The DoMeBo Photography Class - Setup Thread

[garygnu]

The DoMeBo Photography Class

Why pay for a photography class when you can get it here for free?

So far we’ve used the new-found power of The Dark Room to post fun and silly things. Now we shall use it to teach our point-and-shoot brethren how to take better photographs. In this setup thread I’m looking to gauge interest from prospective “students;” look for fellow “instructors;” and gather input on class structure, assignments, “grading,” etc.
The goal of the class is to teach photographers of all sorts to use better framing, better exposure settings, to generally move beyond the PHD mode* on their cameras, and to utilize photo-editing tools available to them. The structure will be, well, I’ll be mostly copying my college photography class with some alterations, and add general tips and advice. I welcome input from anyone interested.

An image-hosting account will be required, be it Photobucket, Flickr, etc., or your own site. Photoshop is not required, but if you have it, we can cover its usage. I use Photobucket for hosting and it has a rather impressive web-based set of photo-manipulation tools. Other options will be discussed.
The ability to post images directly in the thread will be utilized, but I want to be able to view larger versions of photos, as well.

I’ll be assigning projects and homework, and deadlines (if given) are to be followed with as much delinquency as you can muster. That being said, once we’ve moved on to a new topic, old ones may not receive as much attention.

OK, so who’s in?

[featherlou]

You used an asterisk with no follow-up.

I'm in!

[NAF1138]

This is a fantastic idea. I keep flirting with the idea of really getting good with photography, but never actually do anything about it.

Would a basic digital camera work for this type of class? (The classes I have taken in the past have all had 35mm SLR requierments, but that dosen't seem like it will work as well for the net.)

[featherlou]

Good question, NAF. I have an old digital HP camera, and I have no plans to upgrade that.

[Giles]

I think that you can do a lot with an ordinary point-and-shoot camera. I've sold a few of my pictures through having them on Flickr, including this one taken on a Canon A610:

[garygnu]

*: Push Here Dummy

(sorry)

[Art Rock]

Always willing to learn more.

[garygnu]

This is a fantastic idea. I keep flirting with the idea of really getting good with photography, but never actually do anything about it.

Would a basic digital camera work for this type of class? (The classes I have taken in the past have all had 35mm SLR requierments, but that dosen't seem like it will work as well for the net.)

We’ll be able to work with whatever you have. It’s best if there is some kind of manual mode, but it’s not required.

[SmartAleq]

I'm game, but all I have available is a 10 megapixel point/shoot--my old film SLR died and I'm nowhere flush enough to manage a digital SLR!

On preview: Yes, it does have a manual mode so I guess I'm good to go...

[NAF1138]

This is probably a good place to ask this actually,

My wife and I are talking about getting a new digital camara anyway, is there anything good and relatively cheep that would work well for the class? (Might as well kill all my birds with one stone.)

[david86blue]

I'll help any way I can. I'm pretty good at digital editing, and I like to capture images. (See my brand new desert thread.)

[garygnu]

This is probably a good place to ask this actually,

My wife and I are talking about getting a new digital camara anyway, is there anything good and relatively cheep that would work well for the class? (Might as well kill all my birds with one stone.)

I’m a Canon guy, and there are some good, inexpensive PowerShot options. Stick with models starting with “SD” not one starting with “A,” those include manual mode.
I’m drooling over the new SX200, but my wife is still pretty pissed we can’t find our existing point-and-shoot (an SD550).

[NinetyWt]

I'm in! Although I have a bottom-feeder camera.

I've also been using the Gimp, rather than Photoshop. Perhaps you could, when you talk about doing something in Photoshop, give a quick mention to a similar tool of Gimp?

[sistercoyote]

I'm in, although my poor Pentax digital, while having a manual mode, also has a lens cover issue.

[troubleagain]

I'm in. I have a Sony a200 and a flickr account.

[garygnu]

I suppose this is where I tally up the responses so far...

Student side:
featherlou
NAF1138
Art Rock
SmartAleq
NinetyWt
sistercoyote
troubleagain
Giles?

Instruction side:
david86blue
Giles?

Not sure about Giles. Be sure to indicate if you’re willing to instruct/mentor. (I hope the instructors learn, too, including me.)

I have this sudden feeling this isn’t going to be as easy as I had anticipated. No worries, I’ll have to start writing up... a cunning plan...

[Giles]

I've been taking photos on and off for at least 50 years (starting with a Box Brownie, and currently using a Canon Digital Rebel XT), and although I've recently sold a few pictures, I'm not a professional, and have never taken any course in photography. So, although I'll probably give my 2c of advice from time to time, I think I'm still learning.

If anyone wants to look at some of my pictures, I have about 3,000 on Flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/75905404@N00/. I try to arrange them in collections and sets that make some kind of sense if people want to browse them.

[ulfhjorr]

Count me in. I'd love to sharpen up my skills and maybe get an idea or three for more subjects to shoot.

I have my usual, though not very recently updated, "favorites" album up at http://picasaweb.google.com/ulfhjorr/Favorites#
As well as one dedicated to animal/nature shots at http://picasaweb.google.com/ulfhjorr/Na ... dlifePics#

[sistercoyote]

Oh, and I have pictures up at flickr, but not all of them were taken by me.

[chacoguy]

Toot my own horn, I've taken around 750,000 frames and I've sold well over a million dollars of photos. I'll help out any way that I can.

[MisterDiskord]

I'll give it a try as a student. I'm basically at the "I want to have photographs of my life" stage of digital photography and usually forget even to do that. So not much more than pointing it in the right direction with the default setting and taking enough shots that one of them is at least recognizable later.

[Clayton_e]

I'm in! Always looking to learn something new.

I have a Fujifilm Finepix S1000FD

I use the auto mode more than I should and only sometimes play with shutter speed or even rarer aperture. I could use some help on that.

[longPath]

Please join me up.

[lobotomyboy63]

Ahh ight!

Canon A720IS
Olympus FE350
Minolta X700 (film)

[Cyberhwk]

Thanks for the invite Gary. I'm absolutely in.

Right now all I have is a ancient Sony, but I can still adjust F-stops and shutter speed on it. I AM looking for a new piece.

[garygnu]

Welcome to town, Cyberhwk.

[longPath]

I have a Canon Rebel XT w/ the original stock lens.

Some of my snaps are posted here:

http://www.railroadforums.com/photos...00/ppuser/8822

[Biggirl]

I've gotten another camera but my first love and the only one I use is my old Powershot A85. I've taken some neato pictures with it. I'd love to learn some really basic stuff-- like the best settings on manual for different settings. I'd try to follow along with the Kodak point-n-shoot which has more features but I never got the feel of how to use it.

[Dangerously Unqualified]

I have this sudden feeling this isn’t going to be as easy as I had anticipated. No worries, I’ll have to start writing up... a cunning plan...

Yes, if you pull this off it will be a cunning stunt.

I'll be happy to follow along, I've been meaning to pick up a camera for a while (even though I seem to have a bazzillion pictures on my hard drive and growing) so discussion on a good, inexpensive, entry level model would be nice.

I've worked with photo editing for quite a while and I have a few tips I could share, but as for the original pictures I have much to learn, please consider me as a student.

For software, there I have a bit to add.
Irfanview is bare boned, free and teh awesome for what it is.
Gimp is free open source and quite a lot like photoshop in the usage of masks, filters and layers.
I have used Splashup as an online editor, although I was recently referred to Pixlr by XJETGIRLX. Both run in a browser so there is no download and both work pretty well.

There are a couple of 3D editors I like to use (my avatar was created with Blender) but I don't see this as relevant.

[Dragon]

I'll hang out and try to learn ....

[garygnu]

Updated roster:

Student side:
featherlou
NAF1138
Art Rock
SmartAleq
NinetyWt
sistercoyote
troubleagain
Giles
ulfhjorr
MisterDiskord
Clayton_e
longPath
lobotomyboy63(?)
Cyberhwk
Biggirl
Dangerously Unqualified
Dragon

Instruction side:
david86blue
Giles
chacoguy420
lobotomyboy63(?)

We’re getting close to the oh-crap-how-am-I-going-to-handle-all-these-people level. However, two hours hosting an apartment open-house gave me some time to jot down three lesson outlines, four assignments, and a test. Now for some research...

[Cyberhwk]

Well...don't kill yourself over this Gary. I'm sure a few pointers and someone to come to for advice would probably more than satisfy most of us.

[zebra]

I'll be glad to pass on what I have learned and I hope to learn a few things my self.


You can see some stuff at


stevenbarrettphotography.com


Which needs a huge update...

or

http://www.modelmayhem.com/stevenbarrett

[lobotomyboy63]

Gary, I'll be on both sides of the fence...I don't know much about artistic composition, but I know a lot about technical stuff. Or at least, I knew a lot when I shot 35mm: how some of it translates to digital I'm still working out.

A for instance:

I'm in! Always looking to learn something new.

I have a Fujifilm Finepix S1000FD

I use the auto mode more than I should and only sometimes play with shutter speed or even rarer aperture. I could use some help on that.

The short answer: aperture controls depth of field, the zone of sharp focus in the picture. Here's my Minolta's 50mm lens.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c222/ ... DOF002.jpg

It's set to primary focus at about 12 feet. Look at the hash marks: at f/4, everything from about 10 feet to 15 feet will be in focus, a 5 foot zone. At f/8, that expands to roughly 8 feet to 20 feet, a 12 foot zone. At f/22, everything from maybe 6.5 feet to infinity.

Use a large aperture (small f/number) to isolate your subject by narrowing that zone of focus to blur other elements in the background or foreground. Use a small aperture (large f/number) if you want more things in focus.

Notice, too, the spacing on the distance scale. The distance between the markings for 15 and 30 feet is about the same as that for 3 and 3.5 feet. As you get into really close focus, depth of field can be a major issue. Stopping the lens to f/22 buys you less and less depth of field. You've probably seen extreme closeups of flowers where the center is in focus and not much else---that's why. When you go to the extreme telephoto, the zone is also taxed, but an inherent characteristic of wide angle lenses is that there's depth of field galore.

The long answer:
I don't know how much background everyone has so I'll start at the beginning.

The focal length of a lens is an indication of its magnification. From what I've gathered, if you take the focal length of a digital point and shoot and multiply it by six, that's the equivalent on 35mm. But format (size of the negative or sensor) is relevant---a medium format camera like a Hasselblad has a normal lens of 80mm and a 35mm negative has a normal lens of 50mm.

Normal means "normal field of view for the human eye," i.e. the angle we usually see. My Canon digital p/s zoom ranges from 5.8-34.8mm. 8.3mm or so would be "normal." Smaller than 8.3 is wide angle...bigger than 8.3 is telephoto.

The aperture is the size of the opening on the lens. As you probably know, there's an iris in there that can close down and make it smaller, just like our pupils close in brighter light or open in dimmer light. focal length/aperture = f/stop. If my camera is zoomed to 8mm (normalish) and the aperture opening is 2mm, that's f/4. (OTOH if I were zoomed to 16mm with the same 2mm opening, that would be f/8). The relationship between light gathering and f/stop is inverse: f/4 allows more light for exposure than f/8.

On 35mm SLR cameras, the standard shutter speeds were:

1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000

And the standard f/stops were:

f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22

Notice that the shutter speeds are basically halved/doubled as you move up and down the scale. Although it might not look like it, so are the f/stops: they're really integral powers of the square root of two. I.e. the area of the circle that allows the light through is halving and doubling as you move up and down the scale.

So if you're shooting with ISO 100 film and the meter said 1/60 at f/4, you could "trade" a shutter speed for an f/stop and vice versa. In terms of light reaching the film

Cut the area of circle in half (adjust f/4 to f/5.6), double the time (1/60 sec to 1/30 sec). Halve the time to 1/125, double the area of the circle from f/4 to f/2.8.

(What digital cameras allow you to do easily, which 35mm didn't so much, is change your ISO. If you REALLY need 1/1000 to freeze action and you can't open the circle wide enough, you can easily change the sensitivity, your ISO. With 35mm you'd need multiple cameras loaded with different kinds of film, or rewind and reload etc.)

If you're trying to freeze action, you use a fast shutter speed...that costs you in the aperture, which affects depth of field. But maybe you don't want everything in focus anyway. Or maybe you change the ISO to buy some depth of field. But then you have noise (or grain). Hey, screw the top shutter speed: blurring implies motion, and that makes for a more interesting picture, right?

It's all about tradeoffs.

How'm I doing?

[Dragon]

Sounds good to me...

Thanks for the effort to produce that info. Lot of typing and it was understandable too.... :mrgreen:

[lobotomyboy63]

Sounds good to me...

Thanks for the effort to produce that info. Lot of typing and it was understandable too.... :mrgreen:

No problem.

One other thing, from back in the 35mm day: a common practice was to use a shutter speed of 1/focal length or faster. So if you're using a 400mm lens (handheld), you better use a shutter speed of 1/500 or faster because all that magnification is only going to amplify the shake a photog creates when tripping the shutter. With my Canon, the greatest (optical) zooming is equivalent to about 200mm.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how to make my camera tell me what focal length it's using before the fact. Anyway, here are some alternative solutions, when high shutter speeds are difficult:

1) Brace yourself and/or the camera. Maybe you can place it on a fence or against a lamppost to reduce vibration.

2) Use a tripod. You can also attach some weight to a lightweight tripod, e.g. tie a bottle of water to weight it down a bit and "solidify" it.

Corollary to 1 and 2: used to be we bought shutter release so we could trip the shutter and be "hands off," i.e. avoid vibration. But you can still use the camera's self-timer and you won't have to trip the shutter at the moment of exposure. This doesn't work if you're trying to capture the moment the ball contacts the bat but it may be fine if you don't care about the *specific* moment of a repetitive thing, e.g. if you want to catch a drummer somewhere in mid-stroke. It could also be useful for macro work, when you're at high magnification and biasing heavily for depth of field.

3) Switch to flash. In low light, the flash is the primary light the camera "sees" anyway, and the longest flash duration might be 1/1000 of a second. The shortest might be 1/40,000 of a second. This is how they get pictures of bullets passing through apples etc.

4) Or of course, simply raise your ISO.

[NinetyWt]

Use a tripod. You can also attach some weight to a lightweight tripod, e.g. tie a bottle of water to weight it down a bit and "solidify" it.

[nitpick]
Stabilize.
[/nitpick]

The weight of the water acting in the downward direction is greater than the side-to-side force of the wobble, which keeps the tripod from swaying. Great idea.

[lobotomyboy63]

Thanks, NinetyWt...for some reason I couldn't think of the word. I guess my lobotomy is acting up today.

I posted a few pics I've taken that I kinda like.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lobotomyboy63/Stuff#

[Clayton_e]

Thanks for that "For Instance" lobotomyboy63, I'd had it explained to me several times and I like your explanation better than my notes.. Most of it I've just gone by feel and been in the general right direction but never right on. And always with a lot of "Stupid washed out image.. grumble grumble..."

[sistercoyote]

Lobotomyboy63 do you know how the 50mm lens translates to a digital camera lens, which isn't nearly as large? (Or, rather, which I think is not nearly as large...)

[lobotomyboy63]

Lobotomyboy63 do you know how the 50mm lens translates to a digital camera lens, which isn't nearly as large? (Or, rather, which I think is not nearly as large...)

Short answer: I'm not sure I understand the questin. The normal equivalent on a digital p/s ought to be about 8.3 mm. If you had a digital P/S that claimed it had a 50mm setting, that should be like 300mm on a 35mm camera. I'm not sure if DSLRs use a larger sensor, which should change that...but I'm on unsure footing talking about digital cameras.

Short answer 2: Maybe you mean, "What does the 50mm signify?" For that, we need:

Long answer: I'm pretty rusty on this but IIRC....

They call 35mm cameras that because the negative is 36 x 24mm (1.5 inches x 1 inch, essentially). A Hasselblad is a 6 cm square negative. The film for it (120 and 220) can be divided up differently by medium formats...some 6 x 4.5 cm, some 6 x 7 cm, and they end up with a different number of exposures for the same roll of film. The size of the negative (or sensor, I assume) is known as "format."

Imagine a simple (one element) lens, like a magnifying glass. Light rays bend in from the edges converge at a point, and continue to the film or sensor. But rays hitting it at the central axis go straight through. There's a sort of "incoming" cone and an "outgoing" cone. The whole image ends up inverted and reversed on the negative. Technically I think that also happens on your retina, but your brain manipulates it for you. In most 35mm SLRs, a pentaprism reorients it for you. Look through a Hasselblad camera with a waist-level finder; the image is reversed and upside down.

Imagine that from that point of convergence, where the cone of rays meet, where one inverts/reverses to the sensor/film: measure from there to where it strikes the film/sensor. There's your focal length. I may not be 100% accurate but for concept, it'll work. The farther away that convergence is, the bigger the image will be when it strikes film/sensor, right? It's like pointing a flashlight at the wall. Step farther away and the area covered will be greater. (And dimmer, related to the lower f/stop at the same size aperture I mentioned earlier*).

The circle at the negative/sensor from that resulting cone has to cover the negative. Wide angles can lose a lot of light in the corners because the image circle is barely bigger than the negative. Get an extreme wide angle lens (known as a fisheye), and you get this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fish_eye_lens.jpg

Telephotos, on the other hand, have enormous image circles. On SLRs they paint the inside of the camera matte black to minimize all that light from bouncing around and hitting the film.

A medium format like a Hassleblad needs a bigger image circle to cover a big negative. Spreading the "normal" view across a bigger negative...well, it works out to be 80mm instead of 50mm. Snip out a 36 x 24mm section from the center...yeah it would be telephoto on a a 35mm camera! In fact, I've heard of fanatics having their 35mm cameras custom modified so they could use the Zeiss lenses from their Hasselblads with them. But they're big lenses, heavy, typically open up only to f/2.8 and I digress....

In a similar vein maybe you remember the Pentax 110 with those itty bitty negatives. Here were some lens offerings:

18 mm f/2.8 wide angle lens (equivalent angle of view to a 35 mm lens on a 135 format camera).
24 mm f/2.8 normal lens (Equiv. 50 mm). The optical design meant that this was the smallest lens on the system.
50 mm f/2.8 telephoto lens (Equiv. 100 mm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Auto_110

All this makes me think the sensor in today's P/S digitals must be teeny tiny. DSLRs, maybe not.

I would note, too, that the advantage of a medium format is that you don't magnify the image nearly as much as a 35mm (or a 110 or a P/S digital) when you print it. You already "magnified" the size of the negative, right?

The really complicated explanation: But decent lenses aren't single element like a magnifying glass. They'll throw multiple elements like these in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)#Types_of_simple_lenses

They group them, use some converging and some diverging, etc. While zooming, some are fixed, some move, some move greater distances than others. I seem to recall reading some lens review that said "The rear lens node is actually in front of the front lens node." At this point, I kinda gave up on understanding how they calculate some of this stuff.

*There's a rule often used WRT flash which says that the amount of light striking a surface varies inversely as the square of the distance. The light striking at 10 feet will be 1/4 of the light striking at 5 feet, not 1/2.

Random nugget: not sure your TV remote is working? Think the batteries might be dead? Turn on your digital camera, point the remote at the lens, and push a button on the remote. You can see the pulses on your camera's screen. Weird, eh?

[Dragon]

::: snippy ::::

Random nugget: not sure your TV remote is working? Think the batteries might be dead? Turn on your digital camera, point the remote at the lens, and push a button on the remote. You can see the pulses on your camera's screen. Weird, eh?

I can use this.. Neat.... If I don't forget.....

Our mapping cameras were considered wide angle because the focal length was 6" and exposed a 9" X 9" negative.... :mrgreen:

[sistercoyote]

Lobotomyboy - that answered my question, mostly.

I started photography with a Pentax K1000, that I still have. I adore my Pentax, but I seldom use it anymore because I only have a (small) telephoto lens for it and it's damn heavy to carry!

[lobotomyboy63]

@Dragon: Sounds right. IIRC the large format (8x10 negatives) go about 200mm for normal lens. 9x9 is close. A six inch would probably be about a 35mm on 35mm film. When you start getting wider than that, you get distortion at the edges. Three trees like this:
| | |

start to look like this:

( | )

when you start going even wider than 35mm, eventually going fisheye. Not a good idea if you're making maps.

@coyotesister: Ah, the Pentax K1000, I remember. Maybe we started photography around the same time, circa 1977?

I assume you're window shopping, then? Divide your Pentax focal lengths by 6. If you had a 35mm, 50mm, and 80-200mm lens, the extremes are 35/6 and 200/6. Look for a zoom that goes from 5.83-33.33mm on a P/S. I think you'll find that many P/S end around 35mm or 38mm equivalent on the wide end.

[garygnu]

Here’s the class outline:

1. “Your Camera & You” - The very basics
2. “A Photographic History” - The history of photography
3. “How Big and How Fast?” - Aperture and shutter speed
4. “Picture Framing” - Composing your photographs
- - - TEST #1 - - -
5. “Red, Yellow, Green, Red, Blue Blue Blue” - Photographs in color
6. “Have Camera, Will Travel” - Vacation photography
7. “Here’s Looking At You, Kid” - Portraits
8. “The Sincerest Form of Flattery” - Copying famous photographers
- - - TEST #2 - - -
9. “I Attack the Darkness” - The flash and night photography
10. “Above the Law” - Breaking the rules
11. “We’ll Fix It In Post” - Digital manipulation tools
12. “Not Your Father’s Slide Show” - Sharing your photographs
- - - TEST #3 - - -

Each lesson will be a separate thread, and include at least one assignment. These threads will include a lecture OP, class discussion, posting of assignment pictures, and evaluation of them. Tests will be more extensive photographic missions confined to their own threads. Test threads will be limited to posting pictures from the test and evaluation.
Participation in every topic is not mandatory, but it is encouraged. (What am I going to do? Fail you?)

I hope to prevent old topics from cluttering up The Dark Room too much, so let’s try to let them drop once we’ve moved on.

I’m willing to take input on the topics and their order. I’ve already moved stuff around from my first draft, but I think this is pretty good.

[david86blue]

looks good to me

[garygnu]

If anyone else has any feedback, please post it.
Otherwise, I’m going to start writing up the first lesson’s OP.

[Giles]

Garygnu, your curriculum looks good. One suggestion for an addition is portrait photography -- partly, because almost everyone takes pictures of people, and partly because I'd like to get better at it.

This is a collection of some of my people pictures on Flickr -- a pretty random group of photos -- to show where I am with that genre.

[lobotomyboy63]

For some it would be nice if all assignments were posted (with due dates) from the gitgo. If we pass up an opportunity to photograph something in week 2 that we don't know will be required week 5...that sort of thing.

[NAF1138]

For some it would be nice if all assignments were posted (with due dates) from the gitgo. If we pass up an opportunity to photograph something in week 2 that we don't know will be required week 5...that sort of thing.

That's not a bad idea.

I may have to miss doing the first week or two's assignments (not that I can't catch up), but I will be following along.