first you need light....
first you need light....
You guys all missed the point. She said she needs to "no" all about photography. This means her boyfriend is a LF photographer and she's asking for tips on how to nip the problem in the bud. I'd say use the ultimate weapon: no nookie while the camera is still around. Wouldn't work for any of us here of course, but it's worth a try...
LMBO.... this has got to be one of the funniest threads I've ever read on this forum!
Well worth the chuckle.
Thanks Alissa.. and respondents!
Cheers
Life in the fast lane!
alissa,
Just press the button and let Kodak do the rest. Income? What income?
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Alissa, you have been misinformed.
Photography is not about income. At least on this discussion forum, it's all about OUTcome.
An example:
Every couple of months someone will ask which is the sharpest 150-180mm lens for making mural-size prints from 8x10" negatives.
Someone will suggest a lens with more X'es and Z's in the name than a Japanese rotary-engine sports bike. Someone else will suggest another one. And then someone will recount his disappointment with one or both of those.
Then someone suggests that he doesn't really NEED 8x10" for that; it can be just as well done with 4x5". Which starts the discussion all over again.
When this has been going on for a week or so, the original poster pops in to mention his budget, and that he doesn't actually own a camera yet. As such...
That is the starting signal for the "bottom-feeders" (including myself), who will question the validity of the need for the ultimate sharpness, and suggest something that hasn't been made since 1960.
Which triggers the discussion again. We've had that discussion many times before, but it's just as fun every time.
So as you see, it's all about the OUTcome. And some of us don't really care all that much about that, either...
Thank you Ole.
Please feel free to post your comments over and over and over and over again.
Alissa
NO!
I'd be willing to bet alissa will not post again after these responces -
If she is still reading - my suggestion: start taking photos of subjects you are interested in and pay close attention to the results: note the faults of your technique - how whould the composition differ from the symetry of a painting, critisise yourself and attempt to not make the same mistakes again, note the limitations of your camera and film (or digital camera) . Start reading some photo material. Take more pictures and try a different camera - decide based on what you taking pictures of what kind of camera equipment would get your better results. Continue with more equipment.....
Now decide if you like what you are doing. If you do --- decide what area of photgraphy you like.
Money -- depends on type of photography
examples:
people - potraints -wedding ...
commercial - photos of products....
studio specializing in art still lifes selling stock photos.....
industrial photography or scientific photography - documenting for analysis -- maybe to photgraph what can't be seen with the eye....
wildlife remote location photgraphy...
each type of photography can make a different amount of money and that also depends on where you live
I would suggest that you go to www.nyip.com. That is the, New York Institute of Photography. It is a great correspondence course. It will teach you everything you need to know about photography. If you complete the course, you Will think and shoot like a Pro.
fotografey iz a grate way two make munny. Lots of fotografferz make so much muney that they don't evun need food stamps eny mor.
The best thing about taking up photography as a hobby is that, on a sunny day, if there isn't anything good to take pictures of...like an old barn or something...you can always use the lenses to burn ants.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks