Reviewing digital images shot with your first camera

[Shadowman]

When you look back at your green years, received your first digital camera, do you check your exif data as you analyze how far you've advanced over the years? And when you do analyze old shots, do you have an immediate response on how you would have handled taking the shot?

[AB26]

I have never done that but I am going to do it right now. I will report back after the exercise.

[Manfred M]

I actually find that the biggest difference is the camera performance especially with respect to colour depth and dynamic range. "Blinkies" when shooting the sky were once much more common than they are now. My photographic skills have improved with practice, but I still got some very nice images about 10 years ago with my Canon Powershot S40.

These are some images from Tibet:



Monk's shoes





Mt Everest taken from Base Camp:




Prayer Wheels:

[Shadowman]

I started with the Nikon D60, still use it but have a D5200 also. When I took this shot, I had so many things I wanted "the camera to do". I wanted a very sharp image, I wanted pleasing colors (tended to underexpose to achieve this), and I wanted to be able to create effects or show particular detail, such as the rain drops in this image. I was also afraid of using a high ISO for fear of noise. Image shot with 70-300mm lens at 300, f/5.6, 1/20s, ISO 100, aperture priority mode.



Looking back, I probably could have gotten a sharper image if I had shot at 1/60s (and maintained the clarity of the raindrops) and used a higher ISO.

When I originally posted this image I gave it a title. In honor of Jack and the discussion we and forum members have been having about the use of titles, I present the image sans title.


To title, or not to title: that is the question

[AB26]

I do things a little different now. More aware of composition and background.
This was shot with my HP PhotoSmart C850. (18 April 2004)



The keepers are getting more now.

[drjuice]

Hi, John (aka Shadowman) -

To start, I used film for 30 years before I got my first digital camera (a PnS Canon Powershot that recorded things on a teeny disk). I now have more than 20 years under my belt with six different digital cameras (first two were Canon, third was Kodak 215, then Sony V-1, W-90, and now my Sony alpha700). I think I've mentioned before that the reason I went with the alpha700 was because I could use my kit from two Minolta Maxxams with the Sony which would save having to buy several thousand $$ worth of flash and lenses.

The chief difference I see is that I spend much more time on framing and otherwise paying attention to what's in the picture, including things like making sure people aren't blocking each other, no untoward shadows are showing in the image, people are smiling or not (as appropriate), hair isn't freakishly flying around, nobody's dribbled on his tie, etc. I also find that, in spite of the fact that I basically don't have to buy another roll of film on which to record my results, I'm taking fewer pictures of higher quality. And, finally, though I always try to compose in the camera, I am learning a bit about my photographic equivalent of a darkroom (PED) which does not include Photoshop or any other members of the Adobe creative suite.

For example, when our lab team got its annual picture taken, I needed to be in the picture so I gave the camera to another person. Of course, I couldn't look to see what I had framed up. One short person was standing "out of the light" because a quite tall person was standing to her right. So, I needed to mask out all the surrounding folks who were find so I could lighten up the short person so she didn't look like somebody who got pasted into the picture!

I'm jes' sayin'....

virginia

[Shadowman]

Hi, John (aka Shadowman) -

To start, I used film for 30 years before I got my first digital camera (a PnS Canon Powershot that recorded things on a teeny disk). I now have more than 20 years under my belt with six different digital cameras (first two were Canon, third was Kodak 215, then Sony V-1, W-90, and now my Sony alpha700). I think I've mentioned before that the reason I went with the alpha700 was because I could use my kit from two Minolta Maxxams with the Sony which would save having to buy several thousand $$ worth of flash and lenses.

The chief difference I see is that I spend much more time on framing and otherwise paying attention to what's in the picture, including things like making sure people aren't blocking each other, no untoward shadows are showing in the image, people are smiling or not (as appropriate), hair isn't freakishly flying around, nobody's dribbled on his tie, etc. I also find that, in spite of the fact that I basically don't have to buy another roll of film on which to record my results, I'm taking fewer pictures of higher quality. And, finally, though I always try to compose in the camera, I am learning a bit about my photographic equivalent of a darkroom (PED) which does not include Photoshop or any other members of the Adobe creative suite.

For example, when our lab team got its annual picture taken, I needed to be in the picture so I gave the camera to another person. Of course, I couldn't look to see what I had framed up. One short person was standing "out of the light" because a quite tall person was standing to her right. So, I needed to mask out all the surrounding folks who were find so I could lighten up the short person so she didn't look like somebody who got pasted into the picture!

I'm jes' sayin'....

virginia

Virginia,

Very nice summary.

[Shadowman]

I do things a little different now. More aware of composition and background.
This was shot with my HP PhotoSmart C850. (18 April 2004)



The keepers are getting more now.

What would you do differently, if anything, besides composition?

[rpcrowe]

My first digital camera was an Olympus 2020 (2 mp) and my second was an Olympus 5050 (5 mp). The imagery from these two cameras was O.K. but did not come near matching the imagery from my first DSLR: a Canon 10D with 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens Which, BTW, was only 6mp.

[dan marchant]

Yes, I look back at my old shots fairly regularly. When I learn new post processing techniques I often think back over which images would benefit - and also thinking about those images I didn't like which might benefit from my new knowledge. As a result I am often looking at old shots and shuddering in shame.

Aperture seemed to be my main failing. Many many shots taken with far too small an Aperture, with resulting too slow shutter speed/blur.

[AB26]

What would you do differently, if anything, besides composition?

So many things have changed. The HP was basically a P&S with Manual settings.

Using a long lens with a wide aperture would get the background OOF. Using a tripod will help getting a sharper image (the tripod would almost be a must with a long lens). Shooting at a different time of day will give much better light. Using manual WB will render better colour.

The difference between the HP and the Nikon is so big it is an unfair comparison, probably the reason I do not go back and compare shots. What I do do is going back to the first shots I took with the Nikon and compare that to what I am doing now.

[Black Pearl]

I got my first digital camera in 2001 - a Canon PowerShot A20 but I had been taking pictures since the 70's so it wasn't really a starting point. It didn't last long anyway being upgraded to a G3 which was a fantastic camera though I still had and still shot film in numerous SLR's and compacts so I didn't treat it any differently or use it to take pictures in a new way.
I suppose I could look back at the EXIF (though I'd prefer to go and look at a couple of prints I still have hanging on the wall that were taken with it) but all that would tell me was I shot mostly on aperture priority with some manual override - in other words what I was doing with film and what I still do now.

Since then the changes have been that the equipment and the technology associated with has allowed me to be more creative, experiment with new techniques and shoot things I simply couldn't have done with my early gear. I would hope I have honed my skills and that my picture taking has improved but I have enlargements on the walls from years and years ago that I still love and had I taken them last week I'd imagine they would be compositionally identicle.

The other thing in my case is I was working in the photography trade at the time digital reared its head so I had chance to use everything, right from the very earliest cameras to hit the market. I saw how they evolved and went from an evil that photographers both amateur and professional wished had never been created, thought would die in a very short time and wouldn't go near with another persons barge pole to a normal day-to-day way of taking pictures. It astonished me at the time how many people hated - and I do mean hated - digital cameras. Many of my long term customers would call in for a chat on a weekly basis (photography is a hobby for many and people love to natter about it) and quite often they would be purple with rage at how rubbish digital was, how it wasn't real photography, how they had owned their camera for years and it was better than anything digital could ever achieve and how real photographers used film and always would.

Things change and now digital is so main stream that people using film are looked upon as a bit weird. I still have and occasionally use a film camera just for the fun of it. Last time I showed my youngest aged five how to use a SLR but he simply couldn't understand why he wasn't able to see the picture straight away.

The good thing about digital photography is it has brought the fun of making pictures to a wider audience. It is a far more accessible process than film was and I think this is where and why you get a disparity in users. Forums are split (in the roughest way and don't take this in a negative way) between members who have been photographers for years and those to whome a modern DSLR IS their experience of photography.

Digital may be a new (ish) medium but it is still just photography.

[Shadowman]

I got my first digital camera in 2001 - a Canon PowerShot A20 but I had been taking pictures since the 70's so it wasn't really a starting point. It didn't last long anyway being upgraded to a G3 which was a fantastic camera though I still had and still shot film in numerous SLR's and compacts so I didn't treat it any differently or use it to take pictures in a new way.
I suppose I could look back at the EXIF (though I'd prefer to go and look at a couple of prints I still have hanging on the wall that were taken with it) but all that would tell me was I shot mostly on aperture priority with some manual override - in other words what I was doing with film and what I still do now.

Since then the changes have been that the equipment and the technology associated with has allowed me to be more creative, experiment with new techniques and shoot things I simply couldn't have done with my early gear. I would hope I have honed my skills and that my picture taking has improved but I have enlargements on the walls from years and years ago that I still love and had I taken them last week I'd imagine they would be compositionally identicle.

The other thing in my case is I was working in the photography trade at the time digital reared its head so I had chance to use everything, right from the very earliest cameras to hit the market. I saw how they evolved and went from an evil that photographers both amateur and professional wished had never been created, thought would die in a very short time and wouldn't go near with another persons barge pole to a normal day-to-day way of taking pictures. It astonished me at the time how many people hated - and I do mean hated - digital cameras. Many of my long term customers would call in for a chat on a weekly basis (photography is a hobby for many and people love to natter about it) and quite often they would be purple with rage at how rubbish digital was, how it wasn't real photography, how they had owned their camera for years and it was better than anything digital could ever achieve and how real photographers used film and always would.

Things change and now digital is so main stream that people using film are looked upon as a bit weird. I still have and occasionally use a film camera just for the fun of it. Last time I showed my youngest aged five how to use a SLR but he simply couldn't understand why he wasn't able to see the picture straight away.

The good thing about digital photography is it has brought the fun of making pictures to a wider audience. It is a far more accessible process than film was and I think this is where and why you get a disparity in users. Forums are split (in the roughest way and don't take this in a negative way) between members who have been photographers for years and those to whome a modern DSLR IS their experience of photography.

Digital may be a new (ish) medium but it is still just photography.

I stated digital as the starting point because of its method of archiving of data (exif). You can analyze a photograph shot with film and guesstimate what settings you used, or by knowledge of the film camera's capabilities, but I doubt if most of us would have documented camera settings shot with film. When I used to shoot film, it was either ISO 100 or 400 film, aperture was usually fixed, and shutter speeds were the only other variable available.

[Andrew1]

Still using the first digital camera I ever owned. While I've got a better handle on the camera, I don't find much has changed in the photography methods I apply. Subjects and experimental methods come along for the ride once in awhile but the entrenched skills I've learned stay around as the constant. I switch back to film on occasion and it's a seamless practice. The only upside is that my wife doesn't complain anymore when I take many shots of the same thing. They are free now, right?

When learning the basics long ago I did keep logs of settings when I thought they may be needed. Having that little bit of information for the shots taken in the evenings, multiple shots of the same subject, trying something new, all helped at the beginning for my education. My notes were rather more extensive in the darkroom where there were far more variables to be considered.

As a side benefit of paying attention to the data of those shots and learning through the experiences I still shoot pretty much entirely in manual. Keeping and practicing those skill matters to me.

I can honestly say I have not looked at the exif data of photos I have taken over the years since after the first six months of use. It doesn't tell me much I need to know. The photo does, and that's where I start from.

[RustBeltRaw]

The first digital camera I used was a tiny point-and-shoot my dad bought for something like $1,200. It had less than 2MP, auto modes only, and roughly 90 minutes of battery life. When I say "used," I mean that I took a test shot and immediately went back to the 35mm Pentax Spotmatic II I was learning on. As an easily-distracted whippersnapper (roughly 12 at the time), I didn't take to it that well.

Then my dad upgraded to the original Canon Digital Rebel, one of the first DSLRs below $1,000. I swiped it (and the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens) about 2 years ago when I started urban exploration, and got serious last year. But some of my favorite shots (all lower-ISO stuff) came from the Rebel.



I actually returned to re-make this shot with my 18MP 60D and a RAW work flow. Ultimately, the result wasn't as much improved as I thought, and exactly recreating one's old work with only technical improvements is pretty pointless, so my heart wasn't in it. So, even for this huge nerd, the technical advantages were not sufficient to justify the effort of returning with a better camera.

On the other hand, my current work would be nearly impossible with only the Rebel. Flash controls and high-ISO performance have come quite a long way since 2000.

Robin, I think your post was excellent, and I'd like to expand a few points.

...how rubbish digital was, how it wasn't real photography, how they had owned their camera for years and it was better than anything digital could ever achieve and how real photographers used film and always would.

I think these people had a point until digital cracked roughly 6MP. Earlier for journalism and other quick-turnaround applications. Film remains the best way to make truly huge images. Which is a concern for probably one photographer out of every few thousand.

Things change and now digital is so main stream that people using film are looked upon as a bit weird. I still have and occasionally use a film camera just for the fun of it.

I think it's far more common (and sensible) to stick with film because of the way it makes you work rather than any quality differences. Greg Heisler probably doesn't need an 11x14in negative for most of his photos, but that's his process, and he sticks to it. My digital cameras still get the most use, but I like the slower workflow my dad's Zenza Bronica ETR-Si requires. So much that I asked my favorite used gear store to keep an eye out for a Sinar F2 (4x5in large-format studio camera). Glutton for punishment, apparently.

Digital may be a new (ish) medium but it is still just photography.

Quoted for truth. Composition, timing, and aesthetics will never depend on the camera you're using.

[Black Pearl]

Sorry John I wasn't being negative I just started to ramble and it got away from me.....I do that sometimes when my train of thought is side-tracked or I get to thinking about something.

[Shadowman]

The first digital camera I used was a tiny point-and-shoot my dad bought for something like $1,200. It had less than 2MP, auto modes only, and roughly 90 minutes of battery life. When I say "used," I mean that I took a test shot and immediately went back to the 35mm Pentax Spotmatic II I was learning on. As an easily-distracted whippersnapper (roughly 12 at the time), I didn't take to it that well.

Then my dad upgraded to the original Canon Digital Rebel, one of the first DSLRs below $1,000. I swiped it (and the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens) about 2 years ago when I started urban exploration, and got serious last year. But some of my favorite shots (all lower-ISO stuff) came from the Rebel.



I actually returned to re-make this shot with my 18MP 60D and a RAW work flow. Ultimately, the result wasn't as much improved as I thought, and exactly recreating one's old work with only technical improvements is pretty pointless, so my heart wasn't in it. So, even for this huge nerd, the technical advantages were not sufficient to justify the effort of returning with a better camera.

On the other hand, my current work would be nearly impossible with only the Rebel. Flash controls and high-ISO performance have come quite a long way since 2000.

Robin, I think your post was excellent, and I'd like to expand a few points.


I think these people had a point until digital cracked roughly 6MP. Earlier for journalism and other quick-turnaround applications. Film remains the best way to make truly huge images. Which is a concern for probably one photographer out of every few thousand.


I think it's far more common (and sensible) to stick with film because of the way it makes you work rather than any quality differences. Greg Heisler probably doesn't need an 11x14in negative for most of his photos, but that's his process, and he sticks to it. My digital cameras still get the most use, but I like the slower workflow my dad's Zenza Bronica ETR-Si requires. So much that I asked my favorite used gear store to keep an eye out for a Sinar F2 (4x5in large-format studio camera). Glutton for punishment, apparently.


Quoted for truth. Composition, timing, and aesthetics will never depend on the camera you're using.

You could always return at night.

[Shadowman]

Sorry John I wasn't being negative I just started to ramble and it got away from me.....I do that sometimes when my train of thought is side-tracked or I get to thinking about something.

Robin,

I didn't take it negatively, I just wanted a starting point that everyone on the forum could relate to and had a method to determine what they could do differently.

[RustBeltRaw]

You could always return at night.

...That is a really good idea. (Un?)fortunately, this building is under renovation for apartment/retail use, so I'm too late. And construction sites tend to have active security.

[Shadowman]

...That is a really good idea. (Un?)fortunately, this building is under renovation for apartment/retail use, so I'm too late. And construction sites tend to have active security.

There's always this to consider.

Trespassers Checklist: Related to thread below...

However, I wouldn't recommend it, security guards aren't like they used to be, friendly neighborhood guys just trying to make a dollar; who only wanted to keep the kids away from danger.