Based on your level of experience, I'm going to recommend exactly the opposite of what people are saying in this thread. Most photo recommendations are simply way too advanced and involved for...
Exemplary
Based on your level of experience, I'm going to recommend exactly the opposite of what people are saying in this thread. Most photo recommendations are simply way too advanced and involved for what people starting out actually need.
Just shoot on automatic. That's more than good enough with any camera that's better than a smart phone. The cameras do the work for almost everyone.
If you end up loving photography as a hobby, you can always dig way, way deeper. Learn the stuff about the camera you need to solve tasks you want to solve with specific shots you want to take. Don't start out being a tech nerd; your interest will die quickly. With good modern mirrorless cameras, plenty of professional photographers shoot action settings where lighting/directions etc. change on automatic. They use autofocus-modes. That's how you get the best pictures when the motif is there for a fraction o fa setting. Always shooting on manual, or some select mode is a form of snobbery. Exceptions are when conditions are difficult and you need to instruct the camera on what expression you want: Do you want something super sharp, blurry, a dark silhouette or a sky/background that's all white, or something in between.
Don't shoot raw. If you absolutely want raw files to process later, then be sure you have jpegs so you get images out of your shoots with minimal effort. That's the only way to learn quickly.
Again, if you end up delving deep into photography, you'll get to a point where you need raw files to get every detail and dream out of each shot. Starting out, lightroom or any other processor program will be more than good enough for you.
Again, the idea starting out is getting great images you can share and be proud of, not to get stuck in a processing time-sink.
Just take a ton of pictures. Every time you shoot, go far, go close, look at angles, look at background. Every setting you're in, you should be taking 50+ different pictures starting out so you get the hang of things.
It's by taking and looking at pictures you learn, not by sitting down to learn about apertures, iso, manual settings etc. That's a distraction for all settings where anything is moving (and pretty much all settings with motion are going to be more interesting than just landscapes/still settings anyway).
Having an eye for what's worth taking a picture of and not is everything.
Focus entirely on getting the subject matter in your shots in focus. That's all that matters. That and not having massively over-exposed or under-exposed pictures. Your automatic settings will take care of that last part.
Then branch out and look at composition: What is going to be in the background of your shot. How d you want to place the subject, the foreground, the background. The easiest way of doing that is looking at pictures you've taken and seeing what you regret not doing when you were shooting. That and just looking at a ton of pictures online different places. That's how you learn composition: Not by reading or looking at some course.
Get a superzoom-lens. Something cheap. Here's a list of options. Ask for help if you don't know what you need.
You want a single lens that lets you take a ton of different pictures, something that's flexible. You don't need to worry too much about how much light they take in: starting out difficult environments aren't where you'll be shooting anyway.
Start stupid simple. See if photography is something for you. Get results you can share and be happy about.
Then learn different things, features, theory etc. one by one when you actually need them.
Photography is littered with people who have super strong opinions about things that don't matter in the large scheme of things. They'll present as facts things that are matters of opinion. They'll say their way is the only way. They'll spend hours and hours and hours and not have a single picture to show for it because the hobby is the gear, not taking pictures.
You find what photography should be for you, what parts of it you enjoy. To do that, you need to just start taking a lot of pictures and seeing what part entices you.
I'm really vibing with this comment. As I read it OP wants to explore if they like taking pictures. So they should try (wild suggestion) taking pictures. OP, as I read it, isn't asking if "light...
I'm really vibing with this comment. As I read it OP wants to explore if they like taking pictures. So they should try (wild suggestion) taking pictures. OP, as I read it, isn't asking if "light as a hobby" is interesting (yet!) so OP should just go out for a few weeks and click a butt load of pictures in automatic mode. Does that feel good? Are you starting to see some things you like about it? Awesome! Now you should start learning about the more technical side of both settings and composition! Because that's how you start getting even better pictures and developing personal styles and you aren't going to develop some mystery "bad at pictures" because you didn't know what ISO settings were ideal when you started.
I find photography to be a sometimes grating hobby to engage with the community on. Questions like OP's where fundamentally they are asking "How do I figure out if I like playing soccer?" are met with "First you need to learn everything about human nutrition because that's really the fundamentals of all sport." Maybe I just kinda hate having hobbies in the internet age... but that's probably too far off topic.
Just wanna tack onto this a different approach from back in the film days... We used to get only like 24-36 shots per roll. So sometimes we'd burn through all of them on a single subject,...
Just take a ton of pictures. Every time you shoot, go far, go close, look at angles, look at background. Every setting you're in, you should be taking 50+ different pictures starting out so you get the hang of things.
Just wanna tack onto this a different approach from back in the film days...
We used to get only like 24-36 shots per roll. So sometimes we'd burn through all of them on a single subject, sometimes we'd stretch them out for multiple subjects (like in a trip to a place and you only bring a single roll; you want it to last). Yes, in shooting crazy amounts of photos of a single subject, you're way more likely to get the picture you want. Especially if you're experimenting around with settings and trying all kinds of different things. Otherwise, you kinda just end up with lots of very similar images. Which, imo, can kinda stymie creativity by inundating you with an overabundance of choice (sometimes, anyways).
On the flip side with only taking one or two shots of a given subject before moving on and finding another: You're likely to not get the shot you want. And it's likely to make you sit there and think about why that shot didn't work, and give some motivation to figure out how to do it better next time.
But also: There probably will still be good shots of other subjects in that batch. So you can still get the satisfaction of having a handful of shots that you really like, while also getting some motivation to dig a little deeper into how to do things better the next time.
Just to be clear though... I'm saying both approaches work well. The moral of the story is to just get out and shoot.
(Edit: I'm now realizing that I kinda misinterpreted a little bit.. thinking this was saying more along the lines of "50 picture of the same subject". I'm sorry, I just woke up lol)
I like this a lot; thanks for sharing. Would it be fair to say that for a complete amateur (me), learning composition basics is step one (i.e. no amount of technique will correct bad composition)?...
I like this a lot; thanks for sharing. Would it be fair to say that for a complete amateur (me), learning composition basics is step one (i.e. no amount of technique will correct bad composition)? Or is that reductive and maybe I'm missing something.
I enjoy taking pictures but upon review I don't find them visually interesting in the way that great photography is.
I think that's exactly right. Anyone can take spectacular photos with a modern phone. They way to do it is to click the button to take many pictures, and to position yourself so those pictures are...
Would it be fair to say that for a complete amateur (me), learning composition basics is step one (i.e. no amount of technique will correct bad composition)?
I think that's exactly right. Anyone can take spectacular photos with a modern phone.
They way to do it is to click the button to take many pictures, and to position yourself so those pictures are interesting. The only other thing that matters is getting what you're taking a picture of in focus.
That doesn't mean using the zoom, it means walking to the right spot to take the picture, bending my knees, raising and lowering my hands etc. It means getting eye-height with that toddler you want to take a picture of, walking ten paces forwards so the house and view in the background are right.
Then the other main thing to get interesting pictures is adjusting the pictures in software afterwards. Cropping them, adjusting them if one didn't hold the camera/phone completely level etc. Adjusting light/shade/colors/contrast if you're getting fancy.
All other bells and whistles, techniques etc. that the algorithms in digital cameras don't automatically solve for you, are for later.
The hard part of photography is seeing what's worth taking a picture of and how to get the most out of that situation (hence all the tips in the comment above).
I disagree. As a beginner I think it's important to shoot manual or semi-manual at least for a while (not for your child graduation of stuff like that though). If all you do is shoot automatic,...
Just shoot on automatic. That's more than good enough with any camera that's better than a smart phone. The cameras do the work for almost everyone.
Always shooting on manual, or some select mode is a form of snobbery. Exceptions are when conditions are difficult and you need to instruct the camera on what expression you want
I disagree.
As a beginner I think it's important to shoot manual or semi-manual at least for a while (not for your child graduation of stuff like that though). If all you do is shoot automatic, then it's more difficult to know when manual is required, or what the limitation of the various automatic mode are.
Also, modern mirrorless makes it very easy to get instant feedback on the exposure when modifying aperture/shutter speed/iso. Having a good grasp of the exposure tricycle
I do agree with your broader point though: plenty of photographers are using automatism and that's not a bad thing; also there's some people who spends way too much time pixel peeping over photographic charts rather than shooting actual things.
These are great! You're off to an awesome start! You'll do excellently with the Minolta 75-300. Now I wouldn't worry about gear unless you want to delve deep and spend a lot more money sometime in...
These are great! You're off to an awesome start! You'll do excellently with the Minolta 75-300. Now I wouldn't worry about gear unless you want to delve deep and spend a lot more money sometime in the future.
I've seen the raw, unedited photorolls of several professional photographers. When shooting manually, they all also have lots of pictures that are out of focus. It depends on shooting style, but some have way more shots out of focus than in focus.
The key is just to shoot a ton. If the light is not so bright, I'd recommend checking the screen and zooming in to see if you're in focus right then and there. If that's not possible due to glare, take some you think are in focus and some slightly out of focus in each direction.
With a lens adapter, you lose some light that never reaches the camera sensor (Simplified: all your pictures risk becoming darker). That doesn't matter much in most settings, but it means that you'll generally have to lighten up most of your shots when you edit them.
To me, I think several of your shots would pop even more if they were brighter (slightly more exposure).
You've nailed close-ups and shots with the subject in the center of the image. I especially like the picture of the heron(?) in the nest. It feels more lively because of lines in the picture:
The bird looks into the frame drawing attention toward the other birds.
The beak points inwards
The line from the left nest edge goes straight through the upright bird
Playing around with not everything being in the center (at least after you've cropped the images later) could be one direction to experiment further in.
Other than that, find subject matters you want to shoot and just keep doing what you're doing!
You might not want to share them online, but the pictures I think most people cherish are ones with the people in their lives in various ways.
You could also try landscapes or cityscapes if that's something you've got an interest in. You're nailing animals. That's a lot of fun! You also learn a ton from them because they move and don't always do what one expects. Photographer beware!
Images with a foreground, middle ground and background can often feel more "complete" in a way. It's also a lot harder because they involve moving your feet more around to line those three elements up in your composition as you want them.
For the pictures of the dog laying down, I think I would have moved the camera even closer to the ground (if the subject wasn't about to run away after I'd ensured I had at least some shots on the memory card). That way you'd be even more on the dog's level, which gives a different feel to the image. We generally always get close to things if we're on their eye-level rather than looking slightly up at or down at.
This way the grass would take up more of the lower portion of the picture, the dog would take up more of the middle third and you'd have more control of whether you wanted the flowers, fence, bushes or sky in what parts of the background of the image.
Nothing in photography follows set rules. Like with your duck: Slightly looking down at it doesn't make it feel any less personal. It also looks by the upper right hand corner like if you'd moved the camera even further down, the background could have become pretty dark. Here you also just have to snap when the subject is as emotive as it is. A great result in any case!
All these last things are a matter of opinion and choices to make! You do you. Again, photographers will disagree on almost everything because they have different visions, different theories, strategies and processes of shooting. I've tried to generalize some things that probably work for most and shouldn't be very controversial.
Just do what you want, and ask/search/look up whatever you want to do more with or that you don't feel you're getting quite right. Looking at pictures can give inspiration (just stay away from black and white). Some websites/blogs etc. also have "photo challenges" of various sorts to try to guide experimentation. Some folks love that, others don't enjoy it. Looking through and getting more photographic input can lead to inspiration or kill it, depending.
If you keep clicking that shutter button and editing the images after, you're going to keep having fun!
For the last few weeks, I’ve been lurking in this thread and picking up a few tips, as I’m also just starting my photography journey. Can I ask you to elaborate on why to stay away from black and...
Just do what you want, and ask/search/look up whatever you want to do more with or that you don't feel you're getting quite right. Looking at pictures can give inspiration (just stay away from black and white)
For the last few weeks, I’ve been lurking in this thread and picking up a few tips, as I’m also just starting my photography journey.
Can I ask you to elaborate on why to stay away from black and white?
Edit: okay it’s probably important to mention, I’m picking up this hobby because I’ve found my dad’s old film camera from the 70s/80s and for no particular reason, I’ve decided to go 100% black and white, so I’d love to hear what you might have to say on the matter. Not that you’re necessarily going to change my mind, but I’d like to be pre-warned of the possible pitfalls or challenges.
Black and white images are just extremely, incredibly much harder to get right than color pictures. Aficionados will disagree with me here, but most people alive today won't get the same emotional...
Black and white images are just extremely, incredibly much harder to get right than color pictures.
Aficionados will disagree with me here, but most people alive today won't get the same emotional responses as with color images when they view things that are black and white.
Black and white images portray very strong emotions to most people today. That means the emotional range you can convey become pretty limited.
Black and white pictures generally need to be composed with a lot more focus on a single subject matter because they're way more difficult to balance as they just have less information. They require a clarity of image that is hard.
All this makes black and white images great to learn from if you're getting advanced: Otherwise most will end up frustrated with images either because they can't enjoy them for themselves because they don't turn out as the photographer wanted.
Or they end up frustrated as others don't respond as strongly/well to great black and white images and just a mobile snap of their cute pet/relative whatever.
My experience is that people will almost always be more satisfied with the color versions of their pictures before grayscaling them. If you shoot black and white, you don't have the option and decades in the future you won't remember the colors and you're left with lesser memories that don't let you remember the smells, fellings, sounds etc. the same way because you memory just isn't refreshed as strongly.
Again, photography is mostly about preference. Black and white could be totally right for you.
Just like you say, for many people it's good to know why so many get frustrated with black and white so one makes a conscious choice.
Thanks for your insights! In that case, my intention aligns with black and white: I don’t just want to take pictures that I like, or that look good, because my phone can do most of that already. I...
Thanks for your insights!
In that case, my intention aligns with black and white: I don’t just want to take pictures that I like, or that look good, because my phone can do most of that already. I picked up photography as a hobby to get emotionally invested in, and therefore picked black and white because I expected it would be more difficult and less forgiving.
It sounds like my assumption aligns with what you’re saying, so I’m hoping that also means my next assumption — that when I do finally get a good shot, it will feel more rewarding — will also ring true.
I still haven’t yet finished my first reel of film, as the weather has been abysmal and I’m pretty sure I need as much light as possible. But I’m really looking forward to seeing the first batch (and realising that they were all totally out of focus, or somethin...)
I’m intending to grab a notebook, to write down details about each photo I take. It would be nice to compare the settings (aperture etc) to the results once they’re developed. I guess I should also get my hands on a camera bag or something too, so I can keep all the bits and pieces together in one place and safe while I’m out and about.
I prefer reading. The best single book on photography is "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. This book explains the fundamental principles of exposure—aperture, shutter speed, and...
I prefer reading. The best single book on photography is "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson.
This book explains the fundamental principles of exposure—aperture, shutter speed, and ISO—which are crucial to understand if you want to get off auto mode.
It also will open your eyes to how the camera sees the world, as opposed to how we see the world. Lighting and composition are fundamental to taking great photos. My photos on a plain iPhone will be superior to your A6000 photos until you intuitively understand these two fundamentals. You can try to fix this in post, or you can learn how to get it right in camera.
It's worth noting that composition is the easiest thing to improve. Simple ideas like the rule of thirds, avoiding a cluttered background, and using the magic hours are all you really need to get started. So you can simply improve composition by finding cool photos of places near by you, and trying to replicate them. It is not as easy as it sounds.
On your camera, until you know it better, I would suggest sticking the Aperture to F8 or F11, setting ISO to auto, and then playing around with shutter speed to create freeze frame or motion blur. If you want to start playing around with aperture, you will struggle with the lens you have. It will do f3.5 at 16mm, but only the dead center will be crispy sharp, everything else will be blurry, so throw the rule of thirds out the window. To truly learn about aperture, you would want to buy a Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS, used is probably fine.
Edit: 35mm on APSC is equivalent to the nifty fifty, it's like the seven iron when learning golf.
Some good advice in this thread. Just wanted to chime in and say that I went through a similar learning process a few years back and one thing I found worked really well for me is just to think...
Some good advice in this thread.
Just wanted to chime in and say that I went through a similar learning process a few years back and one thing I found worked really well for me is just to think about photographing with a purpose. A bit weird to explain but let me try:
I still take photos on my phone all the time, because those times I just need to record the moment, and a phone is the easiest thing to have on you all the time in this day and age. Taking photos with your phone is quick, easy, you don't need to worry too much about fiddling with the settings, and the photographs are more than acceptable for recording the moment.
But I'll take my mirrorless camera out when I'm going to unusual places or events that I don't go to every day. And then I'll set myself a goal, or purpose, or reason for bringing that camera along. Maybe I'm at the zoo and want to take some cool animal shots. Maybe I'm at the beach and want to try taking some good landscape shots. Maybe I'm out at night and want to try taking some good night-time shots. Maybe I'm at a botanical garden and want to try taking some macro shots of bugs and flowers. Maybe I'm at a family event and want to try taking some good portraits or candid shots.
I find that giving myself a goal or purpose does three things:
It makes it less stressful since I don't have to worry about missing a shot or moment or memory.
It makes it easier to focus on the type of shot I want to get and not have to constantly change lenses or settings (since I know what I'm looking for).
It helps me narrow down the type of photography that I enjoy the most, which in my case happens to be taking photos of animals (specifically birds!).
Shoot in RAW and get a raw editing software, I would recommend ART, it's a bit easier than RawTherapee I think : https://bitbucket.org/agriggio/art/wiki/Home...
Shoot in RAW and get a raw editing software, I would recommend ART, it's a bit easier than RawTherapee I think :
Learning the basic is good but don't focus too much on technicalities (full auto will get you far, specially in raw), composition and light are very important for the final look. There's a lot of good videos on youtube but for beginner I would focus on :
Have a clear subject in your shots (beginners often take "snaps" of nothing in particular)
Mind your edges (having random stuff at the edge of the frame)
Move around when taking a picture (don't rely too much on zoom)
Try to simplify your image by including not too many elements
Watch some youtubes.
If you're into that kind of stuff consider getting a fast (large aperture, e.g. f2) manual lens, personally it was what really got me into photography (it's fun). My Flickr for reference : https://flickr.com/photos/191516757@N03/
Looks pretty good. Some are a bit dark, you can increase the exposure or play with the tone curve or shadow/highlight module. Also if you press 9 you can toggle the background color, it should be...
Looks pretty good. Some are a bit dark, you can increase the exposure or play with the tone curve or shadow/highlight module. Also if you press 9 you can toggle the background color, it should be on gray but it's good to check on a white background, if the image is dark it's gonna look a bit dull compared the the white.
Also note that if you want views in flickr you have to add your pictures into groups.
In addition to the great answers already provided, I would reiterate this advice: get out there and shoot! Automatic, manual, whatever. Use your camera, use your phone, use whatever you have at...
In addition to the great answers already provided, I would reiterate this advice: get out there and shoot! Automatic, manual, whatever. Use your camera, use your phone, use whatever you have at the moment. You won't improve technically without making (and fixing) mistakes. You won't find a style if you don't try out different things. Make photography a habit, and that practice will help you immensely regardless of what other resources you're looking at to learn.
So, I'd say there's three aspects to photography Technical shooting - this mainly the exposure triangle. It's all about getting that's in the frame to the sensor in the way you want Composition -...
So, I'd say there's three aspects to photography
Technical shooting - this mainly the exposure triangle. It's all about getting that's in the frame to the sensor in the way you want
Composition - this is not just about where you put things in the frame, but also what you're shooting, and when you're shooting.
Post processing - taking raws and making them into finished images in a raw processor
For 1), I'd recommend http://www.r-photoclass.com/. It's a little outdated, and DSLR focused, but it gets the job done. Some things don't really change, and the exposure triangle is one of them.
For 2), honestly the best way to get an eye for things is twofold: one, just take a lot of pictures. Examine the ones you like, and why you like them. Two, look at the work of other photographers, and again examine why exactly their images are pleasing.
For 3), this might be the trickiest one. I can't really give any more recommendations than to just keep at it. IME no one really has a good post processing tutorial - a lot of is just moving sliders and seeing how you vibe with it.
Take advantage of the benefit of a digital camera; shots are basically free, especially with the relatively low MP of an a6000. Some things you only get better at with experience.
Yes, don't shoot at automatic. Now, that being said, many if not most photographers end up shooting "semi-automatic", usually on aperture priority with a min shutter speed. But if you're learning, just keep it on manual.
How it usually goes is as follows: Aperture is the typically most opinionated of the triangle; you likely have a desired depth of field basic on the subject. Set that first. Next, pick a SS that matches the subject. You typically want to "freeze" the action, although sometimes it's the opposite. When freezing, you want the SS to be fast enough that you get a sharp image; if it's a landscape, you just need to overcome your hand's shake. If it's a person, you need to be faster than they move.
I'm going to give you a counter-opinion to nacho's comment marked as exemplary because I think there are situations in which it's a good idea to actually go the opposite way, which is what I did....
I'm going to give you a counter-opinion to nacho's comment marked as exemplary because I think there are situations in which it's a good idea to actually go the opposite way, which is what I did.
I decided to spend the year of lockdowns learning landscape photography. I knew nothing about photography in general, but I always had an interest in the visual arts in general - though more often in the abstract, so it didn't translate directly, it just gave me a bit of a basic feel that had to be developed a lot.
I watched most of the course on digital photography by Marc Levoy, a Stanford professor who speaks a lot about the technical aspects and connects them to the artistic applications, about composition etc. It's free and includes photography assignments.
And then I went out 3-4 times a week, spent 2 hours taking pictures and later another 1-2 hours going through them and editing them in Lightroom (which was possible because of zero socializing etc., adjust the time as needed nowadays). I normally use semi-auto modes with me setting the aperture and ISO manually and the shutter speed being automatic, shooting RAWs. I always took a couple photos of a subject or scene, but not too many.
This is what goes against nacho's advice and the reasoning is that I think it's important to spend time going through all of your photos, picking the decent ones and trying to get the best out of them to develop your eye. Taking too many just makes it a chore to go through all of it and you probably won't spend enough time thinking about what makes each good or bad. If you try to edit the good ones, it makes you stop and concentrate, and for me it also makes the process much more rewarding, which was necessary for me to stick to it.
However this applies to landscape photography or maybe architecture photography and other similar styles, but not really to say street or event photography, where getting a ton of photos and spending as little time as possible editing might be a better idea. Landscape photography especially is really big on editing. I used Lightroom simply because that's what most pros seem to use, so it's easiest to get good workflow information. I also gradually found and watched youtubers whose style I liked, for tips on both composition and editing.
I did the above for about a year and a half and then had an exhibition which was appreciated by some of my friends who are lifelong artists, and I even sold a couple prints, though for a low price - this is purely a hobby, I never intended to make it profitable. So in my opinion it worked, and it was fun as well, though the time investment during that period was unusually high due to the circumstances.
Start by understanding the relationship between aperture, iso and shutter speed. Knowing what and when to use each is immensely helpful. Take a photography course or join a local photography walk...
Start by understanding the relationship between aperture, iso and shutter speed. Knowing what and when to use each is immensely helpful. Take a photography course or join a local photography walk to discuss things with people. Then try and be purposeful, try and really think then shoot. Try not to chimp too much (taking a photo and looking at the screen to see what you got) so that you really reflect on what you're shooting and anticipate what you will get.
I've no idea what that camera is, but one thing to note is that a lot of modern mobile phones can shoot WAY better pictures than a lot of DSLR cameras. (I suspect that at least some of this is due...
I've no idea what that camera is, but one thing to note is that a lot of modern mobile phones can shoot WAY better pictures than a lot of DSLR cameras. (I suspect that at least some of this is due to some AI-esque autocorrection, but also, mobile phone are mainstream, while DSLR is a niche product, so producers of mobile phones can really do groundbreaking development while keeping the cost down)
So, uh, there's no guaranteed that you "real" camera is even able to shoot as good pictures as your Iphone. That said, give it a go!
I'll recommend starting out with Manual, and playing around with how the different values affect each other.
Here's my current understanding, but this is really just on top of my head and there's WAY better sources out there.
Aparture: This is pretty much the same tech as the pupil in your eye. Try standing in front of a mirror, shining a light in your eye. Notice how the light makes your pupil goes super small. You should do the same with photography; lighter scenes = higher (smaller) aparture. Also, the smaller the aparture, the sharper the image is. (This is why old people with crap eye sight insist that yonger people should turn on the light when they read—the old people need more light (so they can use higher aparture) to see things clearly, and can't grasp that younger people simply have better sight and don't need that)
ISO: This is a leftover from the days of physical films, which could be bought in different ISO values according to how sensitive to light the film is. So you bought a ISO 100 if you were to shoot a scene in sunshine or proffesional lighting, or you bought an ISO 800 to shoot scenes in darker environment, or your got handed an ISO 400 if you just went and asked for film for this here camera and clearly didn't knew what you were after. I honestly have no idea how it works in the digital realm. Higher ISO values equal higher sensitivity (it sucks in more light) but the price of this is more image noise. So if your image is super dark, you can raise the ISO, at the cost of more noise.
Shutter: How long the shutter stays open, recording the photo. The longer it stays open, the more light gets in. But also, longer shutter speed intruduce more noise. Also, if you don't keep your camera still, and the shutter is something like 1/12s (1 second divided by 12 = 0.083 second) then the camera will change position during the time where the shutter is open, resulting in a blurred image.
Lenses: The primary thing those give you is a wider or smaller Field of View. (Do an image search for "field of view" if you don't know what it means) This is primary for whatever artistic vision you wanna go for, but there's some tech stuff to be aware of too. Shallower field of view (zoomed in) make your image more sensitive to you not holding the camera still, and also results in less light hitting the sensors.
Finally, a fun lense you can make yourself is a pinhole lense. simpy make a flat plate with a super tiny (pin-point) hole in the middle, and slap it on the camera where the lense should go. Fair warning if you go for this DIY approach ... don't get dust inside your camera. (this goes for changing normal lenses too. Approach changing lenses as a sort of open-heart surgery for your camera)
The conceptual aspects of photography will always be more important than the technical for the final image. An image that is technically perfect but has no concept/narrative/meaning generally...
The conceptual aspects of photography will always be more important than the technical for the final image.
An image that is technically perfect but has no concept/narrative/meaning generally won’t be as interesting as one with a strong concept but less technically perfect.
That said, there are some basic things to know about the technical aspects of using a camera that will help you get some more creative freedom.
There is a ton of noise in the online photography communities. It can be really hard to cut through. But, in reality there really isn’t that much to know about camera settings. The three basic concepts to understand are shutter speed, aperture, and iso. Each of these change how bright the image will come out. Adjust any of these three until the meter in your camera shows a ‘good’ exposure.
How do you know which settings to adjust? Well, each one has a different effect on the image. This is where you can make technical choices to reinforce your creative goals.
Aperture controls the depth of field. When you focus a lens, then technically there will be a single 2D plane that is in focus. So, if I focus on a wall in front of me, the whole 2D plane of the wall should be in focus (assuming the film/sensor and the wall are parallel). Shallow depth of field means only the plane of focus will appear sharp. This is what happens at wide apertures (like f/2.8). At smaller apertures, things in front and behind the wall will also appear to be sharp even though they aren’t in the plane of focus. So you can use small apertures like f/16 when you want more depth of field (more stuff in front and in back of the plane of focus to appear sharp). Besides diffraction, that is basically all you need to know about aperture. Wide apertures have shallow depth of field and let in more light.
Shutter speed is how long the sensor/film is exposed for. This controls how motion is captured. Long shutter speeds will show motion in the scene or motion of the camera. Very short shutter speeds will freeze motion. If you are hand-holding a camera and want the image to be sharp, I’d start to get worried at shutter speeds less than 1/60 th. These days stabilization can do a lot, but that is where I would start to think about it. If you want to freeze the feathers of a flying bird, then I’d probably want a shutter speed of at least 1/500 th. If you want to take a photo of water flowing, and have it look silky smooth, then get a tripod and aim for shutter speeds of a few seconds. None of these are rules, I’m just trying to give you a bit of intuition. But that is basically it for shutter speed—it controls how motion is rendered.
ISO is the sensitivity/gain of the film/sensor. It doesn’t affect the image as much, but as you go to higher ISOs, then you will get more grain/noise in the image which eventually looks bad. Usually, photographers keep this as low as they can while achieving shutter speeds and apertures appropriate for their goals.
Now, I mentioned that you would adjust all of these parameters until the light meter in your camera says that the exposure is ‘good’. However, how does the camera know what is ‘good’?
Traditionally, a camera’s light meter will measure the amount of light coming in through the lens and try to make it come out 18% gray. So, if your camera is pointed at a white object, it is likely to underexpose the image because it will tell you to choose settings that will make white look like 18% gray. Similarly, if you are shooting a black object, the camera is likely to try and overexpose it. So, in these situations, you can either manually adjust your settings to what you think a more appropriate exposure is, or you can use “exposure compensation” if you are shooting in an automatic mode.
Here is a more advanced exposure technique, but it can be quite useful. Digital sensors tend to have noise in the dark areas. But, they are very unforgiving in the highlights. As soon as the sensor saturates to full brightness, the highlights are “clipped” and you can’t recover that data in post. So, if you want the most flexible file to edit on the computer, I would shoot RAW and “expose to the right” on my histogram. This means I would make the image as bright as possible without clipping any important highlights (your camera should have a highlight warning feature).
Lastly, I would recommend you look at photographers and artists you like for inspiration. Again, the creative aspect is much more important than the technical. It can be difficult to find photographers online who focus more on the creative aspect rather than the gear or technique examples. Personally, I gravitate towards people who are working on more substantial projects like books, shows, or commercial goals. This helps me weed out people who are photography influencers first and photographers second.
Here are some people I like:
Kyle McDougall. Landscape photographer who is currently working in the UK on a project related to WWII infrastructure. He has also published a great book with Subjectivity Objective.
I don’t know him as well. He seems to work with film a lot, and from what I have watched, he is interested in the conceptual side of photography quite a bit.
I would really like to own a copy of New Topographics at some point. Baltz is relevant to my own work, but I think this is a nice lecture to see how some people approach photography in the art world.
One fun exercise you can do with your zoom lens is to pick a single focal length and then use a bit of Gaff tape to tape the lens at that focal length. Shoot with it for a whole day like that....
One fun exercise you can do with your zoom lens is to pick a single focal length and then use a bit of Gaff tape to tape the lens at that focal length. Shoot with it for a whole day like that. Then maybe choose a different focal length another day.
Yes, there will be certain shots that you can’t get to work, but the limitation should help you push your creativity and find new possibilities. That frustration is part of the point of this exercise.
Based on your level of experience, I'm going to recommend exactly the opposite of what people are saying in this thread. Most photo recommendations are simply way too advanced and involved for what people starting out actually need.
If you end up loving photography as a hobby, you can always dig way, way deeper. Learn the stuff about the camera you need to solve tasks you want to solve with specific shots you want to take. Don't start out being a tech nerd; your interest will die quickly. With good modern mirrorless cameras, plenty of professional photographers shoot action settings where lighting/directions etc. change on automatic. They use autofocus-modes. That's how you get the best pictures when the motif is there for a fraction o fa setting. Always shooting on manual, or some select mode is a form of snobbery. Exceptions are when conditions are difficult and you need to instruct the camera on what expression you want: Do you want something super sharp, blurry, a dark silhouette or a sky/background that's all white, or something in between.
Again, if you end up delving deep into photography, you'll get to a point where you need raw files to get every detail and dream out of each shot. Starting out, lightroom or any other processor program will be more than good enough for you.
Again, the idea starting out is getting great images you can share and be proud of, not to get stuck in a processing time-sink.
It's by taking and looking at pictures you learn, not by sitting down to learn about apertures, iso, manual settings etc. That's a distraction for all settings where anything is moving (and pretty much all settings with motion are going to be more interesting than just landscapes/still settings anyway).
Having an eye for what's worth taking a picture of and not is everything.
Then branch out and look at composition: What is going to be in the background of your shot. How d you want to place the subject, the foreground, the background. The easiest way of doing that is looking at pictures you've taken and seeing what you regret not doing when you were shooting. That and just looking at a ton of pictures online different places. That's how you learn composition: Not by reading or looking at some course.
You want a single lens that lets you take a ton of different pictures, something that's flexible. You don't need to worry too much about how much light they take in: starting out difficult environments aren't where you'll be shooting anyway.
Start stupid simple. See if photography is something for you. Get results you can share and be happy about.
Then learn different things, features, theory etc. one by one when you actually need them.
Photography is littered with people who have super strong opinions about things that don't matter in the large scheme of things. They'll present as facts things that are matters of opinion. They'll say their way is the only way. They'll spend hours and hours and hours and not have a single picture to show for it because the hobby is the gear, not taking pictures.
You find what photography should be for you, what parts of it you enjoy. To do that, you need to just start taking a lot of pictures and seeing what part entices you.
I'm really vibing with this comment. As I read it OP wants to explore if they like taking pictures. So they should try (wild suggestion) taking pictures. OP, as I read it, isn't asking if "light as a hobby" is interesting (yet!) so OP should just go out for a few weeks and click a butt load of pictures in automatic mode. Does that feel good? Are you starting to see some things you like about it? Awesome! Now you should start learning about the more technical side of both settings and composition! Because that's how you start getting even better pictures and developing personal styles and you aren't going to develop some mystery "bad at pictures" because you didn't know what ISO settings were ideal when you started.
I find photography to be a sometimes grating hobby to engage with the community on. Questions like OP's where fundamentally they are asking "How do I figure out if I like playing soccer?" are met with "First you need to learn everything about human nutrition because that's really the fundamentals of all sport." Maybe I just kinda hate having hobbies in the internet age... but that's probably too far off topic.
Just wanna tack onto this a different approach from back in the film days...
We used to get only like 24-36 shots per roll. So sometimes we'd burn through all of them on a single subject, sometimes we'd stretch them out for multiple subjects (like in a trip to a place and you only bring a single roll; you want it to last). Yes, in shooting crazy amounts of photos of a single subject, you're way more likely to get the picture you want. Especially if you're experimenting around with settings and trying all kinds of different things. Otherwise, you kinda just end up with lots of very similar images. Which, imo, can kinda stymie creativity by inundating you with an overabundance of choice (sometimes, anyways).
On the flip side with only taking one or two shots of a given subject before moving on and finding another: You're likely to not get the shot you want. And it's likely to make you sit there and think about why that shot didn't work, and give some motivation to figure out how to do it better next time.
But also: There probably will still be good shots of other subjects in that batch. So you can still get the satisfaction of having a handful of shots that you really like, while also getting some motivation to dig a little deeper into how to do things better the next time.
Just to be clear though... I'm saying both approaches work well. The moral of the story is to just get out and shoot.
(Edit: I'm now realizing that I kinda misinterpreted a little bit.. thinking this was saying more along the lines of "50 picture of the same subject". I'm sorry, I just woke up lol)
I like this a lot; thanks for sharing. Would it be fair to say that for a complete amateur (me), learning composition basics is step one (i.e. no amount of technique will correct bad composition)? Or is that reductive and maybe I'm missing something.
I enjoy taking pictures but upon review I don't find them visually interesting in the way that great photography is.
I think that's exactly right. Anyone can take spectacular photos with a modern phone.
They way to do it is to click the button to take many pictures, and to position yourself so those pictures are interesting. The only other thing that matters is getting what you're taking a picture of in focus.
That doesn't mean using the zoom, it means walking to the right spot to take the picture, bending my knees, raising and lowering my hands etc. It means getting eye-height with that toddler you want to take a picture of, walking ten paces forwards so the house and view in the background are right.
Then the other main thing to get interesting pictures is adjusting the pictures in software afterwards. Cropping them, adjusting them if one didn't hold the camera/phone completely level etc. Adjusting light/shade/colors/contrast if you're getting fancy.
All other bells and whistles, techniques etc. that the algorithms in digital cameras don't automatically solve for you, are for later.
The hard part of photography is seeing what's worth taking a picture of and how to get the most out of that situation (hence all the tips in the comment above).
I disagree.
As a beginner I think it's important to shoot manual or semi-manual at least for a while (not for your child graduation of stuff like that though). If all you do is shoot automatic, then it's more difficult to know when manual is required, or what the limitation of the various automatic mode are.
Also, modern mirrorless makes it very easy to get instant feedback on the exposure when modifying aperture/shutter speed/iso. Having a good grasp of the exposure tricycle
I do agree with your broader point though: plenty of photographers are using automatism and that's not a bad thing; also there's some people who spends way too much time pixel peeping over photographic charts rather than shooting actual things.
These are great! You're off to an awesome start! You'll do excellently with the Minolta 75-300. Now I wouldn't worry about gear unless you want to delve deep and spend a lot more money sometime in the future.
I've seen the raw, unedited photorolls of several professional photographers. When shooting manually, they all also have lots of pictures that are out of focus. It depends on shooting style, but some have way more shots out of focus than in focus.
The key is just to shoot a ton. If the light is not so bright, I'd recommend checking the screen and zooming in to see if you're in focus right then and there. If that's not possible due to glare, take some you think are in focus and some slightly out of focus in each direction.
With a lens adapter, you lose some light that never reaches the camera sensor (Simplified: all your pictures risk becoming darker). That doesn't matter much in most settings, but it means that you'll generally have to lighten up most of your shots when you edit them.
To me, I think several of your shots would pop even more if they were brighter (slightly more exposure).
You've nailed close-ups and shots with the subject in the center of the image. I especially like the picture of the heron(?) in the nest. It feels more lively because of lines in the picture:
Playing around with not everything being in the center (at least after you've cropped the images later) could be one direction to experiment further in.
Other than that, find subject matters you want to shoot and just keep doing what you're doing!
You might not want to share them online, but the pictures I think most people cherish are ones with the people in their lives in various ways.
You could also try landscapes or cityscapes if that's something you've got an interest in. You're nailing animals. That's a lot of fun! You also learn a ton from them because they move and don't always do what one expects. Photographer beware!
Images with a foreground, middle ground and background can often feel more "complete" in a way. It's also a lot harder because they involve moving your feet more around to line those three elements up in your composition as you want them.
For the pictures of the dog laying down, I think I would have moved the camera even closer to the ground (if the subject wasn't about to run away after I'd ensured I had at least some shots on the memory card). That way you'd be even more on the dog's level, which gives a different feel to the image. We generally always get close to things if we're on their eye-level rather than looking slightly up at or down at.
This way the grass would take up more of the lower portion of the picture, the dog would take up more of the middle third and you'd have more control of whether you wanted the flowers, fence, bushes or sky in what parts of the background of the image.
Nothing in photography follows set rules. Like with your duck: Slightly looking down at it doesn't make it feel any less personal. It also looks by the upper right hand corner like if you'd moved the camera even further down, the background could have become pretty dark. Here you also just have to snap when the subject is as emotive as it is. A great result in any case!
All these last things are a matter of opinion and choices to make! You do you. Again, photographers will disagree on almost everything because they have different visions, different theories, strategies and processes of shooting. I've tried to generalize some things that probably work for most and shouldn't be very controversial.
Just do what you want, and ask/search/look up whatever you want to do more with or that you don't feel you're getting quite right. Looking at pictures can give inspiration (just stay away from black and white). Some websites/blogs etc. also have "photo challenges" of various sorts to try to guide experimentation. Some folks love that, others don't enjoy it. Looking through and getting more photographic input can lead to inspiration or kill it, depending.
If you keep clicking that shutter button and editing the images after, you're going to keep having fun!
For the last few weeks, I’ve been lurking in this thread and picking up a few tips, as I’m also just starting my photography journey.
Can I ask you to elaborate on why to stay away from black and white?
Edit: okay it’s probably important to mention, I’m picking up this hobby because I’ve found my dad’s old film camera from the 70s/80s and for no particular reason, I’ve decided to go 100% black and white, so I’d love to hear what you might have to say on the matter. Not that you’re necessarily going to change my mind, but I’d like to be pre-warned of the possible pitfalls or challenges.
Black and white images are just extremely, incredibly much harder to get right than color pictures.
Aficionados will disagree with me here, but most people alive today won't get the same emotional responses as with color images when they view things that are black and white.
Black and white images portray very strong emotions to most people today. That means the emotional range you can convey become pretty limited.
Black and white pictures generally need to be composed with a lot more focus on a single subject matter because they're way more difficult to balance as they just have less information. They require a clarity of image that is hard.
All this makes black and white images great to learn from if you're getting advanced: Otherwise most will end up frustrated with images either because they can't enjoy them for themselves because they don't turn out as the photographer wanted.
Or they end up frustrated as others don't respond as strongly/well to great black and white images and just a mobile snap of their cute pet/relative whatever.
My experience is that people will almost always be more satisfied with the color versions of their pictures before grayscaling them. If you shoot black and white, you don't have the option and decades in the future you won't remember the colors and you're left with lesser memories that don't let you remember the smells, fellings, sounds etc. the same way because you memory just isn't refreshed as strongly.
Again, photography is mostly about preference. Black and white could be totally right for you.
Just like you say, for many people it's good to know why so many get frustrated with black and white so one makes a conscious choice.
Thanks for your insights!
In that case, my intention aligns with black and white: I don’t just want to take pictures that I like, or that look good, because my phone can do most of that already. I picked up photography as a hobby to get emotionally invested in, and therefore picked black and white because I expected it would be more difficult and less forgiving.
It sounds like my assumption aligns with what you’re saying, so I’m hoping that also means my next assumption — that when I do finally get a good shot, it will feel more rewarding — will also ring true.
I still haven’t yet finished my first reel of film, as the weather has been abysmal and I’m pretty sure I need as much light as possible. But I’m really looking forward to seeing the first batch (and realising that they were all totally out of focus, or somethin...)
I’m intending to grab a notebook, to write down details about each photo I take. It would be nice to compare the settings (aperture etc) to the results once they’re developed. I guess I should also get my hands on a camera bag or something too, so I can keep all the bits and pieces together in one place and safe while I’m out and about.
I prefer reading. The best single book on photography is "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson.
This book explains the fundamental principles of exposure—aperture, shutter speed, and ISO—which are crucial to understand if you want to get off auto mode.
It also will open your eyes to how the camera sees the world, as opposed to how we see the world. Lighting and composition are fundamental to taking great photos. My photos on a plain iPhone will be superior to your A6000 photos until you intuitively understand these two fundamentals. You can try to fix this in post, or you can learn how to get it right in camera.
It's worth noting that composition is the easiest thing to improve. Simple ideas like the rule of thirds, avoiding a cluttered background, and using the magic hours are all you really need to get started. So you can simply improve composition by finding cool photos of places near by you, and trying to replicate them. It is not as easy as it sounds.
On your camera, until you know it better, I would suggest sticking the Aperture to F8 or F11, setting ISO to auto, and then playing around with shutter speed to create freeze frame or motion blur. If you want to start playing around with aperture, you will struggle with the lens you have. It will do f3.5 at 16mm, but only the dead center will be crispy sharp, everything else will be blurry, so throw the rule of thirds out the window. To truly learn about aperture, you would want to buy a Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS, used is probably fine.
Edit: 35mm on APSC is equivalent to the nifty fifty, it's like the seven iron when learning golf.
Some good advice in this thread.
Just wanted to chime in and say that I went through a similar learning process a few years back and one thing I found worked really well for me is just to think about photographing with a purpose. A bit weird to explain but let me try:
I still take photos on my phone all the time, because those times I just need to record the moment, and a phone is the easiest thing to have on you all the time in this day and age. Taking photos with your phone is quick, easy, you don't need to worry too much about fiddling with the settings, and the photographs are more than acceptable for recording the moment.
But I'll take my mirrorless camera out when I'm going to unusual places or events that I don't go to every day. And then I'll set myself a goal, or purpose, or reason for bringing that camera along. Maybe I'm at the zoo and want to take some cool animal shots. Maybe I'm at the beach and want to try taking some good landscape shots. Maybe I'm out at night and want to try taking some good night-time shots. Maybe I'm at a botanical garden and want to try taking some macro shots of bugs and flowers. Maybe I'm at a family event and want to try taking some good portraits or candid shots.
I find that giving myself a goal or purpose does three things:
It makes it less stressful since I don't have to worry about missing a shot or moment or memory.
It makes it easier to focus on the type of shot I want to get and not have to constantly change lenses or settings (since I know what I'm looking for).
It helps me narrow down the type of photography that I enjoy the most, which in my case happens to be taking photos of animals (specifically birds!).
Anyways, hope that helps and good luck!
Shoot in RAW and get a raw editing software, I would recommend ART, it's a bit easier than RawTherapee I think :
https://bitbucket.org/agriggio/art/wiki/Home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIbyw4D5CdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wD8ENzJiio
Learning the basic is good but don't focus too much on technicalities (full auto will get you far, specially in raw), composition and light are very important for the final look. There's a lot of good videos on youtube but for beginner I would focus on :
If you're into that kind of stuff consider getting a fast (large aperture, e.g. f2) manual lens, personally it was what really got me into photography (it's fun). My Flickr for reference : https://flickr.com/photos/191516757@N03/
Looks pretty good. Some are a bit dark, you can increase the exposure or play with the tone curve or shadow/highlight module. Also if you press 9 you can toggle the background color, it should be on gray but it's good to check on a white background, if the image is dark it's gonna look a bit dull compared the the white.
Also note that if you want views in flickr you have to add your pictures into groups.
In addition to the great answers already provided, I would reiterate this advice: get out there and shoot! Automatic, manual, whatever. Use your camera, use your phone, use whatever you have at the moment. You won't improve technically without making (and fixing) mistakes. You won't find a style if you don't try out different things. Make photography a habit, and that practice will help you immensely regardless of what other resources you're looking at to learn.
So, I'd say there's three aspects to photography
Technical shooting - this mainly the exposure triangle. It's all about getting that's in the frame to the sensor in the way you want
Composition - this is not just about where you put things in the frame, but also what you're shooting, and when you're shooting.
Post processing - taking raws and making them into finished images in a raw processor
For 1), I'd recommend http://www.r-photoclass.com/. It's a little outdated, and DSLR focused, but it gets the job done. Some things don't really change, and the exposure triangle is one of them.
For 2), honestly the best way to get an eye for things is twofold: one, just take a lot of pictures. Examine the ones you like, and why you like them. Two, look at the work of other photographers, and again examine why exactly their images are pleasing.
For 3), this might be the trickiest one. I can't really give any more recommendations than to just keep at it. IME no one really has a good post processing tutorial - a lot of is just moving sliders and seeing how you vibe with it.
Take advantage of the benefit of a digital camera; shots are basically free, especially with the relatively low MP of an a6000. Some things you only get better at with experience.
Yes, don't shoot at automatic. Now, that being said, many if not most photographers end up shooting "semi-automatic", usually on aperture priority with a min shutter speed. But if you're learning, just keep it on manual.
How it usually goes is as follows: Aperture is the typically most opinionated of the triangle; you likely have a desired depth of field basic on the subject. Set that first. Next, pick a SS that matches the subject. You typically want to "freeze" the action, although sometimes it's the opposite. When freezing, you want the SS to be fast enough that you get a sharp image; if it's a landscape, you just need to overcome your hand's shake. If it's a person, you need to be faster than they move.
I don't have experience, but recently saw a video Photography basics in 10 Minutes which I found very interesting.
If you like to read books, I think National Geographic Photo Basics was a great introduction.
I'm going to give you a counter-opinion to nacho's comment marked as exemplary because I think there are situations in which it's a good idea to actually go the opposite way, which is what I did.
I decided to spend the year of lockdowns learning landscape photography. I knew nothing about photography in general, but I always had an interest in the visual arts in general - though more often in the abstract, so it didn't translate directly, it just gave me a bit of a basic feel that had to be developed a lot.
I watched most of the course on digital photography by Marc Levoy, a Stanford professor who speaks a lot about the technical aspects and connects them to the artistic applications, about composition etc. It's free and includes photography assignments.
And then I went out 3-4 times a week, spent 2 hours taking pictures and later another 1-2 hours going through them and editing them in Lightroom (which was possible because of zero socializing etc., adjust the time as needed nowadays). I normally use semi-auto modes with me setting the aperture and ISO manually and the shutter speed being automatic, shooting RAWs. I always took a couple photos of a subject or scene, but not too many.
This is what goes against nacho's advice and the reasoning is that I think it's important to spend time going through all of your photos, picking the decent ones and trying to get the best out of them to develop your eye. Taking too many just makes it a chore to go through all of it and you probably won't spend enough time thinking about what makes each good or bad. If you try to edit the good ones, it makes you stop and concentrate, and for me it also makes the process much more rewarding, which was necessary for me to stick to it.
However this applies to landscape photography or maybe architecture photography and other similar styles, but not really to say street or event photography, where getting a ton of photos and spending as little time as possible editing might be a better idea. Landscape photography especially is really big on editing. I used Lightroom simply because that's what most pros seem to use, so it's easiest to get good workflow information. I also gradually found and watched youtubers whose style I liked, for tips on both composition and editing.
I did the above for about a year and a half and then had an exhibition which was appreciated by some of my friends who are lifelong artists, and I even sold a couple prints, though for a low price - this is purely a hobby, I never intended to make it profitable. So in my opinion it worked, and it was fun as well, though the time investment during that period was unusually high due to the circumstances.
Start by understanding the relationship between aperture, iso and shutter speed. Knowing what and when to use each is immensely helpful. Take a photography course or join a local photography walk to discuss things with people. Then try and be purposeful, try and really think then shoot. Try not to chimp too much (taking a photo and looking at the screen to see what you got) so that you really reflect on what you're shooting and anticipate what you will get.
I've no idea what that camera is, but one thing to note is that a lot of modern mobile phones can shoot WAY better pictures than a lot of DSLR cameras. (I suspect that at least some of this is due to some AI-esque autocorrection, but also, mobile phone are mainstream, while DSLR is a niche product, so producers of mobile phones can really do groundbreaking development while keeping the cost down)
So, uh, there's no guaranteed that you "real" camera is even able to shoot as good pictures as your Iphone. That said, give it a go!
I'll recommend starting out with Manual, and playing around with how the different values affect each other.
Here's my current understanding, but this is really just on top of my head and there's WAY better sources out there.
Aparture: This is pretty much the same tech as the pupil in your eye. Try standing in front of a mirror, shining a light in your eye. Notice how the light makes your pupil goes super small. You should do the same with photography; lighter scenes = higher (smaller) aparture. Also, the smaller the aparture, the sharper the image is. (This is why old people with crap eye sight insist that yonger people should turn on the light when they read—the old people need more light (so they can use higher aparture) to see things clearly, and can't grasp that younger people simply have better sight and don't need that)
ISO: This is a leftover from the days of physical films, which could be bought in different ISO values according to how sensitive to light the film is. So you bought a ISO 100 if you were to shoot a scene in sunshine or proffesional lighting, or you bought an ISO 800 to shoot scenes in darker environment, or your got handed an ISO 400 if you just went and asked for film for this here camera and clearly didn't knew what you were after. I honestly have no idea how it works in the digital realm. Higher ISO values equal higher sensitivity (it sucks in more light) but the price of this is more image noise. So if your image is super dark, you can raise the ISO, at the cost of more noise.
Shutter: How long the shutter stays open, recording the photo. The longer it stays open, the more light gets in. But also, longer shutter speed intruduce more noise. Also, if you don't keep your camera still, and the shutter is something like 1/12s (1 second divided by 12 = 0.083 second) then the camera will change position during the time where the shutter is open, resulting in a blurred image.
Lenses: The primary thing those give you is a wider or smaller Field of View. (Do an image search for "field of view" if you don't know what it means) This is primary for whatever artistic vision you wanna go for, but there's some tech stuff to be aware of too. Shallower field of view (zoomed in) make your image more sensitive to you not holding the camera still, and also results in less light hitting the sensors.
Finally, a fun lense you can make yourself is a pinhole lense. simpy make a flat plate with a super tiny (pin-point) hole in the middle, and slap it on the camera where the lense should go. Fair warning if you go for this DIY approach ... don't get dust inside your camera. (this goes for changing normal lenses too. Approach changing lenses as a sort of open-heart surgery for your camera)
The conceptual aspects of photography will always be more important than the technical for the final image.
An image that is technically perfect but has no concept/narrative/meaning generally won’t be as interesting as one with a strong concept but less technically perfect.
That said, there are some basic things to know about the technical aspects of using a camera that will help you get some more creative freedom.
There is a ton of noise in the online photography communities. It can be really hard to cut through. But, in reality there really isn’t that much to know about camera settings. The three basic concepts to understand are shutter speed, aperture, and iso. Each of these change how bright the image will come out. Adjust any of these three until the meter in your camera shows a ‘good’ exposure.
How do you know which settings to adjust? Well, each one has a different effect on the image. This is where you can make technical choices to reinforce your creative goals.
Aperture controls the depth of field. When you focus a lens, then technically there will be a single 2D plane that is in focus. So, if I focus on a wall in front of me, the whole 2D plane of the wall should be in focus (assuming the film/sensor and the wall are parallel). Shallow depth of field means only the plane of focus will appear sharp. This is what happens at wide apertures (like f/2.8). At smaller apertures, things in front and behind the wall will also appear to be sharp even though they aren’t in the plane of focus. So you can use small apertures like f/16 when you want more depth of field (more stuff in front and in back of the plane of focus to appear sharp). Besides diffraction, that is basically all you need to know about aperture. Wide apertures have shallow depth of field and let in more light.
Shutter speed is how long the sensor/film is exposed for. This controls how motion is captured. Long shutter speeds will show motion in the scene or motion of the camera. Very short shutter speeds will freeze motion. If you are hand-holding a camera and want the image to be sharp, I’d start to get worried at shutter speeds less than 1/60 th. These days stabilization can do a lot, but that is where I would start to think about it. If you want to freeze the feathers of a flying bird, then I’d probably want a shutter speed of at least 1/500 th. If you want to take a photo of water flowing, and have it look silky smooth, then get a tripod and aim for shutter speeds of a few seconds. None of these are rules, I’m just trying to give you a bit of intuition. But that is basically it for shutter speed—it controls how motion is rendered.
ISO is the sensitivity/gain of the film/sensor. It doesn’t affect the image as much, but as you go to higher ISOs, then you will get more grain/noise in the image which eventually looks bad. Usually, photographers keep this as low as they can while achieving shutter speeds and apertures appropriate for their goals.
Now, I mentioned that you would adjust all of these parameters until the light meter in your camera says that the exposure is ‘good’. However, how does the camera know what is ‘good’?
Traditionally, a camera’s light meter will measure the amount of light coming in through the lens and try to make it come out 18% gray. So, if your camera is pointed at a white object, it is likely to underexpose the image because it will tell you to choose settings that will make white look like 18% gray. Similarly, if you are shooting a black object, the camera is likely to try and overexpose it. So, in these situations, you can either manually adjust your settings to what you think a more appropriate exposure is, or you can use “exposure compensation” if you are shooting in an automatic mode.
Here is a more advanced exposure technique, but it can be quite useful. Digital sensors tend to have noise in the dark areas. But, they are very unforgiving in the highlights. As soon as the sensor saturates to full brightness, the highlights are “clipped” and you can’t recover that data in post. So, if you want the most flexible file to edit on the computer, I would shoot RAW and “expose to the right” on my histogram. This means I would make the image as bright as possible without clipping any important highlights (your camera should have a highlight warning feature).
Lastly, I would recommend you look at photographers and artists you like for inspiration. Again, the creative aspect is much more important than the technical. It can be difficult to find photographers online who focus more on the creative aspect rather than the gear or technique examples. Personally, I gravitate towards people who are working on more substantial projects like books, shows, or commercial goals. This helps me weed out people who are photography influencers first and photographers second.
Here are some people I like:
Kyle McDougall. Landscape photographer who is currently working in the UK on a project related to WWII infrastructure. He has also published a great book with Subjectivity Objective.
https://youtube.com/@kylemcdougall?si=WM7b3Y3yXHU4aa-V
William Verbeeck
I don’t know him as well. He seems to work with film a lot, and from what I have watched, he is interested in the conceptual side of photography quite a bit.
https://youtube.com/@willemverb?si=bYvxyyvElpCYl2LC
Lewis Baltz
I would really like to own a copy of New Topographics at some point. Baltz is relevant to my own work, but I think this is a nice lecture to see how some people approach photography in the art world.
https://youtu.be/g3zImLqBIBM?si=Nt0I9q1icoNOb3Sf
One fun exercise you can do with your zoom lens is to pick a single focal length and then use a bit of Gaff tape to tape the lens at that focal length. Shoot with it for a whole day like that. Then maybe choose a different focal length another day.
Yes, there will be certain shots that you can’t get to work, but the limitation should help you push your creativity and find new possibilities. That frustration is part of the point of this exercise.