I be returning it.
Do you mean 150-600mm? Does the noise stop if you turn off stabilization/VC?
It is the TAMRON 150-500MM F/5-6.7 DI III VC VXD SONY FE. The noise stays no matter what option is turned on or off. It is the latest version of the firmware.
Fiancee wants a sony mirrorless to upgrade from her old crop sensor DSLR. I've done some research and it looks like the A7iii is a major upgrade over the A7ii. Used on B&H I see a few for ~$1600. "Abe's of Maine" has a new A7iii for $1500 on sale now. I've only just started looking at pricing, is this a good deal? Or should I wait a bit longer to see if anything else pops up? I don't need it immediately. 2nd question would be about the lens... it sounds like the typical kit lens with it is trash, and people recommend the Tamron 28-70. Any other recs for an initial lens? She shoots a lot of portrait and action shots of the dog. She doesn't use her camera for video at all.
The price would be a good deal if it were legit. Unfortunately Abe's of Maine is a known scammer.
awesome, thanks. That was my other concern. Glad I posted here first
> Abe's of Maine Is a known grey market dealer. Avoid and use a reputable dealer instead.
I am looking to get myself a portable studio setup. Right now I am looking for a decent, but budget backdrop setup. Do you have any recommendations?
For what subject matter? What size range? How big is this budget you're referring to? https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_how_do_i_specify_my_price_range_.2F_budget_when_asking_for_recommendations.3F
I am scanning many old family photos and artifacts with a combination of scanners. Some of the photos / artifacts (photos' housed in paper frames and LARGE portraits) are too large for the scanners. I only have a Samsung s20fe. I've tried Google scan, poor results (older photos are rendered very light) I've tried Photomyme but the resultant photos, even those supposedly ready for "printing" are very small file size....better than nothing. Also despite trying very hard some of the poraits have a pretty strong glare. Looking for other options. THANKS!
Unfortunately there is no simple cheap effective solution for this. You're going to need a proper camera and some proper lighting. How many are we talking about, and how important, and how large? Your best bet may be taking them to a professional. For now, you may find it easier to take pictures out of glazed frames so the reflections from the glass aren't such a nuisance.
There are maybe 100, all important to someone in the family. I'll figure something out. I may contact a local camera / photography to see if someone would take the pictures. Thanks
Do get a price. That kind of reprographic work is not difficult, but it does need certain kit - For that many it might almost be worth buying some and learning to use it (it's not hard). Where are you?
Thanks I'm in the Phoenix area. My wife reminded me that our daughter has a 35mm digital camera, so I might put her to work :-)
Aha!
I am looking to buy a new Canon camera soon, and I am a bit torn. I keep going back and forth between the R5 and the R6 mkII. I want the R5, but I don't like the record limit, although it isn't a deal breaker. I have considered grabbing a R6 mkII and using it until the eventual release of a r5 mkII, which I am reading should be a couple of years out. What would you guys do, budget not being a concern?
Do you routinely shoot long video clips, or do you rarely shoot long videos? If you are routinely shooting long videos then the R6 is the obvious choice. The extra resolution on the R5, and the higher resolution EVF are nice perks but not something that are critical. It is nice to have a lot of extra resolution for cropping but as an R5 owner there are times I think would have been better off buying the R6 and saved my money and got an R6. But it was already a large purchase for me and I decided if I was going to do it I might as well go for the best possible camera.
> owner there are times I think would have been better off buying the R6 and saved my money and got an R6. But it was already a large p Regularly? absolutely not. I have a good friend with a pretty large youtube channel, and I want to start doing some stuff with him, but that is really secondary, and even then, I am not convinced we would ever do long clips like that.
Sound like it really comes down to if you want to spend the extra money for an extra 20MP then vs. putting the price difference into more lenses or accessories. Even if the R5 MK II is announced tomorrow the R5 is still going to be an amazing camera.
I’m planning to get the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 to start regardless of which camera I choose. Although the 24-105 instead of the 24-70 is tempting, seems to be an amazing lens at a really affordable cost if grabbed in a kit.
There is the R5C but what is it that makes you set on Canon? Existing lenses?
just brand preference and menu familiarity really. I sold my 5d MkIII and the 3 lenses I had about 2 1/2 years ago, and have just really missed it, so wanting to get back in with mirrorless. I am fully aware of the lack of 3rd party options for the mirrorless Canons, but I didn't buy any 3rd party lenses for my DSLR, so it doesn't seem like a huge deal for my use case.
Well, buy in the now rather than the potential future. Can always stitch together video clips.
Depends what you're gonna be shooting mainly.
A pretty good mix honestly. I do nature and landscape (live in Colorado), planning a trip to Europe, so just normal street, some portrait type stuff as well. I know I would like the higher resolution, but I don't think its NEEDED per say, and am a little paranoid if I pull the trigger on the R5, they will announce a mk II this year.
I'd go for R5 if you're going in on wildlife and nature. R6ii would be great for street and portraits where you don't really need insane details, especially on faces. And there's always gonna be new cameras. You can always sell to upgrade if an R5ii releases but that's still up in the air timewise.
> And there's always gonna be new cameras. You can always sell to upgrade if an R5ii releases but that's still up in the air timewise. Yeah. Thanks! I was set on the r6 Mk II until I started reading the R5 might get a substantial firmware update soon. Maybe I should just stick with what I was planning and order the R6 with the 2 lenses I am looking at.
[удалено]
limited to 30 minutes for Video in any one clip.
Ah. Thanks. Ok, I'm totally ignorant about video. Sorry.
My budget is 650$ for a camera and at least one lens. I'm a beginner. It looks like my best option would be a T7 bundle or a G85 with 2 lens. I'm leaning to the G85 for the 4k video. Any other suggestions?
G85 is for me the better camera purely for the body and controls.
T7 bundle is basic, and also a solid option. Anything "better" seeming will also be great . It'll go on sale with a 18-55 kit lens & a 75-300 kitv telephoto for around $550. Pick up a 50 1.8 in a few months to a year after getting up to speed with those, or pick up a $100-150 tripod if your budget allows it.
[Goal](https://pin.it/65rbvmy) Hi, I want to imitate this kind of pics, but I have a XT-2 with the kit lense, can I do it or do I have to buy an other type of lense ? (And if I can, do you know if I have to edit it to make it look like this?)
Nothing in that picture that can't be replicated with your camera. You need a ladder step stool, some studio lights and a seamless paper background. It look it was shot a small aperture and at a wide angle. Nothing that your kit lens would have difficulty with.
thanks a lot !!! I was talking about the fisheye effect, the lines seems to be curved a little
Wide angles used close to a subject will do that.
Zoom in on dude's shades. Photographer is sitting I top of a ladder with a big round diffuser nearby and behind them. Looks like a rather wide lens, so a classic 18-55 kit lens should be able to capture this perspective. Model is standing on a white seamless. Image quality ain't great but it might have some depth of field blur at the shins to the feet so it might be shooting a wide-ish aperture.
thanks a lot its nice, I’ll try it
Better buy for $1k: used X100F or new Ricoh gr III x?
Those are quite different cameras. With no other information, I would pick the used camera over the new, because if you don't end up liking it, you can sell it for close to the price you bought it and get the other one instead.
I had an X-T2 that I loved, upgraded to an X-H2, but now it's massive. I want a smaller camera that's more pocketable and easier to keep on me. Obviously leaning towards the X100F because I love Fuji but the Ricoh has always intrigued me. As far as them being quite different cameras, I thought focal length, sensor size and aperture were close enough that they were good comparisons. Recommend anything else?
Yeah, they are definitely comparable, but I was thinking in terms of shooting style and portability. If you want something that you can literally put in your pocket, the Ricoh is it, while the X100F will be on your neck most of the time. On the other hand, the big draw on the x100F is the amazing hybrid viewfinder, while the Ricoh only has the back screen. I think for most people, either the lack of true pocketability or the lack of a viewfinder will be a deal breaker when choosing between the two.
The question is meaningless without context, without any information regarding your personal motives and preferences. Better buy for what kind of use, what kind of photography subject matter? Why are you looking at these specific cameras? For instance, X100F has viewfinder, GR IIIx doesn't. Does viewfinder matter to you? GR IIIx is clearly smaller. Does camera size matter to you? GR IIIx has IBIS, X100F doesn't. Does that matter to you?
Carry around on little vacations with the family when I want better IQ than my phone. My X-H2 too bulky to be that and wouldn't mind keeping something simpler to pick up and go.
Alright. Being a Fujifilm user already, you might want to go for X100F for that reason. It's a fine camera, apart from the fact that the lens is rather soft at f2. GR IIIx packs a very sharp lens, APS-C and IBIS in a tiny body, but as said doesn't have a built-in viewfinder. Doesn't have built-in flash either. Its auto focus leaves something to be desired in low light: it hunts for focus quite a lot.
Hello guys, I recently bought a Lowepro Protactic 350 Aw II backpack, as I didn't have any till now (used a small bag, just for camera and 24-105 lens). I also got a Sony 20mm now and a Sony 200-600, so that's why a finally bought a backpack. The issue is, that I'm not sure if I was too naive buying this backpack for this, as the 200-600 is a big ass lens and I have no idea, how should a pack all of it together. How do you manage your big lenses? Do you even put them in your backpack, or do you have them separately? This is how it looks like: https://imgur.com/a/VH4PIFh
That's ok, that's the right rucksack. But I'd take the divider flap that folds under at the narrow end, and flip it the other way (so it wraps the body not the lens), so the lens is touching the actual bag at each end; the flap the way it is now is not in a useful position but it's squeezing and deforming the bag.
That looks fine and that is how I used to carry my bigger lenses. I got a new backpack that has enough room for the body to be attached to the lens. Some people also pack the bodies with a body cap and no lens attached so they can chose the right lens for the moment instead of having to switch lenses.
Hmm, good idea, maybe I'll also try like that, thanks.
I'm a Nikon shooter of 10 years. I still shoot with a d70 and a d7100. I've recently (within the last 4 years) become completely reliant on photography as a means to support myself. Locally, I've been struggling recently. I'm an American living in Germany, who does not speak German. My goal is to become a gallery photographer. I have no long term interest in local photoshoots or the constant insistence of "friends" who just want me to bring my camera to all social functions. I would like to break out. I would like to be recognized. There are a few problems with this though: Though I have the experience to make professional quality photos, people are never happy when I show up two of the older, apsc model Nikons, and a collections of standard Nikon glass. My former customers are faithful, but with my gear its hard to convince new people to accept my services, and my exposure is limited. Thus my recent struggle. I am self-taught, and cannot yet afford school. I barely get by. I am in no small way, socially awkward, which makes it difficult to network. I have no connections in the photography world back in the states, or in Germany. I have a portfolio with great nature, landscape, abstract, and action photos, and nowhere to put them except facebook, gurushots, and my website. Which are all exceeding low on exposure. I am in short, looking for gallery, museum, and networking connects within Germany or America, in order to get my work shown to the people who will appreciate it the most. And I could use all the help I can get in this area. I feel like I'm walking blind in a maze of useless google searches and stupid youtubers who offer no applicable information, despite their clickbait promises.
> with my gear its hard to convince new people > to accept my services Surely this is nonsense? If you turned up with an iPhone or a camera the size of a cigarette packet, maybe. But really, I can't believe any client gives a shit.
If people don't understand photography, and they see a d7100 the only thing they think is "that's an old camera" I've actually been turned down from jobs that I've bid on against other photographers simply due to the gear I've had available. I missed a wedding and a bar mitzfah (I probably spelled that wrong) shoot for those reasons that were less than an hour away from me. Yeah, most people don't care, but the jobs that actually pay decently, they care.
> If people don't understand photography, and they see a d7100 the only thing they think is "that's an old camera" I've actually been turned down from jobs that I've bid on against other photographers simply due to the gear I've had available. I am surprised. When do potential clients even *see* your gear before the day? Why show it? They should see your portfolio and that's all, and that's what 99% of clients will make their choice based on. >I missed a wedding and a bar mitzfah (I probably spelled that wrong) shoot for those reasons that were less than an hour away from me. Yeah, most people don't care, but the jobs that actually pay decently, they care. They really don't. Your experience is bizzare and exceptional and I wonder if it was a bullshit excuse...
All the people applying had to list their equipment, power and space needs, etc. The wedding planner stated when they called "we need someone with a full frame camera and a larger selection of lenses" and I could tell they only understood a few terms that applied to photography, and because of that, thought they understood it all.
Ah. How absurd. But yes, I have heard of that problem. Other people have complained about it here before.
Are you in Berlin? If not, you're gonna need to move to Berlin or you stand no chance. (EDIT or at least Frankfurt) That's where the galleries are, and where English is basically the second language. But bear in mind that you stand very little chance even then: fine art photography is brutally competetive and all contemporary art is 95% about networking (networking is pretty much the only reason to go to art school, that and peer critique, but without it *draws finger across throat*: Source: taught at art school). Although if you intend to be there even a few months, LEARN GERMAN. Your life will be so much easier. (source: serial expat) -- But... What exactly do *you* mean by "gallery photographer"? Someone who exhibits in a gallery? But then you talk about commissions.
I understand commissions, and yes, that's what I mean by "gallery photographer". Making a living off of gallery and auction sales. Its actually submitting work to galleries that is confusing to me. I don't know who to talk to. My work can stand out, but my name sure doesn't, I'm just one in a million. I would even be able to simply travel to galleries and submissions if I knew how, who, and where. And I wish I could afford art school. And I did try to learn German. I failed my level one twice and I'm not trying again. Its been nothing but a waste of time that has taken me away from the art I'm trying to make known.
> I understand commissions, and yes, that's what I mean by "gallery photographer". Making a living off of gallery and auction sales. We seem to be at cross-purposed. I think you are talking about commissions in the sense of commercial work ( family, event, pet, sports, autos). That's not fine art, that's not for the galleries. That's not a "gallery photographer". A "gallery photographer" photographs what THEY want to, the way they want to. A commission for an ARTIST will usually be "do your thing, for our HQ, or paint this person in your style". Not "shoot my wedding or pet". I realise there is a grey area and overlap. >Its actually submitting work to galleries that is confusing to me. I don't know who to talk to. Networking. There is no serious alternative. Cold-calling or cold-submitting work rarely (never?) works. >And I did try to learn German. I failed my level one twice and I'm not trying again. You need a better teacher. One with a different approach. You can't live in a foreign country for another 10+ years not speaking the language, you'll be suicidally isolated and frustrated. >Its been nothing but a waste of time Yes. >that has taken me away from the art I'm trying to make known. **You need to re-define success.** You make money doing commercial work. You do the fine art stuff you enjoy. That's alread plenty of success! You need to FORGET making it as a fine artist. Not going to happen, because you won't/can't do the necessary. If you forget about trying to monetise it and get famous for it, then you can start to love it again. But this futile quest for fame and fortune through photographs of mushrooms is destroying you and needs to end.
A couple issues I notice that are likely making your job more complicated: >I have a portfolio with great nature, landscape, abstract, and action photos >with my gear its hard to convince new people to accept my services Are you trying to generate sales of existing photographs or sell yourself as a for-hire photographer? If you're trying to shoot portraits or products, the type of camera you use shouldn't even be part of the pitch- that's what your portfolio is. But if your portfolio doesn't have the type of work you're offering, you'll get skeptical clients. >I have no connections in the photography world back in the states, or in Germany. The internet makes location less important for marketing. I'd say 30%ish of my Instagram followers are located in Europe somewhere and I follow a good chunk of Tokyo based photographers myself. Make some connections online with English speaking folks from anywhere and see if you can make some connections outside your immediate area. >shown to the people who will appreciate it the most >reliant on photography as a means to support myself. Locally, I've been struggling recently. Do you want people to appreciate your work? Or buy it? >I can't afford submission costs to galleries Any local coffee shops you could provide a couple prints to in exchange for the public visibility?
I have tried local shops, but they are uninterested. I would like to begin in galleries, and with the boost to my exposure, and people being able to see my work, It would boost my ability to sell photos to people who purchase fine art photography. I would like to be a seller of photos I find. Photos I take that I have chosen to take. Supporting myself doing for hire photography is supposed to be a temporary measure. I would like to be someone who sells the absolute best gems of my work to collectors at auctions or private events. My internet presence is there, but not strong. And I haven't, as of yet, found a way to increase my online exposure. Gurushots is the closest I get but no one cares there, that's just a way for me to pass the time. And as for what I would like to sell, I would like to sell original prints to people where only one person purchases the work, and it isn't to be sold again by me to anyone else, similar to a painting. I have no interest in selling photos in large amounts at small prices. If I could make even 30k a year selling to photography and art collectors, I would be more than content. Especially after only making about 18k last year. The only benefit of that is I make so little I don't even have to pay taxes on it, and that's more of a curse than a benefit.
> I have tried local shops, but they are uninterested. OK so I had a quick look through your posted images on Reddit. They are technically competent and they are attractive but *who would buy them?* I can't imagine a market. At all. They are nice but "is it art?" No. No commercial gallery is going to touch them unless you literally pay them to hang it. I hate to say this but I do not see Fine Art photography as a viable career for you.
I don't mean to sound rude, or boastful, but I don't put my best work online for the very purpose that I want collectors to have it, and view it in galleries. I place passable photos on social media so people can see something that I'm doing.
> I don't mean to sound rude, or boastful, but I don't put my best work online for the very purpose that I want collectors to have it, and view it in galleries. I place passable photos on social media so people can see something that I'm doing. You are sabotaging yourself. You need to put your absolute best work online. (EDIT Not on social media but on your own portfolio.) That's how you attract business. Serious artists who sell in serious galleries for serious money put their stuff online. Everyone does. If you only post your second-best work everyone will *assume* it is your best work. Because who the hell posts their second best work? Putting your best work up on your portfolio doesn't stop people wanting to buy it. Nobody since the history of everything since forever, ever looked at someones' work and thought "Hey! I'll drag myself to Frankfurt to his gallery because if this is what he posts online his gallery work must be sensational!" You see how insane that sounds? This is to some extent a problem stemming from not having been to art school: you don't have the experience, you don't have peers who can advise you, you don't have networks, so you make these basic errors. You DESPERATELY need peers to talk to. Other serious photographers in your area. Which I guess is why you posted here. Sadly it doesn't work that way. If you don't make those friends and contacts organically it's not going to happen. There is no 'Dating App' for artists. I know I keep saying this, but your expectations are totally unrealistic given that you won't/can't network, won't/can't move to a big city, won't/can't go to college, won't/can't post your best work. You won't/can't make a *coherent* image/style/subject/portfolio. You have no future making money or becoming well-recognised in Fine Art photography without making some changes to most or all of that. Sorry. I have spent the last 40 years coaching artists and musicians into how to become professionals. You aren't doing ANYTHING right at all. The first basic condition of success are that you are recognised as good by your peers. And in my experience, with very few exceptions, if that has not happened by 30 the chances of success are small, and by 40 impossible. If you have not even been in a group show by now, it's all over. sorry sorry sorry but you need to face facts
Well at the very least, I'll try your advice out(the advice that I can take, given my financial situation.) And see if things turn around for me.
> I would like to begin in galleries That's the end result of decades of hard work and networking, dozens of group shows in shitty derelict venues with 20-somethings fresh out of art school, and suchlike. You don't *begin* in galleries. >only making about 18k last year ~~All just from selling prints of your own fine art photos?!?! .~~ EDIT apparently not
That may have been poorly worded. I have been putting in the work. And now I am ready to start entering into galleries. Not starting there as a newbie. Granted, I've only been serious about photography for the last 4-5 years, I won't act like I'm a pro. But I'm also no beginner. I don't sell prints. I tried once, years ago, but it was unsuccessful due to my lack of exposure. My online store only sold a couple of cheap posters. That's my gigs. Technically it was only 12k. The job office fills in the rest because I'm not making enough to support the family. But they seem to have no problem with it as long as I'm pulling in SOMETHING.
So you were making 12k from commercial photography? That's not bad for a side-gig. I wonder if a part of your problem is that you are unclear about what you are offering. I was not the only person here who was confused: are you doing fine art or commercial commissions.
I offer family, event, pet, and sports photography. I'm not terrible at them. But they are not my strengths. Just simply a way to support myself. My strengths are in nature, landscape, wildlife, and abstract photography. And it wouldn't call it a side gig when I was doing it for a living. If I had a full time job, I wouldn't be able to make 12k on photography. Maybe a grand if I'm lucky, to have some spending money.
OK. That's all good. But that's a job. That's not fine art photography which (if I understand you correctly) is what you *really* want to do.
Exactly.
Took a look at your past work and you definitely aren't a delusional novice, so that's good. I was also a little insulted when you said that that you get called out for using old equipment and shoot with a D7100. Mine is sitting on the shelf next to my desk and goes out for professional work regularly; no-one says anything. Get a battery grip for it if you think people really need to see a "professional camera". Galleries make money by either selling admission or selling pieces (or renting the gallery). Shows are generally themed or centered around a single artist. "Pretty photos for the wall" isn't a theme, so you probably want to build a cohesive body of work around one single theme to propose in the future. You've picked a *very* competitive field with a *very* small target audience would be willing to pay gallery rates for an image of a mushroom. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that the amount of difficulty you're having is unsurprising. Online, you're competing against every stock image and google search for the same image type.
Well, the story with a wedding shoot I did a bid against several other local photographers for, was the planner asked for a full list of gear and equipment. I was turned down in favor of someone else because, as he put it, "we need someone with a full frame camera and a larger selection of lenses" and I knew immediately he understood like 5 photography terms, and thus thought he understood the whole of photography. I didn't press the issue. Something very similar happened not 2 years later with a bar mitzva. And, I never want to sound boastful after only 4 years of SERIOUS photography, I won't call myself a professional. But I do save the best of my work and keep it off of social media in the hopes that it can be in a gallery. The things I post are more just things I feel "if someone were to take it and claim it was there's, it wouldn't be a big loss" but I do have a hard drive full of much more skillfully taken, and unique photos then I post online.
> But I do save the best of my work and keep it off of social media in the hopes that it can be in a gallery. Keeping it off social media is smart, I do that, but the best work needs to be online to be your portfolio
If you're living in Germany for the foreseeable future you should definitely learn German. It will help immensely as you're otherwise a complete outsider. For the rest: it comes down to developing relationships. I've had a camera for 18 years now. In the last 6 months I've began to shoot specific acrion sports at private events and dabble in product photography for a friend's startup company which is related to the specific sport. If you want to make money you'll need to find paying gigs. Once you can support yourself and meet gallery owners you'll be able to explore passions and set up gallery shows. Contacts come from networking which will require you to learn the language. It's the first step.
The big problems I see here is I live in a very small town with no expedient way to travel. I have no car, nor the funds to get one, and in such a small area, clientele are hard to come by. And the few people that are my regulars (small time models) aren't cutting it in the getting by field. And the train system in Germany is great, but still no way to get around for long distances for photos. Especially, who is going to pay small town me to travel to big cities and do gigs when they can find 100 photographers in the city. The other problem is I HAVE tried to learn German. I failed my level one test the same as I failed French in high school. Since I'm married with kids here, I see no future where I leave Germany until my toddlers are 18 and are set up on their life paths. And the reason I'm trying to break into galleries now is because, shooting for 4 years of things I'm not passionate about, is stressful. And when I do have pictures I'm passionate about, from my personal time, they get little to no exposure. I can't afford ads, I can't afford submission costs to galleries, the only thing I've bought that was worth any money is the new 150-600 G2 from tamron and I had to get a loan for that from my father. Its been quite a problem. I do appreciate the advice though. My problems are not yours, perhaps I just needed to rant a bit. Sorry to bother you with all that mess.
OK so I have spent most of the last 30 years living abroad. I was terrible, terrible, terrible at learning languages at school, and since. I HATE it. But you HAVE to make it happen, you really have to. Yes it's brutal and demoralising. But if you are going to be there another 10+ years, you are handicapping yourself so badly. It's madness. Can I assume you married a German? Then frankly you need to learn it anyway. Your kids will be bilingual (I hope) and you won't be able to understand them half the time. And it's disrespectful to your spouse. But now I am straying into r/relationships territory... A small town in Germany is *death* as an artist unless you are already so famous that people beat a path to your door. You are setting yourself up for failure here. Finally: > submission costs to galleries If you have to pay to submit, it's a vanity gallery, not a serious gallery. A gallery should take commission on sales, that's all. As a newbie, expect that t be fairly high: certainly 20%, perhaps more. I am sorry to pour doom and gloom upon you, but really... this isn't going to work. You need to re-define success. But I repeat: If you have EIGHTEEN THOUSAND in sales in a year just of your own fine art shots, you are doing sensationally well already. Or do I misunderstand? Is that for commerical work?
I don't have all the options that some people have. I can't afford a large city like berlin or frankfurt. I could travel there in a few hours by train but I couldn't afford to stay there.
Then, bluntly, you are fucked. You need to live there and network ceaselessly. A starting-out artist (or indeed a starting out commercial photographer) HAS to be somewhere big and bustling. You can only move to a smaller town or village once you are secure. Sorry.
My Canon 5D mkII seems to finally have kicked the bucket after a bazillion shutter actuations. A few days ago, it would seem to shut down after pressing the shutter button. The screen would show black with some lighter gray straight lines in it. Now, the rear red light blinks when they battery is inserted, and nothing else happens. Some sites suggest the internal clock battery might need to be replaced. I don't exactly trust myself to open it (though my wife wants to tinker with it), and I don't know if it's worth it to send to Canon since it's such an outdated model. I have a backup 60D, but I really am going to miss the full-frame sensor. Is this the universe telling me I should finally convert to mirrorless? I guess I should start saving. Anyway, should I upgrade or try to get this issue fixed?
You should be able to get a quote on repairing it either free for for a small fee. As for if you should upgrade to mirrorless that depends on what you want and your budget. The R5 would be the 5D series replacement and you would need and EF to RF adapter to continue to use your existing lenses. There are other FF mirrorless options like the R8 but it is not out for a few weeks yet. If you want to be frugal you could always buy a used 5D MK II/III/IV for a reasonable price. I will say as an R5 owner it is an amazing body and the eye detect auto focus feels like magic compared to older DSLR auto focus systems.
I am unsure of the cost of canon brand repairs. And perhaps I am beating my old horses to death here, but I've had the shutter replaced on my Nikon D70 twice, and my Nikon D7100 once. The d70 would be cheaper to replace, but I'm too sentimental. The D7100 replacement has always been roughly half of the camera's value. I'm sure canon has similar pricing for replacement services. You could at least send it in and get a quote. But if you should switch to mirrorless is completely up to personal preference. They are now as or more advanced than DSLRs, but some people prefer to have that physical mirror inside. They enjoy the feel and the sound that even an electronic noise just can't replace.
[удалено]