Is this photography course bundle worth it?

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by Nebell, Jul 9, 2018.

  1. Nebell

    Nebell [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,207
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
  2. northrop

    northrop grumman

    Messages:
    9,151
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    I know I would never sit through all of that. You will learn more by doing and experimenting, than having peolpe tell you on a screen about the correct exposure. You can probably find all of that stuff on YouTube for free anyway, though it will take some time to find the correct content. Personally, I wouldn't bother with it, despite this amazing discount, but that's just me.

    Speaking of which, what do you currently use to edit your photos and what difficulties are you having with it?
     
  3. UnknownSouljer

    UnknownSouljer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,527
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    If I'm going to spend money on any course, then I better know whats in it and also who is teaching it. If I haven't heard of them, then honestly I'm not going to bother.
    If it's not from a leader in the industry whose work I respect, then it isn't likely that they'll be able to teach me something that like northrop notes, can't be found from just looking at Youtube.

    So, I wouldn't go as far as to say "never", but it would take a bit.
     
  4. dvsman

    dvsman [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,652
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    I'm not sure if anyone has suggested this yet but when I first started taking pictures, I went to my inspiration for info - namely National Geographic. Reading my grandpa's Nat Geo magazines as a kid was really what got me into picture taking in the first place and I found this book to be a really helpful and handy reference.

    https://shop.nationalgeographic.com/collections/books-photography/products/national-geographic-complete-photography

    That combined with a bunch of youtube videos - Fro Knows, Tony + Chelsea Northrop, Matt Granger and more that I can't remember really will get you on your way. As UnknownSouljer was saying - no point in paying without knowing if they will be worth it or not.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018 at 3:47 PM
  5. Nebell

    Nebell [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,207
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    There's a lot of stuff on YouTube that can be used for learning, but I find those videos to be disorganized and the big part of teaching someone is doing it right. Most YouTubers are not very pedagogic.
    I did not buy the bundle in the OP.
    But I did go to udemy.com and bought some Photoshop, Lightroom and photography courses (after reading the reviews).
     
  6. Anh N.

    Anh N. Gawd

    Messages:
    608
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Don't forget the free Creative Live, if you have the spare time to catch them live. :)
     
  7. UnknownSouljer

    UnknownSouljer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,527
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    It's true that there won't be a lot of systematic learning on Youtube. And you do have to figure out how to integrate things together. However, it can fill in spaces where you have gaps. I suppose the idea is that you do your work and run into a particular roadblock, then try and figure out that roadblock. Then continue to do work. Generally this is how we all learn. And I would argue you'll learn far more from doing then from anything sitting around.
     
  8. Nebell

    Nebell [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,207
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Definitely, I'm not saying YouTube is useless, but I think that I will use it as you describe it, to fill in the gaps.
    I already have some skill in Photoshop, although it's a complex application and there are many parts I didn't touch as I didn't need them. I'm hoping that I will get some insight into other parts. Lightroom is something I just started using after I got the camera. I like the cloud version, it's has a rather simple interface which is easy to use.
    I picked up some creativity courses, like how to spot photo opportunities before they appear and the art of seeing photography.
    Not sure if all those things can be learned, but some parts will definitely help me get better understanding of the creative part, not just technical.
     
  9. UnknownSouljer

    UnknownSouljer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,527
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    True. All art is two major aspects like we talked about in the other thread, the technical and the art based. I would say even if you pay for it, it's really hard to find good courses specifically on the art aspect of it.
    You'll run through the same videos (whether free on Youtube or paid) that basically will tell you the same stuff: rule of thirds, golden spiral (fibonacci spiral), get closer, foreground/mid-ground/background, use your feet, etc. Then for people you'll see the cinema terms of basically tightness to looseness in framing. Some courses will teach some basic posing techniques.

    I won't say I've seen it all, but experience I'll still say is the best teacher. And there is wide variance between what different photographers are trying to accomplish. So often times their style isn't my style. So even if the knowledge is useful for some it isn't useful for me. I generally prefer to not spend a bunch of time posing, I'd rather spend a bunch of time trying to get my subject comfortable. But if you work in weddings, it's all posing and system and speed. Very different techniques, very different skillsets. So I say all this to say, that even with this stuff experience will be the best teacher.

    If your goal is to shoot people, find a subject that's just willing to allow you to shoot and experiment and take your time. And tell them that. Tell them that you're trying to learn and see what works and what doesn't. Then take your time. I think one of the things that opened my mind here was to try getting a variety of shots. Try things that are very close and then try things mid range then try things very far away. Generally speaking by just doing this you'll end up with at least a handful of shots that are different from a single photo shoot that will be useful. When you're working with a subject, whether human or otherwise, slow down. Think about why you're shooting what you're shooting. Think about what it is you're trying to capture. The obvious is: "well, I'm trying to photograph this person". But the critical thinking is about what makes that person interesting. Is it their hands, that expression, where they are, and on down the line. What is it that you're trying to accentuate? What is it that you're trying to minimize? How do you take the photos so that people don't see what you don't want them to see?

    For landscape and architecture it's much the same way. Try walking around your subject. Try looking up at it. Try looking down at it. Try adding other pieces of useful information in the foreground. Try shooting it from an abstract perspective. How much or how little information given can make a subject interesting. Think think think. If you've never thought about what you're shooting, then you're shooting too fast. Shooting more won't make any given shot better. Spraying and praying will very rarely net you a good result, though I admit you might get a decent frame. However it won't get you to a place in which you're consistently good. Thinking about the process is probably the single key that opens up everything else. That and truly knowing your tools inside and out, forwards and backwards. The technical aspect should be effortless. The artistic aspect should be where all the thought is placed. This is the reason why people prefer certain cameras like Leicas. The goal is to get the camera out of the way so you can focus on the picture (and to be clear, by "get out of the way" I mean, be able to quickly manipulate the camera settings to get the technical aspects of the photo that you want quickly).

    Right now both the technical and the artistic will take time for you. And that's fine. That's where you are in the learning process and there is nothing wrong with that. Just be mindful and try to have a reason behind all the shots you're taking. You're already figuring out a lot of stuff. I can see solid things coming out of the shots you're taking.
     
  10. Nebell

    Nebell [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,207
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    I really appreciate your support. You always give me a detailed opinion on everything.

    Are those teleconverters worth it? Like, I found some converter that could make me 24-105 a macro lens. I'd really like a 70+ macro lens for those insects, 90+ would be ideal. Sonys own cost €1000 so I'd rather buy a macro converter.
     
  11. UnknownSouljer

    UnknownSouljer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,527
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Macro is literally a specialization in itself. Product photographers as an example might not shoot with any other lens than a macro lens in their whole career.

    My mindset is generally to focus on the things I can do and not do the things I can't do until I can do them right. Which generally is costly. I don't think that the macro filters that either use optics or reverse the lens are worth anything. But Macro Extension tubes are "okay". They won't get you what a dedicated macro lens will. But they will open up macro distances with whatever lenses you have available. Worth it? Eye of the beholder. Cheap and reasonably effective? Sure, why not.

    (Siderant): Unfortunately Sony's specialization lenses suck compared to other brands (they have no tilt shifts as an example, they don't even really have a fully built out prime set). Canon has half a dozen macro lenses in different price brackets and focal lengths. Sony only has the 90mm which is "acceptable" but costs a ton. Sadly, it might be less money to adapt a Canon lens onto a Sony body than to buy that thing. And considering that most of the time for macro you have to manually focus anyway, adapting is probably not a big loss.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018 at 3:36 AM
  12. Nebell

    Nebell [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,207
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    There's a 50mm f2. 8 macro lens as well which costs half of that 90mm, but I figured that 50mm on full frame is not the best choice if you want to photograph insects. So maybe get this:
    http://www.kenkoglobal.com/photo/le.../kenko_dg_extension_tube_set_sony_e_full.html

    Sweden unfortunately is not the most interesting place to photograph landscape. The nearest waterfall is some 450km (around 300 miles) from where I live.
    There is no dramatic landscape anywhere. It's all flat.
    There's a bunch of lakes, but once you've seen one, you've seen them all.
    I found most fun just biking around and photographing random stuff in the city.
    I think I picked the wrong choice what I want to photograph based on where I live :)
    But I still have a lot of fun both learning and being outside taking pictures of random stuff.
    And I find use for both 12-24mm and 24-105mm lenses! Good choices!
    I'm also getting a good understanding of that A7R III. The second book I bought is specialized in that camera and has detailed explanation of what every setting does. About half way through the book.

    I also need to try nightsky photography (another fun activity that more often than not doesn't work in Sweden as it's often cloudy here).