I only have a cheap digital but I enjoy using it. As much as I complain about south dakota, kinda nice for nature stuff. i am also kinda vain and like to take weird photos of myself. should i get a film camera if i wanna be serious?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
newbie here
- Thread starter blonde4yourparty
- Start date
MarkEvan
Senior Veteran
Lol, it isn`t vain to take photos of yourself even weird ones. As to getting a camera, i`d stay with digital, there are no development costs (if you just want to keep them on the PC) and the advantages of being able to view your photos imediatly are immense. As to what kind of camera well I guess thats down to how creative you want to be and how much control you wan`t over the pictures, if you wan`t as much control as possible then get an SLR, unfortuantly thats also the most expensive route.
Mark
By the way welcome to cf
Upvote
0
GrinningDwarf
Just a humble servant
I used to think that way, too...that I'd get a digital to learn how to take pictures and then switch to film to 'get serious'. You know what? Even the professionals are going digital.
The biggest pro to digital photography...the only way you're going to learn to take pictures is to take lotsa pictures. With a digital camera, I'm never afraid to take a picture just to see what would happen. If it doesn't turn out, I can just erase it from the memory card, but I will also have learned something without spending money on film development.
The only think I would recommend you do if you want to 'get serious' is upgrade to a digital SLR as soon as you can afford one. It doesn't have to be a top-of-the-line pro camera that costs thousands of dollars...a digital Canon Rebel would be good, and only cost you hundreds of dollars.
I went from a Sony Mavica to a Canon 10D. I've taken over 9000 shots with the Canon, and now I'm getting requests from people to come take pictures of their functions.
Upvote
0
cristianna
...dancing in the rain...
Welcome to CF! 
Keep in mind the camera has little to nothing to do with one's creative eye and artistic ability to capture an image. I've seen phenomenal images taken with bottom of the line digitals, and I've seen ones just as good taken with professional digital cameras.
I do prefer a good ole standby manual film for a backup to my others, but generally I prefer digital.
Keep in mind the camera has little to nothing to do with one's creative eye and artistic ability to capture an image. I've seen phenomenal images taken with bottom of the line digitals, and I've seen ones just as good taken with professional digital cameras.
I do prefer a good ole standby manual film for a backup to my others, but generally I prefer digital.
Upvote
0
GrinningDwarf
Just a humble servant
Welcome to CF!
Keep in mind the camera has little to nothing to do with one's creative eye and artistic ability to capture an image. I've seen phenomenal images taken with bottom of the line digitals, and I've seen ones just as good taken with professional digital cameras.
I have to agree with this for the most part. I took a correspondance class through the New York Institute of Photography, and one of the first things they tell you is to not go out and buy a new camera. They said "At this point, any camera you have now is going to do it's job as a camera better than you are going to do yours as a photographer."
However...I wasn't very far into the course before I realized that my camera was limiting what I could do. Our assignment was to take a picture showing motion. There are two ways to show motion in a still photo: freeze the action at the height of the action, or use blurring. My Sony Mavica would freeze the action ok. However, I tried to get some photos using blurring by trying to pan with a car speeding down a highway. The Mavica could only freeze the action...which in this case was very bad. Hard to show action when the camera is freezing the subject so much that you can see each lug nut in the rims. The car might as well have been parked on the side of the highway for all of the action that was expressed. I couldn't adjust the shutter speed so that I could pan with the car and blur the background.
In this case I decided that I really did need to upgrade my camera, and went for the least expensive digital SLR I could find...at the time, the Canon 10D. (Canon is on the 30D now. The same price that I paid for the 10D will now get you a much more advanced camera.)
Upvote
0
GrinningDwarf
Just a humble servant
(oops....I had hit the 'post with a quote' button instead of the 'edit' button, and wound up with a double post. Sorry.)
Upvote
0
Been there and done that too!!!!! Similar threads
