The truth is, I love my internal organs, after all, and I wouldn't want to part with any of them unless the doctor orders so. That means selling kidneys to buy a DSLR is not an option. But I still want to practice with the holy trinity of aperture, shutter speed and ISO and to learn to understand exposure and goof around with the depth of field and such. Which I can't do with my point and shoot, lovely as it is.
So just as you're thinking that it's, basically, a "no-win" situation, a little lamp lights up in her head and she gets this ingenious idea (as usual, i might add)... to go analogue.
The thing is, we have this beautiful Canon EOS 3000 which had the bad luck to be bought just a year before we got our first digital camera so it's been patiently collecting dust (loads of it) on our book shelves for at least five years. It's a total "video killed the radio star" situation, which is a shame, because it is a very capable camera that made nice photos--those three or four times that we actually used it.
This is just a temporary solution, obviously, because there are many downsides to working with film, as you might remember from the old days. Like, the fact that film actually costs something and so does developing it; it's not much but if you shoot a lot of pictures it adds up. Plus there is the carbon footprint issue: the film just adds to the amount of junk we're littering the planet with, and the chemicals used for developing it are toxic. And then you have to wait until you've shot the entire roll and developed it to see what came out of it. I guess that's the strangest part, once you got used to reviewing your work immediately and deleting what you don't like right there in the camera, before it even gets downloaded.
But maybe that's not a bad thing, to hold off that instant gratification urge and learn some patience, in addition to learning how to make better photos. I've also noticed that it's making me really think twice before I press the shutter: wheather the composition is right, and if it's a picture worth taking. As a consequence, I am not taking many photos but they should be better than average with all that thinking involved. Right? Or you simply need to shoot more to learn more?
(and where is Scott Kelby when you need him? amazon.com, I am soo disappointed this time!)
Posts
6 comments:
(I'm sorry I had to delete my initial comment, I've made a really embarassing mistake there...)
This is a very impressive camera, even though it's a... ehrmm... a canon...
I guess using it doesn't really allow you to play with all members of holly trinity? I presume ISO is fixed on film?
I've invested in quite a few photography books lately (Scott Kelby's two amongst them, he's awesome) and I must say that a real way to learn is to shoot more...
You're right, ISO is fixed but I can still play with apertures and shutter speeds, which is more than enough for the level I am at the moment.
I had ordered Scott Kelby's two books but a month later they were still not in stock so I just canceled that and ordered "Understanding Exposure," another one of Spud's recommendations.
how exciting! I'm really looking forward to seeing your photos :-)
Hi Jelica
that sounds a good idea for getting some practice in
My new compact (but very super) camera is a Canon. I didn't want the fuss of lenses yet...
It came out top of the list from all the research I read and behaves superbly...
Happy days
Last night my camera club had a wedding photographer as a guest speaker, she said the most photos she has taken digitally at 1 wedding was 4000 shots.
When I got married before the days of digit camera's my photographer took 108 photos. All of which are good.
To me this just displays how sloppy some have become in regards to composure and taking the time to evaluate the scene.
Digital is fantastic for post processing but good photography is about knowing and understanding your camera. I think you are in the right mindset for increasing your photography skills.
Post a Comment