In Awe.

[willdo22]

I am in Awe of the quality of photos on this site and wish i could produce similar, i am recently retired and this is relatively new to me being a new hobby, i recently bought a Panasonic Lumix fz48 bridge camera, does anyone on this site use one, i must confess that the photos so far are mostly disappointing, any advice would be very welcome.

 

[Phil V]

You can get great photo's from any camera. But you have to understand the cameras limitations. Unfortunately that requires knowledge and experience.

You can start by just getting out and about and shooting 'everything' you see, you can find pictures in everything if you look. Patterns in nature, in buildings, people going about their lives etc. The more you shoot, the more it'll 'click'

 

[ACW]

Hi William, welcome to TP.

As Phil said, knowledge is a huge part of taking a picture. As you're now retired it looks like you've got a lot of time on your hands to master your new camera!

What do you want to shoot? Can you combine it with any other hobbies?

 

[Pookeyhead]

i recently bought a Panasonic Lumix fz48 bridge camera, does anyone on this site use one, i must confess that the photos so far are mostly disappointing, any advice would be very welcome.

Welcome aboard.

Almost any camera can produce equally great results as any other. It's the skill of the photographer wielding that matters. Don't obsess about getting better and better gear thinking that your photography will improve because it won't. People take photographs, not cameras.

Certain cameras have features you may find yourself needing, like faster shutter speeds if you like shooting sports, or the ability shoot in darker conditions etc, but generally, but any camera in the hands of a great photographer and you will get great photographs back.

Take your time, learn, practice and enjoy. Mainly the last one. If it ever becomes a chore, just walk away.

 

[jon ryan]

Hi William,

Have a look at your local colleges. A lot of them run 'introduction to photography' evening courses. Otherwise, get a handle on the relationship between shutter, aperture and ISO. All else follows.

 

[Tringa]

I don't know the fz48 but a few years I used an earlier Panasonic model - the fz28, which is a great camera.

Spend time reading the manual. There are basic tutorials on this site and the ones here -

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/

are also good.

Editing photos after they have been taken is a part of digital photography, just as it was in pre-digital days, so an editor is very useful. You can pay a little or a lot for one, but there are good free ones, for example Photoscape(somewhat limited but very simple) and GIMP(much more complicated but cover just about everything).

But more than anything else, as already said, just take lots of photos.

Dave

Dave

 

[Ed Sutton]

i must confess that the photos so far are mostly disappointing, any advice would be very welcome.

Are they disappointing because of content and composition, or do they look flat and dull?

If the former keep shooting and analyse the photos you admire to see why they are 'better'.

If the latter learn some basic processing techniques to give your pictures a lift. Few photos you see on the web will have had no processing whatsoever done to them.

Plenty of info here and around the web.

 

[willdo22]

Many thanks for your replies, i think i have a lot to learn, your advice is well taken, my problem is that the images are soft and not as sharp as i would like them, must try harder. Thanks again.

 

[jon ryan]

Digital images always come out a bit soft because of science. You can either sharpen them using editing softwear or, if you dig through the manual, you'll quite likely find a setting for enhanced sharpening in the camera. This is sort of OK, but means every shot you take has the same amount of sharpening, which isn't always a good thing. (In-camera sharpening only applies to jpegs. If you are shooting RAW - which is best - no in-camera editing is added).

Other things that can cause softness are: Very small aperture, too slow a shutter speed, poor lens quality, and of course wrongly focussed lens. If you can put up a shot or two, we'll stroke our beards and discourse at you.

 

[Southdowns]

Almost any camera can produce equally great results as any other.

That's not strictly true, surely? A good photographer can get great results with any camera, I agree, but no amount of skill will allow you to get a portrait with a shallow depth of field and a heavily blurred background out of an iPhone, for example. All cameras are NOT equal, and the great shot that a good photographer will squeeze from a compact will not be the same as the great shot he/she will get with a DSLR.

So the skill is in knowing the particular tool you have, and knowing how to use it appropriately. Gear IS worth thinking about, but only at the point where what you have is preventing you from getting the artistic results/style you want.

Of course you should learn to get the best out of the camera you have, and no beginner should be told he has to upgrade in order to get good pictures, but equally he or she shouldn't be advised to keep banging their head against a brick wall, trying to get shots their camera isn't capable of capturing.

OP, I think your best bet would be to post some of the shots you're disappointed with. That way, you'll most likely receive advice re technique, and end up getting some stunning shots with the camera you have, but will also be told whether or not it's your camera preventing you from getting the shot you're after.

 

[Phil V]

Almost any camera can produce equally great results as any other.

That's not strictly true, surely? A good photographer can get great results with any camera, I agree, but no amount of skill will allow you to get a portrait with a shallow depth of field and a heavily blurred background out of an iPhone, for example. All cameras are NOT equal, and the great shot that a good photographer will squeeze from a compact will not be the same as the great shot he/she will get with a DSLR.

David didn't say that all camerras are equally capable of taking specifically great shots in specific situations. Just that all cameras are capable of taking great photo's. It's not even close to the same thing

No-one is suggesting that the OP should just suffer with frustration, but there's no better aid to creativity than trial and error. No amount of great gear or book learning can substitute for the way you can learn by doing. Learning the limitations of your gear is what informs decisions for better gear.

All of those people asking 'what should I buy' will never learn the limitations of their kit, they will never be the best they can be, because they're not buying what they need to achieve their aims, they're buying from a crowd sourced list (the crowd have no idea what is best for an individual, particularly where the individual has given little clue to their real needs)

 

[Southdowns]

I think he did say that Phil, though I accept he might not have meant it that way . He basically implied that the camera is irrelevant because they all can produce great results if you know what you're doing. He might have meant equal but different, but he didn't say that

Fact is, I agree with you, but I've been through it. On another forum I was told for bloody ages that it was me not my camera that was stopping me doing what I wanted (shallow DoF) using a compact, and given loads of impractical techniques for doing it. In the end I bought a cheap second hand DSLR, and hey presto, problem solved. It didn't make me a good photographer, but it did give me the right tool for the job I was trying to learn.

 

[Phil V]

I think he did say that Phil, though I accept he might not have meant it that way . He basically implied that the camera is irrelevant because they all can produce great results if you know what you're doing. He might have meant equal but different, but he didn't say that

Fact is, I agree with you, but I've been through it. On another forum I was told for bloody ages that it was me not my camera that was stopping me doing what I wanted (shallow DoF) using a compact, and given loads of impractical techniques for doing it. In the end I bought a cheap second hand DSLR, and hey presto, problem solved. It didn't make me a good photographer, but it did give me the right tool for the job I was trying to learn.

You were given bad advice, which is a shame - we'll not get into arguing over what David said, life's too short.

 

[Tringa]

Post a couple of photos on here, William, with the EXIF data and there will be a good chance someone will be able to point you in the right direction.

Dave

 

[Pookeyhead]

That's not strictly true, surely? A good photographer can get great results with any camera, I agree, but no amount of skill will allow you to get a portrait with a shallow depth of field and a heavily blurred background out of an iPhone, for example.

It seems you skipped past the bit where I explain that certain features may be needed for certain things... but that's true for any camera. I'm finding myself using my D800 more than any other camera at the moment, and it's great, but it would be crap for motorsports or press work.

My point is you can't buy skill or talent. A better camera doesn't allow you to take better pictures. Give an iPhone to someone with talent, and you'll still get a great image

http://petapixel.com/2013/03/18/tak...oking-portrait-with-an-iphone-and-an-e8-lamp/

Maybe not the best example... but you get my point.

The FZ48 is actually a perfectly capable camera.

 

[Llama]

As others have said, posting photos up here is a great way to improve, I know I've got alot of help that way. Also spend some time reading up about what makes a good composition, it can be a bit overwhelming at first knowing what makes a good photo so having some basic 'rules' to follow can help. Take a good look at the photos that you see that you like. Try and find out what it is you like about them and think how to incorporate similar styles in your own work. It'll take time but you'll get there, and the technical side should come with just some more practise your 'must try harder' sounds like you've got the right attitude!

Jack :thumbs"

 

[Southdowns]

My point is you can't buy skill or talent. A better camera doesn't allow you to take better pictures. Give an iPhone to someone with talent, and you'll still get a great image

But that's my point; a better camera WILL allow you to take better pictures. It won't cause you to, but the camera is not irrelevant to the process.

I just think the only sensible answer to the OP's question is "post some examples, and tell us what you were trying to achieve", because it is not right to assume that it's his skill and not his camera that's limiting him; we simply don't know. There are plenty of people, beginners included, who have the natural talent, but who are held back and frustrated by their gear. In fact, because natural talent is independent of knowledge, there are people who have the talent, are frustrated by the results they're getting, but who don't even know they're using the wrong tool!

The rest of us need to acquire the talent, which can be helped by having the right tool for the job.

All I'm trying to say is that I think this idea that gear doesn't matter is rubbish as a general principal. Yes, it's true in specific cases; if you don't have any eye for photography, gear won't solve your problem, but "learn to use the camera you already have before you move on" isn't universally good advise; sometimes "upgrade your camera, and you'll free up your talent" is better.

For years, having only a compact prevented me from thinking beyond the technicalities, because I was constantly fighting what I had. Now that I have the right tool, I don't need to think about that anymore. The technology just gets out of the way and let's me concentrate on the art. It lets me see a photo in my head, and know that I have the tools to create it in real life, within my limited skill set anyway. Before, I could see the photo, but could never create it.

As an engineer, that's quite a revelation, because I'm used to loving gadgets for the technologies sake, whereas now I genuinely find myself thinking of camera gear only as a means to an end. I now want lens X, Y or Z because I have a type of shot in mind that needs it, not because it's a stunning piece of engineering (even though it is!).

That's not to say the OP's camera does need changing. I don't know it, so take your word for it that it's perfectly good. My point is that until we see some shots, we just don't know what the problem is, and in fact it could easily be a case of using the wrong tool.

 

[Pookeyhead]

But that's my point; a better camera WILL allow you to take better pictures.

Only if it offers something to you that you actually need. A Nikon D4 will offer nothing to someone who shoots landscape. A Linhoff 10x8 camera will offer nothing to someone who shoots sports.

They're just tools.. you choose what's appropriate.

A "better" camera will not allow you to take better pictures at all. If you take boring, trite pictures, you will still do so with the best camera in the world. They may be sharper, or higher resolution, but so what?

The OP really, really shouldn't start thinking about equipment as the solution to being a better photographer. I've seen it a million times.... Beginner gets into photography.. is disappointed with results.. assumes he needs better camera... gets better camera.... results are still disappointing = disillusion and de motivation.

 

[Ed Sutton]

A "better" camera will not allow you to take better pictures at all.

You're only saying that because you read it on Ken Rockwell's site...

 

[Pookeyhead]

You're only saying that because you read it on Ken Rockwell's site...

That's fighting talk pal

 

[Ed Sutton]

That's fighting talk pal

 

[ukaskew]

I'm finding myself using my D800 more than any other camera at the moment, and it's great, but it would be crap for motorsports or press work.

That kind of undoes your point a little, any camera would be fine for motorsport in the right hands. I'm no pro but I can happily shoot motorsport with far less suitable equipment than a D800.

 

[Southdowns]

Only if it offers something to you that you actually need. A Nikon D4 will offer nothing to someone who shoots landscape. A Linhoff 10x8 camera will offer nothing to someone who shoots sports.

They're just tools.. you choose what's appropriate.

OK, not that it should need explaining, but please substitute "more apropriate for what you're trying to do" for "better".

A "better" camera will not allow you to take better pictures at all. If you take boring, trite pictures, you will still do so with the best camera in the world. They may be sharper, or higher resolution, but so what?

I'm not sure you can have read my post, or maybe I didn't explain it well enough. You're mixing up "allow" with "cause". A good set of paints and brushes will not CAUSE you to be a good painting, but if you have the talent, it will ALLOW you to, better than a set of wax crayons will.

The OP really, really shouldn't start thinking about equipment as the solution to being a better photographer.

No, but it might be the solution to whatever problem he has, which so far is completely unknown to you. You're assuming that the problem is his ability, not his equipment. You might be right, in fact probably are (because few of us have raw unlearned talent), but you do not know.

I've seen it a million times.... Beginner gets into photography.. is disappointed with results.. assumes he needs better camera... gets better camera.... results are still disappointing = disillusion and de motivation.

In my case, beginner gets into photography.. is disappointed with results vs what he sees in his head.. is told it's not the camera, it's you.. upgrades anyway.. gets results which are far from perfect, but which are encouraging because they now show potential to be what he wants them to be. NOT upgrading would have caused me to drop photography, because I was so frustrated that I couldn't get the shots I wanted.

That may be a less common scenario, but it isn't unique, and you do NOT know that it doesn't apply to the OP.

 

[Southdowns]

Putting all of that more simply, how do you know he's not a naturally gifted photographer, trying the equivelant of using a Linhoff 10x8 camera to shoots sport? If he is, telling him it's not his kit holding him back is a disservice.

 

[Pookeyhead]

That kind of undoes your point a little, any camera would be fine for motorsport in the right hands. I'm no pro but I can happily shoot motorsport with far less suitable equipment than a D800.

So it's really making my point then if you think about it. You don't need to chase gear to get great images.

OK, not that it should need explaining, but please substitute "more apropriate for what you're trying to do" for "better".

There's little point in advising beginners to upgrade. It builds an expectation that the new gear will probably not deliver. His bridge camera is capable of delivering really great shots if he learns how to be a photographer.

I'm not sure you can have read my post, or maybe I didn't explain it well enough. You're mixing up "allow" with "cause". A good set of paints and brushes will not CAUSE you to be a good painting, but if you have the talent, it will ALLOW you to, better than a set of wax crayons will.

This assumes that any disappointment the OP feels in his images is caused by the equipment. Why assume that is the case? I can practically guarantee any disappointment in the images will not be caused by the camera.

No, but it might be the solution to whatever problem he has,

Possibly.. but highly unlikely. There's nothing inherent in the camera that would lead to disappointment in itself.

which so far is completely unknown to you. You're assuming that the problem is his ability, not his equipment. You might be right, in fact probably are (because few of us have raw unlearned talent), but you do not know.

No.. I don't. Experience would still make me exercise caution in encouraging a belief that better gear = better images. It usually doesn't.

That may be a less common scenario, but it isn't unique, and you do NOT know that it doesn't apply to the OP.

He has a perfectly capable camera.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/panasonic-dmc-fz47-preview-samples

 

[Southdowns]

David, you keep contradicting yourself. Either the gear can matter, or it can't. A Nikon D4 is also a perfectly capable camera, but you said yourself offers nothing to a landscape photographer. So, if the OP had a D4, and now came back and told us he was trying to get perfect landscape shots, and from his examples clearly had the eye for it, what would you tell him?

If your assertion is true, why is your camera a "depends what I'm shooting"? You don't know what the OP is shooting, or what problems he's having doing it, yet unlike you, he's not allowed to concider a more apropriate camera to do it with?

So, you're right to say that a better/different camera won't necessarily solve the problem; won't make you a good photographer if you don't have the skill, but you are wrong to tell the OP that it's not his camera without ANY knowledge of what the problem is. You are also wrong to assume that upgrading can't be encouraging (in fact you said it would be discouraging), even if strictly speaking good results could be obtained without.

Unless of course you're telling me I'm lying about my own experience?

 

[Phil V]

If you insist on arguing the minutiae it looks complicated, but try these simple equations:

Great knowledge + Crap gear = OK photo's

Great Gear + Crap knowledge = crap photo's.

Great gear + OK knowledge / skill = OK Photo's

Great knowledge / skill + OK gear = great photo's

Great knowledge / skill + Great gear = great photo's

Therefore it'd be ridiculous to say that gear is as important or more important than knowledge. Knowledge and skill is clearly what makes great pictures.

As knowledge and skill comes with practice, then we're back to the simple advice to the OP; practice, find what you like shooting and then buy gear to overcome the shortcomings of what you have.

 

[DrGed]

I heard a great saying a few years ago. A lad who worked for me at the time was a very good amateur footballer and one day he was berating a team mate who, despite having very expensive boots etc, was not a good footballer at all.

The "rant" was finished with the phrase "All the gear and no idea".

So true in all walks of life.

 

[posiview]

If you insist on arguing the minutiae it looks complicated, but try these simple equations:

Great knowledge + Crap gear = OK photo's

Great Gear + Crap knowledge = crap photo's.

Great gear + OK knowledge / skill = OK Photo's

Great knowledge / skill + OK gear = great photo's

Great knowledge / skill + Great gear = great photo's

Therefore it'd be ridiculous to say that gear is as important or more important than knowledge. Knowledge and skill is clearly what makes great pictures.

As knowledge and skill comes with practice, then we're back to the simple advice to the OP; practice, find what you like shooting and then buy gear to overcome the shortcomings of what you have.

Nice snappy equations there, but, I can think if may occasions where my daughter (7 crap knowledge) has used my camera (D300s) and I've been very surprised at the results.

I do agree, practice, even with a naff camera is likely to help, providing the practice results in learning/understanding.

Cheers.

 

[Southdowns]

If you insist on arguing the minutiae it looks complicated.......

It's not arguing the minutiae, it's arguing the principal. You can't give advise to someone until you know what the problem is, and trying having made assumptions can be harmfull. I've suffered as a result of people doing that, so don't like seeing it done to others.

Therefore it'd be ridiculous to say that gear is as important or more important than knowledge. Knowledge and skill is clearly what makes great pictures.

No ones said anything remotely like that. Of course knowledge is more important than gear. Do you know what level of (natural as oposed to learned) skill the OP has? No, you don't.

As knowledge and skill comes with practice, then we're back to the simple advice to the OP; practice, find what you like shooting and then buy gear to overcome the shortcomings of what you have.

How do you know he's not already at that stage but doesn't know it?

 

[Southdowns]

I heard a great saying a few years ago. A lad who worked for me at the time was a very good amateur footballer and one day he was berating a team mate who, despite having very expensive boots etc, was not a good footballer at all.

The "rant" was finished with the phrase "All the gear and no idea".

So true in all walks of life.

There are plenty of people with all the gear but no idea. Do you know that the OP is one of them (or would be if he now went out and replaced his camera)?

Bottom line, and all I'm saying, is that telling him it's him not his gear is jumping the gun until you know what his issue is. It might be the problem, it might not, but so far, no one knows.

 

[DorsetDude]

Bottom line, and all I'm saying, is that telling him it's him not his gear is jumping the gun until you know what his issue is. It might be the problem, it might not, but so far, no one knows.

But it's 95%(or more) likely that it isnt his gear isnt it.

Perhaps the OP could put up an image he isnt happy with and we can have a look and confirm our suspicions.

 

[Southdowns]

I have no idea what the likelihood is, but yes it's far more likely than not. However, the damage done by giving the wrong advice, even if it does only turn out to be wrong in 5% of cases, is unacceptable. I know, I've suffered it, and it nearly put me off photography for ever.

That said, I suspect it's not as much as 95% likely to be skill not gear. Just look at how many people who are not interested in photography as a hobby, but want better pictures, ask how to get "that blurry background". It's all over the internet, and if they really want to get it, the only sensible answer is "give up trying with your compact/phone.". A DSLR may well be way OTT for most of those casual snappers, but their specific issue is NOT due to skill, it's down to gear.

Yes, a good photographer can get really nice shots even with an iPhone, but even Jerry didn't get a shallow DoF, so if that's what you really want, you DO need new kit.

I'm just pleading for a bit of pragmatism; find out what the issue is, then wade in with advice.

Your suggestion that the OP puts up pictures so we can see what the problem is is what I've been suggesting all along, and is the only advice anyone's qualified to give so far.

 

[Pookeyhead]

David, you keep contradicting yourself. Either the gear can matter, or it can't. A Nikon D4 is also a perfectly capable camera, but you said yourself offers nothing to a landscape photographer. So, if the OP had a D4, and now came back and told us he was trying to get perfect landscape shots, and from his examples clearly had the eye for it, what would you tell him?

As a beginner, it would be foolish to assume anything, but in my experience, beginners being disappointed in their results is very rarely due to inadequacies in the gear they use.

If your assertion is true, why is your camera a "depends what I'm shooting"?

Because I'm a professional photographer who has clients with certain expectations and needs that are met by using a range of tools.. some more suitable than others at certain jobs. Plus, I'm perfectly able to make choices on what gear is appropriate through years of experience. A beginner doesn't need to know any of this... they need to master the art of photography, and jumping from one piece of gear to another without any clear idea why they are doing it, in the hope something will improve is not a recommended way of learning.

I'm prepared to accept that he may be disappointed in his images because he's trying to take wildlife shots of deer that are 800meters away with a bridge camera... yes...

It won't be that though...

The disappointment in the imagery is highly unlikely to be caused by the camera.

My advice to beginners is nearly always that they should not be looking to the equipment if the results are not what they want. In fact, they should decide nothing at all until they've sought advice and explained to those helping what they feel they are not happy with.

You don't know what the OP is shooting, or what problems he's having doing it, yet unlike you, he's not allowed to concider a more appropriate camera to do it with?

Well.. he certainty shouldn't be until he gets some advice based on results.. no. Are you advocating he just starts changing cameras until he gets results he is happy with? You think that's good advice? Of course you're not... but you see my point. It's POSSIBLE it's the camera's fault, yes... if that makes you happy.

£10 says it's not though.

So, you're right to say that a better/different camera won't necessarily solve the problem; won't make you a good photographer if you don't have the skill, but you are wrong to tell the OP that it's not his camera without ANY knowledge of what the problem is.

It might be faulty, yes... we'll know when he posts up images.

You are also wrong to assume that upgrading can't be encouraging (in fact you said it would be discouraging), even if strictly speaking good results could be obtained without.

It very often happens that it discourages, yes, because it's very rarely actually a problem with the camera, and upgrading doesn't fix the problem... They are disappointed twice as a result. By which times, when they DO realise it's user error.. they are more demotivated as they've wasted money.

Unless of course you're telling me I'm lying about my own experience?

No I'm not. Why would I do that? Your experience is singular however...I've seen this hundreds, if not thousands of times. While I'm sure your experience will be shared by others, I still maintain that advising people to upgrade to improve images is really, quite rarely justified.

The OP can post up a pic if he wants... and then we'll be able to advise him.

 

[Steve]

If you insist on arguing the minutiae it looks complicated, but try these simple equations:

Great knowledge + Crap gear = OK photo's

Great Gear + Crap knowledge = crap photo's.

Great gear + OK knowledge / skill = OK Photo's

Great knowledge / skill + OK gear = great photo's

Great knowledge / skill + Great gear = great photo's

Therefore it'd be ridiculous to say that gear is as important or more important than knowledge. Knowledge and skill is clearly what makes great pictures.

As knowledge and skill comes with practice, then we're back to the simple advice to the OP; practice, find what you like shooting and then buy gear to overcome the shortcomings of what you have.

That chart works

I'm firmly in Great gear + OK knowledge / skill = OK Photo's

and would agree that most of my photos are in the okay category, and sometimes I get a bit lucky and they are (almost) great.