Hi, Jodi. For me it’s a tradeoff–it’s much harder for me to achieve some things I never think twice about with film, like getting a decent focus. On the other hand, it’s much easier to spend time doing "etudes" with a digital camera when practicing–this is a shot at -.3 exp compensation, here it is at 0, here at +.3, now let’s try adjusting contrast, and so on.
I do find I am more willing to try iffish shots with the digi because there’s no penalty if they don’t work out, and it’s a LOT easier to include post-processing in a digital workflow.
Well…Both.
I don’t consider myself a "photographer" but digital photography has allowed me to capture some pretty nice images which I probably would never have been able to do before I went digital. I bracket the heck out of most shots because I don’t have to worry about film processing and usually end up with a few decent photo’s. I also pay much more attention to composition because I know that I can take as many shots as my SD card can hold.
Joe
Also, having EXIF data available is very, very helpful when you are trying to see what works and what doesn’t.
Jodi,
I probably wouldn’t be anywhere near as comfortable with digital imaging if I hadn’t stumbled, literally, across Photoshop Elements.
Now it has rekindled an interest in photography that had pretty much gone dim.
I look on the whole issue as "imaging" whether you use film or digital it is still essentially the same process.
Dick
BTW, Barbara, I agree with you about the exif data. It also affords you a way to replicate some things.
Dick, I would say that in my case it didn’t exactly rekindle an interest, but having less stuff to lug around makes me take more photos because I have a camera with me at times when I wouldn’t if all I had was my film SLR.
Got out of film years ago, digital got me back into photography. I always did have more of a tendancy to the "sloppy" side of things, but usually I’m not really a "Photographer", more of a "Snap Shooter" 🙂
I, too, take more pictures now than with film, because I have no need to conserve film. I’m a "Snapshooter", too, and since I’ve gone to digital have accidentally taken a couple of real photographs. 🙂
I’ll bet "humble" is Beth’s middle name.
I shoot much more now that I have no concerns over ongoing cost. When I don’t remind myself to slow down and think about what I’m doing it can get ugly. I’m still trying to use Leen’s tip about putting my hands in my pocket and walking around and looking from different angles before shooting. On the flip side, having no ongoing cost allows me to shoot lots of test shots and see the outcome immediately. I think if one is paying attention you can not help but to improve your photography skills. In the pre-digital days I would try and take notes on how and why I did something but often times when I got the photo back the note made no sense whatsoever. I think forums such as this help a great deal to. I can read a thread and grab my camera and test new ideas while it is fresh in my mind. The ability to post shots immediately and get feedback from other photographers is very helpful. Overall I would say digital has been a good thing.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
for questioning. Honest answers only please.
Jodi,
Because the costs of film processing are not a factor, I shoot more. Shooting more, I have more opportunities to learn my camera and hone my techniques. Additionally, shooting more means that the odds are better that I’ll have my camera ready when the "right" moment comes along.
I must fit between your definitions of "better" and "sloppy"… how ’bout "studied enthusiasm"?
Byron
I can’t say that digital has made me a "better" photographer, it certainly hasn’t made me a "good" photographer either. What it has allowed me to do is learn more about photography than I would if I was using film. As others have mentioned, it’s allowed me to experiment with different techniques and and learn how to take advantage of what my camera has to offer. Pre-digital, I would have limited myself to taking safe shots and would have limited myself to just taking snap shots of family or such due to the expense of film and developing. When I shoot now I don’t just shoot willy-nilly and see what comes out.I take what I’ve learned and shoot accoringly because I don’t want to fill up a memory card and only get 2 or 3 good shots out of it (even tho that happpens occasionaly anyhow.)I quess what I do now is shoot digital as if it were film and had the costs that were associated with it.But going digital did allow me to "waste" alot of shots while I taught myself to shoot. Now I’m waiting for a digi-cam to come out that will not only do evertything my camera does now but will also compose my shots and make every one non-banal. 🙂
CR
Digital photography has definitely improved my photography overall- I am now getting a much higher percentage of ‘keepers" than I was when I was shooting just film – it’s allowed me to get the experience to go from having a theoretical understanding of how exposure works to a practical one, and there is a world of difference! And I’ve been able to take that improved knowledge back to my film SLR and improve the photos that I take there too. I don’t think that I am a sloppier photographer, although I do take more photos – the ability to take test shots gives us mere mortals the ability to do what pros used to do with polaroids.
But I still don’t think enough about composition – no that’s not right – I think a lot about composition, it’s just I’m still not very good at it! it’s very frustrating, my husband has a natural eye for composition but no technical knowledge whatsoever … between us we’d have the makings of a good photogrpher!
Jodi, here are my answers:
Digital photography brought me back to a hobby I had dropped in frustration many years ago. Too many bad photos viewed too long after they were taken… My 35 mm equipment was gathering dust in a closet when I bought my first digital two years ago.
To the extent that I can improve, which is marginal, I’m convinced that it’s made me a better photographer because I practice what I learn here on the forum and can see my results immediately. I still take some bad shots, but I follow them with better if not good shots when I figure out what I’ve done wrong. Thanks to Grant and others, I’m concentrating on learning how to properly expose an image, and that’s been a lot of fun.
And the economics work very well for me. Not that many images wind up in print, so the option to print at home or head to Sam’s or WalMart is a very viable one for me.
My 2 cents…
Chuck
Thank you all so far for your feedback. I had been pondering this since a friend brought up his ideas about digital photography. I wanted to get other point of views on this subject. I can relate to all of you…especially Chuck, Chris and Susan…I could have written what you wrote. In my opinion…t’is is the era of digital photography and to be involved in it with all of you feels pretty good.
Please don’t stop here….
I would say as Chuck just did. In addition, digital photography has put photography almost everywhere in my life nowadays.
I mean, I can have the «luxury» of shooting anything / everything, at any moment, not worrying that the next event will be so far away in time that my pictures will fade on film, before they get processed. I remember the days when I had to force myself into finishing a film roll to get it processed, because the exposed pictures would be damaged soon otherwise. So now, carrying a camera isn’t an event in itself, it became a usual thing I do on my way to work, the shopping mall, etc.
And it pretty much had the same effect on my family and friends, in the sense that they come home, see a picture they like and five minutes later, it’s there, printed on inkjet photo paper, ready for them to take it out when they leave! Before that, they’d have to wait for me to find the negative (of course, never to be found when needed), have it re-processed and for me to visit them. Waste of time!
It also made me more «instantaneous»… Like if I want to show something to someone (just recently, we redecorated the bathroom). My familly is scattered north and south. In no time, pictures were taken, processed (color balanced, etc.) and posted on the web.
Did it make me a better photographer? Not really. From the various comments I received, I’d say I’m a still a 10 (on a one to ten scale, 10 being "forget it, you’ve got no talent") Did it put fun in photography? Sure thing it did! Did it change the way I shoot? Not entirely, but I definitively learn from my mistakes, and I’m positively more adventurous. I’ll try things I would not have because of the cost involved in processing a roll of film. Like those pictures I took when there was a lunar eclipse, last year. I wouldn’t have taken any pictures with film, because I really didn’t know how to shoot under these conditions. Did I make a masterpiece out of those? Not at all! Will I be better next time? Sure!
Finally, I’d conclude by saying it removed the pressure of doing the perfect shot on the spot, especially when traveling. With the [still too tiny] LCD screen, at least I can see if I missed something. Of course, I do still miss things, but mainly because I didn’t know they were important to see or get removed. That’s when PSE comes in handy 🙂
Ray
Kyle, you said you were:
"more of a "Snap Shooter""
To that I can only add that there is nothing wrong with being a snap shooter.
One very famous one was Joe Clark, who always tagged his name with H.B.S.S. Which stood for Hillbilly Snap Shooter. Joe was the guy who did all the print ad pix for Jack Daniels for years and years. His "snapshots" were highly valued then and now.
Dick
I guess I haven’t had my digital camera long enough to change my shooting style much. I will still go for a 3 or four hour walk and take only 3 to 5 pictures. And maybe 4 of them will languish on a CD forever more. However, I will pay close attention to the exposures of the ones I DO take, and I REALLY appreciate the immediate feedback on this.
Post processing in digital is wonderful. I could never afford a colour darkroom, so I am now able to ‘tweak’ images much better than trying to write down descriptions of what I want for a lab technician to follow. I don’t think I would be able to go back to film (well, maybe if someone gave me a full Leica M-series setup 🙂 ).
I’ve really enjoyed being one of the early participants in the digital photography revolution. Even though it’s been two and a half years since my first digital, I have enjoyed being among the first in my circle to make use of digital photography in the way that many are just beginning to explore. Several more family members and friends have acquired digital cameras since my first digital camera but have yet to make much use of digital editing or online photo galleries.
I’ve improved my snap shots at a considerably faster pace and the internet connection to photography peers has been an enormous benefit to learning.
To borrow from someone on dpreview,
‘snap shooter, and proud of it!’
PS The honesty requirement was a tough one, Jodi, but I overcame it.
I too have recently got back into photography after being away from it for about 35 years. I used 35 mm slide film back then. About a year ago I bought a Canon G2 and fooled around a bit with closeups. I have just bought a Canon D10 and a 24 to 200 mm zoom lens and starting to learn again. It’s a steep learning curve but an exciting journey. Being away form photography, I filled the last 10 years with comuters. I look forward to putting photography and computer knowledge together.
Ron
Mark, your post jogged my memory. I remember that soon after I found this forum, I saw the terrific pictures you had posted on your pBase site. They showed me what was achievable with digital and I started to consider the digital camera to be more than just a toy. Belated thanks to you for helping inspire my efforts!
🙂
Snapshot … What’s in a name? A rose by any other name will still smell as sweet.
It is interesting to note that the term snapshot was originally term use for shooting birds. The term was first applied to photography by Sir William Herschel in 1860. Here is an interesting bit of the camera’s gun language lexicality.
"The sourcing of photographic vocabulary in art and science is straightforward. More intriguing is the fact that a significant group of words seem to have been adopted from the domain of weaponry. That is, words originally used with respect to firearms and other weapons have come to be applied to photography. Shoot and shot are obvious examples of this. A snapshot was a shot fired quickly, and without careful aim. Cameras have triggers or firing mechanisms, though button and shutter (release) are less antiquated and less militaristic terms. People load cameras with cartridges or magazines of film; they cock shutters, and they fire off films. Gun-shy (of animals, nervous of gunfire or frightened by guns) predates camera-shy by some 40 years, and may have provided the model for its formation. It would be dangerous to take such analogies and connections too far, but the parallelism or deep metaphor can be extended a little, and seen in images of someone pointing his or her camera at someone else and aiming it, or of someone being the target of paparazzi, or of cameras being wielded, carried or slung over one’s shoulder, like weapons."
For the whole article check
http://www.source.ie/issues/issues2140/issue22/is22artlanpho .htmlGrant
I began as a photographer when my Daughter was born almost 20 years ago with a low cost 35mm SLR. Still got and it still works, haven’t used it a while tho. Interest in photography waned over the years, it can be an expensive hobby and the inevitable heavy SLR bag deters one from carrying a camera at all times.
Along comes digital and my interest in photography is rekindled. The really neat thing about digital cameras is the immediate feedback. The pros of yesteryear used polaroids to setup shots prior to using their ‘real camera’. The same can be done by anyone with a digital camera. Keep tweaking till it comes out the way you want it.
The digital cameras come in all shapes and sizes and you don’t have much of an excuse for not having a camera on you pretty much all the time.
There are some frustrations. I miss the manual focus, maybe my camera is just too cheap with this regard. Shame there is no discount dSLR (yet).
Photoshop is of course a dream come true. So many of those photos I discarded in the past due to an exposure problem (maybe not mine but the printers) can now be rescued and never again will I have to hope the photo processor gets it right on my behalf, it’s all in my hands. No one to blame except number one.
I never shared my photos outside friends and family in the past. Now I can share my images with people all over the globe and of course look at theirs too to gain insight and inspiration. It makes the whole experience more satisfying and fulfilling.
I’ve no doubt that digital is a revolution not just in the technology but for imaging as an art form. I believe only the most casual photographer gains nothing from using a digital camera. If you put half a mind to it you cannot fail to improve. (Good job too, I have only half a mind left).
JP
Jodi,
I think for me the answer is both in the way you defined the terms. I certainly did go through a phase in which I shot at anything that remotely looked interesting as I did not have to pay for processing. Thankfully, that did not last long. I now feel I fit your definition of "better" in that I will keep shooting until I have what I want or know I’m not going to get it. I have a much better idea of what my camera can do and take far more different types of images than I would try in the film days.
One area I am not as good at is in close-ups. I gave lectures and symposia of my professional work that were profusely illustrated with projected slides. I had a good SLR Canon with a ring flash that I had carefully calibrated. That equipment has gotten away from me and I can not touch that technical proficiency with my Canon S40. I like close up photography, a digital SLR may be in the near future, and who knows, maybe a new ring flash or whatever might have replaced it may follow.
Carl
Whoops,
I still don’t have this smilie thingy down yet. Let me try again.
Carl
HELP !
I go . I thought I understood it.
Carl
I recently have been cleaning out old storage spaces, getting ready for a move to a new home, and found the old family Kodak box cameras from back in the early 40’s. Also found my first real camera, Argus C3, that I got shortly after I was married. I never had to learn much to use the Kodak and I never invested the time or money to learn much about the Argus. So I guess I would have to say the digital camera has made me a better photographer because I’ve had to start from scratch, so to speak, to learn things. I also do a lot of snap shots. What else can a guy do with all the fast moving rug-rats at a birthday party or picnic?
Well Jodi, I am sure I shoot more frames in digital than I ever did in COLOR film, but probably the same as what I shot in B&W however. I never cared much for Color Darkroom processing, so I did very little of it later in life. (I mostly stuck with B&W film once I had the "color bug" out of my system when I was younger.) But, at the same time, I have always used a LOT of B&W film. I learned long ago, I could always toss a shot that I didn’t care for, bad lighting, angle, etc..but if I TRIED those shots, I often would come up with photos I would otherwise never have gotten. So it just became habit for me to shoot a lot of frames, no matter if it is film, or digital, as I always bought my film in bulk form anyway.
If I compared it to color film however, I KNOW I shoot more digital frames. But all in all, I think it has made me a better photographer, as I now have two avenues of pursuit, B&W film, and Digital color. And if I had to give up one or the other, with the quality of the cameras available today, I am sure it would be film that would go by the wayside.
I think many of us would agree however that we are shooting more digital "frames" because of a learning curve we are STILL trying to master. I know there are shots I could get with film SLRs before, that I am still not able to get with my digital SLR, and lenses. The way filters react to film and digital is far different, as is light reaction in many ways. So it is sort of like starting over in life once again. To me anyway. So I guess all in all, I shoot the same in DIGITAL frames, as I DID when I "first stated" in FILM.
In my case, I think AGE has done more to make me lazy than digital has.<LAUGH> I know when I was young, a 2 hour hike over a mountain top to get JUST THE RIGHT PHOTO was no big deal. Not anymore, I forget the famous photographers name right now, but his quote will always stick with me. "If it is more than a 100 foot walk from the car, it is just NOT photogenic any longer."<LAUGH> I am not THAT bad YET..but I can feel that 100 foot limit creeping up on me.<Laugh>
Well, I’m just a worker bee, not an artiste.
Digicam has sure made some things soooo much easier, like eBay 🙂
Since I still have only a 3MP rather pedestrian digicam, what little pro shooting I still do is mainly film (and scanning the film if cu needs high quality digital images also).
But I’ve also done a few shoots specifically for website usage only with the digicam.
Of course, I’m still a part-time "niche" service provider anyway. I take digital and go BACK to film with it. Still have any number of folks who need high quality 35mm slides of their digital images after manipulation for one reason or the other (although affordable digital projectors have made this niche quite a narrow one these days. Also, I still shoot real film on copystand for flat copy and small product needs.
Mac
when i first got into digital photography i shot LOTS. i guess i went for quantiy over quality. now i take my time more, compose my shots and shoot less. i try to think before i shoot instead of shoot first think latter how i could improve the pic. i have also found doing this my number of "keepers" has increased
Jodi, What a very interesting topic. After several days absence I really enjoyed reading through this thread.
My Nikon D70 arrived and, with it, I am rapidly becoming a "Sloppy PT" (Picture Taker). So far I haven’t progressed farther than the Automatic Shoot. Your inspiration and encouragement have made my PT world a lot more fun. Marty
Jodi_Frye wrote:
How do you feel about digital photography ? Would you say that it has made you a ‘better’ photographer or a more ‘sloppy’ photograper ?
better>meaning; you are able to spend more time concentrating on learning to get the best possible images from your digital camera without the thought of film processing expense.
OR…
sloppy>meaning;you no longer have concerns of paying for film processing so you shoot dozens apon dozens of images without much concern <except filling your memory card>and just hope for the best.
I look at digital photography as the same opportunity as traditional photography.
If I want snapshots, they are there for me. Digital also means the potential to share photos immediately.
If I want to understand more about composition and lighting, digital provides quicker feedback than traditional.
—
Ed Wurster
http://www.ewurster.com/blog/
Definitely better. I was pretty knowledgeable to begin with, as photography has been a passion with me since my first "serious" camera (a minolta XG-1) that I bought in1980. I did a switch to a canon AE1 Program. I like scenics, macro, close-up, portrait, heck I just love to make pictures. I also us it in conjunction with watercolor and mixed media artwork.
I’ve never been shy about burning film, I bracket various parameters. I find that digital gives me freedom to get the best out of my ideas, without the extreme expens and uncertainty (not to mention wait time) of post production darkroom work.
I still shoot both digital and film, but I now digitize my best film shots for incusion in other work and for archival purposes.
The best of both worlds!
Blank on the newsreader….
Rats!!! I got here too late and everybody has already said everything I would want to say. 🙂 One thing I would add is that, for me, I think digital photography has made me a better photographer because I take more pictures. Cost of film and processing is no longer a deterrent, so I use my digital camera a lot more than I did my film cameras. Which means, that I am more practiced, more proficient in its use. Do I compose any better? No, regrettably, probably not. That seems to be tied to artistic ability which in my case is sadly lacking. But I do understand the capabilities…and limitations…of my camera better than any previous one I have ever owned, so my chances of getting a good exposure/focus, etc. are better.
Bert
yes exactly. I feel the same way. Digital has helped me to learn more about taking pictures because I can ‘experiment’ a heck of alot more without worrying about the costs of processing. I never experimented this much with my film cameras…I’ve been a poverty child since I left home and could never afford to.
Primarily a snap shooter, I believe the more you shoot and observe, the more you learn about taking better pictures. My motto is "If you put enough monkeys in a cage with typewriters, eventually the works of Shakespeare will be reproduced".
I think instant gratification is the reason I have come to love digital photography. I LOVE being able to view and play with my photos just after I take them. I still take way more shots than I need to, but I’m always afraid the LCD is lying to me. <grin>
I only had a point & shoot film camera before (Olympus Infinity Jr.). Then I bought a point and shoot digital (Olympus D-460Z). I took pictures just like before — only more of them! I really didn’t learn a thing.
Then I bought my pro-sumer Olympus C-4000Z and Photoshop Elements last year. I have learned SOOOO much from this forum, about this software…and about using a camera with manual controls. Now I feel like I am finally graduating beyond point & shoot. Although I still can do that in auto-mode if I want. 😉 Old habits die hard.
I have a long way to go, but each day I am further along than I was the day before! LOL
Patti
I LOVE being able to view and play with my photos just after I take them. I still take way more shots than I need to, but I’m always afraid the LCD is lying to me.
I can’t tell whether the picture is any good or not from looking at the LCD. Especially about focus. It can look sharp as a tack on that little screen and turn out to be horribly off-focus when it’s blown up. I rarely use the LCD. In fact, I have turned off the auto-review on my camera completely. Which means my batteries last a LOOOONG time if I’m not using the flash.
Being able to take the pictures (if I’m at home) and immediately upload them and play with them in PSE and then print them or put them on the web within minutes of when they were taken…now THAT is one of the really great things about digital photography!
Bert
I can’t tell whether the picture is any good or not from looking at the LCD. Especially about focus. It can look sharp as a tack on that little screen and turn out to be horribly off-focus when it’s blown up. I rarely use the LCD. In fact, I have turned off the auto-review on my camera completely. Which means my batteries last a LOOOONG time if I’m not using the flash.
I find that I rely on the LCD more now and rarely use the viewfinder. I think it’s my bifocals ’cause I just can’t see well through that viewfinder at all. I did buy one of those velcro/strap Hoodman hoods for the LCD. Works great! Also, I can’t use the viewfinder when taking macros, so I’ve gotten dependent on the LCD to frame my shots.
I do know what you mean about how the screen can make a shot look very sharp and in reality it’s not. That’s why I said I think it lies to me sometimes. So just in case…if it’s a shot I really want I definitely take more than one. Sometimes I will try different settings too and then rely on the EXIF data to make note of what works.
This Olympus camera is really easy on the batteries even when using the LCD a lot. It was one of the features mentioned in the reviews. Anyway, I’ve learned to always carry a set of fresh batteries with me…just in case. 🙂
Patti
Also, I can’t use the viewfinder when taking macros, so I’ve gotten dependent on the LCD to frame my shots.
Patti,
One of the great things about SLR cameras is that WYSIWYG through the viewfinder…always…macro or telephoto. I just took a bunch of closeups of flowers in my back yard yesterday and put them on my website. If you’re interested here’s the link.
<
http://community.webshots.com/user/bigelowrs>
Open the "Backyard Garden" album…it’s on page 2. My Oly E-20 is also very easy on batteries, but I have a "power pack" Lithium Polymer battery pack that attaches to the bottom of the camera. It adds quite a bit of weight, but has a wonderful hand grip with a leather wrist strap that stabilizes the camera beautifully for handheld shots.
Bert
Bert,
I like the picture of the bottle-brush… it’s so clear you could count the bristles!
Byron
Byron,
Thanks…I like that one too.:)
Bert
Bert,
Mahvelous…simply mahvelous!
Dick
Bert, that’s a little slice of paradise in your backyard! Great job of capturing it!!
🙂
Chuck
Dick and Chuck,
Thanks to you both. I like to go out there and just fool around with the camera…and then come in and upload to see what I’ve got. I would like to try some serious bird photography. As you probably noticed, I have bird feeders everywhere. I think I may need a (ahem) new camera with a longer lens for that, though.
(ANY excuse for a new toy!!!)
Bert
Bert, I’m a birder in the middle of bird paradise (at least during migration). That’s why I bought a 75-300 mm zoom. However, even though that 300 translates to a 480 in digital use, it’s not long enough for serious bird photography in the field. An acquaintance who’s a pro uses an even longer lens and faster with a doubler – big $$. However, your feeders may be easier targets than a tree branch hundreds of feet away. So just head out and get that D70 with the long telephoto zoom and you’ll be good to go!
🙂
Chuck
I enjoyed viewing your photos Bert. I have a bird feeder outside my office (home office) window about twenty feet away from me with a large 8×4 foot window. The window opens from either side for quick shots. I find the 300mm (480) still doesn’t fill the frame with the bird from this distance. Think long!
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
Dick and Chuck,
Thanks to you both. I like to go out there and just fool around with
the camera…and then come in and upload to see what I’ve got. I would like to try some serious bird photography. As you probably noticed, I have bird feeders everywhere. I think I may need a (ahem) new camera with a longer lens for that, though.
(ANY excuse for a new toy!!!)
Bert
James and Chuck,
The problem I have with those long lenses, is that it is really hard to hold the camera steady, and even harder to get a tripod set up before the subject decides to fly away.
I was thinking that maybe a better approach would be to shoot with a shorter lens on a camera with LOTS of megapixels and then just crop it down to get the desired magnification.
Comments?
Bert
For all of you that advocate long lenses for wild life, tomorrow I will have a treat for you so have patience.
Grant
Grant,
I’m waiting with great anticipation.
Bert
Bert,
I enjoyed your pictures. I do think roses are pretty and yours look great.
If you or Chuck can’t get close enough, I have some duck hunting gear.
Carl
I’m sure you could do that for photos sized for web but to able to keep enough pixels to print at a decent resolution it might get tricky. It also depends on your definition of "LOTS".
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
James and Chuck,
The problem I have with those long lenses, is that it is really hard
to hold the camera steady, and even harder to get a tripod set up before the subject decides to fly away.
I was thinking that maybe a better approach would be to shoot with a
shorter lens on a camera with LOTS of megapixels and then just crop it down to get the desired magnification.
Comments?
Bert
OK, Bert. All you have to do then is buy a Canon 1DS (11.1 megapixel DSLR) and an average telephoto lens – should be able to do it for under $10K…! 🙂
All you have to do then is buy a Canon 1DS (11.1 megapixel DSLR) and an average telephoto lens – should be able to do it for under $10K
Thanks Chuck! That’s just a bit out of my economic range…:)
It also depends on your definition of "LOTS".
True, James. See Chuck’s comment above. You guys are gonna bankrupt me!:) bert
If you or Chuck can’t get close enough, I have some duck hunting gear.
Carl,
Yeah, but do Indigo Buntings or Goldfinches respond to duck calls?:) Bert
Bert
I don’t think it matters in Texas as I am lead to believe they shoot anything down there.
Grant
Much as I would love to photograph birds (I used to be heavily into birding when I was a kid – my father is a serious amateur ornithologist and entomologist – I’m still better on British birds than on Australian ones) I have decided that the equipment needed to do so effectively would be too expensive – it would be like doing professional quality sports photography, I think, really needing high quality fast long lenses. Insects are easier to stalk with affordable equipment and I have spent some time doing that (with limited success). Again the wastage you get in trying to take these sort of shots is such that I would never consider trying it with film.
Susan S
Bert,
I have no personal experience with those specific birds, but I bet it would as long as you use the sack of grain in addition. With that you might even get to use the technique you used on your roses!
Carl
Bert, we have Indigo Buntings passing through and Painted Buntings hanging around…the Goldfinches are here only in the winter and are almost unrecognizable with their drab winter plumage.
Chuck
Carl, the goldfinches like thistle seed; buntings like a variety of seeds.
Carl and Chuck,
I buy wild bird seed mixture and black oil sunflower seeds in 50 pound bags! I have a special feeder for goldfinches which require thistle seed (also called Niger) as Chuck said.
We have Finches here year-round, but the Goldfinches come rarely. Scrub Jays, Mockingbirds, and lots of Doves. I’m not enough of a bird expert to tell you about all the others yet, but we have a great variety here in Southern CA. My back yard is alive with birds every day. I love it.
Bert
Bert, I’m glad you enjoy the birds! I never get tired of looking for them. Alas, I haven’t had any time this spring to pursue the 300+ species passing through here….maybe next year I’ll be retired (again). 🙂
maybe next year I’ll be retired (again).
Chuck,
I recommend it (retirement). It took me three tries to make it work, but I think I’ve finally got the hang of it.:)
Bert
Chuck,
Our Indigos haven’t shown up as yet. They can’t be to far away, I’d think. Haven’t yet seen the Rufous Sided Towhee that haunts our backyard feeder either, but I expect they’ll be along soon enough.
Dick
Our Indigos haven’t shown up as yet
I saw one of those (Indigo Bunting) at my sister’s house in South Bend. Beautiful! We don’t get a lot of those beautiful eastern birds out here in the California desert…that’s what it really is, or was before "civilization" changed it. Most of the birds are what my wife calls "LBJ’s"…little brown jobs. 🙂
Bert
EDIT: We do have a Towhee who thinks he owns the yard, though. complains loudly whenever we’re out there…."Get out of my yard!!!"
Bert, the Indigos generally don’t cross the Rockies, although they’ve been seen on rare occasions in the summer in eastern California. You have its very striking cousin, the Lazuli Bunting, from Baja all the way to the Cal – Oregon border along the coast, and all the way into British Columbia inland a bit. Hope you get to see some of those – they’re beautiful!
Chuck
Chick the Indigo are not here either but that is to be expected. They are preceded by the warblers. I have heard a few of warblers but the Indigos arrive about the same time as the yellow warblers do, maybe 2 or three weeks form now. As far as the gold finches go they are just about to do the nesting thing … filling up on niger and … strutting their summer plumage.
g.
Grant, someday I hope to observe the warblers in their nesting grounds; we get only a fleeting glimpse of them here during their frantic migration to your beatiful homeland.
A the song of a true birder …. we always want to see all the birds in all there haunts. I am just the same. When I am off to the south my friends think I am nuts going to look for birds when there is a perfectly good bar just waiting to protect us from the sun.
g.
Grant, there’s always time for the bar after dark….unless one is looking for owls, of course.
🙂
I spent this week on holidays, so that’s why I enter this discussion at such a late stage.
Digital probably hasn’t made me a beter photographer, but nevertheless my images have become better. there are several reasons for that.
Digital and postprocessing allows me to produce images at places I couldnot use before because of disturbing elements in the background like traffic signs. One special place in particular with the most wonderful light any time of the day has become my favourite "hunting ground" lately. Cloning these signs away is just only a matter of minutes.
Digiral allows me to shoot more on the same subject, especially in portraiture, to catch exactly the right moment in the facial expression. With my medium format camera I ould take 12 or 24 shots and I had to reload again. Now I can take over 200 on a 1Gb card, so I don’t have to care about running out of film during a shoot.
Being able to check my shots and the histogram and reshoot immediately makes me feel more comfortable; moreover, I can show the sitter what I am after and together we can work towards much better shots than ever before.
Some of my customers travell quite some distance to have their portrait taken by me; now it is easy to mail them small sized images and they order online. Sometimes they even find these images in their mailbox when they arrive home again. I will never forget a family that travelled from Wiesbaden in Germany (about 400 miles) to Zierikzee, had their family portrait taken on the sea side, went all the way home and called me, surprised, as soon as they arrived home again and placed a hughe order.
Just only a few reasons why I will never go back to film again.
Leen
BTW, on holidays I had the opportunity to produce some lovely landscape shots, fields clad with the yellow of dandelions. Spring is a wonderful time of the year! But I took about the same number of shots a I would have done on film in te days before digital.
Leen
Leen, welcome back! You’ve been missed….
Welcome back Lena Cooper …
😉
go.
My mother missed me too. 😉
Nice try, Grant, but I edited my posting as I found the link in a newsgroup. 😉
Leen
Kooper! It’s disgusting when they can’t spell the name right.
Ah, well, it is THE MEDIA, don’cha know. Welcome back Leen, what a great tribute to you to have that article written. Wish I could read Dutch!
Dick
Bert, I had viewed your family a few days ago so was glad to see your backyard flowers today. So soothing to the eye. I am confused…where are the bottle brushes? The pink flowers look like astilbies ???
Marty
James and "whoever" has a minute,
I put a few of my D70 photos on my pbase.com/martyland site under Grab Bag > Crayola Crayon Season. Still in the "Automatic Setting" so I can’t wait to do the Manual. The only way I could tell much difference with these over my 775 Nikon was that I could take the Shelty "Hope" out of the distance and make a fair picture close up.
Marty pbase.com/martyland
Marty,
The bottle brush tree, which is about 30 years old, was not shown in the pictures I posted. I guess I should put up some more photos of the whole back yard. I’d love to post a panorama, but I don’t know if it would work on the Webshots site. I’ll give it a try when I get back from Africa. We leave tomorrow (Sunday) morning and will be gone until June 1st.
Astilbe, yes. Very good, Marty. Common name is False Spirea. I had never even heard of that plant until I saw them in a nursery a few weeks ago. Those were just planted and are doing great. I understand they are perennial, but die back to the ground in the winter.
Bert
Thanks for the heads up. Nice shots, the camera really captures the colors well. You must be having a ball with the new toy!
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ "Marty Landolt" wrote in message
James and "whoever" has a minute,
I put a few of my D70 photos on my pbase.com/martyland
Oh Bert, You’ve fallen onto a plant to win your heart. The Astilbe will survive and get more beautiful each year. The color you chose is unusual and one I favor.
Looking forward to your journey pictures!
Marty
James, Thanks for taking time to look. I rarely ever used the Auto settings with my 35 mm Nikon so imagine I’ll love the Manual on this D70.
Marty
Have a great trip Bert. I will be looking forward to some photos when you get back. You should have your wife get a shot of you tickling a lion’s tummy.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
Marty,
The bottle brush tree, which is about 30 years old, was not shown in
the pictures I posted. I guess I should put up some more photos of the whole back yard. I’d love to post a panorama, but I don’t know if it would work on the Webshots site. I’ll give it a try when I get back from Africa. We leave tomorrow (Sunday) morning and will be gone until June 1st.
Astilbe, yes. Very good, Marty. Common name is False Spirea. I had
never even heard of that plant until I saw them in a nursery a few weeks ago. Those were just planted and are doing great. I understand they are perennial, but die back to the ground in the winter.
Bert
Marty,
I like the Bleeding Hearts. Is that the name of the plant? Were these taken at your house? The forest shots are beautiful. Looks like a nice place. Bert
You should have your wife get a shot of you tickling a lion’s tummy.
James,
Not me! But if you want to see my wife Suzanne petting a cheetah, go to my website and look in the Suzanne in Africa album…down near the bottom of the page… image is labeled Suzanne3. Here’s the link.
<
http://community.webshots.com/user/bigelowrs>
I wasn’t with her on that trip last fall…she goes to Africa several times a year. These were orphaned cubs that have been raised in captivity, so I guess it was safe. But I would prefer to take photos from a distance, thank you!
Bert
Marty,
Nice shots. The dogs are super, you can just see their personalities in those images.
Bert, have a great time. Come back with, send us, lots of pix.
I have taken the Fuji 6900 with me this week, here are a few examples.
<
http://tinyurl.com/2t92b>
Dick
Dick,
Those are gorgeous! We have the same Iris threatening to take over our yard. Bert
Bert,
The white is always the first one out, was in Michigan and is here in North Carolina. The "blacks" are about to pop.
Dick
Dick, I’m really glad I bought the Fuji…I see you have captured some great color with yours as well…goal !!
Bert, Yes, that’s their name because they look like drops of blook of course, and they do well with morning east sun … in early spring before the trees get full. If you ever make a trip to the Kentucky Derby you can set up your tent in the woods.
Marty
