The_Cheat said:
Correct, it depends on the titles but more or less those large ones full of pics are usually over $100 each and i've seen one which cost over $200.
To each his own.
Photography Books
- Thread starter Swatch
- Start date
- Status
Correct, it depends on the titles but more or less those large ones full of pics are usually over $100 each and i've seen one which cost over $200.
To each his own.
Navigator said:
I've compared some with those other stores sell. Kino's ones are more expensive, maybe due to some specially imported bah...
Of cos discounts are a lot cheaper but not always have.
Snoweagle said:
Agreed. actually what i meant is if we spent thousands on lens, why can't we just spent a few hundreds on books? :embrass: costs of books are just a small fraction of the lens.
Snoweagle said:
Well, if you are non-member, of cos you do not expect discounts for you that often.
But you keep saying Kino books are expensive.
(by the way, expensive by a few dollars or by 20%?)
Well, I am not a member of Kino.
I am saying that for photography books, prices are more or less the same at different bookstores.
If Kino 's books are so expensive, the smart Singaporeans will make the smart choices.
Navigator said:
sometimes it is not always abt prices. If it is slightly more costly, but the selection is better, one may still go to that bookstore as he is more likely to find what he needs there. The convenience may justify the slight increase in price.
Paul_Yeo said:
U can't compare books with lens. Lens can help u take gd pics and gives u the hands-on feel, rather than books which are just theory.
Snoweagle said:
But I think theory is worth at least a couple of hundreds of dollars
You see that when CS members comment about photo, it is usually "nice, good work" etc. Or when they post photos they seldom say what are they trying to achieve, what are the details that went through their mind when making the shot.
Books tell us that, what to look out for, things like color, form, shape, lines. Focus of interest, etc
I have seen photos with dark shadows, blown highlights which should be unacceptable (according to the books I have read) but still people say it is nice because the picture has good composition or interesting subject.
Even my own pictures which I used to liked has huge problems. Example, for the picture below, if the subject the is the branch, the light must reveals the texture off the branch clearly for the picture to work. There are just too much dark shadows in the picture.
But of course practical experience is the most impt but it is good to have some background knowledge.
It is ok to have blown highlights and even black shadows if you know what you're doing. Books can only teach you so much, but once you reach a point where your standards has surpassed the books, you are on your own. The books mainly cater to beginners, some in the early stages, some more advanced, so there are certain rules of thumb which is good to follow and that's about it. But once you have mastered those and develop your own styles, the message you are trying to convey, the mood, you have to play with light, shadows, colours, shades as well as shapes, geometry, lines, perspective etc. But you would know how to break these "rules" and still get a good picture. After a while it becomes intuitive that you'll know what to shoot and what not to shoot.wind30 said:But I think theory is worth at least a couple of hundreds of dollars
You see that when CS members comment about photo, it is usually "nice, good work" etc. Or when they post photos they seldom say what are they trying to achieve, what are the details that went through their mind when making the shot.
Books tell us that, what to look out for, things like color, form, shape, lines. Focus of interest, etc
I have seen photos with dark shadows, blown highlights which should be unacceptable (according to the books I have read) but still people say it is nice because the picture has good composition or interesting subject.
Even my own pictures which I used to liked has huge problems. Example, for the picture below, if the subject the is the branch, the light must reveals the texture off the branch clearly for the picture to work. There are just too much dark shadows in the picture.
http://pisduck.com/korea/004.jpg
But of course practical experience is the most impt but it is good to have some background knowledge.
But of course, you have to understand the basics first otherwise it'll all be meaningless.
my current favourite photography book is
Masterclass in Photography by Michael & Julien Busselle
Contrary to the title, the book is actually more for beginners who want to know about how to take good photographs. It doesn't really emphasize on the aperture/shutter speed, but more on the composition, basic elements like form, texture, lines, shape and color. The format is basically a short writeup followed by photographs from the authors. They would cross comment on each other photographs and their own thought process when they took those photos. Quite enlightening for beginners.
I particularly like the cross comments where they critique each other's photos.
Masterclass in Photography by Michael & Julien Busselle
Contrary to the title, the book is actually more for beginners who want to know about how to take good photographs. It doesn't really emphasize on the aperture/shutter speed, but more on the composition, basic elements like form, texture, lines, shape and color. The format is basically a short writeup followed by photographs from the authors. They would cross comment on each other photographs and their own thought process when they took those photos. Quite enlightening for beginners.
I particularly like the cross comments where they critique each other's photos.
- Status
Similar threads
