digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Small Budget Photography

ifakedit.com — Ever want to do some photography work without spending a lot of money? Looking for a cheap lighting solution? Buying your first camera or SLR? Find out how to do it all as cheap as possible.

Who dugg this? Made popular Nov 8, 2005

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

28 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • The_Goose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you're really on a budget, consider using The Gimp instead of Photoshop. It's free, and available for Windows, Unix/Linux & Mac OS X. Put the money saved into better/more lenses.
  • emag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For some of the things mentioned, I've seen other photograrhers recommend them (or other alternatives) as well. Especially the worklights.

    For reflectors, someone suggested using those foldable/collapsible car sunshades, preferably with a white side and a silver side. True, not as cheap as a T-shirt, but I like the idea of being able to have both diffuse (white) and non-diffuse (silver/gold) reflectors as one. Trouble for me is, I came across the suggestion just a few weeks ago in a book, and let me tell you, finding a decent selection of sunshades at this time of year in North America is difficult...

    As for flashes, most of the better digital SLRs "should" be able to act as a master for an external remote flash unit (at least, my Nikon does), so you can try getting away with just a single remote flash by making use of the on-board as well.

    I also agree with punx45 about the lens being *the* most important part of the image-capturing experience. It's literally the one thing between your subject and the capture media (be it film or an image sensor), so it's really the one thing that can totally screw up an otherwise great image. Of course, filters play a role here too, but a hugely-distorting lens will generally be worse than even a cheap filter.

    And I have to say I'm glad to see no one's gotten into the whole "gimp sucks" refrain yet (maybe I'm too optimistic). I'm still learning how to modify images, and while every single book out there seems to concentrate on Photoshop these days, for me it's not an option (even ignoring expense, as I've got maybe a half-dozen different CDs "free" with various Photoshop/Photoshop Elements versions), as Adobe doesn't feel my platform of choice is worth supporting. *shrug* Just a little more work to translate from Photoshop-speak to GIMP-speak.
  • diggbrian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great digg... Good tips for saving money.
  • sufferingant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1indeed good read, showing some of the more basic things you need. Goes into depth for each one.
  • sparty1969, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good Stuff. The work light idea is great. I want to do a cheap studio setup but "real" lights are way out of my $$$ range.

    Someone mentioned GIMP. That's a good Photo Shop alternative (if I can figure out how it all works). I DIG IT!
  • punx45, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah, i would say the only point i agreed with was using worklights in place of studio lights. studio lights are not all the same, but some are very similar to work lights.

    speaking from experience, the lens is *the most important* piece of equipment a photographer can own. to use a computer analogy, haveing a good camera with a cheap lens would be like have a killer system with poor video memory, games would still look like crap.

    and in the world of digital, the right camera is important too. so going cheap on that can be just as bad.

    i shoot with a canon 10D that i got used on ebay, and a 28-135 3.5-5.6 image stabilized lens. both for around a grand. that, in my opinion, is small budget photography.
  • nugget, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I found it a good read. I am not a photo buff or anything but I thought it was a good crash course type article.
  • jkearney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1good read.

    +dugg
  • emag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1scblock: yes, everyone gets hung up on digital, but that's because it has some advantages over film. Namely, the ability to experiment and take literally orders of magnitude more photos without much, if any, additional cost. It basically provides a good safety net for those who *don't* know what they're doing, allowing them to try new techniques and hone their skills. Plus, you get near-instant feedback once the shutter's released, so if you've under/overexposed something, you can (optionally) delete it, and take a new picture immediately.

    That being said, still nothing beats film for resolution yet, especially in the consumer arena. I know though, that I'll probably end up getting a film SLR at some point, now that I've been playing with a digital SLR for about a year. I'm even tempted to try finding a nice used medium-format camera at some point to try my hand at "real" landscape photography.

    But right now the cost and especially the space requirements for developing my own film, loading my own rolls, etc, are just too much for this already too-small apartment I'm in. Maybe sometime after I finally get around to getting a house (c'mon bubble, burst, damn it!), I'll have the space to set up a place where I can play with chemicals (and keep the cats out of).

    But I never would have gotten the bug at all if it hadn't been for digital and wanting to upgrade from my floppy-based Mavica to something "neater". Yeah, going with a pro-sumer dSLR probably can't even claim to be anywhere near "budget", but it's gotten me hooked on trying to perfect what little skill I have, and to try the analog versions at some point.

    (Plus it was kind of amusing at the last wedding I went to that the "professional" photographers there seemed really put out that a guest had such a camera. At least, I can only assume they were put out, as viewing the pictures they took, everyone else @ the table I was at was in at least 3-4 shots, and I was in a single shot in the background... despite being at the table when they came by on their rounds... :-) )
  • directedition, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Small Budget and SLR can not be spoken in the same sentence.
  • tryferos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dang, IHaveIssues is dead on the money...she is smoldering hot
  • jkearney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0damn html strips, i said "she is hotter" with an arrow pointing to that link above
  • zone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0really nice girl in the leaves.. i mean tips! tips!
  • Dsawan, on 03/31/2009, -0/+0www.pressprints.org : A picture is worth a thousand words
  • marty0577, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am a photographer; i would say, dont be cheap, there are plenty of good buys out there. Look for what you need as a photographer not what the max is that you could buy.
  • scblock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not much about this is low budget. Like the guy who has the EOS 10D + lens for about a grand. That's not low budget.

    Here is low budget:
    Used manual focus film SLR (ebay, local sale, etc): $50
    50mm lens: With SLR hopefully, or about $25 on ebay
    Black & white film: $2.50 a roll on adorama, or roll your own for less
    Developing tank: $20
    Chemicals: $20

    Then you choose whether you want prints or to put pictures on the internet or both.

    For prints its easiest to find a local school or university with a darkroom and pay the fees to use it. They are generally pretty reasonable, and paper is cheap.

    For the internet, a $130 epson scanner will do quite nicely.

    Everyone gets so hung up on digital but its really awfully expensive. You can get a lot more out of your money with the older, cheaper used equipment, and its often nicer stuff anyways.
  • IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0who is that girl in the leaves? I want to make sweet love to her.
  • jkearney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0^you and me both
  • jkearney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.ifakedit.com/piece/297
  • Ptah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Very nice read. I'll probably adopt some (or all) of the ideas!
  • lulujones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Cheap is the new Expensive! Personally, I really like the photography. I think it's creative and original. It's always interesting to me how other people achieve their results using Photoshop.

    I digg cheap!
  • hans863, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I must say, this is a good read digg++. The only thing is that this guy is sheit at photoshop. I cannot believe he read a book about photoshop. Anyone can apply a layer, but this guy applies the wrong layers for the pictures.
  • Capand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i liked some of his photography, but most of what he was showing off in his gallery i just didnt like. I just don't like that hugely ugly, overly saturated, over-usage of curves and levels type photography which is what nearly every single one of his pictures looks like...

    I like the idea of low budget but i think some of the suggestions he makes are too biased towards teh type of photography he tries to accomplish. Most photographers would like to use different lenses not cuz it looks "professional" but because you can do more!

    i don't know, this guy seems kind of biased in these suggestions aiming for people to take pictures more like he does than anything else. I still like the work lights idea though.
  • sergiemag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you can do the same stuff without a camera - go to some free stock website, download high-res images, and put them together in some free photoshop-like program with masking and blending abilities. on deviantart.com, you can find tons of people that can make awesome pictures out of stock photography, but their art can sell.

    if you got talent, buying a nice digital slr (a canon 10D or 350D), and nice equipment (lenses and such) wont be a big deal once you start raking in the money with your talent-filled photos and such.

    i use photoshop for the pictures i take, but i try not to manipulate my photos so much as to make them look grungy. anyways, yup

    http://sergiemag.deviantart.com/gallery/ (spam) :D
  • chicagospur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good article, but over Photoshopped pictures are getting boring. Nothing can beat good composition and appropriate use of depth of field.

    If you want SLR quality for a very low budget, I suggest getting a cheap 35mm SLR from EBay. Cameras such as Olympus OMs or Pentax K1000s are going for practically pennies with lenses, are easy to use and take fantastic pictures. Take the film to be processed to Costco and they can give you a photo CD for digital processing.

    Once you understand how to use a camera properly, you will never look back and won't have to Photoshop so much anyway.
  • bloaded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0am I the only person who read it as small budget pornography.
  • mr2monster, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0This is a good read... When you want to make some money using these techniques check out my blog at http://moneycam.blogspot.com
  • lemon404, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0only 1 lens will never do the trick...

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.