I think the one of the most interesting yet hardest part about photography for me is getting out of my damn house and finding interesting subject matter. :P I think other people have this problem too because I see too many pictures of lens caps and fruit and empty benches.
Vito, I hope you're doing better now! I used to be the same 5 years ago. I started doing public shoots at my local zoo, which helped me gain confidence over time. I moved onto car shows, then to street photography. I now am fine doing whatever I can to get the shot I want. :)
Old video I know, but I have to say: After owning a D3100 for 2 and a half years, I have taken some photos that I've sold many times and got hired for big weddings because of the glass and my editing skill. Buying a big camera like a 5D Mk III isn't going to make your photos better. It's how you shoot, what glass you use, and how well you edit that will decide you placement in the photography world. If I'm able to make money off of a D3100 with a 35 f.1/8 and a kit lens, you can too.
this reminds me of a story about one of the "old master" painters I don't remember who. Some students were in his studio and one said "you must show me what brush you use to paint so well" without looking he grabbed a random brush andsaid "this one here you can have it" talent is talent whatever you use.
Do you think Leonardo Davinci was a great painter because of his brushes? Was ronaldinho a great footballer because of his boots? The talent is within, the camera is just a tool. You want to stand out with your work? Look up and study the work of the masters of whatever type of photography you're doing. Whether it's street, portrait, abstract, nature photography, look up the past masters of the craft and study their style, it will become imprinted in your subconscious so when you're out there working, you'll have their techniques but with your own twist to it. Originality comes from borrowed experiences.
I hate seeing this every single day, because you're only partially right. It's true that you have to have a lot of talent to be great at anything. You also have to have tools that allow you to get the most out of your talent. In photography you can't achieve greatness without both talent and proper tools. If all it took was talent, why bother even buying a DSLR when you can use your phone camera? I mean, DaVinci wasn't great because of his brushes, so what's stopping an iPhone photographer from becoming the next great photographer?
People can say "its not the equipment that makes a person talented" but at the end of the day if you don't you don't see the guy with the £5000 lens who wins photography awards saying he could have done it with a shitty point and shoot.
It sounds like you've never used a really shitty camera and you are saying that... If that is the case, I'd be happy to lend you some, so that you realise how important a decent camera is. Watch the DRTV Pro Tog Cheap Camera challenge. Many try to say "Oh, but the photos are ultra cool, the camera doesn't matter!". Well, let's face it, most of these pictures are crap. Not because of the composition, but because the camera is crap. Do you mean that DaVinci would become a great painter if he used toilet paper to paint? Or that Ronaldinho would become a great football player if he wore high heels?
@103553242219825349420 Wow dude, you're taking it to extremes. If you're serious about your craft, you'll get a decent DSLR. It doesn't need to be extravagant to have 600 megapixels or whatever. I mean, when you look at Street photography, the masters used some pretty basic/outdated cameras, and guess what?? They're still the masters of their craft, not dethroned by our generation of fancy toys. It's the mind behind the camera that takes the shot, not the camera itself. You wouldn't fuck your chances by using an old LG flip phone camera, but you don't need a Leica, or any other $5000 lens. Get something standard/decent that gets the job done, and excel in composition. That's what truly matters.
Especially the first couple of photos are really nice! I have the D3200 myself, it really is a very nice camera and I'm happy to have it. But I still want to switch to the D7100 soon. But not because of the image quality! The D3200 is a little too compact for my big hands and some options that I want quicker access to are hidden in menus. I want to learn to use the full manual mode and with this camera that's a little clunky for me. It feels like the camera is starting to hold me back. When I make the switch in February I'll pass it on to my parents so they can take some great photos on their trip to china^^
Digital rev did a series called pro photographer cheap camera, it really proves a point. My favourite camera right now is a Russian rangefinder from 1963 :).
Very true Jared, but I think there is definitely a point where the camera is super important. We could say that you can take amazing photos even with an entry level DSLR, but is the same true about a $120 point and shoot? With any DSLR you can change lenses and have full manual, but try being a good photographer with an almost unzoomable, horrible auto focus, half auto, bad ISO noise, etc cheap point and shoot. Even if your perspective is great, and your composition is great, even if your settings are perfect, your photo could still end up "meh".
Point and shoot does not have the same glass as what a DSLR can use. Again, it's not so much the camera but the quality of the glass the point and shoot uses.
It's also a lot about the quality of the sensor, point and shoots have no dynamic range, as a point as shoot user, I struggle with lack of dynamic range than anything else. I can't get the sky AND the ground properly exposed, have to choose between burning the sky or underexposing the ground. I guess I could try some HDR but I would need a tripod for that.
Most entry level cameras will do the trick you just need to find a good lens to match it! I've been using my D5100 + AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 II way wayyyyy more than my D800E.. Why? Well one of the reasons is that I rarely found any use for the Shutter Speed and overall performance for what I like to picture in a daily basis (Bear in Mind this is coming from a hobbyist! I do not live from my Pictures) the D800E has just the shooting speed and ISO performance I would like to take pictures in low light where my D5100 seems to struggle even with a AF-S 50mm f/1.4 I don't like to picture with that anywhere near ISO 3200 and doing something like freeze a car at 9pm is a royal no go... That's where the D800E comes to play! That thing can do wonders even with ISO 800 in the hand! Clear, crisp and detailed is all I get when shooting the D800E in the night.. BUT its way too heavy and bulky to walk around the city where I found the D5100 + AF-S 50mm a true winner! It can shoot fast, detailed and with a very respectable ISO performance in any daylight shooting! Don't get me wrong! I do expect the D800E to shoot more detailed and hence more dynamic pictures than the D5100! but as a road warrior or heck Practically shooting IMO the D5100 wins any day.. I would recommend any Hobbyist that wants too shoot straight into High-End DSLRs to not do it! Its a waste of money if you don't use the high end features and in the end of the day? GLASS is more important... < My 2 Cents.
The first shot is maybe oversaturated rather than HDR, but I liked the yellow-blue colors and leading lines. I would have shot it more wide, maybe few steps into the field, with the horizon a little bit more up rather than plain in the middle. Not sure how were the weather conditions, but I would have tried also a long exposure to blur the field and the clouds...just my two cents!
Someone on Countryfile last year or year before had a small point a shoot and won photo of the year. For non professionals, she did good. But again, photography is like art and personal opinion. Someone might not like a photo that others don't.
There is one place I like color selection and use it. At my sons football game, his uniforms are red and white. So long as the other team isn't in red, it makes his team pop out of the photo. I might only do 2-3 shots like this a game, but they're usually the ones that get the most compliments. (highlighting the red of course)
On what grounds do you select the profile to review? Do you just pick random profiles from a photo sharing site and review it o are you requested to do so?
Yeah.......... .... But a D3200 isn't honestly "entry level" like we thought of entry level 5-10 years ago. It's a freaking 24 megapixel camera and will give you AMAZING results if you are shooting at the base low iso.
ive been watching a lot of digitalrevtv and they are great for lens, cameras, and tricks, but this channels is the bread and butter of working with dslrs. this channel, more than the other, helped me understand just how the camera works and how i can manipulate the camera to work how i want it to.
If you didn't know already, on Flickr when you look at the camera setting info on the photo page like you did to get shutter speed, aperture, etc, you can actually click on those numbers and it will take you to the full page of EXIF information, including lens information.
if youre dissatisfied with image quality, just try out daylight as beight as possible and use a middle focal length and aperture. i get great results with the kit on 35mm and f8. its a point to start, but once u try different lenses, you dont want to go back :)
talk about donig HDR the old and hard way: the Nikon D3200 does not offer bracketing. (in Nikon tradition, you pay hundreds extra for a screen hinge and to have the "REM " removed from the beginning of some of the firmware program code (d5200).
shawJohn31 & DEANluxray you asked about HDR. Although some cameras can 'do' High Dynamic Range, what HDR is really is taking multiple images of the EXACT same composition but with different exposures, then combining the best exposed parts of each image in to the final image (post work on a computer). The cameras that have this built in are taking multiple images and combining in camera, but HDR was around for years before in camera HDR.
I've been using this camera for over a year with the kit lens and have taken some awesome photo's, some people even thought they were taken by a professional. It's a great camera for the price. I always shoot in raw too which helps a lot
Other than taking up a whole lot more space on your hard drive how does shooting raw "really help a lot" ? I didn't notice much of a difference in image quality changing from raw to a medium quality JPEG although I've don't own Lightroom or any crazy editing programs I just use the free apps like aviary .I started out shot ting RAW in M mode but started to notice how huge the Raw files were when I uploaded them my ipad was completely out of storage space in like a month
Ryan Gill Raw means you have so much more control, it is stored as data and not an image ( which jpeg is, and it is compressed, losing details ). See this link to understand why as a photographer you really should be shooting in RAW :) photographyconcentrate.com/10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/
I don't really add a lot of contrast or saturation like the guy does. I like to do very little editing but get the camera settings right how I want it without a lot of editing. I've impressed myself with some shots I've done with a Nikkor 50mm F/ 1.8g FX using it on my D3300
The first three photos were great, I agree. But I personally feel the first one is distractingly oversaturated and needs to be brought down a bit. Composition-wise it's great.
After watching a few of your other tutorials, I stopped to watch this out of curiosity. I watched, saw the great photos, and was knocked back when I saw in the description that it was shot with a Nikon D3200. That's the very camera I just got as my first step into shooting RAW. I guess this sets my bar pretty high. Better get to work. (I've been shooting jpeg with a higher-grade consumer camera for a long time. I've got quite a collection of "well that was a nice shot, too bad I can't really tweak the color or exposure without f*king it up" jpeg images. I have a lot of bad habits to break, but at least I've tried to keep my eye trained.)
The photographer was using a D3200, which has a crop sensor (with a crop factor of 1.5x). If he's shooting at a focal length of 18mm with the lens, then it's really shooting at 27mm with this camera.
Hey, could you to a video on shooting at night please? I have my first night shoot in October and never done it at night before. Ive got a Bridge camera at the minute Fujifilm FinePix S Thanks x
in the first photo, is there a way to fix how there are lines in the sky separating the different shades of blue? im not sure if its considered a problem cuz i never see ppl get rid of them.
I know this video is old. However, to be honest i have been able to capture some seriously great images on my nikon d3300. Some of them from my kit lens, and the others from a nikon 50mm 1.8, 18-35 1.8 sigma and i just recently received the 50-100 sigma 1.8. It is obvious that it's all about what the photographer sees and captures. I have seen people with good gear get just ok pics.... just saying.
Nikon has more lenses but the Sony is a better deal. I would go for the Sony because I think it's better value and just because it's lighter so you would probably use it more
+Anderson Boyer I don't know, I don't know much about how canon compares to Nikon, but they are pretty well matched, although I think canon would be better for sports snd wildlife
I dont know what to do... I just got the Nikon D3300 for my B-Day on the 13th and i was watching photography vids. and people were saying shoot in RAW so later you can do much more with the image... I took quite a bit of photos and now i cant get them onto my computer with that format or "Quality"... What do i do?
The RAW files are saved as NEF files and won't have any thumbnails, so maybe they are there you just have mistaken them for something else? If not, are you 100% certain that you have the RAW files on your SD card? If you do then that's a problem with your computer, not the files themselves... what OS are you using? Did you format your card before you took the pictures?
in the file when i opened my SD card on computer.. It says NEF file.... On each of the RAW files? .. but it wont let me open them from there.. I asked somone else they told me i could open them in editing software like gimp or photoshop or something like that..
Yes the NEF files are the RAW files that nikon use, but because they arent actually image files you probably wont be able to open them in your default photo viewer... you can open them in photoshop by downloading the adobe camera raw plugin, or if you dont have photoshop then you can use something like gimp, but you'll have to download something called UFRAW (Search "how to open RAW files in gimp" on google and there's plenty of tutorials that will show you what you need to know)
My ''excuse'' is that even though those images already have quite a high image quality, had they been made with a better camera, their image quality would have been even higher. I want to have the best in everything. So I want the best possible image quality. It's as simple as that.
I would say, had they been made with a lens other than the kit lens, they would have been much better. the 18 - 55 kit lens sucks big time. i say this as an owner of a d3200 and i own the kit lens, also 70 300, 24 70 f2.8 and a tokina 17 - 35 f4 which i have yet to try out
Daniel Holden Using a raw file is not really faking it. HDR means high dynamic range, which is exactly what you can get out of a raw file. Also I like how his HDRs aren't tone mapped to death.
Jared, people keep saying to me: "Your camera takes good pictures" As person that's shoots in manual mode (thanks to your beginner guide) how am I suppose to respond to this statement?
Well, at first you should ask them to be more specific. There are definitely undeniable differences in image quality between cameras, depending on the sensor format, glass quality etc., that have absolutely nothing to do with the skill or talent of the photographer. So yeah... they could very well mean that the camera has great image quality, but that your photos suck, or the other way around. ;)
I want to make a Flickr account to share my photos and get critics. I can say I'm a little further than a beginner since I spend a lot of time reading and learning from videos too. Once I upload my photos, would you take the time to review it as well? I have a Canon entry level, 600D. Thanks!
Hey Jared Polin I am a 16 years old guy .I love Photography but I can't afford a camera. I have watched almost all of your videos I just wanted to know if there is anyway I can get a camera for free. If someone gives me an option between my crush and a DSLR then I will obviously choose a DSLR because I love photography so badly.. waiting for your reply. hoping for reply.
I understand controversial title but disagree with message. Current 'entry-level' cameras are high quality. Images produced can be lot higher than shown here. Like others, I don't rate these photos at all. Camera doesn't matter - What's your excuse?
Yo Jared, I just wanted to say I appreciate your videos. Your video types are awesome. I like your entire layout. I just dropped by to say thanks. I'm an astro guy but I gain a lot of insight for daywalker shooting by watching your stuff. I'm not going to your website anytime soon but I'm sure it's useful. You got style man. Totally talented and original. I have an interesting video proposal for you. Compare your thoughts on Fuji X series cameras vs traditional Canon and Nikon DSLRs. I'd like to know your thoughts in particular. I realize the audacity of my request but you seem like a very comfortable video maker and it shouldn't set you back. A lot of folks would be interested in a comparison esp. for street photography. Tell me to $l(^ off or at least say why not. Your opinion on this is important to me. Peace.
I think that today we cannot make anymore distinctions between "entry-level" cameras and professional cameras. Each "Entry level" camera of today is BETTER than any camera of the year 2008. In some cases, we are faced with a paradox: the Nikon D5300 and Nikon D7100 are BETTER than the today's camera Canon 5DMK3. Although, the competition of the Nikon D7100 should be the Canon 7D, not the Canon 5DmkIII. Where do we stand? Today we cannot make anymore distinctions between "entry-level" cameras and professional cameras. Digital cameras of today, are MONSTERS of technology.
I think the only main difference is comfort depending on what you want to use. The entry level cameras have great image quality and give you easy access to the automatic modes. The professional cameras on the other hand hide less options in the menus. They are more comfortable to use for those who know a lot about photography. Then there are extras like weather sealing, metal bodies and better AF systems. But overall I totally I agree with you!
lol you've been reading too much DxO... a full frame 5D MK III is better in every way aside from maybe dynamic range. There are no crop-frame cameras in todays market that can compete with a full frame in terms of noise / overall image quality. Also try to remember a camera is more than it's image sensor.. ,max shutter speed.. flash sync.. etc. It all depends on your needs.
mattbakerg STOP BULL SHIT! There are aps-c cameras which can very well COMPETE with FF! And....yes, the 5DmkIII has lost just where the 5DmkIII should win: in the dynamic range! This is the PROOF that now there are no big differences between entry level and professional level. The aps-c sensor has also ADVANTAGES, not just disadvantages! The competition is not between APS-C and FF, but between entry-level and professional level.
berto1999 I'm not bullshitting. I'm a self confessed Nikon Fanboy. I own a D600 and 5DMK III.. my shooting partner also uses a D7100 and D5100. I have had a lot of field experience with all of these cameras and I can say that you really need to get out and use a DSLR extensively before you realize a certain models potential and limits. Sure facts on paper on lab testing can tout all day about how great ASP-C is...but I'm telling you from firsthand experience its a world of a difference
mattbakerg Stop telling nonsense. The difference existed about 4 or 5 years ago. TODAY not. You're not the only one who owns cameras. Even Pentax K-3 is better than Canon 5DMK3!
after watching this I can say I have no idea what makes a generally good image lol. they all seem pretty average to me. the truck being the worse and the train/barn being the best.
Great video Fro'. I really like watching you critique other peoples photos. I learn a lot from your comments. What you like, don't like, what you would do, etc. I'll have to sign up on the email list!
My excuse is that I have to use manual lenses on a Nikon d40. Getting focus is the hardest thing for me. My IG is patricktimm407 if you’re curious how it looks
Nikon D3200 isn't a starting camera... It's one of the nicest cameras I've been able to work with. I use a Sony a300, it's a pain. I also use Pentax K20D and its literally a nightmare
If you "just get and shoot" withought any consideration for what your photographing your work will end up looking like EDGE's, and thats isn't good for anyone.
EddieLivesOnLincoln Too tricky to tell what's raw and what's been heavily edited. I just want to see a pro do it in front of me and see how far they get in camera.
Vegard Fjalestad Pedersen How viable is the 18-55 kit lens in your opinion? It's the most versatile lens I have with the zoom and the 18mm is my shortest focal length. I don't find it to be at all viable for night shooting though.
