Evening classes?

[JPreston]

I've just bought a super-zoom camera, (fuji S9600). I haven't got the first clue how to use it, aperture settings, ISO speed etc :confused:

There's an evening class starting at a nearby college - 2 hours for 10 weeks - 'Digital Photography for Improvers'. I can't imagine how they fill so much time while staying interesting, and I have to ring up for any details beyond the title.

I'll ring them up, but what do you all reckon - might it be worthwhile, or will it be hours of politely complimenting some old doris' artistic pictures of her cats? I don't fancy learning to use photoshop or similar in a classroom, and already know what a flash memory card is - I just want to know what settings to use in what conditions, and how to frame a photo nicely, and so on

[Chris GB]

Reckon it is worth a go. You need to speak to someone about the course to see if it will suit your needs and fit with what you already know (or dont).

Also worth a go is a good basic photogarphy book. IIRC Which also did a begginners guide to digital photography that you phoned up for to get sent for free. Keep an eye to the telly for the ad. I will see if I can find the number in a which mag as well.

Chris

[Loz]

I'm doing a photography A level in September, 2 years and it will be 3-4 hours a week (Evening, I can't bring myself to stop working full time!). It will cover photoshop and obviously there'll be coursework etc. Not sure what a normal 'evening class' would cover. Where is it at? I think most digital photography courses will cover photoshop tbh....

[Chris GB]

I'm doing a photography A level in September, 2 years and it will be 3-4 hours a week (Evening, I can't bring myself to stop working full time!). It will cover photoshop and obviously there'll be coursework etc. Not sure what a normal 'evening class' would cover. Where is it at? I think most digital photography courses will cover photoshop tbh....

Hi Loz

Be careful about "photography" A levels. A driving student of mine was studying for one two years ago. It did not cover much about photography, instead focusing (pardon the pun) on digital manipulation of images. She was trying to get into university to complete a degree in photography and the A level course she was on did not get her in.

I suggested she learn the basics on a simple film SLR and once she got one, I showed her the basics of focussing and exposure, bracketing techniques and a few pointers on dev and print, a few pointers on film speed and types and she was away. The work she did herself (outside of the A level remit) was what got her into the Uni, admittedly having to complete a foundation course first.

Chris.

[Loz]

I really want to learn photoshop, I can pretty much work a camera. I have two film SLRs but I want a digital one. I'm not planning to go to uni, it's a waste of time/money. I'm doing it purely for hobby

[Chris GB]

I really want to learn photoshop, I can pretty much work a camera. I have two film SLRs but I want a digital one. I'm not planning to go to uni, it's a waste of time/money. I'm doing it purely for hobby

Makes sense to pick up a course focussing on that then. As for Uni in photography, I am inclined to agree. Last year there were around 22,000 photogrpahy degrees in progress and less than 1700 jobs in the trade.

Chris

[anonymouse]

I've just bought a super-zoom camera, (fuji S9600). I haven't got the first clue how to use it, aperture settings, ISO speed etc :confused:

I just want to know what settings to use in what conditions, and how to frame a photo nicely, and so on

I'd played around (actually quite a lot) with an old SLR in the 70s and then stopped taking piccies, basically cos we got a cheapo after the SLR packed in.

Five or so years ago I realised we (as a family) were missing so much (memories wise) without piccies.

I first bought an Olympus (digital) and then a Fuji s602 - and then I read and read and read. Many of the DigiCamera review sites have forums and links to 'Help' sites.

It takes a while to sink in (like everything), but just keep reading and reading and experimenting. You'll get there without having to go to evening classes etc.

If I can remember where I found them I'll post some tutorials etc - not promising.

Do some Googling - surprising what you can find.

[anonymouse]

A complete guide to digital cameras, digital photography, and digital video

PDFs (and HTMLs to save 'out') downloadable from here

[anonymouse]

Some examples :-

Learn - Techniques, Freelance Articles and more - ePHOTOzine

PopPhoto - camera reviews, digital imaging, photo equipment, galleries, lenses, film, photography tips, news and forums

How-To - PopPhoto

Tips

Digital Camera Magazine

[anonymouse]

ISO - remember in the old days when you had to select a film for darker situations (perhaps you're too young) and a different one for brighter, sunnier days.

For the 1st you'd probably pick a ISO 400 film, for the sunnier conditions you'd pick a 100 or 200 ISO.

What this equated to, in olden days, was choosing a film with coarser or finer (sunnier days) silver iodide grains (embedded in the cellulose / plastic body).

Coarser grains meant less detail preserved but capture under poorer light conditions was better.

Ever see older spy movies where the snaps were really grainy - these were taken with really high ISO film - 1600 or more ? Fine detail was sacrificed for the capture of 'some' detail at all.

With a digital camera there is, of course, no film.

The ISO settings are equivalent to the cellulose-based films.

In real terms by increasing the ISO you are increasing the 'volume' control on an amplifier. And, just as by going past the optimum point on an audio amplifier you will get distortion (audio) - so to this will happen on a digital camera, but in visible distortion of the image.

There comes a point where the distortion is so bad that the image will be virtually unrecognizable. However, the very fact that you can 'push the envelope' means that you can take recognizable (even correctable to some extent with the correct software) images in conditions that you would not ordinarily be able to take decent photos in.

Example - do bear in mind I've had loads of alcohol - you want to take a piccy of a fast moving car in dimmish conditions.

You set ISO at 100 (say) - and the aperture (opening) at e.g. f2 or 2.8 (the largest opening to allow the most amount of light in). To get the correct amount of light in for a correct exposure a semi-automatic digital camera might set the exposure (time for that ISO) at 1/2 second. In that time the car will perhaps have travelled 50 ft.

Result - very blurred, very dim photo.

Now, set the ISO to 800 or 1600 (the latest Fujis will go to 3200). If semi-auto the camera would perhaps (at e.g. ISO 1600) require far far less light and perhaps use an exposure time of 1/200th of a second i.e. 1/100th of the ISO 100 setting. Result - car has travelled 100th of 50 ft = 6 inches i.e. a correctly exposed (bright enough) picture with minimal blurring (that could be further corrected using software), although the blurring does give the impression of speed.

The quality would be worse than that of a similar situation in perfect lighting conditions - but at least you would have a recognizable (if not pretty good) piccy of the high-speed car.

So, using increasing ISO is a trade -off - distortion / noise against abilty to get recognizable picture.

Newer cameras = better ability, dearer cameras (especially pro SLRs) = much better ability.

HTH

[anonymouse]

Aperture - confusingly - lower numbers e.g. F2 F2.8 mean the aperture is at its largest - most light let in.

However, largest apertures mean there is less depth of field (as a bye the by, this is less so with digital cameras than with the older 'analogue' cameras).

Depth of field is the 'amount' of a picture that is in focus.

Seen the piccies where a person is in focus - yet everything before and beyond is out of focus ?

The depth of field here is probably only 3 ft or so - this has been deliberately set by the photographer to concentrate on the subject.

Panoramic / landscape views usually incorporate a large depth of field i.e. on a digicamera the aperture is small i.e. a large F number e.g F11 , yet the 'amount' in focus can be hundreds of yards / miles.

Not bad for a p**d up late-night Apache, eh ?

[ZootyRS]

As others have said, you need to find out exactly what the course covers. There's a clue in the title - "Improvers" - so it's not likely to cover noddy stuff, but it could be heading towards Photoshop territory.

I work at a university and we run a fairly comprehensive set of evening/weekend courses for the wider community, including a good series of photography courses. For info they break down as:

- Intro to digital photography (basics of using d camera, field practice, intro to photoshop)

- Three different courses on digital imaging (i.e. photoshop) - must be popular!

- Two "real" photography courses - Landscapes and Nature/Close-up - both with field trips to local beauty spots etc. These are for film or digital users.

A mate of mine did the last two with a digital compact (Ixus I think) and his photos are stunning. I'd love to do them but it's hard to find the time :(

[heresmo]

One take is to weigh the cost of any course against the cost of a camera you've already paid out for. I guess you chose that camera because it seemed to have the features and advantages you wanted? Balance that against the forward benefit? E.g. really need it now for family shots perhaps, or want to become proficient longer term?

Just thinking out loud.

Mo

[heresmo]

Hello again. Silly me forgot to include a link:

CameraHobby - Photography Resource e-Book Table of Contents

Regards

Mo

[CarMac]

If the 10 week course is anything like the one I did in September then, go for it. I loved my course. I learnt loads and had a great time. It was so good, I've gone back to do it again (started last week) !! Even if you come out learning one thing and you can use your new camera better, it's got to be worth it !

[Loz]

Hi Loz

She was trying to get into university to complete a degree in photography and the A level course she was on did not get her in.

Thinking about it though, the content of A levels doesn't matter, it's the grades you get that determine whether you can go to uni or not.....

if I wanted to do a degree course I'm not restricted to the subjects that I did as A level

[JPreston]

Thanks all, especially anonymouse, for the advice and links above.

I did call up the college and spoke to a very schoolteacher-ish woman who told me a bit about the course but then put me through to the wrong building when she tried to transfer me, so I have an idea what the course consists of but need to phone up again.

I'm still oscillating between wanting to go and not wanting to go, it's not so much the money (

[Chris GB]

Thinking about it though, the content of A levels doesn't matter, it's the grades you get that determine whether you can go to uni or not.....

if I wanted to do a degree course I'm not restricted to the subjects that I did as A level

Trouble was that with 100s of applicants with similarly good grades to go on a limited intake course, they could pick and choose on whatever parameters they felt important. Her work in film put her above the digital only students as it needs a higher level of attention to detail and general understanding to get the results in film. That most of it was in B&W further helped her case.

Also there is still a bit of film snobbery about on the academic side.

Chris

[Loz]

Well I have 2 film SLRs and I agree that it's more difficult, yet more satisfying to use them.....

as I say, it's more for hobby's sake than anything else that I want to do a course

[Chris GB]

Well I have 2 film SLRs and I agree that it's more difficult, yet more satisfying to use them.....

as I say, it's more for hobby's sake than anything else that I want to do a course

I really miss using the medium format gear. Lovely image quality, but for most of the time I dont print bigger that 13 x 19, so the digi does the work at a fraction of the cost. Looking back, for what I spent on going for a DSLR, I saved it in film costs.

Chris

[anonymouse]

Looking back, for what I spent on going for a DSLR, I saved it in film costs.

Chris

Don't have DSLR - but obviously have Digital

Taken thousands of piccies.

The cost of buying film, getting it developed (having the inevitable lousy pics too), the time and money saved in not having to drive and park up (and pay) would have been immense.