Frustrated Photo-dork needs Advice Badly

[jmooney]

Hi All,

I'm looking for some advice here as I'm nearing my wit's end.

I LOVE photography. I love looking at it and I love making it and talking about it and thinking about.

I like shooting film and do but need the convenience of digital at this point for the majority of what I do. I don't have access to a darkroom and even if I had one I wouldn't have time to use it.

I do have access to a computer and being an IT Manager I'd like to think that I'm pretty good at using one, especially since I spend my days helping other people use theirs. The flip side of that is that I spend all day at a computer so I don't want to spend all night at one editing photos and for all I can bend computers to my will, I can't seem to make good, sharp photos come out of mine.

I've tried about 12 different cameras over the last 5 years and all were mostly disappointing for one reason or another and try as I might with Lightroom and Picasa I can't get them to do what I want. My frustration is at an all time high and I'm feel like never using a camera again. My latest experiment is m4/3rd with a G2 but even at ISO 400 there seems to be a ton of noise and this sensor seems to have about half the dynamic range of slide film.

I'm not an idiot, I know how to take picture, I've been doing it for years. I know have a nice Mac, software, and an Epson R2880 so I have to tools to produce great prints. I've bought prints from Lenswork and they use the same paper and same ink set (in a larger format printer) and I LOVE what I see but I can't seem to get my equipment to do this. Maybe it needs more effort than I'm putting into it but I can't believe there isn't a way to take a picture and make a quality print from it that doesn't require hours per photo. I'm not looking for a silver bullet but I feel like it can't be this hard if everyone else is doing it.

Here are some examples of photos I like and would like to make mine look like:


San Donato by Choollus, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/76802173@N00/4655102341/ (sorry he disabled embedding)


Untitled by simple tess, on Flickr


the road not taken by wild goose chase, on Flickr

Maybe I'm asking too much, I want to figure this out, I want sharp, nicely colored, noise free images that can be had with a few minutes work per image. Is that too much to ask? (This isn't rhetorical)

What's the easiest combo of things to use to get me near here? Camera, software, etc. what do I need? I'm not looking to buy my way to it but I do need these tools to make the images. I've got the vision and the subjects, I just need to capture them.

This isn't a whine-fest at all, so please don't accuse me of that. I really just can't seem to figure this out and I'm asking for help. I'll appreciate it more than you'll know.

Take care,

Jim

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jim,

M9. Silly money, but it suits me. See my web-site.

Otherwise, sorry, can't advise.

Nice choice of pics, by the way.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jmooney]

Dear Jim,

M9. Silly money, but it suits me. See my web-site.

Otherwise, sorry, can't advise.

Nice choice of pics, by the way.

Cheers,

R.

If only Roger, sadly I'm not at liberty to spend silly money currently.

Jim

 

[thegman]

Have you considered making more time for film? You've tried 12 cameras, none of them work for you? You don't need to develop yourself, especially as you seem to like colour, going by your example photos.

If you just want to shoot 35mm, a Plustek scanner is cheap and seems to be able to pull out a lot of resolution. Simple adjustment of curves in any simple paint package will likely be able to give you the colours you want.

If you truly don't want to go to film, and you don't want noise, and want nice colours, look at Sigma gear. I had a DP-1, and my brother had an SD-15. The colours and detail at 100 ISO are gorgeous, although they are pretty much rubbish after 400 ISO.

I only shoot film, but if I were to return to digital, it would be to Sigma. The cameras are very simple, and images are great. They have their downsides like poor high ISO, limited lens choice, and poor RAW software, but they make up for it IMHO.

 

[sevo]

Anything will do. I am anything but a subscriber to the Lomo camp, but if you have a extended phase of feeling dissatisfied with mid to high price gear, it is often good advice to step back and try how low end you can go - even if you feel the change annoying rather than refreshing, it will at the very least tell you which camera features you miss most, and help you sort out the requirements for the next purchase...

 

[BobYIL]

For higher resolution -as well as higher ISO too- follow the trend, the new sensors (APS-C or FF) began turning out great quality even at ISO 3200.

The offerings are plenty.. Since you mostly are after static and well-composed, carefully-framed subjects I presume you pay much emphasis on IQ and the FF format could well contribute to your style than the crop sizes. The DSLR seems to be your way to stick to but how far can you afford? For example the new D800E seems to deliver the ultimate quality (closest to the MF) with relatively affordable means.. Or you might consider the second hand FF like the 5DII for less cost.

Whatever you choose, opt for the one with high DR and stick to one brand; this should be crucial for your style.

 

[doolittle]

Well the first image was taken with a D3000 🙂

You may as well list the 12 cameras you have tried over the last 5 years, before they get suggested!

Larger sensor than m4/3rd might help.
APS-C sensor dSLR/mirrorless depending on your preference.
Need high-iso performance or not? Leica M8 produces great files that don't need lots of PC work to develop.
What lenses do you have. What's your budget.
Shoot film and scan would be another option that doesn't require a dark room (dark bag if you want to develop your own maybe).

ps Great choice of images, very serene

pps going from the choice of images: maybe a sturdy tripod would be the answer?

 

[N. Bruce Nelson]

I have great sympathy for you. I too shoot film and digital. I use a Panasonic G1 and am pretty satisfied with the results. I can make 8x10 prints that are not embarrassing even when displayed next to those from full frame DSLRs, even though the technical IQ is admittedly not quite as good.

I wonder if your raw processing software is part of the problem. I use Linux, so I can't give you specific advice, but I suggest trying out a couple of different open source RAW processing programs to see if that might make a difference for you. That wouldn't cost you any more than time, and most of the commercial RAW processing engines are borrowed from open source projects anyway.

 

[notraces]

12 different cameras in 5 years. Why not try just ONE camera for an entire year. If you're shooting color, find a good lab to process and scan your images. Evaluate each roll as it comes back -- learn the nuances of the camera you're using - make adjustments.

If you're going to scan your own work, you better learn about properly managing color profiles - and all the black art that goes with it. It's NOT an easy feat.

The problem with using so many cameras is you never really figure out a good baseline to work from. If you're looking at scans from various cameras, it can get confusing.

I haven't seen your work, but if your basic skills are down-pat -- then, using just one camera until you learn the proper workflow - is the way to go.

 

[jmooney]

Have you considered making more time for film? You've tried 12 cameras, none of them work for you? You don't need to develop yourself, especially as you seem to like colour, going by your example photos.

If you just want to shoot 35mm, a Plustek scanner is cheap and seems to be able to pull out a lot of resolution. Simple adjustment of curves in any simple paint package will likely be able to give you the colours you want.

If you truly don't want to go to film, and you don't want noise, and want nice colours, look at Sigma gear. I had a DP-1, and my brother had an SD-15. The colours and detail at 100 ISO are gorgeous, although they are pretty much rubbish after 400 ISO.

I only shoot film, but if I were to return to digital, it would be to Sigma. The cameras are very simple, and images are great. They have their downsides like poor high ISO, limited lens choice, and poor RAW software, but they make up for it IMHO.

Yes, more film is one thing I'm considering, obviously the convenience factor of digital is high but I'm not sure it's worth it if I can't get the results I like.

 

[jmooney]

For higher resolution -as well as higher ISO too- follow the trend, the new sensors (APS-C or FF) began turning out great quality even at ISO 3200.

The offerings are plenty.. Since you mostly are after static and well-composed, carefully-framed subjects I presume you pay much emphasis on IQ and the FF format could well contribute to your style than the crop sizes. The DSLR seems to be your way to stick to but how far can you afford? For example the new D800E seems to deliver the ultimate quality (closest to the MF) with relatively affordable means.. Or you might consider the second hand FF like the 5DII for less cost.

Whatever you choose, opt for the one with high DR and stick to one brand; this should be crucial for your style.

Full frame is also under consideration but the cost is an issue, budget wise I'm kind of in the 5D Classic and 50/1.8 area right now and I'm not sure that would gain me much.

 

[jmooney]

Well the first image was taken with a D3000 🙂

You may as well list the 12 cameras you have tried over the last 5 years, before they get suggested!

Larger sensor than m4/3rd might help.
APS-C sensor dSLR/mirrorless depending on your preference.
Need high-iso performance or not? Leica M8 produces great files that don't need lots of PC work to develop.
What lenses do you have. What's your budget.
Shoot film and scan would be another option that doesn't require a dark room (dark bag if you want to develop your own maybe).

ps Great choice of images, very serene

pps going from the choice of images: maybe a sturdy tripod would be the answer?

Just for completeness sake 🙂

D50, D40, Rebel XSI, Rebel T3, D70, Lumix G1, Lumix G2, D5000, LX-5, DRebel, D1H, FZ30

I'm glad you like the images, they are some of my favorites.

 

[jmooney]

12 different cameras in 5 years. Why not try just ONE camera for an entire year. If you're shooting color, find a good lab to process and scan your images. Evaluate each roll as it comes back -- learn the nuances of the camera you're using - make adjustments.

Yes but which camera 🙂 :bang:

I agree this is something I NEED to do.

If you're going to scan your own work, you better learn about properly managing color profiles - and all the black art that goes with it. It's NOT an easy feat.

This is one of my fears moving in this direction, I'm obviously struggling with the post processing aspect of digital, I feel this is more of the same.

I haven't seen your work, but if your basic skills are down-pat -- then, using just one camera until you learn the proper workflow - is the way to go.

Thanks,

Jim

 

[shimokita]

okay... can we see a couple of your photos and hear what you dont like about them. As you mention photography that can be enjoyed is not all that difficult 🙂

It might be possible to take a weekend class or some instruction... could help break down that first wall.

Good luck,
Casey

 

[doolittle]

Got one of those screen calibrations contraptions as well? They do help getting what you see on screen and print a bit closer.

 

[Bobfrance]

I feel your frustration and respect that you have asked an honest question.
IMHO. I find most problems in photography are solved by shooting more.
You have already isolated what you seek in your images, stick to one camera (doesn't matter which) and work towards it.

Given the images you like, don't dismiss time of day and atmospheric lighting conditions. They play a big role and no camera can negate them.

Good luck in your search. Don't be disheartened and enjoy the learning process, because it never ends.

Bob.

 

[BobYIL]

Full frame is also under consideration but the cost is an issue, budget wise I'm kind of in the 5D Classic and 50/1.8 area right now and I'm not sure that would gain me much.

Hmmmm.. How about getting an MF film camera like the Yashica 124 to start with for example? Costs almost nothing compared to the higher class digital gear and a number of members here do still prefer the IQ of the MF format to anything digital..

 

[sojournerphoto]

I would expect that you could get good sharp images with any of the cameras you've listed. Yes, some have more limitations than others, but any can make a sharp picture.

I would second the suggestion to shoot with just one camera (and lens?) for a year and see what you learn. Get your shooing right and intuitive. Perhaps get a tripod if you really want sharp.

The Panasonic is likely good enough. Don't worry about noise - film is all 'noisy'

Enjoy, it's meant to be fun.

MIke

 

[Teuthida]

Stop taking pictureseque photos. Been done 1 zillion times. Nobody is interested. Take pictures that mean something to you.

 

[jmooney]

Stop taking pictureseque photos. Been done 1 zillion times. Nobody is interested. Take pictures that mean something to you.

I see your point but I will say even though I didn't take the above they still have meaning for me, that's why I like them so much. Their content and technical aesthetics appeal to me.

However, you do make a very going point and it's something to remember for sure.