Do I buy a new camera or a better lens?

Whenever I get new kit it takes time and practise to know what’s going wrong and what is going right. Practice makes perfect well almost. You have to learn by your successes and your failures
 
jamieb193 said:
Hi,

So I lost my interest with photography for a while, and I can't seem to take a picture with my camera anymore. I'm never happy with my shots and it's pushing me further away. I'm not using professional equipment as I have a limited budget, but I'm not using severely outdated equipment either.

I'm using a Nikon D5200 with a Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM. I also have a standard Nikon AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II kit lens that I never use.
Click to expand...
It's NOT the machinery! More shopping won't provide a sop to your inadequacy. To think that you can buy something and all will be better, is such a widespread fantasy. We live in a consumer age and it's aim is to get your money, regardless of whether you lose touch with reality and anything that actually matters.

You need to think in terms of developing your vision. You need to study photography! If that sounds like work, it can be fun too. It's up to you whether you feel that it's worth it. It's an organic process and a personal one.

And use your kit lens - put that Sigma in the bin.
 
your 18-55mm VR II is a very capable lens you need to just get out and about taking pictures there really isn't a substitute for practice.
Plenty of free software out there to use Gimp, Aftershot 3, darktable to name just 3. and tutorials available on you tube :)
 
Ste_S said:
Something that I didn't say, anywhere.
Click to expand...

Really?
In an answer to someone who’s clearly not putting in enough effort before he presses the shutter you posted...

Ste_S said:
Also remember that taking a photo is only half the process. The other half is in the edit.
Click to expand...

Now if you didn’t mean that the OP should just spend more time and effort in post to improve his disappointing output, what did you mean?

And also understand that for a small number of photographers Ansel Adams is a god, most of us think he’s massively overrated, and he’s sadly often used as an excuse for a reliance on PP, which is ridiculous when his real legacy is his work for National Parks, a consequence of the effort he put into studying his subject.
 
Phil V said:
Really?
In an answer to someone who’s clearly not putting in enough effort before he presses the shutter you posted...



Now if you didn’t mean that the OP should just spend more time and effort in post to improve his disappointing output, what did you mean?

And also understand that for a small number of photographers Ansel Adams is a god, most of us think he’s massively overrated, and he’s sadly often used as an excuse for a reliance on PP, which is ridiculous when his real legacy is his work for National Parks, a consequence of the effort he put into studying his subject.
Click to expand...

Yup. At no time did I say a poor photograph can be saved by an edit. I said a good image is 50% taking the image, 50% manipulation.

It's not just Ansel Adams. Most of the iconic photographers spent large amounts of time in the darkroom making a print (or had someone do it for them). Photography has always been a two step process
 
Ste_S said:
I said a good image is 50% taking the image, 50% manipulation.
Click to expand...

But it isn't. It is usually far more than 50% taking the picture.

Good photos are made when you point your camera at a subject that interests you in a way that enhances what you want to convey to make a picture which other people find interesting to look at.

That's the crux of what photography is about. Showing other people stuff. It's not about sharpness or low noise, or lenses or cameras. It's about pictures.

If the OP wants to improve their pictures they need to start looking more intently.
 
Ed Sutton said:
But it isn't. It is usually far more than 50% taking the picture.

Good photos are made when you point your camera at a subject that interests you in a way that enhances what you want to convey to make a picture which other people find interesting to look at.

That's the crux of what photography is about. Showing other people stuff. It's not about sharpness or low noise, or lenses or cameras. It's about pictures.

If the OP wants to improve their pictures they need to start looking more intently.
Click to expand...

Bolded part is exactly the point of edit/print/processing
 
The thing that Ansel Adams did that many do not see is that he tested, tested and tested again, he knew the limitations of his camera, the negative and the printing paper.

If you see some of the negatives he produced you would be amazed that he got the final prints he got. Was he a poor photographer then? No, he worked at the limits as in optimised what the negative could produce through exposure and processing.

A perfect example of practice, learn, refine continuously until you can get the best with what you have got

Mike
 
Lots of good advice here and clearly its not your kit holding you back. (footnote the 18-55mm is normally a very good lens for the money).
One other thing I picked up on, "images never leave the camera". You mean you are judging them by looking at the Poxy little display on the back of the camera???
Even the best displays I have seen are woefully inadequate, if your not pushing them up on a monitor your missing out!
 
Ste_S said:
And with a scan and edit they'll probably look even better
Click to expand...
50% better?

If someone is starting out in photography the first thing they need to get a handle on is seeing pictures, not processing files.
 
Ed Sutton said:
50% better?

If someone is starting out in photography the first thing they need to get a handle on is seeing pictures, not processing files.
Click to expand...

Yep
 
I think that getting the image right 'in camera' is the best thing to learn, or at least as right as the conditions at the time will possibly allow. Ansel Adams might have been a whiz in the darkroom but he reportedly said something along the lines of 'Exposure bracketing shows that the photographer doesn't know what they're doing"! The truth of the matter is, you can't turn a total sow's ear of a photo into a silk purse; you can bring the best of a photo out in PP if you know what you're doing, but you can also make a reasonable photo look awful!

Learning the basics of exposure and composition (including fully understanding depth of field) and how to 'see' and compose a good photo, and how to 'read' light and understand how this will be captured by both colour and black and white photography (learn why some images work in black and white, and perhaps even more importantly, why some don't !) should be on everyone's list if they want to be a photographer, rather than someone who takes photos.

Learn to get things right in camera, not only will this save you time messing about on your computer, but it will also make you a better photographer. As for Ansel Adams, here are a few more quotes reputedly from him:

“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”

“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.”

“The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster.”

“I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop.”

And finally,

“Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.”

So don't get disheartened if your hit rate doesn't seem very good; if Ansel Adams thought 12 significant photos a year was a good crop then I think a part time amateur photographer should have realistic expectations. Most of all, don't let failure put you off, we're all still learning... and the day I stop learning will be the day I pack the hobby in! (y)
 
Ste_S said:
Yup. At no time did I say a poor photograph can be saved by an edit. I said a good image is 50% taking the image, 50% manipulation.

It's not just Ansel Adams. Most of the iconic photographers spent large amounts of time in the darkroom making a print (or had someone do it for them). Photography has always been a two step process
Click to expand...
I have a different slant (mines based on facts not daydreams):
The vast majority of published/paid for photography has minimal ‘manipulation’.

The vast majority of bad amateur photography has too much ‘manipulation’.
In short, too many newbies are being given too much advice to suggest that ‘manipulation’ is as important as the actual photography. It’s not, it never was, it never will be.

It’s true that high end fashion photography is heavily retouched. Likewise ‘published’ landscape work. However, the images worked on would have been ‘great’ out of camera, there might be a lot of work involved, but without the work up front, it wouldn’t be worthwhile polishing.
 
Ste_S said:
*Shrugs* I see just as much bad amateur photography that's flat and lifeless and doesn't have anything of the photographer in the image.
Click to expand...

I think it’s hilarious that you believe post processing rather than vision is what puts the ‘photographer in the image’

In fact it’s baffling, are you sure you’ve actually used a camera? :thinking:
 
jamieb193 said:
Hi,

So I lost my interest with photography for a while, and I can't seem to take a picture with my camera anymore. I'm never happy with my shots and it's pushing me further away. I'm not using professional equipment as I have a limited budget, but I'm not using severely outdated equipment either.

I'm using a Nikon D5200 with a Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM. I also have a standard Nikon AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II kit lens that I never use.

Basically I'm on a tight budget. In order to buy a new camera, I'd have to sell my current one and save to put towards a new one. My other option is to switch my lenses out for new ones.

Which camera would be most beneficial to me on a budget?
OR
Which lenses would be the most beneficial to me on a budget?

I like to shoot portraits, animals and landscapes.

Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

I would not buy a lens/camera, what you need to do/try is get back in to your photography. Look at different angles and composition and if the actual shot will tell a story, try b&w too but the most important thing is, start to learn how to use your camera and lenses plus learn all about the exposure triangle. This is what I am trying my best to do, as if you buy another lens you might not like it in the end.
 
Having read through the varying discussions on this thread, I think Ive been missing a trick with regards to photography. My understanding was that it was all about capturing either a moment in time or an emotion that tells a story. Surely when you start to expand the editing to exaggerate or create a feeling that is when it starts to move into the realms of digital/fine art.

Ed Sutton said:
But it isn't. It is usually far more than 50% taking the picture.

Good photos are made when you point your camera at a subject that interests you in a way that enhances what you want to convey to make a picture which other people find interesting to look at.

That's the crux of what photography is about. Showing other people stuff. It's not about sharpness or low noise, or lenses or cameras. It's about pictures.

If the OP wants to improve their pictures they need to start looking more intently.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree that this would be the aim for a professional who was looking to make money from their images, for an amateur like myself, surely the importance is to create an image that you find interesting to look at, if it also appeals to others then thats a bonus. How many times have we all had positive comments about a photo that you have felt was a little bit “meh” or simply don’t like.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Whilst I agree that this would be the aim for a professional who was looking to make money from their images, for an amateur like myself, surely the importance is to create an image that you find interesting to look at, if it also appeals to others then thats a bonus. How many times have we all had positive comments about a photo that you have felt was a little bit “meh” or simply don’t like.
Click to expand...

I'm not in the business of making pictures to sell (I'm too good at messing up under pressure!), so that wasn't my thinking. Sure my pictures have to satisfy me first but if other people (even if it's just a handful of friends) don't see the ones I think worth showing it seems a bit pointless making them in the first place. But I guess we're all different. When I want to do something which is purely for my own enjoyment I go fishing.
 
the more money you spend on your camera and lens's the better a photographer you will be
;)
 
Ed Sutton said:
I'm not in the business of making pictures to sell (I'm too good at messing up under pressure!), so that wasn't my thinking. Sure my pictures have to satisfy me first but if other people (even if it's just a handful of friends) don't see the ones I think worth showing it seems a bit pointless making them in the first place. But I guess we're all different. When I want to do something which is purely for my own enjoyment I go fishing.
Click to expand...
Interesting the different things that drive us, always refreshing to hear different perspectives. For me photography is first and foremost for me. If others didn’t see my pictures that’d be absolutely fine, I just enjoy looking at what I’ve managed to achieve.

That being said, if other people do appreciate what I’ve taken that’s a real bonus, it’s always nice that people see merit in what you’ve done. I bet even with your fishing if you catch a several pound fish you’re the first one to take a pic to proudly show it to friends and family ;)
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
...
Whilst I agree that this would be the aim for a professional who was looking to make money from their images, for an amateur like myself, surely the importance is to create an image that you find interesting to look at, if it also appeals to others then thats a bonus. How many times have we all had positive comments about a photo that you have felt was a little bit “meh” or simply don’t like.
Click to expand...
I’d have thought that if the aim was to capture or communicate, then just pleasing yourself is no measure. It’s more important what other people ‘see’.

A skill worth learning is to detach yourself from the image taking when it comes to judging your images. We often fall into the trap of being proud we’ve succeeded in using a difficult technique or mastering a piece of kit, rewarding ourselves for ‘effort’. The obvious truth being an image succeeds or fails only in the eyes of the beholder. What does the intended audience think?
Simplified: other people are right, you’re wrong, learn how to see with their eyes.
 
I used to shoot slides. That was all about light, vision and composition and seeing how great images are made today Id say it still is about light, vision and composition. And offcource now as then sometimes also about the right moment.
 
Phil V said:
I’d have thought that if the aim was to capture or communicate, then just pleasing yourself is no measure. It’s more important what other people ‘see’.

A skill worth learning is to detach yourself from the image taking when it comes to judging your images. We often fall into the trap of being proud we’ve succeeded in using a difficult technique or mastering a piece of kit, rewarding ourselves for ‘effort’. The obvious truth being an image succeeds or fails only in the eyes of the beholder. What does the intended audience think?
Simplified: other people are right, you’re wrong, learn how to see with their eyes.
Click to expand...
Surely this is just a matter of opinion? If you don't intend other people to see your work, or only doing it for your own gratification then surely you should do what pleases you? What about holiday snaps? Do other people care there's a picture of me and my wife on it? Most definitely not, but it could mean the world to me.

Not all photos are for making profit, or for a target audience (y)
 
Ste_S said:
And with a scan and edit they'll probably look even better
Click to expand...
Not at all. McCurry made a lot of great portraits on kodachrome and using his vision not relying on postprocessing
 
Ste_S said:
*Shrugs* I see just as much bad amateur photography that's flat and lifeless and doesn't have anything of the photographer in the image.
Click to expand...
So emotion and soul is about the sliders in lightroom? I find it's more about bringing out the best of your subject by relating to it, seeing and understanding light and your composition right in the first place.
 
snerkler said:
Surely this is just a matter of opinion? If you don't intend other people to see your work, or only doing it for your own gratification then surely you should do what pleases you? What about holiday snaps? Do other people care there's a picture of me and my wife on it? Most definitely not, but it could mean the world to me.

Not all photos are for making profit, or for a target audience (y)
Click to expand...
Of course it’s just ‘an opinion’.

But my opinion is that if we’re pleased when someone likes our work, we’re kidding ourselves to say we only shoot for ourselves and it doesn’t matter what others think. ;)
 
snerkler said:
I bet even with your fishing if you catch a several pound fish you’re the first one to take a pic to proudly show it to friends and family ;)
Click to expand...

That depends. Not so much as I used to. And there are some photos I don't show, at least for a few years. Sometimes I photoshop the background out so I can hide the venue. Serious business this fishing!.:D
 
Phil V said:
Of course it’s just ‘an opinion’.

But my opinion is that if we’re pleased when someone likes our work, we’re kidding ourselves to say we only shoot for ourselves and it doesn’t matter what others think. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree there is a warm fuzzy feeling when someone else also likes your work, and they are normally ones where take has been taken, skills applied, careful consideration in PP. However I know I have a few photos which if shared on here would get absolutely panned, however there is something about the image that draws me in. These photos are highly personal and technically flawed (some even snapshots) and without understanding the back story, you cannot appreciate the emotion or feelings around the image.

This brings to mind something I saw on Masters of Photography. I was always of the opinion that a good photo should not need an explanation and should portray the message, photographic intent visually without words. However on MoP they talked about using a verbal/written narrative to enhance the image.

Anyway this thread has gone way off topic. Back to the OP’s question, I think there have been a number of good suggestions, mainly about learning about what you like to shoot, getting the photos onto a big screen. Generally immerse yourself into it and take in as much as you can. There is plenty of information out there, YouTube is free, for a beginner I highly recommend Mike Browne, he has a no nonsense way of explaining that doesnt get bogged down in jargon. Only buy more when you discover that your equipment is holding you back (ie not reach, unable to create the depth of field (which isn’t all about having the largest aperture available) etc). To improve technically share photos for critique and take on board comments (you may need a thick skin for some of this).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top