edlark

FJ,

 

I guess it is my day to back-pedal. I wouldn't say long explanations of photographs are "wrong," but that a less is more approach is just better - especially here on photo.net Sometimes an explanation, even a long one, is a necessary addition. Photojournalism or documentary photographs, for example, often don't do much of anything by themselves, but can have a large impact when the context of the image is known. But, for me, fine art images are always best served by a minimalist approach in titles and descriptions.

 

As to what I use, I'll tell you, but I don't want you to take it as advice. After dabbling in photography in high school and then taking only snapshots for the decade after, my interest in photography as a hobby came back a few years ago. I consider myself an "advancing" amateur, with a primary interest in street, photojournalism, and documentary photography. For the moment, you seem to be heading more toward the artistic side. What kind of photography you want to shoot, and your own personal shooting style which will evolve slowly over time - after a little over three years of "serious" photography, I think I'm just now beginning to understand my own style - will profoundly effect what equipment you will end up buying and using. My setup wouldn't necessarily be what is best for you or anyone else. The important thing is whether or not the equipment you choose is an aid or a hinderance to getting the type of images you want.

 

The other thing is that everyone seems to go through the "gear-head" stage, where you start to focus more on the equipment than on actually taking pictures. I had my own, and like to think that I've calmed down a bit in that regard, but everyone loves toys. My advice to you is to shoot with the equipment you have until you begin to feel yourself seriously constrained by it. (You'll know when it happens.) When you do decide to add to your kit buy slowly and buy quality, you'll actually end up spending less money in the long run. This is the voice of experience here, learned the hard way.

 

I also own Canon, and have been very pleased with the system, although I don't subscribe to the religious battle that rages between the two major systems - Canon vs. Nikon is a wash, use what you like. My first "real" camera was a Rebel II - I shot the 1999 Seattle WTO protest with it, a crappy 35-80mm kit zoom, and a bag full of Tri-X. I've gone through a couple of different bodies since then, trying some SLR alternatives along the way. My current kit, which I am very happy with includes: an Elan 7e as my main body (an excellent full-featured camera that is a lot lighter, smaller, and cheaper than an EOS 3 or 1v), an Elan IIe for a second/backup and night shooting body (excellent camera, and the IR sensor makes low light work a lot more pleasant than the god forsaken strobe on the 7e and Rebel models), Canon 50mm f/1.8 (you made a very good decision with this lens, it's the best deal in glass around and my standard "walk-around" lens), Canon 28-135mm USM IS (unless you are going to spend $1,400+ this is the best mid-range zoom available IMHO), Tamron 19-35mm (Tamron makes very good glass for the money, don't let the brand snobs fool you), and the Canon 200mm 2.8L II USM (excellent glass, much smaller and more discreet than the 1.8 version, and the filter size matches the 28-135mm which is very convenient). This setup should serve me for the next few years at least. I would greatly like a DSLR, but am not willing to spend thousands of dollars for what amounts to a glorified Rebel body. When they get a full-frame, 8-10MP+ sensor, Elan 7/EOS 3 based body DSLR on the market for less than $1000, I'll be seriously tempted. Until then, I get great scans from my low-end Minolta Diamage Dual Scan II and Vuescan.

 

So that's what I use, for what it's worth. Now I should probably get back to work before my boss catches me surfing photo.net and throws my can out on the street rendering me unable to afford film and leaving my life meaningless. ;)

 

Good luck.

FJ,

 

Sorry if I sounded a little harsh, but companies do engage in these kind of tactics, especially over the web. Your gushy post, combined with the other factors I mentioned, plus a couple of other items that popped up on your web site - untraceable web host, very ad-speak kind of language, a Canon link leading your "interesting sites" list, a photo of your all Canon brand film setup complete with Canon branded scanner - raised red flags. All of the above can easily, and it seems authentically, be chalked up to a budding photog excited over his new toys, but can also signal that the forum is being used to dishonestly promote a product.

 

So fine, you're you and you love your Rebel Ti. I'm happy for you and hope that you have much success with your photographic endeavors. I, personally, think it is an ugly-as-sin camera, but that's just my opinion and since you are the one who has to use the camera and be happy with it, it should count for exactly zilch in your own estimation. I'm sure it performs quite well as a light tight box.

 

Now your photo: Barring the technical problems already mentioned above, I'd say it is an image with a lot of potential. You have a tripod and a cable release, I think, so use them and reshoot to clean up the focus and sharpness. I might also push the hand slightly left in the composition to make the keyboard/path connection even more obvious, but that's debateable.

 

One other comment as to your description: it's too long and detailed. Beyond the old concept that, "If you have to explain what you were doing you didn't do it good enough," descriptions that are too explicit as to what the photographer is trying to convey often turn people off. As stated above photographers are a cantankerous bunch - I'm obviously living proof - and don't respond well to being TOLD what they should see in a photo. You also lose the possiblity for independant interpretation by your viewer. Great photos lend themselves to multiple readings - those intended by the photographer as well as those that might just be happy coincidence. Trust your audience and they will reward you for it - and by reward, I also mean telling you when you've got it wrong as well as when you've got it right.

 

My $0.02, for what it's worth. Good luck.

<p><i>"The new ergonomic design not only feels good, but also looks more familiar to today's youth..."</i>

 

<p><i>"I'm loving the right hand oriented controls as well as the big backlit LCD on the back..."</i>

 

<p><i>"I got a 50mm f/1.8 II recently, and it's a nice light package that, I think, looks nice too!"</i>

 

<p>Um... what kind of teenager talks like this? Your post reads like ad copy, your web site is hosted by a fee/anonymous service, and you've been a photo.net member for a total of three days. So are you real or simply a marketing construct for Canon to sell its ugly-as-sin camera?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Roy DeCarava. Wonderful street photographer.

The lens snobs won't like this, but I used all Tamron for several years and was quite satisfied. The lenses are very good for the money that you pay. That said, I've recently picked up a couple of Canon USM lenses and the quality difference is noticable - both picture and build. If you can afford the 28-135 IS, go with that. This is a great lens and incredibly versatile. I now do the majority of all my shooting with it. If you MUST have a hyperzoom (28-200), I would actually go with the Tamron, which I think is slightly better than the Canon, but either and all will be much softer than the Canon or Tamron 28-135 lenses. If you want something a little easier on the wallet, I've heard good things about the Canon 28-105, but I've not had any experience with it.

<div></div>

The educational version of Photoshop is upgradeable. I purchased the Web Design suite (Photoshop, GoLive, InDesign, LiveMotion) as a student and have recently upgraded both Photoshop and GoLive to the current (noneducational) versions. However, unless you are going to sign up for a class and then immediately drop it, or you would be taking a college level class anyway, the cost of tuition more than balances out what you will save by simply buying the retail version. Whoever mentioned buying Photoshop 4 and then purchasing the upgrade had the right idea.

One getting (at least the initial) shot: It is generally easier to get forgiveness

than permission.

<p>Re - the tech freaks: if they've got the money and they want to spend it, let them. I for one am happy that there are so many people who feel the need for the "latest and greatest" so as to provide those of us on shoe-string budgets a robust used market via eBay. That some (if not most) of these people will be uninformed about the equipment they buy and ill prepared to utilize it in any substantial way speaks less about the specific nature of digital photography than it does about the specific nature of the people involved. The "gadget hound" social subgroup can be found within virtually any hobby/activity - just hang out for a time in forums on mountain biking or computers if you don't believe me.

 

<p>Re - photography and accessability: While this is a little off Nathan's point, there definitely is a substrate of "professionals" and "advanced amateurs" who pine for the day when simply taking and printing a properly exposed snapshot was a technical feat worthy of an MIT engineering grad, and therefore, because of the difficulty in capturing <i>any</i> image well, automatically gave anyone who could do it a certain mystique. The very inaccessability of photography in previous years has meant that a decent living could be made by mediocer photographers who were simply willing to learn the <i>technical</i> side of the craft of photography. Now that we have wide lattitude negative film, one-hour photomarts, auto-exposure/focus cameras, digital capture and manipulation, and photo quality inkjet printers the technical demands of the craft have diminished - and, consequently so has the mystique.

 

<p>But for those wanting to push the creative side of photography the technical knowledge has always simply been the starting point, not the end point. At any point in time, with whatever photographic tools were available, there have always been a few - a small, tiny handful of those creating photographic images - that elevated the craft of photography to an art. Those few people will be there no matter how hard or how easy the act of creating a photographic image is. Those few people will always be there to make the rest of us go, "How the hell did they do that!?" How easy or how hard it is to make ordinary photographs doesn't matter to them because they were never making ordinary photographs to begin with.

 

<p>Most people don't care one way or the other about the how of photography, they just want to take a couple snaps of the kids to send to grandma. For them, I think it is great that they can now do that with an unprecedented level of ease and without the need to spend vast amounts of their time pouring over technical treatises on the nature of light.

 

<p>And for me? I'm very happy that I can, at least in some ways, operate as a "dumb" photographer. For example, I don't know the first thing about printing in a darkroom, and frankly, don't care to spend the time (or the money) that it would require to find out. Not being a pro, I don't have any real stake in keeping the process of photography inscrutable, in fact, I want lots of tools available that make image creation as easy as possible and that get in my way as little as required. I want to be out taking pictures - learning, refining, experimenting. I want to spend my time working toward the hope of having that one image that makes everyone else say, "How the hell did he do that?"