■ The Photography Megathread ■

[Sirrus]

That's really loving unfortunate, because having someone else pay for camera equipment is a really unfortunate way to get into photography.

Without knowing how much lenses and bodies and whatever you'd want to buy really cost, it's sort of difficult to fully appreciate them for what they're worth, and the whole reason I told you to get mid range lenses was because if you're just a hobbyist, there's really, really no reason to get really expensive full frame zoom lenses. The glass itself is not going to make your pictures wildly better. I have become a moderately proficient commercial photographer along with generating what I think is a very wide body of decent fine art photography, and I've done it largely with a D5100 with an 18-55 on it. Until a few months ago (and with the help of a nice tax refund), if I had a shoot with a challenging light situation, I rented a flash and still used primarily my 18-55, occasionally renting or borrowing a Sigma 70-200 2.8, a very midrange 70-200. With this set-up, I've made close to, if not more than a grand, recouping the cost of my camera and probably making a bit of a profit.

So, the stuff I've added on from the modest D5100 and kit lens? I paid for with my own money, and because I was buying it with my own money I was able to thoroughly weigh the decision of whether or not I really needed it, and whether or not it really benefited me. Then, if I decided to get it, I absolutely use the stuff out of it. I have never bought a lens or piece of equipment that I didn't research or thoroughly ask myself "do I really really need this.

An example, I've wanted to get a 10-20 or some wide angle lens to that extent since before I bought my camera. However, over the course of the school year, I put it at the bottom of my list because it wouldn't help me that much. It would be nice for landscapes, but I can't use it for portraits and I can't really use it for events. So I bought a 35 f/1.8. Then a flash. Then a used 70-200 2.8 when I found an outstanding price on one. Now I'm working a summer job and could definitely afford a 10-20, but I'm still not really saving for one because I don't need it that terribly.

This is to say, if I had a benefactor buying equipment for me, I'd probably ask for a 10-20. And I might use it, might not. I might have a few fun shoots with it where I go to really wide angles for buildings and landscapes and stuff like that, but if I just suddenly have it, then I haven't really weighed whether or not it's deeply important to what I'm doing, and because I didn't do that, I may not have as strong a desire to use it, if I had an impulse, acquired it, and had the fun that the impulse said I would have if I got it. But, because of just, incredible deliberation, I can weed out things that aren't completely paramount to making money with photography, and also creating good fine art photography.

And if you think about it, I haven't made a single purchase for the sake of leisurely photography. When I go out, I don't take my flash, I don't take my 70-200, I don't take my 35. I go out with my tripod and my 18-55, because I've decided that's all I need for that aspect of my photography. Everything else is for the sake of business, which is naturally where I put my money. Spend money to make money. But, through deliberation, I can say "Okay, well, a lot of the photography I'm doing for my own enjoyment, the 18-55 is serving me very well. A 10-20 would be nice, I guess, but I don't really need it. So I won't get it."

And because you're spending someone else's money, you're not going through that process, and more likely than you'll end up with a lot of lenses that you made good decisions on getting, you'll end up with a bunch of expensive stuff you didn't really need and didn't end up using to its full extent, and because you don't have as much of your own resources invested into it, it's more likely, in my opinion, that you'll fall out of the hobby of photography.

[Ad Bot]

[duke 838]

That's really loving unfortunate, because having someone else pay for camera equipment is a really unfortunate way to get into photography.

Without knowing how much lenses and bodies and whatever you'd want to buy really cost, it's sort of difficult to fully appreciate them for what they're worth, and the whole reason I told you to get mid range lenses was because if you're just a hobbyist, there's really, really no reason to get really expensive full frame zoom lenses. The glass itself is not going to make your pictures wildly better. I have become a moderately proficient commercial photographer along with generating what I think is a very wide body of decent fine art photography, and I've done it largely with a D5100 with an 18-55 on it. Until a few months ago (and with the help of a nice tax refund), if I had a shoot with a challenging light situation, I rented a flash and still used primarily my 18-55, occasionally renting or borrowing a Sigma 70-200 2.8, a very midrange 70-200. With this set-up, I've made close to, if not more than a grand, recouping the cost of my camera and probably making a bit of a profit.

So, the stuff I've added on from the modest D5100 and kit lens? I paid for with my own money, and because I was buying it with my own money I was able to thoroughly weigh the decision of whether or not I really needed it, and whether or not it really benefited me. Then, if I decided to get it, I absolutely use the stuff out of it. I have never bought a lens or piece of equipment that I didn't research or thoroughly ask myself "do I really really need this.

An example, I've wanted to get a 10-20 or some wide angle lens to that extent since before I bought my camera. However, over the course of the school year, I put it at the bottom of my list because it wouldn't help me that much. It would be nice for landscapes, but I can't use it for portraits and I can't really use it for events. So I bought a 35 f/1.8. Then a flash. Then a used 70-200 2.8 when I found an outstanding price on one. Now I'm working a summer job and could definitely afford a 10-20, but I'm still not really saving for one because I don't need it that terribly.

This is to say, if I had a benefactor buying equipment for me, I'd probably ask for a 10-20. And I might use it, might not. I might have a few fun shoots with it where I go to really wide angles for buildings and landscapes and stuff like that, but if I just suddenly have it, then I haven't really weighed whether or not it's deeply important to what I'm doing, and because I didn't do that, I may not have as strong a desire to use it, if I had an impulse, acquired it, and had the fun that the impulse said I would have if I got it. But, because of just, incredible deliberation, I can weed out things that aren't completely paramount to making money with photography, and also creating good fine art photography.

And if you think about it, I haven't made a single purchase for the sake of leisurely photography. When I go out, I don't take my flash, I don't take my 70-200, I don't take my 35. I go out with my tripod and my 18-55, because I've decided that's all I need for that aspect of my photography. Everything else is for the sake of business, which is naturally where I put my money. Spend money to make money. But, through deliberation, I can say "Okay, well, a lot of the photography I'm doing for my own enjoyment, the 18-55 is serving me very well. A 10-20 would be nice, I guess, but I don't really need it. So I won't get it."

And because you're spending someone else's money, you're not going through that process, and more likely than you'll end up with a lot of lenses that you made good decisions on getting, you'll end up with a bunch of expensive stuff you didn't really need and didn't end up using to its full extent, and because you don't have as much of your own resources invested into it, it's more likely, in my opinion, that you'll fall out of the hobby of photography.

So to get more into, you recommend I refuse the money and great gear, get a job, and buy my own moderate gear, so that I can get really into the whole thing more.  


Edit I can see how it'd make me appreciate it more, and use it more. I Payed for my computer, and I appreciate it more than anything I own. I didn't buy my camera, I do appreciate it though, I just figured if this was a long term thing I should get stuff that will last.

[Tammy]

Most rich kids have their daddies buy them expensive photography equipment to use as fashion accessories. duke 838 at least appreciates photography. But I do agree with you that he should still shop around for some alteratives (a prime lens for wide angle maybe), but there is really no reason not to get the best gear he can afford. Better lenses do make a huge difference in optical quality and, more importantly, ease of use. I would hate taking pictures if I had the 18-55mm because the barrel wobbles when you try to focus it.

Some people say that limitations can improve you still. I don't necessarily disagree with this, but when you have no limitations you can never use them as an excuse. There's no wondering "is that picture blurry because my lens/AF messed up, or because I messed something up".

I know I probably sound like a snobby gearcigarette, but if you're using a kit lens for commercial work, you're a fauxtographer. If you want to play with the big boys, you should at least by or rent professional equipment.

You won't end up with a bunch of lenses you don't use buying when you're buying the best lenses, because the Nikon trinity will be the only thing you'll ever buy (besides specialty lenses of of course). Buying midrange, your lenses will wear out eventually, or you might just feel like a Tamron would be better than your Sigma so you'll end up with a bunch of lenses you can't resell.

So to get more into, you recommend I refuse the money and great gear, get a job, and buy my own moderate gear, so that I can get really into the whole thing more.

Yeah you will enjoy it more if you bought it with your own money, that's how anything is. But it doesn't mean you should reject free equipment, instead you should force yourself to appreciate it, and still set a budget limit for how much you get a year.

[Sirrus]

Please don't call me a fauxtographer. I haven't generated enough photography work to pay for all my equipment by faking it, so don't call me a goddamn fauxtographer. I can understand how you'd say that an 18-55 for commercial work is unprofessional, but don't lump me in with stuffty photographers because I've done it.

You're sounding like a huge gearcigarette when you say that. I'm not saying that the 18-55 is a quality lens but it gets the goddamn job done if you're not pixel peeping. It's abysmal in low light situations, which is why I rented flashes until I could afford to buy my own. With this, the 18-55 turns out pictures that are more than acceptable if you're not pixel-peeping. It's essentially the cropped frame equivalent of the workhorse of any event photographer, the 24-70. It's sans the 2.8 aperture and the super high quality glass, of course, but like I said, I work with my limitations by using a flash and then switching to the 35 1.8 or the 70-200 2.8 when I need to.

Would I continue using my 18-55 and D5100 for commercial work if I was generating a large amount of money with it? Of course not. But considering that it works, and I have other things to pay for right now (car payments, gas, insurance, etc.) I'm not going to start working towards a D700 and the Nikon trinity until I need it, and I know I'm going to use it, and that will come when I'm generating a large amount of income off of photography.

So to get more into, you recommend I refuse the money and great gear, get a job, and buy my own moderate gear, so that I can get really into the whole thing more.

Yes. I'm not suggesting that you do that, because realistically if someone were offering to buy me high end equipment I would accept, but I'm saying that you absolutely won't appreciate it or need it as much if you didn't work for it and buy it yourself. And, in general, it just feels good to own something that you bought. I mean, this might be a feeling that's unique to me, of course. A good example is, a while back a pawn shop in my town was having a sale on a beautiful bass that I wanted. It was a $400 bass that they were selling for $300. It was right before Christmas and all guitars were on sale for 1/3 off. So, it was $200 and I had $100 cash on hand. I told my parents that all I wanted for Christmas was the extra $100 to get this bass on sale (the alternative would've been waiting a while and having to come up with an extra $200 instead of $100). I thought it made perfect sense and they gave me the money, but it wasn't after a good bit of frustration from them. My family isn't poor, by any means, but my parents are pretty fiscally responsible, shall we say, and this was a pretty large amount of money to just give me straight up. I still feel kind of bad that I solicited this money from them, and still don't feel like I entirely "own" the bass.

I just, have definitely been raised with the idea that if you want something, you work for it and pay for it when you have the money. No credit cards unless you have an explicit plan for paying it off, and no asking for handouts because I damn well don't need it.

Also, I didn't pick up on this until reading through your post again...

If you want to play with the big boys, you should at least by or rent professional equipment.

I, I generally consider myself to be a fairly intelligent and well spoken person, and right now I'm focusing all my energy into coming up with an elaborate way of saying "forget you", despite the fact that those two words seem to sum up my feelings rather well.

How the forget does one become a "big boy", you swine? Do I have to become a financially stable adult and then drop ~$10,000 on a well rounded set of equipment? You claim to be 15, so you clearly know all about being a professional photographer. So tell me, what have I done wrong? Did I forget up somewhere, because I seem to have made a fair amount of money. People paid me with real money to take their pictures, they didn't seem to care about what kind of equipment I use.

I'm talking to a company right now to do some product photography for them, and since I don't have a one grand product photography set up, with two strobes with soft boxes, a studio with the appropriate back drops, and a nice macro lens, maybe I just shouldn't take that job, where I'd be shooting it with two 500w work lights diffused by white paper and then shoot that with my old 50mm AF lens that my D5100 body can't autofocus, so I'll just focus it myself. But "OH MY GOD YOU MIGHT GET IT WRONG BECAUSE THE AF DETECTION SYSTEM IS A LITTLE BIT MISCALIBRATED ON SUCH A CHEAP BODY. YOU'RE USING A LENS WITH INFERIOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPTICS, THE PICTURES WILL BE RUINED." The whole camera will be on a tripod I bought when I was 11 from a garage sale. That will clearly ruin the picture, I'm going to need a Manfrotto fluid head for still photography if I want to be a "big boy".

You ignorant prick. How the hell do you have the nerve to call me a fauxtographer.

Before you rebut in any way, I want to know your life experience. I want to hear your equipment set up and how it was paid for, I want to see your work, I want to know how much experience you have in commercial photography, I want to know what constitutes "professional equipment", I want to know what the qualities of "unprofessional equipment" are and why it can't be used for commercial work, and I want to know what makes you think you have any right to judge me and the work that I do based on what gathers up light and puts it on my camera's sensor.

[Extrude]

The only thing that matters is picture quality. Buying expensive things doesn't make you good handicap extreme.

[xXBeibsFan119Xx]

My K-5. by 166291, on Flickr


A town in the morning. by 166291, on Flickr

[Tammy]

Yes. I'm not suggesting that you do that, because realistically if someone were offering to buy me high end equipment I would accept, but I'm saying that you absolutely won't appreciate it or need it as much if you didn't work for it and buy it yourself. And, in general, it just feels good to own something that you bought. I mean, this might be a feeling that's unique to me, of course. A good example is, a while back a pawn shop in my town was having a sale on a beautiful bass that I wanted. It was a $400 bass that they were selling for $300. It was right before Christmas and all guitars were on sale for 1/3 off. So, it was $200 and I had $100 cash on hand. I told my parents that all I wanted for Christmas was the extra $100 to get this bass on sale (the alternative would've been waiting a while and having to come up with an extra $200 instead of $100). I thought it made perfect sense and they gave me the money, but it wasn't after a good bit of frustration from them. My family isn't poor, by any means, but my parents are pretty fiscally responsible, shall we say, and this was a pretty large amount of money to just give me straight up. I still feel kind of bad that I solicited this money from them, and still don't feel like I entirely "own" the bass.

I agree with you on this. The feeling you get when you buy stuff with your own money is pretty universal actually. It seems that we are also in agreement that photography is an expensive hobby and you don't have to pay for it all by yourself unless you really want to. I actually really respect you for funding the hobby by yourself.

Please don't call me a fauxtographer. I haven't generated enough photography work to pay for all my equipment by faking it, so don't call me a goddamn fauxtographer. I can understand how you'd say that an 18-55 for commercial work is unprofessional, but don't lump me in with stuffty photographers because I've done it.

You're sounding like a huge gearcigarette when you say that. I'm not saying that the 18-55 is a quality lens but it gets the goddamn job done if you're not pixel peeping. It's abysmal in low light situations, which is why I rented flashes until I could afford to buy my own. With this, the 18-55 turns out pictures that are more than acceptable if you're not pixel-peeping. It's essentially the cropped frame equivalent of the workhorse of any event photographer, the 24-70. It's sans the 2.8 aperture and the super high quality glass, of course, but like I said, I work with my limitations by using a flash and then switching to the 35 1.8 or the 70-200 2.8 when I need to.

Would I continue using my 18-55 and D5100 for commercial work if I was generating a large amount of money with it? Of course not. But considering that it works, and I have other things to pay for right now (car payments, gas, insurance, etc.) I'm not going to start working towards a D700 and the Nikon trinity until I need it, and I know I'm going to use it, and that will come when I'm generating a large amount of income off of photography.

I, I generally consider myself to be a fairly intelligent and well spoken person, and right now I'm focusing all my energy into coming up with an elaborate way of saying "forget you", despite the fact that those two words seem to sum up my feelings rather well.

How the forget does one become a "big boy", you swine? Do I have to become a financially stable adult and then drop ~$10,000 on a well rounded set of equipment? You claim to be 15, so you clearly know all about being a professional photographer. So tell me, what have I done wrong? Did I forget up somewhere, because I seem to have made a fair amount of money. People paid me with real money to take their pictures, they didn't seem to care about what kind of equipment I use.

I'm talking to a company right now to do some product photography for them, and since I don't have a one grand product photography set up, with two strobes with soft boxes, a studio with the appropriate back drops, and a nice macro lens, maybe I just shouldn't take that job, where I'd be shooting it with two 500w work lights diffused by white paper and then shoot that with my old 50mm AF lens that my D5100 body can't autofocus, so I'll just focus it myself. But "OH MY GOD YOU MIGHT GET IT WRONG BECAUSE THE AF DETECTION SYSTEM IS A LITTLE BIT MISCALIBRATED ON SUCH A CHEAP BODY. YOU'RE USING A LENS WITH INFERIOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPTICS, THE PICTURES WILL BE RUINED." The whole camera will be on a tripod I bought when I was 11 from a garage sale. That will clearly ruin the picture, I'm going to need a Manfrotto fluid head for still photography if I want to be a "big boy".

You ignorant prick. How the hell do you have the nerve to call me a fauxtographer.

Before you rebut in any way, I want to know your life experience. I want to hear your equipment set up and how it was paid for, I want to see your work, I want to know how much experience you have in commercial photography, I want to know what constitutes "professional equipment", I want to know what the qualities of "unprofessional equipment" are and why it can't be used for commercial work, and I want to know what makes you think you have any right to judge me and the work that I do based on what gathers up light and puts it on my camera's sensor.

You may be a step above the stereotypical "full auto spray and pray" fauxtographer, but your still not a true professional. I guess it's not that bad because you don't call yourself professional. Still, you probably don't have a legitimate business set up and you're probably not paying taxes on your work like most real photographers do. It would be one thing if all you did was take pictures of your friends birthday party, but it seems you are at least doing some very serious work.

In the fine art world of photography, you can use whatever equipment you want. But commercial work isn't fine art. In the commercial world, it's generally about meeting the clients need, and clients generally expect the highest quality images available with today's technology, so that means you need to have the best equipment.

I probably sound like a gearcigarette because I'm trying to shop for a normal range lens right now. From the reviews I read I won't disagree with you that the 18-55mm has great optical quality for its price. But let's say the company you're talking to right now wants to put your picture on a billboard. The whole image is blown up, and suddenly defects you might only notice when pixel peeping are huge because now each pixel larger. I don't have a problem with you using a kit lens, I have a problem with you using a kit lens for commercial work.

You're calling me ignorant, but you don't seem to understand the state the photography market is in today. 10 years ago, to become a professional you would have to carry other professional's equipment around for years while you built up connections. He had to either spend tons of money on film and prints, or save up for a very expensive DSLR. Today, anybody can deliver decent results with their D3100 on auto mode. So people decide to start undercutting the pros who have invested a lot of time and money in becoming a pro, and the demand for true professionals is dying.

It's not necessarily the amateurs fault for deciding they can be a pro because they have a fancy DSLR. It's not necessarily the pros fault for not adapting to the market. If anything the market is like this because of all the innovation in photography is causing the consumer to not value good photographs as much as they used to.

You will defiantly understand what I'm saying years from now, when you have your D700 and pro lenses, but nobody is hiring you because someone is doing it with a D5100 and a kit lens for so much cheaper. You're actully hurting your future self by devaluing photgraphy.

tl;dr: equipment doesn't matter for art photography, but commercial clients expect the best quality that only professional equipment can deliver.

[Sirrus]

BEFORE THE WALL OF TEXT: Only person who's posted pictures on this page: Lose the mirror self portraits, but I like the second photo. Lights form a leading line and the scaffolding holds your eye in on the left. The sign could be a bit brighter (post production thing, mostly) and the whole thing could be a bit cleaner and brighter (turn the ISO down and bring a tripod when it's dark!) but overall you're definitely improving.

It's getting late and I have to wake up for work tomorrow so I need to get to bed soon, so I'm going to respond to this on a paragraph by paragraph basis instead of trying to structure a counter argument that encompasses everything.

You may be a step above the stereotypical "full auto spray and pray" fauxtographer, but your still not a true professional. I guess it's not that bad because you don't call yourself professional. Still, you probably don't have a legitimate business set up and you're probably not paying taxes on your work like most real photographers do. It would be one thing if all you did was take pictures of your friends birthday party, but it seems you are at least doing some very serious work.

I do pay taxes on my work, at least, I keep a very close eye on how much money I make and when it comes time to file my taxes for my 9-5 summer job next year, I'll be reading very closely on the minimum income that needs to be reported. I am professional in the sense that I do business, deliver a product, and get paid for it, but I suppose in the sense that I don't make 100% of my income off of photography, I am not a professional.

In the fine art world of photography, you can use whatever equipment you want. But commercial work isn't fine art. In the commercial world, it's generally about meeting the clients need, and clients generally expect the highest quality images available with today's technology, so that means you need to have the best equipment.

This isn't true. Clients expect quality images, they do not expect the "highest quality" images, especially when the difference between an entry level DSLR and a pro DSLR is getting smaller and smaller. A D800 with great glass will deliver outstanding images and be a complete breeze to use. A D5100 with great glass will deliver very good images and be somewhat cumbersome to use. A D5100 with average glass will deliver good pictures and be just as cumbersome as with good glass.

I probably sound like a gearcigarette because I'm trying to shop for a normal range lens right now. From the reviews I read I won't disagree with you that the 18-55mm has great optical quality for its price. But let's say the company you're talking to right now wants to put your picture on a billboard. The whole image is blown up, and suddenly defects you might only notice when pixel peeping are huge because now each pixel larger. I don't have a problem with you using a kit lens, I have a problem with you using a kit lens for commercial work.

If the company I'm talking to sees my images and it isn't up their standards, then I don't get paid and they don't use my pictures. Simple as that. And, it should be said that I use the 18-55 in events, since it's a very, very handy range to have for working in crowds and the like. As I said, it's the cropped frame equivalent of the event photographer's workhorse, the 24-70. I don't use it for portraits if I can avoid it (I basically did an entire portrait session recently with the 35 1.8. Prime lenses work nicely for portraits).

You're calling me ignorant, but you don't seem to understand the state the photography market is in today. 10 years ago, to become a professional you would have to carry other professional's equipment around for years while you built up connections. He had to either spend tons of money on film and prints, or save up for a very expensive DSLR. Today, anybody can deliver decent results with their D3100 on auto mode. So people decide to start undercutting the pros who have invested a lot of time and money in becoming a pro, and the demand for true professionals is dying.

Professionals will always have their place, and competition is what keeps them honest. I've heard from various photographers in my area who are well established professionals that a good going price for a senior picture session is $400. I charge $100 for seniors, and I like to think that the established photographer's work is less than four times as good as mine. They may need to charge this to make it worth their time, and I'm fine with that as they've worked hard to get where they are and if people are willing to pay that, by all means go ahead, but if someone is willing to pay me to do my work, then that's that. I'll do it. And as I establish my name and professionalism, price goes up. I'm no less a person delivering a product and service because I have less of a name and less equipment, but like I said, if someone is willing to pay me for the work I do, I'm not going to turn them down. I don't understand how you're criticizing me for running a business.

Also, in general I'd just appreciate it if you were either honest about your age or stopped making comparisons to 10 years ago like you knew what was going on. If your profile is correct, you were 5 and I was 7, so I won't make things up if you don't.

It's not necessarily the amateurs fault for deciding they can be a pro because they have a fancy DSLR. It's not necessarily the pros fault for not adapting to the market. If anything the market is like this because of all the innovation in photography is causing the consumer to not value good photographs as much as they used to.

I would actually agree with this. My biggest competitor at this stage in my career where I'm trying to get a lot of business from my friends (this is my senior year) is probably people who have a sibling or something that has a DSLR and takes alright pictures. It's free, the technical quality comes out fine, but the pictures end up looking very bland. "oh well, it works." seems to be the attitude. I try to not worry about it to much.

You will defiantly understand what I'm saying years from now, when you have your D700 and pro lenses, but nobody is hiring you because someone is doing it with a D5100 and a kit lens for so much cheaper. You're actully hurting your future self by devaluing photgraphy.

tbh I don't know if I want to go into photography as a career. I don't want to turn into the photographer that ends up opening a studio and staffing out all the editing work and hell, the shooting. The more I find out about the jobs adults have, the more I realize that anything can degrade into a desk job if you let it, and I love photography too much to lose my passion for it by turning it into a career.

Assuming I did end up as a photographer, though, I actually don't agree with you on this one. It seems to me that you have this weird schism between amateur photographers and professional photographers where one is never the other. I mean, let me pick a better way of phrasing that. I haven't really read from you your understanding of how an amateur turns into a professional. Everyone has to start somewhere, you can't just buy a stuffton of professional gear and suddenly you're a professional. You have to work with what you have, maybe work another job, do some free work to start a portfolio, then start charging a bit and ratchet it up as you can afford more gear and your skills improve.

I know a guy, a couple years out of highschool, maybe ah, well probably around 22 or so. He's a very successful wedding cinematographer and moonlights as a photographer, basically does it on the side because he already has all the equipment. Anyway, I was talking to him about business and stuff and he basically told me his story, and it was the same thing I'm saying already. He started in high school, started with doing senior pictures for his friends, and just showed a lot of initiative and work and built his way up from very cheap gear, to now he runs several MKII's for cinematograph with a whole shelf of professional lenses, and two LEICAs for still photography, one film and one digital. He's a self made businessman, and that came from starting small with meager means.

[kiwibear]

Holy stuff I look at this topic just to see some cool pictures, and its just like

-text-

[xXBeibsFan119Xx]

TEXT: Only person who's posted pictures on this page: Lose the mirror self portraits, but I like the second photo. Lights form a leading line and the scaffolding holds your eye in on the left. The sign could be a bit brighter (post production thing, mostly) and the whole thing could be a bit cleaner and brighter (turn the ISO down and bring a tripod when it's dark!) but overall you're definitely improving.

Mirror portraits are hack, but I wanted to get the low light of a bathroom at 6PM in the shot. Also, tripods don't fit in cars. I think I've improved a great deal over the past few days, but I've got a huge backlog of photos so I'll post them when I get to them.

[Spiderpig]

All shot on this;

Best 30 bucks ive ever spent. Also sorry about the stuffty quality my scanner is broken and since I took it all on film I dont have the digital copy.

[Kniaz]

Holy stuff I look at this topic just to see some cool pictures, and its just like

-text-

Those people make photography boring, and this thread not as much fun as it could be...

Those are some sweet film shots, Spiderpig! I was wondering when we'd see some film :)

[Spiderpig]

Those people make photography boring, and this thread not as much fun as it could be...

Those are some sweet film shots, Spiderpig! I was wondering when we'd see some film :)

Haha thanks. I love film the whole feel of it, developing your own pictures and all. I finally saved up enough to get my own chemicals and stuff so i can develop my rolls of film

[Kniaz]

Half the fun is developing your film :)

I've wanted a film camera for ages haha

[Spiderpig]

Half the fun is developing your film :)

I've wanted a film camera for ages haha

Get that holga 30 bucks you cant go wrong im tellin ya!