I shoot w/an old camera because I know it.
Please don't make me change cameras. I suppose some people can pick up any camera and take great photos.
Dittoes! And I think those "old" cameras have a lot more under the hood than most people know how to use. IMO a lot of money is wasted by amateur photographers pursuing "the latest, the biggest, multi-multi-megapixel" monsters. Maybe if you're working for National Geographic or are a graphics professional that might matter. But I think really knowing your camera, if it's a good brand manufactured in the past 6-7 or so years, is absolutely basic to digital gem photography. It' merely an instrument, as James says, and like any instrument it has to be understood and mastered.
I wish they would sell a simple simple simple digital that was set up for non-action, basic bare bones still shots.
The SLR digitals do allow you to attach slow lenses that have very low distortion.
Action lenses rated at f1.4 and even f1.2 are great for freezing action, but do not take good macros and still shots.
However the sensors in digital cameras are so sensitive they can catch action with slower lenses like f3-f5 lenses.
Fortunately most point and shoots are equipped with f2.8-f3.2, making them good still shot cameras.
White balance kind of blew my mind. It is the biggest challenge to me. Being from film background white balance was
never so easy to manipulate. Most of the settings on digitals are similar to film cameras, but the white balance is so versatile
on all digitals. It is complicated because it gets into wavelength and temp of source light. The manufacturers simplify the
white balance dilemma by having sun shade cloud incandescent fluorescent 1,2,3 settings. Grey card calibration is the proper
way to solve the issue. Even that can lead to variations among different cameras. Just the incandescent setting alone is way to
generalized due to the different types of incandescent bulbs. Artificial light has peaks in certain colors(wavelengths?)of the spectrum, where
natural(sun) light has strength in every color(wavelength?) of the spectrum. That is why natural(sun) light is user friendly on photographer and camera.
Natural(sun) light is constant, and is the most common available light for about every subject. Non-shiny subjects are no brainers.
Controlling glare is an issue. And it is a one direction source making shade an issue.
Anyway, light source is the most argued subject in photography. Read this in one argument:
Artificial light does not radiate a complete spectrum but instead produces a light with an excess of one or more of the color rays. In the case of incandescent lighting, most of its light is yellow, orange and red, whereas the standard “cool white” fluorescent light emits mostly yellow-green light.
Read more at
www.rawfoodexplained.com/air-sunshine-and-natural-light/natural-light-versus-artificial-light.html#V9CVCL99pJLla0Le.99So. Adjust the white balance to your whim. Set up a light box, control glare and shade on the difficult cab shot or ring shot.
And if you did not get it quite right, hit it with a photo edit program. The closer you get to target white balance with the camera the better.
Extreme edits can throw other parameters off.
Me personally, am lazy and let the sun do all the work. Hats off to the artificial light master.
Sometimes I think getting to know an artificial light source is as important as getting to know your camera.
