Is anyone on this forum into photography?....

[Troy]

I don’t mean just taking the odd snap here and there using a phone. I mean seriously, more like a hobby or a profession....

I’m just starting out in it and I have lots of questions and info I’d like to ask people.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Troy

[RantMachine]

I may have done a little work in the industry here or there

[JRH]

When I can get out I do enjoy photography as a hobby. Although I do use the phone (usually when I haven’t got my camera) my main weapon of choice is a Canon DSLR with a Panasonic LUMIX as backup

Just ask the questions and if folk can help they will.

[Bender]

I have just dug out my old camera, it's something I like but never have the time for.

[husoi]

I was going to say that I do but after those photos I'm not too sure

[Troy]

Thank you for your responses so far.

I have just brought myself a Canon 1100D (used) with three lenses. The standard lens which came with the camera from new is a macro lens. The other two appear to be “zoom” lenses. One is manufactured by Canon, The other is by a third party company called Sigma.

The Sigma lens seems really good from what I have used of it so far.

(I am still very new to this so if it is easier, I can upload photos of the lenses that I have to make sure they can be better identified.)

My first question at this stage is what should I be using these lenses for? (other than taking photos, obviously)

Some photos that I have taken with them have turned out great... others, not so well. I Want to know if I’m using each lens for its correct purpose. For example;- I know the macro lens is only really suited for close-ups and seeing every tiny detail. I’m assuming it won’t be so great for taking pictures of landscapes and scenery.

[Bender]

Loads of guides on t web

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/blog/tips-and-technique/photography-lens-guide-lens-types-explained/?mkwid=s_dm&pcrid=418859072621&kword=&match=b&plid=&si=&gclid=Cj0KCQjw7qn1BRDqARIsAKMbHDb5EbB28w62NUR8XKcdO7sXyiSLrHrFGaaKEaPNNWvkGewj7vAByZ4aArPrEALw_wcB

[Troy]

Loads of guides on t web

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/blog/tips-and-technique/photography-lens-guide-lens-types-explained/?mkwid=s_dm&pcrid=418859072621&kword=&match=b&plid=&si=&gclid=Cj0KCQjw7qn1BRDqARIsAKMbHDb5EbB28w62NUR8XKcdO7sXyiSLrHrFGaaKEaPNNWvkGewj7vAByZ4aArPrEALw_wcB

 

Yea, I’ve already done a lot of reading on guides on the web. It’s one of those subjects I guess that you never stop learning in.

[RantMachine]

There isn't exactly a "proper purpose" for each, rather it's about what effect you want to achieve and understanding which lens will let you achieve it.

For example, outside of the work stuff I enjoy doing macro work with a wide aperture wide angle prime lens, which certainly not conventional wisdom but it gets some fun results all the same.

 

A macro is of course well suited to close up work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only thing you can use it for. I'm of the belief that the old D series 60mm Macro from Nikon is absolutely gorgeous as a portrait lens. It can certainly do macro fairly well, but it's nothing stellar in that domain - plenty of other things that do it better.

Principles like understanding the difference between using a wide lens close up or a telephoto from far away are fundamental to getting the most out of your lenses. And most of all, not letting the intended use of the equipment get in the way of experimenting with achieving the result you want to is critical. I profoundly despise people who tell others that they're using their camera incorrectly or not for the intended purpose; not words you ever hear coming from the mouths of professionals, but all too popular with wealthy enthusiasts.

All that said, if you can at least tell us a little more about the specifics of the lenses then we can at least give a few pointers for things to try out as a way of familiarizing yourself with what you can achieve

[Troy]

All that said, if you can at least tell us a little more about the specifics of the lenses then we can at least give a few pointers for things to try out as a way of familiarizing yourself with what you can achieve

 

Im going to upload some images of them and give you the best description I can of each with my limited knowledge....

From what I can tell, this first one is Macro Zoom lense with variable aperture.

 

 

The second is a Tele Zoom lense with Fixed aperture. (I think?)

 

 

The last one is another Tele Zoom lense by Sigma. Also with variable aperture.

 

 

I hope this is sufficient enough and also accurate. If not, let me know.

[RantMachine]

That clears it up a bit!

The 18-55 isn't really a macro, that's just Canon marketing trying to be sneaky. It has a respectable minimum focal distance but nowhere near genuine macro turf. But, that should keep you covered for the wider stuff (architecture, landscape) through to portrait. It might not necessarily be the best for close up work; a telephoto with a reasonable minimum focus distance is often a bit better to work with as you don't have to be so close to the subject. I would recommend against taking the "macro" label on the lens as an instruction, and more as a suggestion

And theeeen honestly the other two are going to overlap a lot. So long as the Sigma is nice and sharp (sometimes they can be a little soft) and focuses as swiftly as the Canon (looks like both are micromotor not ultrasonic motor), the Sigma is going to make the Canon pretty redundant. Max aperture is a little better at the wide end, and while the long end is darker, it's also a good 100mm longer. So honestly not sure quite how much use the Canon tele will be.

But, a standard zoom covering wide through portrait focal lengths and a zoom picking up in more or less the same spot and carrying on to a solid telephoto is pretty much the best pair of lenses to get started out with! With a bit of experimentation (and improvisation / occasional bodging, which really is the most important skill a Photographer can have) those should let you try your hand an pretty much any niche of photography!

And then once you find what you have a taste for, you can start getting tempted by all of the other more specialized stuff

But anyway, I'm just waffling away - now we know what you're working with, ask away with some of those questions you mentioned in your first post and we can all see what terrible advice we can muster!

[Troy]

That clears it up a bit!......

......And then once you find what you have a taste for, you can start getting tempted by all of the other more specialized stuff

 

If I tell you the sort of shots I’ll be looking into, things I’d like to do, maybe that will shed some more light aswell.

I like natural images and images of nature/wildlife/landscapes. I don’t like adding filters, and textures as some do. I like an image in its purest form.

That said, I appreciate creativity such as rain drops against a neon background but only in its natural state.

I have plans to take images of sporting and motoring events, including motorcycles so I’d like to know what’s best to practice on before investing in some tickets. I like Macros too!

[JRH]

As[mention]RantMachine[/mention] says there is no correct use for each lens.

There is a general thing of zoom for distant things wide angle for landscapes but each type of lens has different characteristics that are useful in many areas. I would suggest pick an view and use each lens to take the “same” shot and study the different results

For portrait it is often suggested to use a 100 mm lens to get the best result, but again experiment. The only thing is unless you really want to distort things don’t use a wide angle lens too close for faces.

Your 18-55 is not really a true macro lens. It is the general kit / starter lens to give a good variable lens.

The other 2 lenses are a good choice of zooms.

Be very careful with this hobby as it can become as expensive as motorcycling.

If you want to read a bit more into Canon cameras have a look at EOS magazine. I have this mag delivered 4 times a year and it gives info on each camera and often tutorials to use each feature. There are also canon only magazines available in WHSmiths for example.

[JRH]

For motor sport you will need to practise the art of panning. This will give you an infocus vehicle and a blurred background to give the feeling of speed. If the shutter speed is too high you freeze the vehicle and the background so it all looks stationary. Now if you are panning with a lens that has stabilisation you will need to turn it off. Some lenses have a 2 stage stabilisation.

I know this ‘cause at my age all my lenses have stabilisation

Also if you use a tripod stabilisation off.

[RantMachine]

That clears it up a bit!......

......And then once you find what you have a taste for, you can start getting tempted by all of the other more specialized stuff

I like natural images and images of nature/wildlife/landscapes. I don’t like adding filters, and textures as some do. I like an image in its purest form.

Ah, excellent! I think we'd see eye to eye. As much retouching as I might do for other people, I prefer to avoid doing any at all on my own shots.

[mention]JRH[/mention] makes an excellent recommendation, the exercise of taking the same shot with multiple different lenses is a truly awesome way to learn about the different visual characteristics of your lenses.

You should be pretty well set up for an introduction to nature and wildlife with that equipment; the 18mm end of the standard zoom will deliver a respectable field of view for landscapes and the likes (with low ISOs and high apertures), and the 300mm end of the sigma will more than deliver for wildlife work (keeping the ISO up this time, to combat that mediocre minimum aperture at the 300mm end). Certainly more than adequate to really get a good feel for those niches of photography.

The New Manual of Photography by Jonathan Hedgecoe (or really any of his other instructional books) are an absolute godsend for so much of the early learning process, if you do want to indulge in some reading I would recommend them highly (and have been doing so to anyone who will listen for at least a decade now).

[Troy]

If I upload some photos of stuff I’ve taken in the past... will you promise not to be nice but brutally honest?!

[JRH]

In my early times I dabbled with some filters but never really always got on with the effects, they were either very OTT or the effect not noticeable and this was in the days of 35mm film. So they were expensive mistakes. Now I have a UV filter on each lens but this is mainly to protect the front element (needed it once, damaged the filter no damage to lens). But some cheaper UV filters can have a detrimental effect on the images. The only other filters you may need are polarising (to cut out reflections) or a Neutral Density filter.

[JRH]

If I upload some photos of stuff I’ve taken in the past... will you promise not to be nice but brutally honest?!

 

A brave statement on here.

[Troy]

[Troy]

Above, I have uploaded what I consider to be my best. The final image is my two kids, taken about 2-3 days ago.

I am open to any feedback, positive or negative.

I have more so show at request but I thought this will do for now.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Troy

[Troy]

Be very careful with this hobby as it can become as expensive as motorcycling.

 

 

Yes! I am fast learning that fact. I was already looking at a "Prime" lens and was shocked at the cost of them!! I was looking for an everyday lens that I could carry with me, without having to carry my whole bag of gear all the time.

[JRH]

Be very careful with this hobby as it can become as expensive as motorcycling.

 

 

Yes! I am fast learning that fact. I was already looking at a "Prime" lens and was shocked at the cost of them!! I was looking for an everyday lens that I could carry with me, without having to carry my whole bag of gear all the time.

 

I have had Canon stuff since the ‘90s starting with 35mm film. (Other makes before that). I have slowly added to the collection and upgraded. A lot of my stuff is now in the semi pro bracket and much is secondhand. I have a good branch of London Camera Exchange nearby and a lot has come from there.

I only have one prime lens and that is a 50mm f1.8 which I bought decades ago. The feat of the lenses are zoom. I find these better to carry as it give more flexibility, the down side is the weight.

[JRH]

[mention]Troy[/mention] some good examples of photography.

There are always different ways to look at photos depending on the results you were looking for, so with that caveat don’t take my comments as gospel.

No2. I like that it’s the sort of thing I do. It is hard to take that with out burning out the highlights.

No3.i would have reduced the depth of field to isolate the brown leaf more (ore moved the green frond that covers part of the leaf).

No4.

No9. Rose. Nice star burst with out a filter. The colours work well here. I may have widened the depth of field to get all the flower in focus while still blurring the background.

No10. This looks like you focused on the boy and as such the girl is slightly soft (out of focus). Soft focus can work well but should just be in one subject.

Portraiture is very difficult (in my eyes). For one person focus on the eyes. For 2 try to focus on a mid point and if you can check the depth of field in camera to check all is sharp.

Always check where the auto focus point is and where necessary focus where you need and then recompose. Or you could move the focus point.

On the puffin I posted the focus point was moved towards the top of the frame so I had the bird in the frame Center but focus was on the beak.

As I say these are my thoughts.

[Troy]

No9. Rose. Nice star burst with out a filter. The colours work well here. I may have widened the depth of field to get all the flower in focus while still blurring the background.

 

 

Thanks for the feedback!

What is "Depth of Field"?

How do you "widen the depth of field"?

[RantMachine]

Depth of field is essentially the measure of distance in front and behind of your exact focal distance that will also be in focus. So, in the one JRH is referring to, having a little more depth of field would make it so that the entire of the flower would be in focus, instead of just that central portion. You achieve greater depth of field by using a higher aperture, or by photographing from further away and zooming/cropping in.

But of course, on the flip side, using an excessively shallow depth of field can be an artistic decision! For example, that image I stuck in an earlier post was shot at f/2 from about two inches away, which is why very little is in focus and the whole thing has that hazy/dreamy kind of quality to it. So to play devil's advocate, you could also consider an even lower aperture and just throw the focus a tiny bit further away so that only the center most part of the flower is pin sharp and the parts of it nearer the camera (and the background) are quite dramatically blurred.

Really depends on what type of visual aesthetic you're aspiring to achieve!