andrew_west5

I feel like I'm in an interesting position to comment on this. I'm a 22 year old photo major in the process of trying to build

a strong, consistent portfolio using limited resources. I'm taking a semester off because of financial issues, so I don't

have access to school equipment nor do I have stacks of cash to pour into strobes, triggers, modifiers, or anything else.

I have homemade ringflash adaptors, diffusers, softboxes, and reflectors lying around my house and my lighting setup

currently consists of an SB-600, optical slave, and a little Minolta hotshoe flash limiting me to only the most simplistic

lighting setups. No, I don't own any stands.

It's been said many times that a master photographer can create great photographs with even the most basic equipment

(analogies are also often made to music in this respect, which I find to be entirely inaccurate). I consider myself to be a

competent photographer. I know my way around a camera, I have a solid understanding of composition, and I know how

to use light... available light. Outside of bounce and fill-flash, my understanding of studio lighting is pretty rudimentary. You see, it's hard to experiment with studio lighting when you don't own any. I'm even limited in my forays into off-

camera flash due to my reliance on optical slaving.

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that photography shouldn't be all about the equipment. I've seen enough of

Pop Photo and the like to know what happens when the equipment takes precedence over the craft. However, for

professionals, and those of us working towards becoming professionals, equipment is far from a nonissue. When I can

afford it, I intend to invest in lighting. I'd prefer my entire portfolio to not be limited by my equipment or lack thereof.

I hadn't noticed anything particularly "intolerant". Posters may be ignorant of Kuwait's culture at most, but to claim that

photographers commenting on a national camera ban is intolerance seems unwarranted.

You might also consider that posters here are commenting from the viewpoint of an international traveler interested in travel

photography beyond a simple point and shoot. Any country instituting such a ban should expect a similar reaction from

photographers.

For the most part, once you've invested in a system, there's only rarely good reason to jump ship. The major manufacturers

are in constant competition, meaning any popular feature or product from one manufacturer will inevitably be duplicated or

matched in some way by the competition in order to remain competitive. This is especially true of Canon vs Nikon. It's just

a matter of patience.

Every serious photo competition I've seen charges an entry fee. If you have any interest in pursuing

editorial photography, a photo you really believe would fare well against the competition, and can spare

$15 – I say you'd be a fool not to go for it.

Having a credit like that could be a career maker, or at least lend one a serious shot in the arm. And come

on, it's National Geographic. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the National Geographic Society isn't

trying to pull a fast one here.

After reading some of the more irritable responses here, it's a wonder these professionals get work with their apparent lack

of people skills. I can assure you, I won't have somebody shooting my wedding who can't handle guests with cameras.

Anyhow, I think the answer here is pretty simple. Take your camera and a good prime lens and go enjoy yourself. In the

process, snap some pictures. You'll have a good time and you'll have pictures from the perspective of a guest. The

professional can't do that the same way you can.

<p>I came across this while killing some time online. In there own words:</p>

<p><i>"This photo documentary is about re-imagining the travels of previous generations. In a time we can only know throw the stories of our

relatives, young Americans took to the roads, heading west, in search of a greater purpose in their lives-to journey.</p>

<p>This story is a visionary one, to put modern youths, motorcycle riders, on the road for distances that will strip them of their everyday

comforts and casual conversation, to force them to become introspective in the wind, to reflect on their own paths individually...only to be

brought together to help one another into the next day."</i></p>

<p>You can check it out at http://www.itsbetterinthewind.com/ and watch a video promo at <a href="http://vimeo.com/10227313y">http://vimeo.com/10227313</a>.</p>

Thanks for joining up.

Twenty postcards would be excellent. We may not get twenty people on board this first round (though I'd really like to), but even ten or fifteen would be much appreciated.

<p>I was part of a postcard exchange on another forum a few years ago, and I'd like to start something similar here. I figure we can give it a trial run, and if all goes well, we can make it a regular thing.</p>

<br/>

<p><b>Do what now?</b><br>

You're probably wondering how exactly this is going to work. Yes, at some point in the equation, strangers are going to have your mailing address. If that makes you uncomfortable, I would not recommend participating. If you're not unduly paranoid, read on.</p>

<br/>

<p>First, interested parties can either reply to this thread or, if preferred, PM me their mailing address and the number of postcards they'd like to send out. Then, after a reasonable number of people have expressed interest, I send participants a list of mailing addresses. Finally,

people send out their postcards and receive the same number in return. It's all pretty straightforward.</p>

<br/>

<p><b>Postcards?</b><br>

I'm using the word postcard to mean any small print that can be mailed at the postcard rate ($0.28 with the USPS, for example). The

printing format is up to you. Analog or digital, it doesn't matter.</p>

<br/>

<p><b>Wait, I have a question...</b><br>

If anyone has any questions, feel free to post them to the thread and I'll be happy to answer them. I'm hoping this takes off here. It's

always nice to see the work of other photographers, low resolution jpegs notwithstanding.</p>

<p>I can't wait for "hipster" to fall out of the popular lexicon. Not to mention all the pseudo-sociological analyses of hipster culture. They're skinny jeans, not a cultural revolution. </p>

<p>That's all I have to say on that.</p>

<p>Thanks, John. I didn't expect to find any other Hoosiers. </p>

<p>Actually, I go to the Gary campus (Indiana University Northwest). I'd prefer to go to the Bloomington campus though. They have the Indiana Daily Student, a well respected independent student paper that's won an award or two.</p>

<p>I'm going to agree with the others about the music. I'm not sure if you use your website to attract new business or more as a virtual business card, but I can tell you that most people have no patience for music on a website. They'll close the tab as soon as the music starts. Unlike the restaurant, your patrons have millions of options a click away making for very short attention spans and very little patience. It doesn't matter how good your photography is if potential clients aren't staying long enough to view it.</p>

<p>I understand the desire to create an immersive experience, but I would suggest creating a video promo complete with music and making it available on your site. Movies work because people are able to immerse <em>themselves</em>. Movies would be be far less enjoyable if they were forced on their audience.</p>

<p>Acceptable digital manipulation or not? Acceptable for what, exactly?</p>

<p>Clearly, it wasn't acceptable for the WPP contest. However, the story was shot for the news agency RIA Novosti, so it's safe to assume it's acceptable for that particular news agency. There are best practices, but there are no hard and fast ethics in photojournalism. What is and isn't acceptable depends on the publication/intended use of the photography. </p>

<p>That said, it seems to me like Mr. Rudik came back with a memory card full of mediocre images and had to rely on post-processing to save himself. </p>

<p>I realize this isn't actually my first post, but I've decided to get more involved here and figured this would be a good place to start.</p>

<p>I'm a photography major at Indiana University with plans to pursue photojournalism/editorial work. I've been an avid photographer since I was thirteen or fourteen, which means I've been going at this for about eight years. Yeah, I guess that makes me a new guy around here, doesn't it? I actually got into photography as a door into filmmaking and I'd still love to work on a documentary, but I think photography is always going to be my first love.</p>

<p>I'm also a part-time web designer (i.e. unpaid hobbyist) and have had countless personal sites, portfolios, blogs, and messageboards over the years. I'm actually in the middle of designing a new portfolio/photoblog right now. Exciting, right? Yeah, I didn't think so.<br>

Yeah, I'd say that about covers it. Fascinating guy, I know.</p>

<p>Large format fine art photography seems to be alive and well. Medium format has suffered, but there's no shortage of shooters who prefer medium format and don't have ten grand to drop on a digital back. 35mm, however, has become a niche in itself.</p>

<p>All considered though, I wouldn't say film cameras are "fading away". Not quite yet anyway.</p>

<p>Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I'd figured this thread was already dead.<br>

I agree that the work is rather flat. I'm still working on building a portfolio right now and to be honest, I'm not too happy with anything so far. I'll get there though.</p>

<p>Honestly, I'm more interested in photojournalism and location portraiture. I'm working on building a portfolio more in line with that, but I'm not sure what good that kind of work will do me right now.</p>

<p>As far as learning HTML, I would suggest the following:</p>

<p>1. Go to <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp">http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp</a> and go through the tutorials. I'd also suggest learning CSS at <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/css/">http://www.w3schools.com/css/</a>, but focus on HTML first.</p>

<p>2. Whenever you come across a website you like or with a design that catches your eye, view source and pick through the source code. </p>

<p>3. Just dive in. Try making your own site, rely on Googling and copy/pasting as much as you need to. If you use Wordpress or Tumblr, you can use a basic theme as a starting point and customize it. The best way to learn is by doing.</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback and I hope that helps.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photography is not about the equipment. It really is as simple as that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a nice thought, but an oversimplification. Photography is not solely about the equipment nor is the equipment a priority over technique, but it is wrong to discount equipment entirely. I've seen a lot of this "anti-equipmentism", online and off, possibly backlash against the oversaturation of marketing in the photographic industry (it's not a photo magazine if the lead article isn't pushing the latest and greatest DLSR). To be clear, I share that sentiment, I believe there are too many people who are trying to buy better images, but equipment is important. Mastering photography on a technical level means understanding the equipment inside and out, and knowing the best tool for the job at hand. An 18mm lens is going to give you a fundamentally different composition than a 55mm or 200mm. </p>

<p>I realize the real argument here is that you can get basically the same image regardless of camera body and that buying a more expensive camera won't suddenly improve your photos. I agree that it won't improve your composition or technique, but it will improve the image quality. Betters lens, betters sensors, better film, etc improve the end product. Faster AF, higher ISOs, and better noise control allow us to get photos, if we're being completely honest here, we just couldn't have captured otherwise. Ask the photojournalists, learning to choose your equipment is a crucial skill.</p>

<p>Also, I'll point out that if you're involved in a technical craft such as photography, it stands to reason you're going to be interested in the tools of the trade. You can't fault people for that. </p>

<p>I appreciate the feedback. I'm using Tumblr, a free blogging platform, that I rigged up as a portfolio. I can fix the thumbnails with a little CSS, but I was more concerned with the content of the portfolio right now. It's really just a temporary thing I put together specifically for the internship. Their own site uses separate windows for their image galleries, so I figured they could handle it if I used them similarly. No need to go back or return home though, the photo is in a new window so you can just close it when you're finished with it and you're right back at the homepage. As far as Tumblr is concerned, I think that's really the most efficient setup.<br>

I could really use some opinions on the content itself though. I'm afraid it isn't doing me justice, but I wanted some outside opinions, maybe see what impression it gave.</p>

<p>I put together a portfolio for an internship with a place called Studio This Is. They're a photo/design studio that, as far as I can tell, does portrait, fashion, and band photography as well as wedding photography and design work. I tried to put together a small collection of work that I thought was relevant, but I'm not sure if it's a decent portfolio. I could really use some opinions. The help would really be appreciated.<br>

The link to the portfolio is <a href="http://theandrewwestportfolio.tumblr.com/">http://theandrewwestportfolio.tumblr.com/</a>. The website for the studio is <a href="http://www.studiothisis.com/">http://www.studiothisis.com/</a> if you want to check that out.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses so far. All have been extremely helpful and informative.<br /> I know the price I quoted for the S3 seems high, that's really a best case scenario. It's just based on my eBay/Amazon/KEH searching. I consider KEH to be the best judge of used camera prices myself, and considering the condition of the camera (I take care of my stuff), I'd say it's EX+ condition (using KEH's rating scale). That said, you all are probably right. $400 is probably closer to what I'll end up getting.<br>

<br /> The more research I've done, the more I've wanted to get a new camera. But to be honest, the reason I started looking at upgrading in the first place is because I was afraid the quality of my images was suffering because of my choice of camera body. Night photography, unless using 20< second exposures and relatively low ISOs were full of noise and in general use, I've felt limited to 400 ISO as an absolute maximum. I've been viewing my images full size, wondering if upgrading wouldn't just save me a headache, but allow me to create higher quality pictures (insofar that a camera controls picture quality).<br>

<br /> I'm feeling very tempted to buy the D300, even more so after reading the responses so far. Just to pose another question to everyone in the know here: would you describe the D300 as a practical choice for professional use? Not just moreso than the S3, but in general.<br /> Thanks again everyone, and thanks for bearing with me.</p>

<p>I have done a lot of research over the past week. Probably the past couple weeks, actually. If Amazon and KEH are any indication, I should be able to get $600-$700 for my S3, but I'll still be paying at least $400-$500 out of pocket for the D300. I apologize for adding another "What Should I Buy?" thread to the pile, but before I shell out that kind of cash, I figured it would be wise to get the input of some knowledgeable people.</p>

<p>Right now, my subjects are pretty variable. I do tend to prefer portraits/people pictures, but I've been experimenting more with landscapes and environmental photography lately. I'm working on building a portfolio, and I'd like to show some versatility. I'm a photography major with plans to pursue photojournalism/editorial photography, but right now, I just want a camera that isn't going to limit me.</p>

<p>I know the Fuji pro cameras are unique in their wide dynamic range and are supposed to be especially well suited to rendering skin tones. Maybe it's bad lighting, but I've noticed noise in shadows even at lower ISO values (400-800). I do plan on investing in lighting soon, but I'd rather not have to worry about noise when I have to bump up the ISO.</p>

<p>From what I've read, the D300 has excellent images straight from the camera and good dynamic range. I'd still be losing a couple stops of dynamic range in the upgrade, but would I see a significant improvement in noise reduction? </p>

<p>I guess I'm asking if I'm going to a significant improvement in the quality of my images or if it's just going to be an improvement in speed (the S3 is great, but the damn thing is frustratingly slow) and resolution. A higher resolution would be great too, believe me, but that's $500 I could spend on faster lenses or lighting. </p>

<p>Any advice would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks all.</p>

<p> </p>