TexasCHLforum.com

No love for Olympus cameras? I've for a E-510 that works pretty darn well.

Wow...more info than I know what to do with! haha! Thank you!

I plan on initially taking family pictures. Action shots of the little ones at the park, hiking, etc. I'd also like to take pics in and around the hill country. Old cemeteries, nature, water, animals, etc. Eventually, as the girls get older, school activities and sports.

We have E-300 and 2 E-500 Olympus. We love 'em! They have been to so many livestock shows and still going strong!

Had to throw and Oly vote in!

I also have and love a little Panasonic TZ point and shoot with 10megapixels and 10x optical zoom. It is also image stabilized and it does a fabulous job!

Would love to shoot more. Dad always said "Leave only footprints - take only pictures!"

The only thing I want to add is if you get a Nikon, make sure that it is compatible with all standard Nikon lenses. Nikon makes a less expensive model [I don't remember the number] that is not compatible with other Nikon lenses. If you buy this model you will be limited to one particular mount and won't have the flexibility and choice of other lenses.

austinrealtor wrote: http://www.worldsfamousphotos.com/index.php/tag/bullet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (interesting to note the "photographer" was actually an MIT scientist - by today's standards, he wouldn't even be allowed to bring a rifle onto campus in Boston)

My father was a contemporary of Edgerton's at MIT, in the Electrical Engineering Department, Edgerton was a couple of years ahead of him and was one of his assistant professors. I had the honor of meeting him a couple of times, but as a teenager singularly unimpressed with the technology at the time, and having been thoroughly berated for making myself ineligible to attend dad's alma mater, I was even less interested than you can imagine.

I sure wish I had time to take a good photography course!

I need input from you guys about an idea for the 2011 TexasCHLforum Day at PSC. Would it be realistic to have a 1/5 to 2 hr. seminar on photography for us novices, with an emphasis on shooting or action photos? I think a lot of shooters would like to know how to get the best out of those settings when they take family and/or friends to the range or hunting.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I sure wish I had time to take a good photography course!

I need input from you guys about an idea for the 2011 TexasCHLforum Day at PSC. Would it be realistic to have a 1/5 to 2 hr. seminar on photography for us novices, with an emphasis on shooting or action photos? I think a lot of shooters would like to know how to get the best out of those settings when they take family and/or friends to the range or hunting.

Chas.

A knowledgeable photographer could certainly point out the "do's and dont's" as well as make suggestions on settings and equipment requirements, but with the limited time slot he/she would not be able to personally tutor each person with regards to their specific camera.

We probably have a some professionals here or an advanced amateur.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I need input from you guys about an idea for the 2011 TexasCHLforum Day at PSC. Would it be realistic to have a 1/5 to 2 hr. seminar on photography for us novices, with an emphasis on shooting or action photos? I think a lot of shooters would like to know how to get the best out of those settings when they take family and/or friends to the range or hunting.
.

I have both taught and attended photography seminars and I would say that 2 hours is about right for a class on the very basics. It takes about 30 minutes to explain how photography works, aperture, shutter speed and the effect they have on the picture taking process. From there you can take it a bunch of different directions. I would probably spend an additional 30 minutes talking about the different kinds of equipment and how to select what is right for you in a brand agnostic way. I would then spend the next 30 minutes explaining how to work the basic functions of an SLR effectively and some very simple information on the use of light in composition leaving the last 30 minutes for questions. In my experience, in a total beginner class nearly all the questions will be about equipment.

But that is just me, there are lots of other options. I think a lot of people would use 2 hours to talk about almost nothing but composition, others may talk about use of light. etc, etc...

dalto wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I need input from you guys about an idea for the 2011 TexasCHLforum Day at PSC. Would it be realistic to have a 1/5 to 2 hr. seminar on photography for us novices, with an emphasis on shooting or action photos? I think a lot of shooters would like to know how to get the best out of those settings when they take family and/or friends to the range or hunting.
.

I have both taught and attended photography seminars and I would say that 2 hours is about right for a class on the very basics. It takes about 30 minutes to explain how photography works, aperture, shutter speed and the effect they have on the picture taking process. From there you can take it a bunch of different directions. I would probably spend an additional 30 minutes talking about the different kinds of equipment and how to select what is right for you in a brand agnostic way. I would then spend the next 30 minutes explaining how to work the basic functions of an SLR effectively and some very simple information on the use of light in composition leaving the last 30 minutes for questions. In my experience, in a total beginner class nearly all the questions will be about equipment.

But that is just me, there are lots of other options. I think a lot of people would use 2 hours to talk about almost nothing but composition, others may talk about use of light. etc, etc...

Maybe even devote the last HOUR to questions and answers, since folks will have varying degrees of experience...their specific questions might be addressed better that way.

But, I like your basic outline. Sounds like you (and possibly another qualified person).... would be just the ticket.

The Nikon School offers day-long seminars on Digital SLR Photography. They are good for all photographers, not just for Nikon owners. They are strictly seminars and do not require bringing or owning a camera. They have classes scheduled early next year in Houston [Feb], Dallas [March] and Austin [April].

http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explo ... raphy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Though there is a steeper learning curve with Digital (because of multi-functions/menus), they are nonetheless easier to "play" with because you can see your results instantly. With film cameras (most), you had to develop the roll of film to see what you got!

I'll never get rid of my 35mm film cameras (just for nostalgia's sake)....but digital opened up a whole new world for me.

Good photo-editing software can also make things much easier for import, storage, editing, printing, etc....

Since Olympus was brought up earlier in the tread. The Canon 5D mark II with an adapter will use all the old manual focus Olympus Zuiko lenses and since it has a 24 x 35 mm chip the wide angle lenses stay wide angle.

Since we are on photography, in case anyone did not see this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ntana.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Digital cameras have made the process of taking pictures so much easier than with film. With digital everyone can take a decent picture now. Decent pictures with photoshop can be made even better. With a good inkjet printer, everyone has a great darkroom at very little cost and effort.

But to take a great photo you must "make" it, not simply snap the shutter and rely on luck. That is the difference between the professional and everyone else.

Oh and if you want to see who has the greatest job on earth, check out photographer Russel James on facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/RussellJames" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once again, I'd like to add to this thread and give food for thought. First, the finest DSLR camera on the market only does one thing. It mostly ensures a properly exposed, in focus photograph - period, end of statement. It does nothing to make a quality photograph. If it's true that, "a picture is worth a thousand words," then it must tell a story. Not just a bunch of words. Modern cameras have simply taken "most" of the thought required for proper exposure and focus away from the user, and placed it in the mechanics of the camera and it's chip. If you accept this as fact, then your concentration with a DSLR should be composition and lighting.

Without composition, you have no story. Proper composition keeps the viewers eye (and mind) within the photograph, and a poorly composed picture does not. Focusing aids in manual focus cameras, or center focus in digital cameras does more to defeat composition than anything else. As most are used to placing the focusing aid in the center of a viewfinder on the "Center of Interest," the center of interest is usually in the center of the photograph. With proper composition, the center of interest should (almost) never be in the center. Sounds odd, but it's true. That's why the "Rule of Thirds" is a rule, not a suggestion. Here's an example demonstrating the Rule of Thirds.

http://www.google.com/images?q=rule+of+ ... 07&bih=582" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note, in 99% of the images, the center of interest is NOT in the center of the frame. There's a good reason for that - it would be boring! This is not new to photography. Go to any art gallery, that displays traditional art, and you will see the rule of thirds in constant use.

The other key component to good photography is the ability to "see the light." Why? Because lighting is everything in art. You are dealing with a three dimensional subject on a two dimensional medium. Without proper highlight and shadow, you will see only two dimensions. The moon is a great example. When you look up at a full moon, you see a flat disk. However, when you look at a 3/4 moon it appears as a round ball. Highlight and shadow are the key. While not as true with say sports photography, it is a must with portrait and scenic photography for example.

So here's my take. There are two ways to go. You can study camera settings profusely, spend thousands of $$$$ on fantastic equipment, ignore composition and lighting, and produce excruciatingly sharp well exposed boring photos, or you can spend a minimum amount on equipment, learn the basics of camera functions (ISO, aperture, shutter speed, depth of field), practice good composition, learn to "see the light" (highlight and shadow) and take fantastic and interesting photographs. Once you have mastered these areas, you will probably develop a liking to a particular aspect of photography (scenic, portrait, sports, etc) and at that time expand in to knowledge and perhaps new equipment to make those photographs even better. But not until the basics are learned. Otherwise you'll always be a snapshot taker. Of course that's not all bad, for after 30 years as a pro, and retired, that's all I care to do these days

http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Check out this site. Good group of people on it. Plenty of stuff for sale used. If you have an old Canon camera you can trade it in for a refurb

G26ster wrote:... until the basics are learned ... you'll always be a snapshot taker.

A good photographer will take better pictures with a disposable camera than most people can take with $3,000 worth of photo gear just as a good shooter with a military surplus 1911 will outshoot a lesser shooter with a $2000 custom Les Baer 1911.