Back when I first wanted a dSLR, I did what a lot of people probably do. I went to a website, and I sorted the items from lowest price to highest price. I had been begging my parents for one for months, and I finally decided that if I really wanted one, I'd just have to buy it myself (even though my younger sister got a dSLR for Christmas).
One of the first dSLR kits I came across was made by Pentax. It was considerably less than the Nikon or Canon kits that seemed to be pretty much the same thing. The Pentax even came in colors like red, white, green, and black.* I had my mind set on the Pentax, and I began saving my money. I figured for $200 or so less, the Pentax must be a steal.
Eventually, the money I was saving for the Pentax got spent on something else. I most likely spent it on something I needed, like another bass, or a guitar. I'm glad I never got around to purchasing the Pentax, though. There are a lot of people out there who are very proud that they own a dSLR that isn't a Nikon or a Canon, and that's great! Most likely, though, the people who don't own a Nikon or Canon dSLR probably aren't professionals, or at least don't plan on becoming professional photographers, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
However, if your end-goal is to become a professional photographer, or to take the best photos possible and you don't have a dSLR yet, go with Nikon or Canon.** There is a reason these two brands are the biggest in the world of dSLRs. Aside from having a rich history in camera and lens manufacturing, these two companies offer you something that companies like Pentax and Sony can't; lenses.
On Adorama.com, there are currently 57 Pentax lenses, and 55 Sony lenses. Compare that to the 209 Nikon lenses and the 228 Canon lenses available. Not only is this a huge difference in the amount of options you'll have if you go with Nikon or Canon, but Nikon and Canon are both known for their professional glass. I don't remember ever hearing about Pentax or Sony being praised for their lenses, and there's probably a reason for that.
*If you want to be taken seriously as a photographer, avoid colored cameras.
**Try to avoid buying your dSLR with the kit lens, too. The kit lenses are usually junk, with poor optics, quality, and plastic mounts. Trust me, I started with a D3100 with the kit lens. Save the money you would have spent on the kit lens and get something better that you won't end up replacing in a few months.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Post 33
A few days ago, I wrote a post about the announcement of the Nikon D7100, and how I wasn't all that excited about the new camera that will surely replace my beloved Nikon D7000. Over the past few days, Iv'e been reading about the camera more, and watching YouTube videos from various sources to see what other people have to say about the new dSLR.
While reading through comments on Facebook and reading through the comments on YouTube videos, a misconception seemed to be affecting a number of people. This misconception being that the Nikon D7100 is an "upgrade" to the D7000.
Yes, the D7100 is an improved version of the D7000, with it's more megapixels, more focus points, and slight button/layout changes, but for some reason, some people are getting upset because the D7100 isn't an "upgrade" to the D7000.
The D7100 is exactly that compared to the D7000, an improved version. For people to think that the next version of a specific camera is going to be an "upgrade" is a bit unrealistic. When I think of a camera being an upgrade, there have to be big reasons to run out an buy it. Honestly, a newer version of a camera will never be that. Especially considering how many awards the D7000 has received since it was first released, there is no reason for Nikon to completely churn out a new camera, and if they did, it probably wouldn't be called the D7XXX; the new camera would most likely have an entirely new name. As far as I know, the D7100 is going to be $1200 for the body only, which is the exact same price the D7000 was a few months ago. Also, it still sounds like the D7100 will be a "pro-sumer" camera, or at least the top-of-the-line consumer camera.
If every new camera a manufacturer came out with, then eventually, the prices of their cameras would be ridiculous. If a camera company was expected for the bodies they make to replace older models, then eventually the prices for new bodies would be ridiculous.
For instance, the D3000, which was Nikon's entry-level dSLR was released in 2009 for $600. In 2010, Nikon's new entry-level dSLR, the D3100, was released for not much more. In 2012, Nikon released their newest entry-level dSLR, the D3200. These cameras weren't meant to be complete overhauls of these cameras. They were simply "updated" versions to stay current with other companies, most specifically Canon, and were a way to keep progress going in the world of dSLRs. None of these cameras posses anything that would cause someone who owned a previous model to run out and buy a the one that just came out, unless you owned a D3000 and went to a D3200, which wouldn't make much sense, anyway. If you really want to upgrade, go out and buy the camera that's the next level up. If I had a D3100, and I wanted to upgrade, the smallest jump I would make is to a D5200. I would go from Nikon's entry level camera to their "mid-level" camera, because even though the D3200 would be newer than the D3100, the D3200 is still an entry level camera, just like how the D7000 was the top-of-the-line consumer camera, the D7100 is the new top-of-the-line consumer camera. If the D3100 was meant to be an "upgrade" to the D3000, then that means Nikon would have to raise the price of the D3100, and if the D3200 was a replacement for the D3100, then the price of the D3200 would have to be increased. Eventually, companies would be putting out "entry-level" dSLRs that started at thousands of dollars.
So no, the D7100 will not be an upgrade to those who already own a D7000, but it should have never been thought of that to begin with. If you own a D7000, then an upgrade would be a D600, which I'm personally not fond of, a D700, if you can find one, a D800/D800E. a D3x/s. or a D4. Cameras that are meant to replace older versions of a camera will always be in the same category.
While reading through comments on Facebook and reading through the comments on YouTube videos, a misconception seemed to be affecting a number of people. This misconception being that the Nikon D7100 is an "upgrade" to the D7000.
Yes, the D7100 is an improved version of the D7000, with it's more megapixels, more focus points, and slight button/layout changes, but for some reason, some people are getting upset because the D7100 isn't an "upgrade" to the D7000.
The D7100 is exactly that compared to the D7000, an improved version. For people to think that the next version of a specific camera is going to be an "upgrade" is a bit unrealistic. When I think of a camera being an upgrade, there have to be big reasons to run out an buy it. Honestly, a newer version of a camera will never be that. Especially considering how many awards the D7000 has received since it was first released, there is no reason for Nikon to completely churn out a new camera, and if they did, it probably wouldn't be called the D7XXX; the new camera would most likely have an entirely new name. As far as I know, the D7100 is going to be $1200 for the body only, which is the exact same price the D7000 was a few months ago. Also, it still sounds like the D7100 will be a "pro-sumer" camera, or at least the top-of-the-line consumer camera.
If every new camera a manufacturer came out with, then eventually, the prices of their cameras would be ridiculous. If a camera company was expected for the bodies they make to replace older models, then eventually the prices for new bodies would be ridiculous.
For instance, the D3000, which was Nikon's entry-level dSLR was released in 2009 for $600. In 2010, Nikon's new entry-level dSLR, the D3100, was released for not much more. In 2012, Nikon released their newest entry-level dSLR, the D3200. These cameras weren't meant to be complete overhauls of these cameras. They were simply "updated" versions to stay current with other companies, most specifically Canon, and were a way to keep progress going in the world of dSLRs. None of these cameras posses anything that would cause someone who owned a previous model to run out and buy a the one that just came out, unless you owned a D3000 and went to a D3200, which wouldn't make much sense, anyway. If you really want to upgrade, go out and buy the camera that's the next level up. If I had a D3100, and I wanted to upgrade, the smallest jump I would make is to a D5200. I would go from Nikon's entry level camera to their "mid-level" camera, because even though the D3200 would be newer than the D3100, the D3200 is still an entry level camera, just like how the D7000 was the top-of-the-line consumer camera, the D7100 is the new top-of-the-line consumer camera. If the D3100 was meant to be an "upgrade" to the D3000, then that means Nikon would have to raise the price of the D3100, and if the D3200 was a replacement for the D3100, then the price of the D3200 would have to be increased. Eventually, companies would be putting out "entry-level" dSLRs that started at thousands of dollars.
So no, the D7100 will not be an upgrade to those who already own a D7000, but it should have never been thought of that to begin with. If you own a D7000, then an upgrade would be a D600, which I'm personally not fond of, a D700, if you can find one, a D800/D800E. a D3x/s. or a D4. Cameras that are meant to replace older versions of a camera will always be in the same category.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Nikon D7100 Announcement
Ah! How exciting!
When the Nikon D7000 was introduced in 2010, there was a lot to be excited about. The D7000 was priced like a D90, which the top of Nikon's "consumer" line, but had a lot of the attractive features of the entry level "professional" model, the D300.
I got myself a Nikon D7000 in August of 2012. By this point, February 20th, I've taken over 10,000 photos with the camera, so I'm pretty familiar with it. I love the D7000. There isn't a thing I would change about the D7000, except for I would swap out the sensor with a full-frame sensor, and I wish the buffer size was just a little bigger. I don't motor drive often, but when I do at 6 fps, the buffer fills up pretty quickly. Other than those two issues, though, the D7000 does everything I could ever want it to.
The D7000 is old though, in terms of dSLRs, and I figured it would only be a year or so until a replacement came out when I purchased my D7000 in August. When the Nikon D600 came out, which many argue is a D7000 with a full-frame sensor, I thought that the D600 could quite possible be the replacement for the D7000. Also, when the D600 came out, which is described as an "inexpensive" full-frame camera, I thought that if there was a replacement for the D7000, it would almost certainly have a full-frame sensor.
Apparently, I was wrong about the sensor.
From what I've read so far, I'm not incredibly disappointed that I didn't wait the six months for the D7100. The only things that really seem to have changed from the D7000 to the D7100 are the amount of megapixels and the amount of focus points.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I hate ridiculous amounts of megapixels. I shot with a D70 for six months or so, and that camera only had 6.1 megapixels. I can't say there was ever a time I said to myself, "wow, I wish I had more megapixels." As far as I'm concerned, megapixels are now just a selling point for people who think it matters. The only reason anyone would need that many megapixels is if they're printing enormous prints, or need extremely detailed photos, in which case they would probably be shooting with a medium format camera, anyway. Also, more megapixels means worse low-light performance and bigger file sizes; no thanks.
The D7000 has 39 focus points while the D7100 will have 51. To be honest, the layout of the focus points is a little strange. They're clustered in the middle. I can only hope that the focus points of the D7100 are spaced out a little more. 51 focus points arranged the same way as the D7000's would be ridiculous.
Other than those two improvements, though, the D7100 seems almost identical to the camera it is replacing. Same ISO range, same maximum shutter speed, same minimum shutter speed, both have two SD card slots, same frames per second. Even the button layout looks the same. I did notice the mode dial can be locked. I definitely approve of that...
If I didn't have a D7000, and was still considering upgrading, I don't know which model I would go with. I would probably try to find a used D700, or something. Everything has either too many megapixels, or the features have been cut in order to keep the price down.
Unfortunately for Nikon, an increase in megapixels and an increase in focus points will not cause me to ditch my D7000. If you've been considering upgrading to a D7000, though, now would be the best time to do it. The price has already been dropped, which was a good indicator it was going to be replaced soon. Otherwise, feel free to dish out the extra cash for more focus points, larger file sizes, and worse low-light performance.
When the Nikon D7000 was introduced in 2010, there was a lot to be excited about. The D7000 was priced like a D90, which the top of Nikon's "consumer" line, but had a lot of the attractive features of the entry level "professional" model, the D300.
I got myself a Nikon D7000 in August of 2012. By this point, February 20th, I've taken over 10,000 photos with the camera, so I'm pretty familiar with it. I love the D7000. There isn't a thing I would change about the D7000, except for I would swap out the sensor with a full-frame sensor, and I wish the buffer size was just a little bigger. I don't motor drive often, but when I do at 6 fps, the buffer fills up pretty quickly. Other than those two issues, though, the D7000 does everything I could ever want it to.
The D7000 is old though, in terms of dSLRs, and I figured it would only be a year or so until a replacement came out when I purchased my D7000 in August. When the Nikon D600 came out, which many argue is a D7000 with a full-frame sensor, I thought that the D600 could quite possible be the replacement for the D7000. Also, when the D600 came out, which is described as an "inexpensive" full-frame camera, I thought that if there was a replacement for the D7000, it would almost certainly have a full-frame sensor.
Apparently, I was wrong about the sensor.
From what I've read so far, I'm not incredibly disappointed that I didn't wait the six months for the D7100. The only things that really seem to have changed from the D7000 to the D7100 are the amount of megapixels and the amount of focus points.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I hate ridiculous amounts of megapixels. I shot with a D70 for six months or so, and that camera only had 6.1 megapixels. I can't say there was ever a time I said to myself, "wow, I wish I had more megapixels." As far as I'm concerned, megapixels are now just a selling point for people who think it matters. The only reason anyone would need that many megapixels is if they're printing enormous prints, or need extremely detailed photos, in which case they would probably be shooting with a medium format camera, anyway. Also, more megapixels means worse low-light performance and bigger file sizes; no thanks.
The D7000 has 39 focus points while the D7100 will have 51. To be honest, the layout of the focus points is a little strange. They're clustered in the middle. I can only hope that the focus points of the D7100 are spaced out a little more. 51 focus points arranged the same way as the D7000's would be ridiculous.
Other than those two improvements, though, the D7100 seems almost identical to the camera it is replacing. Same ISO range, same maximum shutter speed, same minimum shutter speed, both have two SD card slots, same frames per second. Even the button layout looks the same. I did notice the mode dial can be locked. I definitely approve of that...
If I didn't have a D7000, and was still considering upgrading, I don't know which model I would go with. I would probably try to find a used D700, or something. Everything has either too many megapixels, or the features have been cut in order to keep the price down.
Unfortunately for Nikon, an increase in megapixels and an increase in focus points will not cause me to ditch my D7000. If you've been considering upgrading to a D7000, though, now would be the best time to do it. The price has already been dropped, which was a good indicator it was going to be replaced soon. Otherwise, feel free to dish out the extra cash for more focus points, larger file sizes, and worse low-light performance.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Post 31
Buying a dSLR and expecting it to make great photos is like buying a paintbrush and expecting the paintbrush to make a great painting.
It seems that there are a lot of people out there buying dSLRs, but being unsatisfied with the photos they get. If you happen to be in this boat, I'm going to do my best to try to explain why you might not be getting the results you want.
First of all, if you're shooting full auto and just letting the camera do everything for you, then you might as well just get a point and shoot. Sure, a dSLR will start up quicker, and focus more quickly, but those are things I'd be willing to give up in order to save $500 or so. The image quality of a dSLR is better because of a bigger sensor, but unless you're shooting manual, the full potential of the camera most likely won't be used. Basically, if you're using your dSLR in "auto" mode, you're basically lugging around an overweight, overpriced point and shoot. DSLRs can make good guesses every now and then, but I don't even know how many times I saw people with dSLRs in Florida trying to take a photo of something in the dark with the built in flash, but the object they were trying to take a photo of was without any sort of doubt too far away for the pop-up flash to even be effective. Had they been shooting manual, they could have incased the ISO, opened up the aperture, and slowed down the shutter speed, which would have made those photos turn out much better. My guess would be they got a nicely exposed foreground and anything else in the photo that was further away than a few feet is just black.
The biggest reason why people can't get the results they want with dSLRs is because they don't do any sort of post processing. If you have a dSLR, you should be using RAW files and editing all of your photos. Besides good glass, post processing is an absolute requirement to get the most out of your dSLR. People are against editing their photos for two reasons, they're either too lazy to learn or do it, or they feel it's somehow unethical.
If your'e one of the people who are too lazy to learn or to edit your photos, then don't get a dSLR. Save your money.
For those of you who feel it's "unethical" to edit your photos, I don't even know where to begin. Let me start with Ansel Adams. Adams was a master in the darkroom, which is how he managed to created such amazing photographs. Adams would spend hours burning and dodging until he was satisfied with the photo. What Adams did in the darkroom is the same as editing your photos with a computer, now.
If you're shooting JPEGs, then your camera is editing your photos for you, anyway, so JPEGs are technically edited photos. The camera guesses how you want the photo to look, and then gets rid of the data that wasn't used. A small amount of editing can be done to a JPEG, but a RAW file will work much better for editing, because all of the data is there to work with. JPEGs are basically like french fries, while RAW files are like having a potato. The potato can be turned into many different things, including a french fry, if that's what you want. I'd like to see someone try to turn a french fry back into a potato.
Even when someone takes a photo with film and then takes the film to be developed somewhere, the film is technically edited, because the way the film is developed can have an effect on how the negatives look. More or less time with the developer, or fixer, or stopper will yield different results. So if you're against editing photos, for some reason, there's really no way to avoid it. Personally, I'd rather have control over the final product than have a camera try to guess what I want.
It seems that there are a lot of people out there buying dSLRs, but being unsatisfied with the photos they get. If you happen to be in this boat, I'm going to do my best to try to explain why you might not be getting the results you want.
First of all, if you're shooting full auto and just letting the camera do everything for you, then you might as well just get a point and shoot. Sure, a dSLR will start up quicker, and focus more quickly, but those are things I'd be willing to give up in order to save $500 or so. The image quality of a dSLR is better because of a bigger sensor, but unless you're shooting manual, the full potential of the camera most likely won't be used. Basically, if you're using your dSLR in "auto" mode, you're basically lugging around an overweight, overpriced point and shoot. DSLRs can make good guesses every now and then, but I don't even know how many times I saw people with dSLRs in Florida trying to take a photo of something in the dark with the built in flash, but the object they were trying to take a photo of was without any sort of doubt too far away for the pop-up flash to even be effective. Had they been shooting manual, they could have incased the ISO, opened up the aperture, and slowed down the shutter speed, which would have made those photos turn out much better. My guess would be they got a nicely exposed foreground and anything else in the photo that was further away than a few feet is just black.
The biggest reason why people can't get the results they want with dSLRs is because they don't do any sort of post processing. If you have a dSLR, you should be using RAW files and editing all of your photos. Besides good glass, post processing is an absolute requirement to get the most out of your dSLR. People are against editing their photos for two reasons, they're either too lazy to learn or do it, or they feel it's somehow unethical.
If your'e one of the people who are too lazy to learn or to edit your photos, then don't get a dSLR. Save your money.
For those of you who feel it's "unethical" to edit your photos, I don't even know where to begin. Let me start with Ansel Adams. Adams was a master in the darkroom, which is how he managed to created such amazing photographs. Adams would spend hours burning and dodging until he was satisfied with the photo. What Adams did in the darkroom is the same as editing your photos with a computer, now.
If you're shooting JPEGs, then your camera is editing your photos for you, anyway, so JPEGs are technically edited photos. The camera guesses how you want the photo to look, and then gets rid of the data that wasn't used. A small amount of editing can be done to a JPEG, but a RAW file will work much better for editing, because all of the data is there to work with. JPEGs are basically like french fries, while RAW files are like having a potato. The potato can be turned into many different things, including a french fry, if that's what you want. I'd like to see someone try to turn a french fry back into a potato.
Even when someone takes a photo with film and then takes the film to be developed somewhere, the film is technically edited, because the way the film is developed can have an effect on how the negatives look. More or less time with the developer, or fixer, or stopper will yield different results. So if you're against editing photos, for some reason, there's really no way to avoid it. Personally, I'd rather have control over the final product than have a camera try to guess what I want.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Diana+
Back when I was just beginning to learn about photography, my fiance and I went to the art museum in Milwaukee. We stopped in the gift shop, and something caught my eye. A Diana+. For those of you who don't know, the Diana is based off of medium format toy cameras that were made overseas in the 1960s and were designed to be cheap and put cameras in the hands of more people. The entire camera is made out of plastic, including the lens. The cameras are known for producing "dreamy," saturated photos. Of course, I didn't know any of this when Devan bought it for me. It's also worth mentioning that many of the Instagram filters are made to make photos look like the results of a Diana or other toy camera.
I picked up my first roll of film, which I think was around $6 for a roll, which I get 16 photos from. Medium format film is larger than the standard 35mm, which equals more detail and higher image quality. I find it extremely ironic that a camera that produces photos that have qualities that photographers often try to avoid uses film that professionals tend to use to get huge amounts of detail and requires relatively expensive film.
But, I love my Diana+. It's the only film camera I use, and the "controls" are pretty limited. There are three different aperture settings, four if you include the "pinhole" setting, which are "sunny, partly cloudy, and cloudy." The focal distances of the 75mm fixed focal length lens, which is about a 50mm lens in 35mm terms, are 1-2m, 2-4m, and 4m to infinity. The shutter speeds are either 1/60th of a second or a bulb setting. If I remember correctly, the aperture of the "cloudy" setting is f/8.
My first roll of film was color, which I took and got developed. Only one of those photos turned out, but I remained determined. I picked up all of the supplies I would need in order to develop the film by myself. I picked up a few more rolls, this time black and white film, and snapped away. I developed a roll in my bathroom, which was exposed to the light, and therefore, didn't turn out. I will admit this was my fault. I got frustrated and ended up turning the bathroom light on when I couldn't get the film onto the spool; 50 minutes sitting in a dark bathroom was too much.
Three or four rolls later, and I finally got some results. I did some research to find out some guidelines to use the Diana. At first, I would just set the aperture to the "sunny" setting and use the bulb setting, exposing manually and hoping for the best. It took a lot for me to finally just trust the camera and use the 1/60 shutter speed. For some reason, the idea of trusting the camera this much was hard to cope with. After I went out and just started shooting with the 1/60, I fell in love with the plastic camera.
I'm not sure what it is about the Diana. Maybe it's the simple operation compared to my dSLRs. Maybe it's the way the photos look. Maybe it's the lightweight of the plastic body that makes it so easy to carry around, Maybe it's developing process in my bathroom. Maybe it's the idea that I don't know what I'm getting, and won't know until the film is developed. More than likely, it's a combination of all of these that make me love my Diana so much.
I picked up my first roll of film, which I think was around $6 for a roll, which I get 16 photos from. Medium format film is larger than the standard 35mm, which equals more detail and higher image quality. I find it extremely ironic that a camera that produces photos that have qualities that photographers often try to avoid uses film that professionals tend to use to get huge amounts of detail and requires relatively expensive film.
But, I love my Diana+. It's the only film camera I use, and the "controls" are pretty limited. There are three different aperture settings, four if you include the "pinhole" setting, which are "sunny, partly cloudy, and cloudy." The focal distances of the 75mm fixed focal length lens, which is about a 50mm lens in 35mm terms, are 1-2m, 2-4m, and 4m to infinity. The shutter speeds are either 1/60th of a second or a bulb setting. If I remember correctly, the aperture of the "cloudy" setting is f/8.
My first roll of film was color, which I took and got developed. Only one of those photos turned out, but I remained determined. I picked up all of the supplies I would need in order to develop the film by myself. I picked up a few more rolls, this time black and white film, and snapped away. I developed a roll in my bathroom, which was exposed to the light, and therefore, didn't turn out. I will admit this was my fault. I got frustrated and ended up turning the bathroom light on when I couldn't get the film onto the spool; 50 minutes sitting in a dark bathroom was too much.
Three or four rolls later, and I finally got some results. I did some research to find out some guidelines to use the Diana. At first, I would just set the aperture to the "sunny" setting and use the bulb setting, exposing manually and hoping for the best. It took a lot for me to finally just trust the camera and use the 1/60 shutter speed. For some reason, the idea of trusting the camera this much was hard to cope with. After I went out and just started shooting with the 1/60, I fell in love with the plastic camera.
I'm not sure what it is about the Diana. Maybe it's the simple operation compared to my dSLRs. Maybe it's the way the photos look. Maybe it's the lightweight of the plastic body that makes it so easy to carry around, Maybe it's developing process in my bathroom. Maybe it's the idea that I don't know what I'm getting, and won't know until the film is developed. More than likely, it's a combination of all of these that make me love my Diana so much.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Post 29
For those of you who have somehow found my blog without the help of my Facebook page, please take a look at it.
Facebook Page
Flickr Page
Facebook Page
Flickr Page
Post 28
The other day I search-engined "what to do if you lose the photos from a wedding" for no apparent reason, other than I had some time on my hands. I read two different questions and responses from two different sources, and both situations were equally appalling.
The first one I read, was about a photographer who apparently formatted their memory card on site, and accidentally formatted the card they had just filled up. This resulted in them losing 900 photos, and then shooting over them. The only response I could think of was "how could you be so stupid?"
I'm not sure why anyone would format their card on location for any type of photo shoot. Formatting is something that should be done either when you're preparing all of your equipment, or right when you arrive at the event before any photos are taken in order to avoid this type of situation. I can only assume that this photographer either wasn't a "professional," or was just starting out as a pro and made a silly mistake. I think it's safe to say that this person won't make the same mistake again because they either learned their lesson, or they'll never be hired again because I feel that this type of thing would spread quickly throughout their market. An easy way to avoid this situation, other than not formatting your memory cards on location, would be to use smaller memory cards. For some reason, people think it's better to buy huge memory cards that can store thousands of photos and use that single one. I buy smaller cards for this exact reason. I'd much rather have a handful of 8GB cards that can hold 250 photos and lose one of those, than have a 128GB memory card and lose thousands. With my camera, I have two card slots. I put the 8GB cards in one, and a much larger card in the second slot. The photos go to both, and when I get to editing, I usually put the larger card into the computer.
The second one I read, was the bride of a wedding who was having trouble with the photographer who took photos of their wedding. The bride said that the photographer took the photos, but then went to visit her boyfriend for X amount of days, then went to Europe for some reason, and then a month or two after the wedding contacted the bride to let her know that she had lost all of the photos to the reception.
There are so many things wrong with this scenario and how the photographer handled the situation that I don't even know where to begin.
I guess the first thing I think the photographer should have done was let the bride know as soon as possible that the photos were lost. I'm hoping that the photographer wasn't just starting to edit the photos when they let the bride know she wouldn't be getting any photos from the reception.
The second thing that's wrong, and probably the worst, is that the photographer took time to do personal things before delivering the photos to the client. If you're a "professional," you're expected to deliver the photos in a timely fashion. Even if you're not a professional, and a friend asks you to take some photos for them and pays you, you should still deliver the images as soon as possible; not months later. If you're marketing yourself as a photographer, and you work for a client, then the client comes first. This is "Owning a Business 101," here. You don't go running around all over the world and then decide it's time to deliver what you promised.
These two situations are exactly why you should hire someone who knows what they're doing, and who you know will deliver what they promise. If I had to guess, I would say these two "pros" are your "uncle Fred" type of photographers, who have a nice camera, so people think that they're a professional photographer who can deliver professional work. Don't go for the most inexpensive photographer you can find if the event you need a photographer for is important to you, because, like with everything, you get what you pay for.
The first one I read, was about a photographer who apparently formatted their memory card on site, and accidentally formatted the card they had just filled up. This resulted in them losing 900 photos, and then shooting over them. The only response I could think of was "how could you be so stupid?"
I'm not sure why anyone would format their card on location for any type of photo shoot. Formatting is something that should be done either when you're preparing all of your equipment, or right when you arrive at the event before any photos are taken in order to avoid this type of situation. I can only assume that this photographer either wasn't a "professional," or was just starting out as a pro and made a silly mistake. I think it's safe to say that this person won't make the same mistake again because they either learned their lesson, or they'll never be hired again because I feel that this type of thing would spread quickly throughout their market. An easy way to avoid this situation, other than not formatting your memory cards on location, would be to use smaller memory cards. For some reason, people think it's better to buy huge memory cards that can store thousands of photos and use that single one. I buy smaller cards for this exact reason. I'd much rather have a handful of 8GB cards that can hold 250 photos and lose one of those, than have a 128GB memory card and lose thousands. With my camera, I have two card slots. I put the 8GB cards in one, and a much larger card in the second slot. The photos go to both, and when I get to editing, I usually put the larger card into the computer.
The second one I read, was the bride of a wedding who was having trouble with the photographer who took photos of their wedding. The bride said that the photographer took the photos, but then went to visit her boyfriend for X amount of days, then went to Europe for some reason, and then a month or two after the wedding contacted the bride to let her know that she had lost all of the photos to the reception.
There are so many things wrong with this scenario and how the photographer handled the situation that I don't even know where to begin.
I guess the first thing I think the photographer should have done was let the bride know as soon as possible that the photos were lost. I'm hoping that the photographer wasn't just starting to edit the photos when they let the bride know she wouldn't be getting any photos from the reception.
The second thing that's wrong, and probably the worst, is that the photographer took time to do personal things before delivering the photos to the client. If you're a "professional," you're expected to deliver the photos in a timely fashion. Even if you're not a professional, and a friend asks you to take some photos for them and pays you, you should still deliver the images as soon as possible; not months later. If you're marketing yourself as a photographer, and you work for a client, then the client comes first. This is "Owning a Business 101," here. You don't go running around all over the world and then decide it's time to deliver what you promised.
These two situations are exactly why you should hire someone who knows what they're doing, and who you know will deliver what they promise. If I had to guess, I would say these two "pros" are your "uncle Fred" type of photographers, who have a nice camera, so people think that they're a professional photographer who can deliver professional work. Don't go for the most inexpensive photographer you can find if the event you need a photographer for is important to you, because, like with everything, you get what you pay for.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Post 27
The most important equipment for a photographer is their camera. Any good photographer will then take the images they have captured with their camera and proceed to post processing. All of the current photographers I looked up to and learned from seemed to use Macs, so I followed suit.
At first, the idea of getting a Mac, more specifically an iMac, was a little off-putting. Compared to other desktop computers, the price for an iMac is significantly more. I figured I'd look into other brands and get something good enough. Besides, how much better could an iMac possibly be? I was certain I would be able to find a similar product from another manufacturer for much less.
(Quick note: the reasons I opted for a desktop were I almost always edit my photos sitting at home, anyway, desktops have larger displays, and desktops have more power for around the same amount of money.)
Currently, the most inexpensive desktop I could find was the HP Pavillion from Best Buy. This desktop has a 20" display, a 1.4 GHz dual core processor, 4 GB of RAM, and a 1 TB harddrive. Seems decent enough to me, especially at $500.
But take a look at the most inexpensive current iMac, and one realizes where the extra money is going to. The most inexpensive iMac comes with a 21.5" display, a 2.7 GHz Intel i5 quad core processor, 8 GB of RAM, and a 1 TB harddrive.
So between these two models, the only things that are similar are the display size, and the amount of harddrive space. Space is important, but external harddrives can be had for almost nothing. I picked up a 1.5 TB harddrive for less than $150, which will last me for who knows how long.
So let's try to find a model with similar specifications to the iMac.
The Asus 23" Touch-Screen All-in-One Computer has the exact same specifications as the iMac, power wise, and clocks in at $1,150. I'm sure Asus is a fine brand, but I'd rather go with a brand that is well established, especially for only $150 more...
Another thing I would like to point out is that, at least my iMac, has a glass screen and aluminum housing. I have the 27" model, with a 2.7 GHz Intel Core i5 quad core, 4 GB of RAM, and 1TB of harddrive space. When I was looking at computers a year or so ago, I came across similar findings that I did today. Computers from other brands were cheaper, but once I found computers that had similar specifications, they were almost the exact same price. Sure, you can get a computer with half the amount of processing power and a quarter of the processing power, but which one would you keep longer, and which one would you want to use everyday?
At first, the idea of getting a Mac, more specifically an iMac, was a little off-putting. Compared to other desktop computers, the price for an iMac is significantly more. I figured I'd look into other brands and get something good enough. Besides, how much better could an iMac possibly be? I was certain I would be able to find a similar product from another manufacturer for much less.
(Quick note: the reasons I opted for a desktop were I almost always edit my photos sitting at home, anyway, desktops have larger displays, and desktops have more power for around the same amount of money.)
Currently, the most inexpensive desktop I could find was the HP Pavillion from Best Buy. This desktop has a 20" display, a 1.4 GHz dual core processor, 4 GB of RAM, and a 1 TB harddrive. Seems decent enough to me, especially at $500.
But take a look at the most inexpensive current iMac, and one realizes where the extra money is going to. The most inexpensive iMac comes with a 21.5" display, a 2.7 GHz Intel i5 quad core processor, 8 GB of RAM, and a 1 TB harddrive.
So between these two models, the only things that are similar are the display size, and the amount of harddrive space. Space is important, but external harddrives can be had for almost nothing. I picked up a 1.5 TB harddrive for less than $150, which will last me for who knows how long.
So let's try to find a model with similar specifications to the iMac.
The Asus 23" Touch-Screen All-in-One Computer has the exact same specifications as the iMac, power wise, and clocks in at $1,150. I'm sure Asus is a fine brand, but I'd rather go with a brand that is well established, especially for only $150 more...
Another thing I would like to point out is that, at least my iMac, has a glass screen and aluminum housing. I have the 27" model, with a 2.7 GHz Intel Core i5 quad core, 4 GB of RAM, and 1TB of harddrive space. When I was looking at computers a year or so ago, I came across similar findings that I did today. Computers from other brands were cheaper, but once I found computers that had similar specifications, they were almost the exact same price. Sure, you can get a computer with half the amount of processing power and a quarter of the processing power, but which one would you keep longer, and which one would you want to use everyday?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)