"Yea, my boyfriend when he takes my photos here at the lake snaps about four or five times and thinks he's done me a great favor haha. It's funny how when it's just the right pose and expression, no photoshop is required but otherwise...YIKES. At home I'll take about twenty or thirty shots. I'm thinking of investing in a slightly better camera since I'm loving this blogging experience. Which would you recommend for a style wannabe but non-professional broke girl?"
First I must say, yes, exactly! When a photo is good - lighting, pose and expression - there's really nothing to do in editing. But when the lighting is so-so or even bad, and you have to start making parts of the photo lighter or darker, suddenly you notice all these weird shadows in your face and go "is this what I look like?!". I choose to see it as no, that's not what I look like, it's just a low quality photo. That tiny little detail that only one photo out of twenty succeeds in capturing what I "really" look like... I simply ignore that. ;)
The camera I use - the Canon Rebel T2i.
Oh, and now onto your question! (I decided to reply in a post since I've been asked this quite a few times already.)
I use a Canon Rebel T2i (Canon EOS 550 D in Europe), and I'm so happy with it. I got it last summer and even though it's far from the fanciest camera, I've never felt like it's not good enough for me - and I've shot plenty of magazine features, book covers and press photos with them. (OK, maybe not plenty of book covers, but a few.) Noone has ever complained about the resolution or the technical quality.
The Canon Digital Rebel XTi - an affordable (when bought used) option and a great start-out DSLR camera.
But of course, in the end it comes down to what you want to get out of your camera and how high you need the quality to be. There are so many options out there, in every price-range, and I can only tell you about the ones I've used. I've been loyal to the Canon Rebel-series since 2005 - I've never found a reason to switch to another brand, just updated to the latest model every couple of years - so I know nothing about any other type of DSLR camera. Spend a lot of time researching on google, there's a perfect fit for everyone out there!
The 50mm lens - the best way to get a vivid and dynamic portrait photo.
I would absolutely recommend to everyone who's getting into photography to rather buy an older DSLR camera and instead invest an extra 100 USD to get the 50mm lens. According to me, the lens is what makes all the difference when getting a really good photo. The 50mm can be hard to get used to - you can't zoom in or out, and since it's a portrait lens it's definitely not for photographing landscape or to bring when you go sightseeing and want to capture... the Empire State Building or something. But if you, like me, prefer to take photos of people or close-ups of beautiful things - I'd say it's the best one you can buy. It lets in so much light, the short depth of field makes the photos very dynamic and I think the result is so much more vivid and alive than with other lenses.
The 50mm lens' shallow depth of field prevents your photos from ever looking flat!
When I take photos inside my house, I use my 18-55mm lens to capture the wider spaces of the rooms...
...and the 50mm lens for the details!
The only time I use my standard 18-55mm lens is when I photograph the rooms of my house, and I sometimes use my giant zoom lens for shooting at concerts, fashion shows or for nature close up photography (birds in trees etc).
Without a tripod and a remote control, there would be no outfit photos in this blog. Come to think of it - there wouldn't be a blog, at all. I get way too awkward posing for other people - plus, they'd never have the patience to get everything exactly like I want it... Control freak, who? Where? What?
And for those of you who are looking to take your own outfit photos: what you need is a good tripod (like this one) and a remote control that is compatible with whatever camera you choose to buy. A lot of people have asked me about why my remote doesn't show in the photos - the one I use is the kind that gives you a couple of seconds before the actual photo is taken, so I have plenty of time to put the remote in my pocket, hide it in my palm (or just put the hand holding it behind my back).
I've never used the self timer and if you're using the 50mm lens, it's impossible - you have to set the focus by pressing the remote and then stay exactly where you are the seconds before the camera takes the actual photo, otherwise all you'll get is blur. So you can't set the timer and then get in the picture, the focus has to be set on you, by you (or rather, by your remote). I've tried tons of different remote controls - they tend to stop working after a while - and I just buy whichever one is in stock at the moment. Right now I'm using this one and I think it's flawless. A tiny switch gives you the option to either let the camera go off at the same moment that you press the button, or give you the extra time to hide the remote. I use the instant setting when I take photos of my face or shoes (since the remote isn't in the photo anyway and I'm not patient enough to stand still when it isn't necessary).
Wow, this sure became a long post. I hope it can offer some assistance to someone!
(You can find my very simple photo editing tutorial here.)
