Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 4546 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

I have always had a great appreciation for photography, and could spend countless hours roaming the internet looking at all kinds of photography. I have taken some pretty cool photos on my iPhone over the years, but recently I have decided that I'd like to get into photography more seriously and start taking some awesome pictures.

I am starting this thread because aside from my iPhone, I have no photography gear or real experience. I understand the basics of photography such as aperture, ISO, shutter speed, and depth of field. But I am hoping to hear from some of you about cameras that you currently have or recommend (I'd like to get one soon), tips about starting to take better pictures, how you learned as a photographer, etc...

I enjoyed looking at some of the member pictures in the "share your photos" thread, which hasn't been active for a while. Hopefully, this will spark some life into this forum group!

In the Bag:
:titleist: 913 D3 - 9.5* - Diamana Stiff 62g
:mizuno: MP 64s 3-PW - DGS300
:cleveland: CG12 52* & 56*
:tmade: Rosa


  • Administrator
Posted

@butt3r3dt0ast

http://barzeski.com/dslru/e1001.html - DSLRU Buying Guide

http://barzeski.com/dslru/g1001.html - Introduction to Photography

http://barzeski.com/dslru/g1002.html - Introduction to Composition

These were from a site I ran for a little while called DSLRU. Some of the links won't work (the glossary I didn't bother to recover, for example). If you appreciate the work that went into these and find them useful, you can send a few bucks via PayPal to me at erik@barzeski.com.

If you don't, I apologize. :) They're a few years old, but they should still be pretty relevant.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I first started in photography in the 1970's when I bought a Minolta SRT-201 35mm SLR.  I stayed with it until the early 90's, sort of went into snapshot mode for 20 years, then got the bug again in 2010.  With digital photography I had a lot to learn because there are big differences.  3 years later I"m still learning, and probably will be until I can't get out to shoot any more.

I started trying to be serious about it (as a hobbyist, never a consideration to be a pro) again after deciding to get a DSLR.  What I got at the time was Canon T1i with the 18-55mm zoom kit lens.  Over the next year I replaced the kit lens with an EF 17-40 f4.0 L, then replaced that with what I still have, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS.  Then I upgraded the body, and along the way I added to my lens collection.  My current kit is:  Canon 60D body; EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS; EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5, EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro; EF 70-200 f4 L IS; EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro.  At least 75% of my shooting is done with the 17-55 lens.

The other consideration for photography, either as a hobby or as a profession, is post processing.  You will probably reach a point where you want to shoot in the RAW format, and that requires that you obtain and learn to use quality post processing software.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

@butt3r3dt0ast

http://barzeski.com/dslru/e1001.html - DSLRU Buying Guide

http://barzeski.com/dslru/g1001.html - Introduction to Photography

http://barzeski.com/dslru/g1002.html - Introduction to Composition

These were from a site I ran for a little while called DSLRU. Some of the links won't work (the glossary I didn't bother to recover, for example). If you appreciate the work that went into these and find them useful, you can send a few bucks via PayPal to me at erik@barzeski.com.

If you don't, I apologize. :) They're a few years old, but they should still be pretty relevant.

Thanks for the info Erik. Sounds like you were pretty serious about it back then. Are you still big into photography, now that you're so busy with golf-related work and activities? I don't currently have a paypal, but perhaps I should try to set one up.

PS - I ended up going with the Nikon D3200 w/ the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 VR kit lens. I think I'm also going to invest in a 55-200mm lens soon too.

I first started in photography in the 1970's when I bought a Minolta SRT-201 35mm SLR.  I stayed with it until the early 90's, sort of went into snapshot mode for 20 years, then got the bug again in 2010.  With digital photography I had a lot to learn because there are big differences.  3 years later I"m still learning, and probably will be until I can't get out to shoot any more.

I started trying to be serious about it (as a hobbyist, never a consideration to be a pro) again after deciding to get a DSLR.  What I got at the time was Canon T1i with the 18-55mm zoom kit lens.  Over the next year I replaced the kit lens with an EF 17-40 f4.0 L, then replaced that with what I still have, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS.  Then I upgraded the body, and along the way I added to my lens collection.  My current kit is:  Canon 60D body; EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS; EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5, EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro; EF 70-200 f4 L IS; EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro.  At least 75% of my shooting is done with the 17-55 lens.

The other consideration for photography, either as a hobby or as a profession, is post processing.  You will probably reach a point where you want to shoot in the RAW format, and that requires that you obtain and learn to use quality post processing software.

Thanks for sharing FourPutt. I certainly admire your lens collection, especially now that I am aware of how expensive some of these lens can get haha. So far I've just been doing some post-processing in iPhoto. I've read that Aperture is a good mac program to invest in once I get more advanced at processing.

In the Bag:
:titleist: 913 D3 - 9.5* - Diamana Stiff 62g
:mizuno: MP 64s 3-PW - DGS300
:cleveland: CG12 52* & 56*
:tmade: Rosa


Posted

Probably the best program available for photo file management and editing is Adobe Lightroom.  Although there certainly are others, Lightroom not only has some powerful editing tools, but a great file management database, and information and tutorials are widely available.  The big advantage to using an application like LR is that it does non-destructive editing, meaning that the original file is never altered.  LR creates "recipes" detailing all of the steps you take in editing, and applies them for viewing within the program, but only modifies the image when you export a copy.  Your original "negative" is always left as it came out of the camera.

I also use Photoshop Elements when I need to make more extensive changes to an image.  Lightroom will create a copy of an image with the LR edits and send it to Elements, so you still never change the original.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
I've just been using the stock Canon software (DDP) for editing RAW images. It's pretty good but I've never used anything else to compare it too. My tips... Carry two memory cards, especially if you're shooting raw and/or shooting multiple shots at high shutter speeds (wildlife, sports etc). And invest in something that's NOT your computer to back up shots too, like an external hard drive and make sure to use it! I lost 18 months worth of shots due to a careless data backup and am only left with the crap low resolution shots I posted to Facebook.

  • 1 month later...
Posted

I own Capture One, DXO Optics Pro, Photoshop CC and Lightroom 5 for Windows platforms.  Which one is best is dependent on your workflow and what you want to do.  For basic RAW processing and image management you can't beat Lightroom.  If you want to process RAW and get the best possible JPEG results then I'd suggest DXO Optics Pro.  If you want to process RAW files and do major enhancements then I'd suggest Adobe RAW with Photoshop CC.

I just upgraded to a Canon 70D and the RAW files it produces are huge so whatever software you use, you definitely want to have plenty of memory and fast drives (I use a 512GB SSD for all editing and store processed images to external USB 3.0 hard drives).

Joe Paradiso

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4546 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 610 - 2026-06-03 Got some work in between lessons today. Rare late day, teaching until 7:30pm.
    • Let's continue on… Cool. The thing is, nobody's claiming par is "reliable" and par's inclusion piggy-backs in the course rating, which is awfully close to par and, thus, brings par in to make it make sense. Once again, for those in the back… (CR - Par) just makes it really easy to know what kind of score you need to shoot to best, match, or play worse than your handicap index. Yes, when par is different, the players from the higher par tees get an extra stroke (72 vs. 71, the 72s get an extra stroke. That makes sense and is a small complication (more info at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Committee%20Content/USGA/LG_R6d.htm). However, most of the time, this adjustment will not be needed, as many courses play to the same par for the same genders from all sets of tees. And, the rare times it is needed, par (measured in whole numbers, integers) and strokes (also whole numbers/integers) map easily and the idea is easily grasped. Dean seems to be unaware of the fact that most every golfer carries something orders of magnitude more powerful than the highest end desktop computers available the last time he consulted with the USGA in their pockets. While it is quaint that his club puts printouts by the first tee… get with the times, Dean. Look up your handicap index and course handicap in the GHIN app and get on with it. It's a better system than the one that didn't account — at all — for a difference in the playing conditions (via an algorithm, not a judgment). Dean's assertions about the "less precise system because of par" continues to make absolutely zero sense. Right, it still changed tee to tee. Now it just changes differently… and in a way that more accurately reflects the score you need to shoot to play to your handicap. Previously, a 1.1 index would get 1 stroke on a 66.7/122 par-72 course. Now they give four strokes back to the course and must shoot 68 to play to their handicap. This makes way more sense. The 18-shot difference is a pretty extreme example. Maybe a long course that also offers a par-three set of tees could play that long, but… man, that's not going to be super common. Sensationalistic much, Dean? Also, once those unhappy (complete assumption) golfers realize a) what the change shows them (playing to net par = playing to your index) and b) realizes that their differential is going to be the same… I think they'll get over their initial questions. No. And yet… if he shoots the same scores, he'll get the same handicap index he has now. But he'll know on each course what score he needs to shoot to "play to his handicap." Sheesh, Dean. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out. Enough with the sensationalistic stuff. I don't find it "unacceptable" at all. Then again, I'm not nearly 80 and seemingly incapable of doing basic math these days. No. This literally makes no sense, as that part of the differential calculation and the course handicap calculation remains identical. Good! No. Categorically wrong. They should have been adjusting their handicaps all along. Previously it was by subtracting the course ratings. Which… is still basically what's done, with the addition of the course rating being "baked in" to the course handicap calculation. Dean is wrong here, or doing some math heretofore unknown by the world. When par is the same, what determines the difference in handicaps? The course rating, which Dean loves! Sheesh! You had to things when players were in situations like this before, too. This is getting exhausting. He keeps using words like "less precise" and "unfair" but does not seem to understand what they mean. This is like the Princess Bride meme: "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The caps reduce upward movement. Committees have reign to reduce a player's handicap, and there's still an automatic Exceptional Score Reduction. I'm going through these more quickly now because… well, it's silly how badly Dean misses the mark with this blog post. Dean is literally confusing the upward movement (with the soft and hard caps) here with the exceptional score reduction which is used when lowering handicaps due to an exceptionally good score. The creators of the WHS are handicap experts. They know more about the current state of handicaps/handicapping than the Pope Emeritus. It's been shown to have almost no effect across all handicaps. Yes, some 36s under the old system are now 35s under the new system. Yawn. He should have stopped there. It's easier to apply and makes more sense. This makes no sense. It's "not complex" but players will have to guess? And, for men or women, the stroke index of each hole doesn't change because they play a different set of tees. They get a different number of strokes, but it's always been true that when you get 14 strokes you apply a stroke to stroke index holes 1-14, and when you get 11, to just holes with a SI of 1-11. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dean's just out here continuing to make shit up about "the inaccuracy of par" and ignoring that with Par (an integer) came the Course Rating, which he agrees is precise and accurate. No. No, this is inaccurate. Also, as noted, you can randomly assign stroke indexes, and so long as all the low numbers or all the high numbers are not clumped together at the beginning or ends of the 18 holes, matches generally work out the same. This is inaccurate. It is an algorithm that looks at scores. That's it. Also, this is better than a system like the prior one where no such thing existed at all. Wildly inaccurate and off-base. Did they do actual testing? No need. They have millions and millions of rounds and ran many, many, many simulations. That's testing. Dean seems to continue to be unaware of the fact that computers are more powerful now than they were in 2002. But, he's nearly 80, so we can understand if not going so far as to give him a pass on how much he gets wrong. Cool. Noted. For the most part that was because many countries haven't been able to rate enough of their courses. :sigh:
    • Day 3 (3 Jun 26) - More work on keeping arms connected today - hard foam balls with 7i and 5w…..
    • Day 274 6-3 flow drill getting chest through, arms in front. Arms get a little pinned to the side, not as much in front as I want them when I add speed. 
    • Shot 48 yesterday.  For me bogey golf is good.  I was 10 over through 7 and figured with a Par 3 and 4 coming on all I needed was birdie / par to get my 45. I had a great tee shot on #8 and sunk  a 5 footer for birdie, game was coming together, now just needed par on #9. Had a great tee drive and the green was within range for a hoped GIR or nGIR.  But I pulled the shot left into tall weeds and needed to take a drop.  So much for par, but a bogey for 46 is still good for me. I hit my lob wedge to get over a small tree and saw the ball riding nicely  on line to the pin when my club hit the ball a 2nd time on my follow through causing the ball to change directions and ended up @ pin high but along the same tall weeds I just took an unplayable out of.  had no room for a backswing, Just hacked at it and it shot across the green to the rough on the far side.  Needed a chip & 1 putt got a triple bogey. you can see the hole fall apart in the screenshot below.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.