MyShots.com: Capturing Your World...

Currently online: 0 member(s), 4 guest(s).

Forums

> 1 <

Author Message

cg

Members

Forum posts: 81

Age: 28

#284 2007-06-24 15:54 GMT     

I have, like most, used cameras since I was a small child, not saying I used them 'well' but I did use them.

I was a child from the 80's, we did not have digital cameras then. I have no idea what the first I used was, but it was the long slender kind that took film. 35mm maybe?

Also, everyone has done the Polaroid deal, right? A yes I remember those good days, point, shoot, poof out comes your picture!

The first digi I had was the HP that I stated in another thread, and I still have it (this is the backup cam) and my Canon (which I will never part with).

But here are my questions:
When did you start taking GOOD pictures.
How long did it take to catch on?

I'm okay with my shots (sometimes) but either I use the wrong setting on the Canon, or I'm hyper with what I want to shoot and take it too quickly.

I think I am doing pretty good, cept with my Macro issue this weekend, but I am still practicing. I wish there were a way (this sounds REAL geeky) that I could blink my eye for the shot I want and poof it would take the picture I see, that for me, would be awesome. I don't always catch on the cam what I see in my eye, and that is my biggest issue I am working on to correct now.

Thank you guys!!

Britlady

Members

Forum posts: 32

Age: 30

#324 2007-07-02 15:57 GMT     

My story is amazingly similar to yours when it comes to my photography lifecycle! My first camera was a silver, thin and slim camera that took the 35mm cassettes rather than rolls of film. You slid part of it open to access the viewfinder and power it up. It took ok, not wonderful photos that would have been much better if taken by someone older than 7.

I started to improve only when I received a nikon SLR at the age of 12. I pottered and played with it for a few years, learning what I could from my father's photography magazines. The internal light meter was dead so I used a stand alone. It was battered and bruised but so solidly built that you could use it as a hammer one afternoon and then take photos in the evening. Loved that camera.

I took this camera to a course I took at 16. It was a three month course that covered the mechanics of good photography but was taught by an art teacher who knew nothing about it (having been dumped in the roll when the previous teacher was promoted to deputy head). After the first lesson it became apparent that I knew more than he and I was called to class each day an hour early to explain the material-sucky right!

Anyway I DID get to learn dark room practises and learn to develop my own photos in both colour and black and white, and got free materials in return (which the others didn't, and they had just B&W to learn in). His art background led to a huge improvement in my composition.

From there it was a crappy Packard Bell digital that ate batteries faster than I could breath-it took 128 none flash shots on brand new digital duracell!

Finally I came into the (good) digital world with a canon A620, before I hit the Rebel too. I am very happy with these last two.

cg

Members

Forum posts: 81

Age: 28

#325 2007-07-02 16:18 GMT     

"From there it was a crappy Packard Bell digital that ate batteries faster than I could breath"...........that sounds just like my HP that is upstairs and hidden away (only used if I lose my Canon). I am still working on the canon and things I have read from here, not sure if its just the settings I am confusing or not, but my pictures are still not turning out the way I want, need more practice.

Britlady

Members

Forum posts: 32

Age: 30

#328 2007-07-03 00:33 GMT     

Yes, I would say that it is likely that it is practise that is needed. I do not know your specific model however, but mine has so much room for playing with settings. Even the auto setting takes a wonderful photo, if you are concerned about missing a shot because of the time to set up.

Luffy

Photographers

Forum posts: 12

Age: 46

#1384 2007-12-04 15:58 GMT     

Are you sure that these long slender cameras were 35mm the long slender ones I remember were 110
The cameras were about 5" to 6" long (125 to 150mm) by about 1" (25mm) thick
the film came in cassete format that you just dropped into the back of the camera.

Fordie

Photographers

Forum posts: 1

Age: 61

#1521 2008-01-14 16:39 GMT     

The thing to remember is "Its not all ways what equipment you have its how you use it" Cameras's now a days are all singing all dancing, Auto this Auto that. Turn off the Auto and start to learn just what aperatures and shutter speeds do to your finished image. The great thing about digital is you can see whats going on before you leave the scene. Often you will have some idea on what you are looking to take,whether thats a pretty flower, a landscape, a portrait, moving object a stationary one. most of these things have an aperature to suit. If you are looking for depth of field in your picture use a small aperature and even a tripod to assist in camera shake. Moving objects require a faster shutter speed so a larger aperature is selected. With a little more thought,preperation and planning you will find it easier to take your camera and capture an image worthy of putting up on here for all to see. Take a picture regularly just like exercise, its addictive, progressive and rewarding, if you get it right. Practice Practice and more practice 4D

> 1 <

No new posts New posts Sticky
No new posts (popular) New posts (popular) New posts (sticky)
Locked New posts (locked) Announcement
Moved out of this section