Advise on Equipment

[trent_adams]

<p>Hello. I am sorry if these questions seem really dumb, however, I figure it's more dumb to not ask any questions at all. I am just getting started in the business and have bought a D5000 kit. So the kit comes with obviously the Nikon D5000 camera, and an 18-55mm VR lens. I had the oportunity to shoot some shots of my fiancès brothers wedding. Well i asked the paid photographer if he minded as a courtesy.<br>

First the church was very red inside (hince a very warm image). So when I shot, everything came out a bit dark and red. I was using the flash on the camera, by the way. Although I didn't have the same angles etc as the primary photographer, I did capture some great shots and as I used Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 to make adjustments, I found the images are not too bad considering.<br>

I am wanting to buy new equipment, such as a flash and lens. I am stuck with the decision on buying a flash first, or a lens.<br>

Second question, if I do portrait photography would it be ok to use the 18-55mm lens or should I buy a different lens?<br>

Thanks</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi Trent. Never be afraid to ask questions - it is, as you say, more dumb not to.<br />

<br />

Most people would consider getting an additional lens first, but you're right to ask. Are you reaching the limits of what your 18-55 can do? Do you want a lens that's longer (more telephoto) because you bump into the 55mm end? Do you want more wide-angle because you bump into the 18mm end? Do you want more control over depth of field and ability to shoot in low light - in which case you want a faster lens (with a larger maximum aperture)? Do you want to focus closer, and therefore want to consider a macro lens? All these depend on the kind of photos that you want to take (and your budget), but I would wait until you find your existing equipment limiting before you go shopping.<br />

<br />

Regarding a flash, the biggest advantage of a dedicated flash is that, with a cable, you can move it off the camera - which lets you control the direction of the light (it'll also be more powerful than the on-camera unit). A flash from the front is often very unflattering, except used as fill light. Again, how are you getting on using available light? If you feel you want more lighting control (and you've tried reflectors, which are cheap) then by all means look at a flash unit, but I'd wait until I knew what I wanted to do with one.<br />

<br />

For portraits, the 55mm end of the 18-55 is probably fine, although a little shorter (more wide angle) than conventional. For portraits in environments, many use a faster lens (such as - at the expensive end - an 85mm f/1.4) to make the subject stand out from the background. I'd try your existing lens and see whether you'd like more separation and a closer crop. Historically, the budget portrait lens has been the 85mm f/1.8, but Nikon's one won't autofocus on your camera - depending on how happy you are with manual focus, I would also consider a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro lens for portraits (as well as macro shots), or the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 if your budget is higher. But see how you do with your existing lens first!<br />

<br />

Essentially, I suggest you make sure you know your way around the equipment you've got. Find where its limits are bothering you, and only then buy something that will bypass them. And if you're thinking of getting something expensive, consider hiring first (or at least trying things out in a camera shop) so you know what you're getting. Good luck.</p>

[jim_manganella]

<p>I think you need to know the answers to these questions, how to use your equipment and what you're doing before you "get started in the business".</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I realised I'd forgotten to mention a few common upgrade lenses, for your consideration:<br />

The 35mm f/1.8 G AF-S DX is, on your camera, approximately a "normal" lens - the field of view roughly matches the typical field of view when looking at a print (it looks neither wide angle nor telephoto). Its advantage over your kit lens is that it's faster (f/1.8), which means you can blur the background slightly more and use a faster shutter speed in low light. The disadvantage is that it isn't a zoom (you're stuck with the view you'll get from your zoom if you put it at 35mm) and it doesn't have vibration reduction, so the faster shutter speed won't help as much as it would have when getting rid of camera shake (although it will help freeze subject motion).<br />

The 50mm f/1.8 G AF-S is a mildly telephoto lens. It's a little wide for portraits, but not unreasonably so. Again, the benefit is that it has a larger aperture, so you can blur the background to make the subject stand out (more so than the 35mm because the blurry background is magnified more) and you can use a faster shutter speed; again, it's not a zoom, and it lacks VR.<br />

The 55-200mm and 55-300mm zoom lenses add to your focal length range, so you can magnify distant subjects more. The 18-200mm will do similarly - the advantage is that it replicates the range of your kit lens so you don't have to switch between them; the disadvantage is that you already have this capability (and the design is a bit compromised because it has to do so much). Correspondingly, there are a variety of lenses which will let you get wider than the 18mm end of your kit zoom.<br />

<br />

I hope that helps. We may be able to advise more if you say what kind of things you anticipate shooting (beyond portraits - and, if portraits, in the studio or candids?)</p>

[paddler4]

<p>First, +1 Andrew: it is only dumb NOT to ask questions when you need information.</p>

<p>Second, not to sound harsh, but +1 Jim. The key to photography is knowledge and skill, not buying one or two additional pieces of equipment. New equipment might be a help, but you can't buy your way out of your current dilemma. You need to learn how to control ISO, aperture, shutter speed, white balance, etc., to get the effects you want. In this case, it sounds like you may have had both exposure and white balance problems.</p>

<p>I would buy very little for now, instead reading and practicing with what you have. If you intend to do a lot of indoor work, then it is worth buying a decent flash, simply because you can't practice flash photography without one. I don't know the Nikon lineup, but you need a flash that has a swivel head so that you can bounce it. It would be worth buying a diffuser (you can get a sto-fen for around $15) and a bounce card if the flash does not have one built in (the Demb Flip It is good and not expensive). I would not worry about off-camera flash until you have the basics under control.</p>

<p>then, study and practice, practice, practice. A very good book on the use of modern flash equipment is:<br>

Speedlights & Speedlites: Creative Flash Photography at the Speed of Light [Paperback]<br />Lou Jones (Author), Bob Keenan (Author), Stephen Ostrowski (Author)</p>

It goes into some complex lighting, maybe more than you will want (it was more than I wanted), but the explanation of the basic principles is the clearest I have seen.

<br />

 

[indraneel]

<blockquote>

<p>Essentially, I suggest you make sure you know your way around the equipment you've got.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1<br>

Also shoot often. Your answers will come from the limits you face. That said, at least one light/reflector is helpful if you know how to use it.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Hello Trent,</p>

<p>Andrew, Dan, and Jim have all given sound advise. I would, as Dan suggested, first invest in learning the craft of photography before buying more equipment. You may find that your current equipment will do everything you need it to do or you may find that they limit your growth...but you won't know until you start growing as a photographer.</p>

<p>One of the best books for any photographer to own is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Updated/dp/0817463003"><strong><em>Understanding Exposure</em></strong> by <em>Bryan Peterson</em></a>. The author also has written several other books in his "Understanding..." series including books on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Flash-Photography-Photographs-Electronic/dp/0817439560/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2">Flash Photography</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Portraiture-Creative-People-Photography/dp/0817453911/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_8">Portraiture</a>, and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Shutter-Speed-Low-Light-Photography/dp/0817463011/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5">creative use of Shutter Speed</a>. All are great books that focus on different aspects of photography that are all covered in <em><strong>Understanding Exposure</strong></em>.</p>

<p>On to some specifics about your experience:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>First the church was very red inside (hince a very warm image). So when I shot, everything came out a bit dark and red.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You likely were underexposing and your white balance was off. <br>

You can fix underexposure in three ways: a) increase ISO, b) open up your lens to a wider aperture, or c) shoot at a slower shutter speed. All can create issues, but you deal with what you have and try to fix the images in post.<br>

I'll take a stab and guess that you were using AUTO-WB. Difficult lighting easily confuses AUTO-WB. Having set a custom white balance prior to the shoot would have eliminated a whole lot of post-production work, but if you shot RAW or were using Lightroom, WB is easy enough to fix.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I was using the flash on the camera, by the way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could you tell? Were you close enough for your flash to make a difference? I always laugh at people in the stands at sporting events with all of their flashes going off. They won't make a difference at that distance, they just fool the camera into underexposing. Learning about light and how it works is essential and an off-camera flash will do you no good until you learn to use it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am wanting to buy new equipment, such as a flash and lens. I am stuck with the decision on buying a flash first, or a lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most people buy lenses first, flash later. This is because it is easier to learn the basics photography before you start learning to control the light. Is this the right way to do things? I don't know, but I don't think so. If you can learn to control the light you will learn how to effectively use your new, expensive lenses and how to "see the light that's available to you. Either way...learning to see the light that's available to you and how it interacts with your subjects is one of the most important aspects of photography. Once you see this you'll understand where you need to add light or modify light to get the results you desire.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Second question, if I do portrait photography would it be ok to use the 18-55mm lens or should I buy a different lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Initially, there is no need to use a different lens for portrait photography. Once you understand how to control light, perspective, and depth of field, you should start to look into lenses that will give you what you need. I could tell you that the 85mm f/1.4 is a traditional portrait lens, but until you understand WHY, there's no need to go out and spend $1600 on it...you'll likely make better photos with the kit lens.</p>

<p>My advise...for now:<br>

<em>Read, experiment, and learn.</em><br>

<em>If you've got to invest in equipment, buy a Nikon SB-700 and learn how to control the light it produces.</em><br>

<em>Learn to see light and how it interacts with your subject. Learn the differences in hard and soft light and which is preferable for your style of photography.</em><br>

<em>Buy and read </em><strong>Understanding Exposure. </strong><em>It'll give you a bit more than a basic understanding of what contributes to proper exposure and how to achieve the exposure you are trying to create.</em></p>

<p>Hope this helps,<br>

<br />RS</p>

 

[mukul_dube]

<p>Move slowly, Trent. It is sound advice that you should explore the capabilities and the limits of what you already have.</p>

[bengt_rehn]

<p>Flash first, lens second.<br>

You can do good portraits with your kit lens. The risk you take by getting a new lens early is that it may later turn out that you wish you bought a different one.<br>

It is indeed possible to learn the basics of photography while having a flash and two lenses. Anyone with normal IQ and a profound interest in what they are doing will succed to learn.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>I agree with Bengt. Adding a flash will give you capabilities you do not now have, while you already have a decent lens.</p>

[trent_adams]

<p>Thanks to all of you who have replied to my initial post. Although I wasn't able to find some of the exact books that were mentioned, I did find a couple of books that allowed me to obtain additional knowledge and added some of the "oh, yeah, that's why..." moments. Also from reading I realized that the built-in flash is really bad and why! So thanks again.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>"Also <strong>from reading </strong>I realized that <strong>the built-in flash is really bad </strong>and why"</p>

<p>Hmm? ? ?<br>

From doing - one can learn to effectively use the built in flash.<br>

Handy to use - not the solution to everything: but handy none the less.<br>

REF: my post, here: <a href="00ZAff">http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00ZAff</a> </p>

<p>WW</p>