My experiences with photography class

I haven't really played much with the IOS, preferring to keep the noise down. I keep it at 100 and only adjust for low light situations. But that's just me. In the days of film, I used to push B&W Tir-X to 1,600 in the darkroom with moderate grain. Above that the image looked like golf balls.

 

What camera do you own?
(Just out of interest?)
Could add a lot of context if you have a Leica or flagship body dressed up in voightlander, zeiss or the holy trinity!

My beginner camera is where I trained my thoughts and I didn’t lose that learning with the upgrade, which is a much better camera but that’s almost a given factor given the price difference.
I guess if I splashed £2000-4000 on a body I would expect to see another significant leap on what I currently own. Even the next peg up would yield some improvements for sure. My reasons for upgrading were for usability/function of the tool, image quality gains were a happy bonus!

Mine (according to the spec) has a trough in the iso noise curve which makes it useful for some things, but then the conversation gets complicated.
We could start to analyse data from within the various brands but.....that’s beyond my time here!!
I did that for the upgrade and it takes a lot of time.

yes you can take very high iso shots but beyond 400 it becomes an issue for me in post. (And it probably would do for most people.) i don’t always process images but sometimes I do, digital colour rendering and sharpness adjustments are virtually unusable at high iso, but very minimal adjustments could be used.
If you get into almost abstract renderings of your original image a lot of artefacts creep in and these are not desirable for me.
HDR in post springs to mind.

Snapshots hmm, I don’t mind the setting at all. I’ll even go out to 3200 and you get ok images.
Whatever it takes to get the thing shooting!
Fast glass is more preferable to me if possible, I don’t own a vast amount of lenses though, so maybe then you would pick an image stabilised lens (vr/os or whatever......I think some Sony bodies incorporate it into the camera......further convoluting everything!)

but for serious stuff (and I’m only shooting for myself) I’ll aim to use a tripod where necessary and hit 100 iso. Museums or bugs spring to mind, still things where shutter speed isn’t so important.
Even that depends on the day and how long I have to get a picture and what I decided to bring! I don’t always carry a tripod, I’m not a fan........ but sometimes you just need one.

on a walkabout, aperture priority rules the day. (I bump the iso, to get my shutter speed) that’s fast enough in use for me to get quick on the fly shots. Most of the time once you’re dialled in, you’re ok unless the natural light dramatically changes.

M or A for wildlife shots. Depending on what your target is, fast moving things really need A, but it’s the same thing though, bump the iso for exposure

S is an odd one, I don’t use often but again I would bump the iso in most situations (if f/ gets down to silly numbers where diffraction sets in.....again that complicates things further!) it just seems to add a bunch of extra things to deal with.......it isn’t for me.

I don’t use P.

I found that to really learn what my camera does. Only shoot in M. For months.

I don’t shoot raw..........
That could be a factor.

One thing for sure, I enjoy my camera!
and no doubt, others do it totally different!

 

Nikon D750

 

That’s absolutely perfect!

Because it is pretty much the next peg up from a d7100!
Which was my upgrade.......
Or it was a few years back......
My body is redundant these days? But it is still way more camera than I need.

there you have it folks, it seems you get what you pay for! Re ISO noise.

The d750 is a good camera! 3/4 of the people shooting the builds I’ve been involved with use that body.
It’s good, light, and works well in low light conditions.

 

That pinhole camera is pretty sweet!

 

I made one of those when I was a kid. An uncle had a dark room where he would load a glass plate from a Speed Graphic for me. Exposure was guess work and occasionally some came out good. Most were crap.

 

Update: I picked my first mirrorless camera, a Nikon Z50. So far I am liking it.

 

Is your course on line?

 

i self taught myself and with a semy good DSLR its amazing what you can do, i really love night photography, places are so beautiful at night.

 

When I took photography, I didn't really appreciate all that it represents in my world.

Background: when I went to raves, there was a message board, and photo websites where there were photos of you raving. & you may have noticed that we have signatures on IPB, or whatever type of board we're on (I don't even know... LOL). Well people had photo signatures and stuff... it was all very involved. Due to the context of the "scene" as it were, I became very focused on how things turn out on camera and in video; particularly the way dancing appears/appeared. I don't know if I'm making sense...


Basically, I took photography before I ever realized how absolutely powerful it is, in terms of communication, perception, art... All of these different things occurred to me and I really related them to photography intrinsically.

Having your picture taken and featured regularly (though I was never the main focus) gives you a certain awareness of how things tend to turn out in photos. Sort of the same way after you take a few selfies you start to get the hang of it.

And anyway, my cameras have gone missing with regularity. The one I had in photography, I left in the studio at school I think... I don't know what happened to it really. Then, I had another one at UCSB one summer and left my dorm to take a piss down the hall with the door unlocked or open or something. The camera went missing at that point. I was bummed.

 

Green or blue