Photography for the Stupid.

[Jez]

Hi.
Yes a Commander of wild empire seeks advice.

I bought a Nikkon F55 slr a few years back and have never used the camera to it's full potential. I have only ever used it infact with the present functions!

I was thinking of going digital but with christmas coming up and the expense of buying a new camera. I thought it might be best to still make good use of the camera i have!? I'm sure if i learnt how to use the manual settings that i could take far better photo's and capture wildlife in many differing ways and learn a little at least about photgraphy bla bla bla. The manual is a little vague so was wondering if there was any keen photographers out there who would take the time to start me off? I own a tripod also which even i can set up but as i said i have only ever taken pics in the preset modes and would like to learn how to use my camera properly. I'm sure My Nikkon despite it's anologue disadvantages is a cracking little camera. Thankyou I really apprieciate it & eager to read your posts-Jez

[eeyore]

I'd go with that despite being a canonite i have to say nikon have never made a bad camera - the only thing you might find is that if you take a lot of film unless you are developing it yourself your D+P costs might outweigh the costs of buying a D40 or a second hand D100 or similar.

as to starting you off - i did a beginers advice sheet that i'd be happy to send you if you pm me your email adress - my birds in flight advice sheet can be found on words' websitte (see his profile) other than that I highly recomend andy rouses book the wildlife photographers year , and Nial benvies the art of nature photography ( see our reviews section for full details etc) both expensive (circa 25 notes) to buy but your local library should have a copy.

[RichBrew]

Jez,

There's no shame in using the automated modes for photography. I use aperture priority almost exclusively, only switching to manual if I'm spot metering a mid tone for a considered landscape shot when I deem the lighting to be tricky, or using ND grey grad filters, but that's it. Matrix meters on modern cameras do a superb job, and let the photographer concentrate on the subject in the viewfinder without having to worry too much about exposure.

I agree with eeyore that you may end up spending more on film and processing than you would if you purchased a DSLR as a replacement for the F55. Then you are freed up to experiment with manual exposure at little cost, but ultimately the camera modes are there to help you get the image you're after. If you achieve that in auto, then so be it. It's the image that counts, not which exposure mode you use to get it. Of course, there's the Nikonians web site, where all you have to do is ask. There's an abundance of experienced Nikon shooters only too willing to give advice, no matter what level you're at. No one knows it all.

RichBrew

[mh68]

The only drawback of learning with a film camera is that it will be a slower process, as you cant immediately view a shot after its taken as you can with digital - you have to wait until the film is finished,sent away, then returned from the processing lab (unless , as Eeyore states, you develop it yourself).As such it will pay you to make some notes about camera settings etc for shots taken, as its easy to forget in the meantime,and it would be very frustrating to get a really good shot back from the developers and not be able to remember the settings you used
One positive thing about learning with film, is that you have to get the shot right first time - you cant crop/sharpen etc a film image as you can with digital, which will help you think more about what youre doing instead of just snapping away and putting a shot right in photoshop on the computer afterwards.
You dont have to restrict yourself to wildlife photography either while you`re still learning,actually using the camera as much as possible, shooting whatever takes your fancy will help you learn more quickly,and help you get used to the various controls/settings on the camera,as opposed to restricting its use only to wildlife trips.
You didnt mention which len/s you have for the camera? This may limit you to what you can shoot depending on the size of the lens or lenses you have....

Mark H

[David Hyde]

Originally Posted by Jez

Hi.
I'm sure if i learnt how to use the manual settings that i could take far better photo's and capture wildlife in many differing ways and learn a little at least about photgraphy bla bla bla.

I agree with most of what has gone before, except I must take issue with Mark H. It is a misconception to think that you can snap away without much thought and correct it all in Photoshop.
I would point out that it is going to be costly to cut your teeth with a film camera, particularly with wildlife so I would keep the digital on my Christmas list.

There are only Four basic things to take into account in ALL types of photography.
1 SENSITIVITY - the ISO setting - the higher the number the more sensitive to low light your camera can be - although there will be a loss of quality (to an extent) as a trade-off.
2 APERTURE - The hole through which the light enters. Quoted in seemingly odd numbers - f2.8, f5.6, f16 etc, they are known as stops or f-stops. The lower the number, the bigger the hole and therefore the greater the amount of light to reach the film or sensor. Aperture is used to control depth-of-field which is the amount of the image in focus.
3 SHUTTER SPEED - Self-explanatory and measured in fractions of a second. Light can only enter through the aperture while the shutter is open. If it is open briefly (fast shutter speed) then only a little light enters the camera. Shutter speed is to do with subject movement. If your subject is moving and you don't want blur then your shutter speeds need to be fast.
4 FOCUSSING - Again self-explanitary.
In order to get your picture to look right it needs to be correctly exposed. You need to set the aperture and shutter speed together to achieve this. Years ago this involved using a separate light meter. These have long been built into cameras. With the camera knowing the ISO setting (you set that) the camera will give you a range options for shutter speed/aperture. Depending on the subject, or effect you want, you make your choice and away you go.

The PROGRAMME mode in auto cameras makes these choices for you. For example in a typical SPORTS mode it will assume action so it will set your shutter speed high and open the aperture to let enough light in. It will also optimise the ISO, perhaps increasing it if the light is too low.
If you select a typical LANDSCAPE setting it will assume you are more interested in having much of your picture in focus so it will set your aperture as small as it can. To compensate for this it will select a slower shutter speed. If it feels the speed is too slow it will increase your ISO to compensate. This may sound just what you want but you may not always want your movement frozen, or all your landscape in focus. You have ultimate control in manual.

It is useful to know the principals of photography but with wildlife photography in particular using an automatic function allows you to work more quickly. I, like many I suspect, use Aperture Priority (AP on by camera). I set my ISO manually so it can't be altered, then I choose an Aperture (bearing in mind the subject and therefore the depth of field - how much I want in focus). My cameras metering will then set my a shutter speed to produce the correct exposure. I use a tripod most of the time which gives me more flexibility over shutter speeds. I keep an eye on the shutter speeds selected and if I feel it needs adjusting I can manually alter the Aperture or my ISO setting.
Of course there is much more to photography than this quick outline but I hope it helps and I hope I haven’t rambled on too long.
David

[mh68]

Point taken David, maybe I could have worded that better. What I should have said was that there is no leeway for image correction,either slight or otherwise when shooting with film so you have to get it right first time.Obviously with a digital image too, the best results are obtained with shots that are perfect straight from the camera, but with digital there is that leeway for image correction that shooting with film lacks.

Mark H

[RichBrew]

Despite what has been said here, it also depends on what film stock you intend to use if you pursue that avenue. Negative film will have a far greater exposure latitude that reversal (slide) film. Although you should still meter accurately where possible, negative film will allow you to be out around 5 stops (up to 10 stops with some mono films), and still enable you to get an acceptable print. This is what disposable cameras are based on. Reversal film is altogether less forgiving, and metering needs to be more accurate to get something that resembles the scene you shot. Abuse that film stock and your shots will only be fit for the bin. Further, there is no such thing as "correct" exposure. I all depends on what you're trying to communicate with the image, although this can include the fullest possible range of tones in the picture. This is, however, difficult to achieve with negative film for the reasons mentioned above.

If you do intend to shoot film, I'd strongly suggest you scan your negs (or slides) into a computer. At least you have total control over the image that way, and are not left at the mercy of the person running the lab to get decent prints. Manipulating contrast or using unsharp mask was part and parcel of photography from the get-go (unsharp masking is a darkroom technique), as are contrast masks and dodging and burning-in to control shadows and highlights. This has transferred to Photoshop and other editing software programs. I don't see why, just because you now substitute the computer for an enlarger, all that should stop.

RichBrew

[David Hyde]

Originally Posted by mh68

What I should have said was that there is no leeway for image correction,either slight or otherwise when shooting with film so you have to get it right first time.Obviously with a digital image too, the best results are obtained with shots that are perfect straight from the camera, but with digital there is that leeway for image correction that shooting with film lacks.
Mark H

Well put Mark, exactly right. For this reason I would also recommend going straight for digital.
David

[mh68]

Likewise David, theres no comparison when it comes to how quickly you can learn with digital.

Mark H

[HowlinWolf]

Originally Posted by mh68

What I should have said was that there is no leeway for image correction,either slight or otherwise when shooting with film so you have to get it right first time.Obviously with a digital image too, the best results are obtained with shots that are perfect straight from the camera, but with digital there is that leeway for image correction that shooting with film lacks.

Mark H

Not true. Images shot on film probably have more leeway for correction, as it has greater dynamic range than digital sensors, rendering a greater range of tones on the negative, As RichBrew points out, scanning film into a computer opens up the same possibilities as that with shooting digital. Pictures can be cropped, sharpened, colour corrected etc.
Jez expresses the desire to make better use of the camera he already has (original post). Maybe some advice in that direction would be of more help to him.

HW