I am new to the scene and wanting to learn it all at breakneck speed..I have purchased a camera with all I need to take the images I want, problem is I am not up to speed with how to do it! For Example: I live in the hills of the Upper Yarra Valley in Victoria, Australia and have many scenic waterfalls and spillways. I am wanting that soft water look that I have seen so many times..is it a matter of trail and error with trialing differant shutter and apature values? I guess this is why I am asking, where do I start? what would be a good starting point for this type of image? I am also wishing to take a still shot of the moon which rises in a colourful boom over the hills in these parts. Again where do I start, I know I need to adjust the "AV" but to what, is this ALL just a matter of trial and error? So I guess I am askin for someone to give me a starting point or and idea on how to "trial and error" without wasting too many rols of film...thanks in advance. The Aussie Bloke. Matrixx.

Try a slow shutter speed for the waterfalls.

Slow shutter speed you say, i kind of already know that much, there is a huge variance from one end of the scale to the next...1/2000 - 20 secs. I am guessing start at 2 secs or so and work up to 10 in 1 second segments. would 2 secs be a good starting point? I am presuming the longer the exposure the softer the water will become to a point where it is no longer effective..just a wash of white! Matrixx

A tripod is essential. First you have to have a starting point. If you want greater depth of field you would start with a small aperture size of maybe f/22 or f/32. With the aperture set......meter your scene and see what the shutter speed your camera recommends. You can vary it from there. It really all depends on the amount of light in your scene. As you vary your shutter speed you would need to compensate for the light by stopping up or down with the aperture size, the same amount of stops as your shutter speed.

You didn't mention if the camera was digital of film? Great thing about digital is trial and error can be a very fast process. For pictures of the moon alone, I've posted a thread last night with one of mine that finally worked. The technical details are listed in the post, and it is a good place to start. Basically, expose moon like something in bright sunlight. Some trial and error is still needed, especially if shooting through neat dust at the horizon, or clouds. The moon with part of the landscape showing is a more difficult story. The moon will be in bright sun, while the landscape is usually quite dark. Best results are around dusk, where everything is more balanced, or if at night, shooting through some clouds. Somewhere around here I think I have a description of how Ansel Adams did some of his landscapes including the moon. If I can find it, I'll post.

The cheap and easiest way; march to local library or book shop and get yourself beginners quide to photography. There are good books and not-so-good books, but almost all of those will give you basic information about techniques you need. How camera works, how objectives work, how different films work.(sounds funny, but you need that information) And when you finally take pics, its the only way to learn, so try different settings, burn that film. If you're seriously trying to be good photographer, its gonna cost you, no matter what. Rate of succesful, "nice" shots are about 10/30 and rate of those perfect shots are about 1/50. But whats the most important thing, youre intrested in photography, and that will lead you far. .n

Thanks for the info folks...I am off to the library first thing in the morning :-)>, it sounds to me I should have outlyed for a digital camera instead of the new Canon EOS. Seems the cost savings in film alone would make up the cost differance pretty quickly. I outlayed $750 for this camera and the digital was an extra 1300+ dollars, and for a guy starting out I could not justify it at the time, although now I see things differantly. Ahh well we all learn by our mistakes...lol...I will upgrade next year to a digital. I should have a much better idea on how things work by then so I could make a ore informed decision. Again thank you all for the input and I will keep you intouch with how it all goes. I have many shots already I am keen to post but there quality is not up to standards in comparison to the images this new camera takes. thanks. Matrixx

I wouldn't think of it as a mistake. (Someone here may take issue) but film still seems to surpass the affordable digitals in quality and versatility. Here I'm talking mostly about available film characteristics. Plus with something like the EOS you can obtain a much wider array of lenses for special applications. The EOS line has been around many years, and are highly evolved. Digitals have a high convenience factor, and you can immediately learn from your mistakes at a low cost. But they come with certain drawbacks. There are lots of debates about digital vs analog, and I'm not really trying to add to them. I just don't want you to beat yourself up about some "mistake" that really isn't a bad decision. I think we'd all like to see some of your older work. The photographer is more important than the camera.

Attached Link: http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/home.html

Alpha, and prizes for D30 on net, 1300$-2100$. Ok, its much, but not astronomical. Few days ago, I red article from famous Finnish nature photographer, he sold his "traditional" Canon and bought that D60. And was happier than ever before. ...must start doing lottery again... .n