In Balance Photography wrote:

Who is starting off with equipment they can't afford?

I think these people are a figment ...

+1
Also who doesn't dream of getting better equipment than the stuff they already have?

The people that can afford it.
The rest of us make do with cheaper solutions and worry that it might not work as well as it could if we had a few extra grand in the bank!

Green Grape Photography wrote:

Read slowly. I never said light was NOT important. I said master the camera settings First.

Shutter, Aperture, ISO,
Speed light
White balance
Rules like inverse square, maybe

instead of buying your first slr then 5 min later buying a $500 strobe set. (if they want to whatever. just saying)

what did i say that was so Off?

How long does it take to master camera settings, 5 minutes?

Slow shutter = blury
Small aperture = deep DoF
Bright light = low ISO
Low light = high ISO

Turn things you don't mind changing, keep the things you want the way you want them and when the meter shows that you're going to have a correct exposure, you're going to have a correct exposure. What else is there learn?

Tzalam wrote:
Photography - drawing with light

I am on my 3DSLR and 6SLR over all

Never read the manual and camera is always set to Manual

Been shooting for almost 27 years.

Learn new camera 30 min
Learn lighting a lifetime

my 2 cents

wow you've been doing photography longer than I have been alive

Azimuth Arts wrote:

I mostly agree with you but he is the OP

His reply sounded like he didn't think about his post when he typed it.

If light is light, then any equipment will work, no?

Leighthenubian wrote:

His reply sounded like he didn't think about his post when he typed it.

If light is light, then any equipment will work, no?

yes! may not last longer than brand names or take a beating but Yes

Tulack wrote:
Here is one of my favorite photographers.

http://500px.com/89205537525

Only natural light. Know your camera, know light, know post. "Cheap" photoshoot every time. Only camera, sometimes reflector.

Those also have a shit ton of post processing.  Camera doesn't have much to do with that either.

Leighthenubian wrote:
His reply sounded like he didn't think about his post when he typed it.

If light is light, then any equipment will work, no?

Green Grape Photography wrote:
yes! may not last longer than brand names or take a beating but Yes

Wrong.
(I detected a bit of sarcasm in Leighthenubian's comment, by the way).

Sometimes going "cheap" can end up being more expensive in more ways than one, because of multiple purchases or inconsistent lighting results.

There are times when you can get quality equipment at a cheap price, but you should avoid getting cheap equipment, even if you are "just learning." Anyone looking to take on photography "on the cheap" should rethink their hobbies.

Tulack wrote:
Here is one of my favorite photographers.

http://500px.com/89205537525

Only natural light. Know your camera, know light, know post. "Cheap" photoshoot every time. Only camera, sometimes reflector.

Nice images, but they stopped being photographs about 2 hours before the very extensive retouch work was completed.

Tulack wrote:
Here is one of my favorite photographers retouchers.
...

Sorry, but there is really no way of knowing if the last part of your
comment is applicable. We don't even know if some of those images are drawings.

Green Grape Photography wrote:
Many go nuts over what 'expensive'  lighting equipment to use in order to get the right shot. Not many people are curious of controlling their camera. I always suggest people to read their cameras manual & start off with what they can afford being that Light is Light. (unless quality is also a in interest)

I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

First off, I always check the camera settings..
Also, anyone one who is picky about lighting (the actual set up) regardless off type of light will always check the camera settings..
Camera settings and light settings go hand in hand..
You can't set up lights with checking your camera settings..

Yes light is light..
But to say, that just because some one has expensive lighting does not mean they do not check their camera.. What makes you assume that?

I also shoot in natural light.

Yes I check the light set up all the time, to try avoid hot spots...
I also check my camera settings..
This photo was taken with a cheap 150 ws plastic strobe, with just barn doors..


and natural light




You'll have to guess what picture in my port was taken with profoto lights.

Drew Smith Photography wrote:
Interesting comments from everyone.

However, it would seem that there are many photographers on MM yet to master their camera controls, let alone lighting.

Maybe but momentum creates success - and many here are looking to improve.

Green Grape Photography wrote:
Many go nuts over what 'expensive'  lighting equipment to use in order to get the right shot. Not many people are curious of controlling their camera. I always suggest people to read their cameras manual & start off with what they can afford being that Light is Light. (unless quality is also a in interest)

I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

I'll respectfully disagree.

You need to know three things.

Shutter speed
Aperture
ISO setting

Everything else is just fluff.

Light is far more complex and some people will never see it.  Any monkey can operate a camera.  Any person who's used *a* camera is able to use *all* cameras with 30 seconds to discover how to change those three parameters.

Do I REALLY need to know how to make an interval movie from still in-camera?  All I want to do is take a picture.

I pick up a camera and can operate it perfectly within 5 minutes.  But I'll spend the rest of my life hoping to master using and shaping light.



Your advice is misguided.

Green Grape Photography wrote:
Light is Light. (unless quality is also a in interest)

Hmmmm

So quality isn't an interest of yours then?

Green Grape Photography wrote:
I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

I set my camera to "P" for professional - what do you do?




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Jay Farrell wrote:
Try leading by example then.

Green Grape Photography wrote:
That is was trying to say. know how your camera works first

Thus far, and at this moment in time, all I ever need is inspiration, camera and light (waiting for quality). I use no other tools what so ever with what I'm doing, I guess I'll utilize more tools when they want me to utilize them.

In my opinion, a larger majority of beginners will never initially pick up a camera, and think it is imperative I learn how to see/use light, I doubt that thought will cross many of minds. However my thought is that they will pick up a camera initially and want to fiddle about with it, and more importantly make exposures, how ever they come, however they fall, that's what most will usually do, to me that is the start (making lots of exposures regardless of whether they are completely useless or not).

Then comes the "Fun" part, after however many minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, they'll come a point when the beginner in this case is frustrated to a degree, they'll become curious, not just about what they are shooting, or why they are shooting, but what the light is doing, this is when they start realize the worth of light, the lights worth - when they come to this realization, is when they know they need to learn about light, and how to light in part for a relatively desired effect, or a specific desired effect.

That's when you make the transition from happy snapper to photographer.

Green Grape Photography wrote:
Many go nuts over what 'expensive'  lighting equipment to use in order to get the right shot. Not many people are curious of controlling their camera. I always suggest people to read their cameras manual & start off with what they can afford being that Light is Light. (unless quality is also a in interest)

I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

Personally I'd suggest they spend their time reading a few good books on basic photography that cover things like composition, lighting and how ISO, Aperture and shutter speed relate to each other.   As for the camera manual as others have stated pretty much the only pages I use are the ones covering setting/changing WB, ISO, aperture, shutter speed and AF if its an AF camera.

Tulack wrote:
Here is one of my favorite photographers.

http://500px.com/89205537525

Only natural light. Know your camera, know light, know post. "Cheap" photoshoot every time. Only camera, sometimes reflector.

I was curious and it sounded impressive, until I saw only highly manipulated photos into a painterly feel...

Did I miss the "simple" ones?

If you want to compare this "simplicity" to, in my opinion, real simplicity, but kickass photography - in my opinion again - check out Michael Donovan who is frequently disappearing from MM and returns again...

Leighthenubian wrote:
This

+ I hate the "Strobist" movement. It started out as a way to light images inexpensively and became light everything until no shadows exist.

-JAY- wrote:
I have never seen the "obliterate shadows" mentality of strobists, and I have been following them since David Hobby started the hype... I myself own 16 speedlites, am a devout "lighting on a budget" enthusiast, and typically LOVE shadows.

I agree with Jay!

It was weird reading that the strobist try to obliterate shadows...

In my experience, it's not the strobists who are afraid of shadow, but the regular "light manipulators"... I have said for years that I do enjoy shadows in a photo...

Green Grape Photography wrote:
I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

All the new photographers have to do today is put the camera setting on AUTO, and they'll get great photos, with the new cameras available.  Heck, the cameras will even trip the shutter itself when it sees a subject smile, so I don't see a need today for any photographer to learn the camera, other than where the AUTO setting is.

Learning lighting on the other hand will take a lot of testing and learning, to get that right.

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:

Let me ask you this. Who is going to to be further along the curve to attaining excellent photography?

Person A - who has mastered light but has never picked up a dslr? Or, Person B - who has read their manual, "mastered" the technical functions of the camera, but hasn't a clue about using light?

I'm putting my money on Person A.

It doesn't take very long to learn how to use a camera and its functions. Mastering light is far more elusive, something many spend years trying to achieve, and what truly sets apart the great photographers from the "meh."

My vote is for "A"   Its all about seeing the light, kids.....

Green Grape Photography wrote:

That is was trying to say. know how your camera works first

OK that will keep you busy for the first 5 minutes, after that spend years learning light

Green Grape Photography wrote:
... I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

Are not understanding light and understanding camera two sides of the same coin?

When tossing a single sided coin, this question be valid.

L Bass wrote:

You might want to tweak that to say... 'and a TON of post.' If you know your camera and light... you don't have to know squat about post, unless you're going after totally unrealistic results.

Green Grape Photography wrote:
Many go nuts over what 'expensive'  lighting equipment to use in order to get the right shot. Not many people are curious of controlling their camera. I always suggest people to read their cameras manual & start off with what they can afford being that Light is Light. (unless quality is also a in interest)

I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

Um, actually without light your camera won't work...

udor wrote:

Leighthenubian wrote:
This

+ I hate the "Strobist" movement. It started out as a way to light images inexpensively and became light everything until no shadows exist.

I agree with Jay!

It was weird reading that the strobist try to obliterate shadows...

In my experience, it's not the strobists who are afraid of shadow, but the regular "light manipulators"... I have said for years that I do enjoy shadows in a photo...

Alright don't take it too literally. I was making a general observation based on my experiences.

I once belonged to several "Strobist" groups during my non-pro years working in a couple of different countries.

What I saw were people arriving for the meetups and immediately start setting up tons of speedlites even when there was perfectly good natural light available. Can you imagine that?? setting up aux lighting when there was beautiful sunlight coming through a large window.

Then there was the Flickr groups we would dump all our images from the meetup into...not a single shadow to be seen.

Your mileage may vary of course and I don't presume to direct your artistic vision.

In answer to something else posted by another person: There is a big difference between cheap "Strobist" type equipment and more expensive lighting gear. For starters, color consistency and reliability...and on and on.

Bad lighting is still bad lighting no matter what you choose to use.

Green Grape Photography wrote:
Many go nuts over what 'expensive'  lighting equipment to use in order to get the right shot. Not many people are curious of controlling their camera. I always suggest people to read their cameras manual & start off with what they can afford being that Light is Light. (unless quality is also a in interest)

I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

Don't you need light to master your camera? =/


cam·er·a
[kam-er-uh, kam-ruh] Show IPA
noun, plural cam·er·as for 1, 2, cam·er·ae [kam-uh-ree] Show IPA , for 3.
1.
a boxlike device for holding a film or plate sensitive to light, having an aperture controlled by a shutter that, when opened, admits light enabling an object to be focused, usually by means of a lens, on the film or plate, thereby producing a photographic image.

Green Grape Photography wrote:
Many go nuts over what 'expensive'  lighting equipment to use in order to get the right shot. Not many people are curious of controlling their camera. I always suggest people to read their cameras manual & start off with what they can afford being that Light is Light. (unless quality is also a in interest)

I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

Photography IS the study of light.  But it doesn't mean you need to buy light....light is free.  (To the above comment, it's what also makes your EYES work.)  So if you like to see things differently, appreciate details, and light, then a camera will help you capture what you already see. 

Studio is it's own discipline.  Takes lots of practice to be able to do it "perfectly" and if you hang around long enough, you might notice that the people who do it well seem to fall back on that as their specialty....meaning, that's all their portfolio seems to have in it. 

If you are just getting started.....try everything.  Just use a basic flash and get one of those basic plastic softeners that attach to the end.   Technically you just need ONE light to do studio work, I've never used more than one light.  I could, I suppose, I have 3, but I find studio to be kind of tedious and boring, no surprises, only controls and variables.   I like the surprises that ambient light have to offer.

Image Magik wrote:

Um, actually without light your camera won't work...

Touche