Hello - seeking to learn, am I in the right place?

Hello all,

I don't know if I'm in the right place. I'm looking for a community of helpful photographers who might be able to point me in the right direction so I can improve my photo taking skills.

 

These days I've been writing for magazines and am working on my first book. Taking good photographs is a big part of writing these days, but I never take my digital camera off auto. Sometimes it sees what I see, but other times, it makes too many decisions for me.

 

Someone gave me a Brick - Argus C3 - that I'm eager to try. Fully manual, I'm assured this camera will not attempt to think for itself. Just what I need to help me learn. I'm very mechanical when I learn and this camera is extremely mechanical.

 

I want to learn to use this without a light meter. I know they help, but I feel that I could train my eye better if I can use as little technology as possible.

 

So I'm wondering if there is some sort of table I can start with? It's sunny (Although this time of year, overcast is most likely), I'm taking a photo of a tree, the film is 200 iso... therefore, I make the knobs go to...?

 

Also, I'm seeking general advice for a total amateur to mechanical cameras. If you know of any books, that would help, please let me know.

 

I found three places in town that develope film (but only one of them does Black and White).

 

Is this the right place for me?

 

 

(if it works) this is a good example of my current photo skill which is okay for what I've been doing up to now, but not good enough for what I want to do in the future.

If you need an instruction manual for your Argus, go here:

 

http://www.cameramanuals.org/argus/argus_c-3.pdf

 

If you find it useful, please pay the owner of the site $3. I've found several manuals that I really needed, so I was glad to pay.

 

Regards.

. . . I'm looking for a community of helpful photographers who might be able to point me in the right direction so I can improve my photo taking skills. These days I've been writing for magazines and am working on my first book. Taking good photographs is a big part of writing these days, but I never take my digital camera off auto. Someone gave me a Brick - Argus C3 - that I'm eager to try. Fully manual, I'm assured this camera will not attempt to think for itself. Just what I need to help me learn. I want to learn to use this without a light meter. I know they help, but I feel that I could train my eye better if I can use as little technology as possible. So I'm wondering if there is some sort of table I can start with?

 

You have several questions and you have made incorrect assumptions regarding the best way to learn.

 

1. "point me in the right direction so I can improve my photo taking skills"

If you want to learn to make photos using a camera, fully manually - without automation, then the old film camera is NOT the best way to do that: you'd be best to set your Digital Camera to Manual Mode and use it.

 

Learning on a digital camera is virtually cost free and provides instant feedback: compared to the cost of money and time developing film and getting results much later.

 

Additionally, your digital camera will likely record EXIF data and you can use this to make a comparative assessment of many of the technical details of your images.

 

*

2. "I want to learn to use this [Argus C3] without a light meter."

If you want to learn make Film Photography using a camera and NOT using any light meter, then you'd be best to practice first on your digital camera in manual mode, fine tuning your eye to guessing the exposure parameters you need to use for various scenes.

 

*

3.So I'm wondering if there is some sort of table I can start with?

If you refuse to use a light meter and or a digital as a tool to learn and evaluate exposure parameters and you want a "table" to assist you in guessing those exposures, then using the descriptors of scenes in the tables and dials described in this recent thread, will assist you in guessing at correct exposures. [LINK]

 

WW

The Argus C3 was the camera used by a whole generation of American amateur photographers from 1939 to the late 1950s, mostly with Kodachrome slide film.

 

It can be used as a point-and-shoot camera without a meter by using the "Sunny-16" rule (Sunny 16 rule - Wikipedia). This works especially well with color negative (c-41 process) films - most of which have great tolerance for over or under exposure ("latitude").

 

Some models of the C-3 camera have color coded dials for settings that are intended for people without meters and such like.

"Am I in the right place?"

 

You are in a good place, whether it's right for you, only you can say. Being a forum, you will be offered different opinions, which you need to read and decide if they are relevant or helpful. There is a lot of information available under the "Learn" tab at the top of the page.

 

Film photography, especially with classic cameras, is a very different experience from digital. It can be really rewarding but is often beset with frustration and disappointment.

 

The Sunny 16 rule is very much worth learning. Many films also have a little printed guide giving recommended exposures in different lighting conditions, for example bright sun, hazy sun, cloudy bright etc . Older photographers like myself, unable to afford expensive meters or metered cameras, were brought up on these guides. Good luck.

I'm entirely with William on this. The Argus wasn't called a 'brick' for nothing, and you'll find trying to learn the basics of exposure with it an exercise in frustration, wasted money and wasted time.

 

Get a digital camera that supports fully manual control. Old ones (> 5 yrs) can be got free or for very little money, and will enable you to immediately see the effect of changing ISO speed, aperture, shutter-speed, white-balance, etc. Whereas film adds unnecessary delay and another layer of uncertainty - 'was it me, the processor, or that decrepit old camera that caused the fault?'

 

Look for the letters 'PASM' on the dial of a camera. The M stands for manual mode, and allows you just as much control over exposure as you'll get from that ancient brick. Even more so in most cases.

 

I'm sure if digital photography had been around 60 years ago, I'd have learned the craft a darned sight quicker, and produced a far greater number of worthwhile pictures than I have done.

 

Film photography is as dead as the Daguerreotype, but nobody will let it rest in peace!

 

P.S. All publishers will expect a digital image file these days. This will add yet another layer of scanning, and expense, to film photography. If the wanted end result is a digital file, why jump through a series of antiquated hoops to get there?

Edited November 17, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

The Argus is what it is. If it meets your requirements, well and good, however there are far better manual film cameras available for a pittance. The Manual Vincent suggested will prove useful. As to Guides to use instead of a meter, simply search Kodak Exposure Guide on whatever online shopping venue that you use. These are quite good - get as new a one as possible to include the newer faster films. Speaking of films - there are some that have an enormous ISO range - Ilford XP 2 as an example. You can find several threads on the subject right here. The range alone will cover some exposure problems.

 

Digital - there are certainly good older ones available cheaply. They do have the advantage of showing results instantly, essentially having "Free" film and processing. It is also far easier to manipulate the images and print them yourself. Speaking personally, my advice should you go digital, is to spend time with the camera and the Camera Manual. Learn to use and Try all of the various automated features. There are certainly times when shooting on Manual is necessary or satisfying, but that doesn't mean that you need to do everything the "Old Fashioned Way" AKA Real photographers shoot manual syndrome. Modern times, modern methods - Imagine for a moment having a perfectly good modern washing machine but vowing to wash your clothes in a tub with washboard.

Good luck, have a lot of fun with it!

Edited November 17, 2018 by Sandy Vongries

Here is a link to a simple and free sunny-16 based manual calculator which describes scenes to help photographers determine the proper exposure without a light meter. I've kept one in my car and camera bag for years. Night Exposures - In a Jiffy

Some people learn better from structured education (courses, maybe taught at a local community college?), some from books, some from on the job training, but I always liked classes, when they were available. You might look into that. Barring that, look for books on basic photography and don’t go film unless you have a special interest in film. It’s a lot harder than it used to be to get processing (except for black and white which you can do yourself) but really, I’d learn on a digital capable to shooting manual, or at least allowing you to control the shutter speed and aperture using Aperture or shutter priority.

 

A basic course (or book) will give you the basic knowledge (explosure, composition, operating a camera) and then you can concentrate on what you are trying to achieve. Then you can look at books with the illustration you need and try to do similar. But you don’t need to learn the ins and outs of film to do that.

Edited November 17, 2018 by carbon_dragon

Thanks for the warm welcome.

There is a lot of great information here. Thank you, everyone, for your thoughts and sharing your experiences.

 

My digital camera has manual settings and some semi-manual settings. I've experimented with these a lot and mined the library for any book I can find on photography. I've even tried taking lessons. I get how each part works individually but I still can't understand how each setting interacts so I created a learning plan for myself based on how I learn best - by following technology through history.

 

The problem is, I have a funny brain. I learn things mechanically. Later on, I'm going to dissect the brick so I can see how each part physically moves. When I can see things physically, I can understand them digitally. I like the Argus because it won't do any thinking for me. It also looks like when I reassemble it, there's a good chance it works just as well as before I took it apart. After all, it's nowhere near as complicated as a typewriter. If not, it will make a great paperweight.

 

I'll start with the brick, then take what I learn and move forward in time and learn with an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic. Then I'll take what I learned with these two and apply them to my digital camera. Probably take all three out in the wild and compare the results. But that's later. First I'm going to learn about the Brick. I only wish I could start with a pinhole camera.

 

This is the learning path that matches my brain. I know it's not the easiest path, but I also know it works because I've followed this path for learning other technologies.

 

 

Thank you for the resources. It's a great help.

 

Do you have a favourite book about photography?

Edited November 17, 2018 by rayvan

I'm a book learner by disposition, and had my first camera by age 10. I attended a Nikon School event at 19. Still, my capabilities as a photographer never really gelled until I had my first DSLR and could experiment endlessly at very low cost. I knew all of the theory perfectly, but could never afford to buy, shoot, and develop film at a pace sufficient to support effective learning. My capacity as a photographer improved more in the one year after buying my first DSLR than they had in the preceding 30+ shooting a Nikkormat EL and a Nikon FM. Any reasonably accessible book will provide the basics of composition and exposure, which it sounds like you may already have. The rest is to learn by doing. There are many excellent examples of good photography here on Pnet. You might identify some that match your goals, check the exit data, and then experiment until you can reliably obtain the desired effects.

Hi, please forgive my directness (with the best of intentions) in my reply.

 

You say that your passion (or profession) and skills are predominantly in writing. I just wonder whether you have the same passion for (learning) photography or whether you might be happier and better off partnering with someone who has a similar passion (or profession) and skills in photography. Each to his/her own. I'm sure you've considered the option and maybe it's not financially/logistically feasible. But maybe there are passionate professional/amateur/student photographers out there who would jump at the chance to take the best photos they possibly can to support what you want to write. Just saying.

 

You've already gotten a lot of useful feedback in the previous posts, so this should answer your main question. As an (on and off) amateur photographer who's still learning, I've actively participated in most other online forums from time to time including Flickr, 500px, etc. IMHO Photo.net is still the most friendly, helpful and knowledgeable forum I've come across for asking questions and getting good and considered advice. I've only recently re-activated my PN membership after a couple of years absence and I still really like the 'feel' of PN. Very many members are highly skilled and experienced photographers (going back to film days ;)). But they're not critical - unless you specifically ask for criticism - and in my experience they have always been supportive and helpful. At PN - in contrast to many other websites I've found relatively little little attention-seeking or ''ego''. PN seems to be much more focused on the practice of photography rather than on getting the most 'likes/comments' or the highest 'pulse'.

 

IMHO, improving your photo-taking skills has nothing to do with your 'gear'. Getting a different/better camera won't make you a better photographer in the same way as buying a better piano won't make you a better pianist. Thinking that changing your gear will make you a better photographer is an illusion that (unfortunately) - with very few specialized exceptions - too many people still chase after.

 

As I understand you, you want to learn how to operate a camera so that it takes the photos that you expect and want rather than what it (automatically) assumes you want. A modern digital camera is IMHO is a far quicker, more flexible and easier to use learning tool for this than a 50+ year old film camera (which was undoubtedly good in its day and probably still is in the hands of skilled photographers). Learning to use an old film camera is neither the most effective nor the most efficient way of achieving your learning goal. The camera may well be fun to use at some later stage! For the time being, I would put 'the brick' in the attic/cellar.,

 

If you're really serious about improving your photography skills then I recommend that you learn more about:

a) how to use your current/future digital camera off automatic settings, and

b) gradually learn more more about aspects of photography that have nothing to do with 'the camera '(subjects, composition, lighting, post-processing, etc.)

 

If you want to learn how to get off 'automatic mode' then you will need a camera that also allows you to shoot in "Aperture priority", "Exposure Time Priority" (each allowing you to manually adjust ISO setting to get a 'correct' exposure) and also in "Manual" mode. Your camera should allow you store photos in RAW format which will enable you to adjust things like Exposure and White Balance on a PC. Ideally your camera lense(s) should have the focal lengths that you need.

 

I don't mean this to sound like an 'either/or' reply. If you temporarily need a more experienced photographer while you're learning to improve you're own photography, try to find a viable short-term solution. It may well be that a short course (or a couple of free YouTube videos) will help you to take photos with sharper (spot) focus, depth-of field (aperture) and crop that takes your photos to a higher level. If you find that learning to take better photos just distracts you from writing, think about a more permanent solution. Using the 'brick' can always be a hobby!

 

I hope that my well-meant response has implicitly come through the text:

- anyone can quickly improve the quality of their photos by learning to use their camera in non-automatic modes and by applying some basic principles of composition

- learning to take good photographs is a process that requires considerable investment (study and/or time); there are no shortcuts

In Seattle, we have a whole chain of drug stores with in-store C41 processing, and affordably priced, too.

(That is, they are not priced for professionals.)

 

I have been told that Walmart still offers C41, though maybe not in store.

 

But I agree that if the goal is to learn manual, without light meter, photography, digital is a fine way to do it.

 

If the goal is to learn film photography as in the old days, light meters go pretty far back.

You can even get a light meter from the 1950's. The GE meters were pretty popular, and are not hard to find.

They are selenium cell based, so no battery needed, and usually work about as well as they did 60 years ago.

 

There are charts that work well for outdoor day photography, and separate charts that work well for a variety

of indoor available light situations and outdoor night situations. The eye is not a good light meter.

 

It is useful to know the situations that fool light meters, but in more ordinary situations, automatic modes work well.

 

The other skill is manual focus, and the Argus is not especially good to use to learn that.

 

A digital camera with AF turned off isn't a bad way. For some, you can even use older non-AF lenses,

which usually have better hand grips for the focusing.

If I can take your picture of the Argus as an example, for a start, you wouldn't have been able to take that picture with the Argus itself, because it just won't focus close enough at 3ft. (That's leaving aside the dirty and misted-up state of the lens)

 

Apart from that, the main things I see wrong with that shot are nothing to do with the camera.

 

The shot looks a bit flat and lifeless because of the lighting. Light is something you can't mechanically take apart to learn how it works, and its chronology is as old as time.

 

The other thing is the lack of squareness in the representation of the camera. This is due to use of too short a focal length lens while having the camera too close to the subject. It's called 'perspective distortion', and again is something you can't pull apart with your hands.

 

Neither of these things will be automatically improved by using a film camera. In fact the unavoidable delay between taking the picture and seeing the result will severely impede learning.

 

What you, or any beginner, really need(s) to improve are your visual skills. Taking old cameras apart isn't going to help one jot with that. Nor is using a different type of film camera.

 

"I'll start with the brick, then take what I learn and move forward in time and learn with an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic. Then I'll take what I learned with these two and apply them to my digital camera."

 

- You really are getting this all backwards. Digital cameras are an ideal learning tool, while film is awful to learn with. You only have to read some of the threads here to see how confused newcomers to film get, and how they get bogged down with processing faults, scanning faults and other needless distractions.

 

Photography literally means 'drawing with light' and the key to being good at it is learning to see. The mechanics or technology of how the image is captured are fairly irrelevant.

Thank you, everyone, for your thoughts and advice.

 

Especially for the feedback on the photo. Learning to use the lightbox has been a real challenge. A whole 'nother kettle of fish as the camera's auto setting can't understand what I'm attempting to do. There's a lot to learn there and I agree, it's not something The Brick will teach me.

 

 

I would like to learn more about this.

 

Hiring a professional photographer for some of the shots might be in the budget for the next book. This one goes to the printer in a few weeks.

 

 

What I'm learning most from this thread is how we all learn differently. The thing that excites me most about working with film is the delay. I'll have a limited number of shots which forces me to take more care composing the shot. I think this will be a good habit to develop. I will also need to take meticulous notes with each photo so that when I see the photos in a week or two, I'll be able to understand what causes the results. But that's a perfect match for how I learn. Everyone's unique and it's great to hear how you all learn things.

 

Given that I'm going to be using this Argus C-3 for the first time this week, do you have any tips or tricks to get the most out of it?

Go outside and photograph a scene lit with full afternoon sun. Set the shutter speed to 1/200(200 on the shutter speed dial) and the aperture to f/16. That should get you reasonably close to correct with your 200 ASA film.

 

If it's overcast or your photographing in the shade, leave the shutter speed at 1/200 and open up to f/8.

 

That should at least get you started.

Go outside and photograph a scene lit with full afternoon sun. Set the shutter speed to 1/200(200 on the shutter speed dial) and the aperture to f/16. That should get you reasonably close to correct with your 200 ASA film.

 

If it's overcast or your photographing in the shade, leave the shutter speed at 1/200 and open up to f/8.

 

That should at least get you started.

 

Brilliant. Thanks.

If you intend to use the rangefinder in the C3, it may pay to check it's accuracy. In the two C3s I have, both rangefinders are out by miles

Given that I'm going to be using this Argus C-3 for the first time this week, do you have any tips or tricks to get the most out of it?

 

- Clean the lens!

It looks filthy and practically unusable in your picture.

 

And if you want to learn about exposure, for goodness sake buy a lightmeter.

The human eye is extremely poor at judging the brightness of things, and tables tell you nothing about reflectance values or the amount of light incident on the subject. OTOH, some people get far too involved with the simple task of taking an exposure reading. There's a middle way, but robotically following an exposure table isn't it.

 

One of the major influences on the 'look' of a picture is its exposure. That and the colour balance. Using film - negative film - will mask the subtleties of exposure, because automated printing, just like the automated exposure of your digital camera, will 'correct' any minor variations you make and cover them up.

Edited November 18, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

I played around with the lightbox yesterday. Please forgive the noob question, but I would like to learn this and the photographers in town I've approached forget that they too had to start somewhere.

 

The shot looks a bit flat and lifeless because of the lighting.

 

I agree. I want it to look more dynamic.

 

However, the specifications they give me for these photos is that the item doesn't cast a shadow on the white background. When I play with light (adding, subtracting, changing the angle), the item looks better but makes a shadow. Is there a happy middle ground?

- Clean the lens!

It looks filthy and practically unusable in your picture.

 

Thank you for the tip. Yes, it arrived in quite a state, but it was free and worth every penny.

 

I used the puffer on it, but it's still not clean enough. The internet suggests that the coating isn't baked on for a 1945 version of the Argus C3. I'm not sure what this means but the internet also tells me to be careful what lens cleaner to use or I'll remove the coating. That sounds like an undesirable result and as my lens cleaner doesn't have ingredients on it... Well, with anything this vintage, the fastest way to destroy it is to try and fix it.

 

Any suggestions for a lens cleaner that won't damage the coating? Or a recipe I can make at home (rubbing alcohol)?

 

I'm also worried that there is still a lot of grit on the lense that the puffer couldn't dislodge so this might scratch it when I apply lens cleaner. Any tips for removing caked on crud?

If you know of any books, that would help

David Kilpatrick "Light and Lighting" and his "Pentax K1000, P30N"

I would also recommend - if a fully mechanical cam, it must be perfectly working camera. So that you should not be in trouble with some mechanical issues with the old mechanism. Find a rugged mechanical machine. :rolleyes:

Joe recommended you to get a meter because the eyes are very poor instruments to judge brightness. When people set exposure without a meter they don't judge by eyes. They do it by remembering (or consult a chart) as how bright a lighting condition is. For example the sun can be assume to have constant brightness and in full sun there is a setting for that. When the subject is in shade but lighted by full sky there is a setting for that too. If it's cloudy there is another setting. Indoor they would estimate the brightness by figuring out what kind of lights are in the room.

For example the sun can be assume to have constant brightness and in full sun there is a setting for that.

 

- The sun itself doesn't vary in brightness by any meaningful amount, but the absorption of light by the atmosphere varies considerably, as does the scattering of light by clouds, dust, pollution, mist etc. As a result, what appears to be 'full, open sunlight' can easily vary by a stop or more. Add in variation with time of year, and a table can be out by a couple of stops.

 

Over a year, I've logged noonday sunlight (with hard shadows) at anywhere between 60 KLux and over 140 KLux, and that's at only a moderate latitude and within minutes of maximum sun altitude.

 

You'd need a separate table for every few degrees of latitude and hours of the day, and with an almost infinite list of conditions and variables for it to be anywhere near as accurate as a meter. You might as well tell the OP to just stick a wet finger in the air and guess!

 

WRT getting a shadowless background while having some modelling in the lighting: What's needed for this is a 'product table', which has a translucent surface that can be backlit to eliminate shadows.

 

Good pictures are less about the camera, and more about what happens in front of it - and who's behind it.

Edited November 19, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1