4 ms·
If you know of better books it would be a nice idea to put them on your comment (bashing is good, but giving alternatives is better). For instance, I dived in
by hk_kh 14y ago
If you know of better books it would be a nice idea to put them on your comment (bashing is good, but giving alternatives is better).
For instance, I dived in the technical basics of my old SLR with this book I found at my parent's house: Photography - the guide to technique by Andrew Hawkins, Dennis Avon [1].
This is probably an outdated and now useless guide, but answered me many questions I had when I started.
[1] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photography-Guide-Technique-Andrew-Hawkins/dp/071370909X http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photography-Guide-Technique-Andrew-H...
- dr42 14y agoI deliberately avoided suggesting alternatives because I think the best advice for a beginner is to stop with all the pretentious 'arty' photo techniques and take snapshots. But, if pressed, I would suggest this book. http://www.amazon.com/Photography-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192801643 http://www.amazon.com/Photography-Very-Short-Introduction-In... Most colleges have continuing education classes in photography. Stanford for example, I know does.
- danso 14y agoHeh, I think it's funny you and I are in disagreement...I see myself as being on the opposite end of the "artsy" spectrum since that wasn't highly valued at the newspaper. Obviously, photos I take on my own are loosened up but I lean towards realism. Not using a flash is a deliberate decision to preserve as much of the lighting in a dark scene, even at the risk of underexposure or excess ambient light from a slow shutter speed. Anyway, the book you recommend is not a bad one, but on a brief skim, it's more about the history and place of photography than snapshot technique. I don't disagree that that has worth, it's just not what I'm aiming for in my admittedly brief guide.