Lately, I do powers of two in my head until I get mentally exhausted and can't keep going. I can usually remember getting to around 2^20 before I fall asleep.
PROTIP: If you have really bad insomnia, try going through the derivatives of sin(x).
PROTIP: If you have really bad insomnia, try going through the derivatives of sin(x).
Really? It seems like I would get bored long before falling asleep.
I find that the mantra-like quality helps me when I absolutely can't get my mind's background chatter to stop. That said, I've been doing powers of two lately for a reason.
Can anyone give me a good reason why I should not use this as the opening paragraph of my cover letters from now on? Because I am fucking bored with formality.
"Environmental science is my favorite thing. The process of science is awesome. Observation is awesome. Keeping detailed records? Awesome. But the best part is drawing conclusions based on all that stuff. I am so enthusiastic about making educated conclusions that after getting my undergraduate degree and working for two years in forest management, I went to law school to learn how I could help environmental law and policy better reflect scientific conclusions. You could say that my single biggest career goal is to educate the public about environmental science in order to direct our entire society toward evidence-based actions, and you would be completely correct."
Yeah, exactly. The point of the cover letter is to get them to even bother to look at your resume, right? So let's at least amuse the reader. Maybe it will make them turn the page.
Cool person will turn the page, stickler for professionalism will shred your resume. Perhaps you could rephrase the first part to not use the word awesome.
This is the science cover letter, not the law and policy cover letter. I am honestly not sure I want to work in an environment where a qualified person is discounted because of enthusiasm about their work.
Edit: Also, nobody has responded to any of the professionally-worded ones. Kinda feeling like I have nothing to lose here.
Someone has bound to ask this question on this forum before, I did a search though and didn't find anything recent....
I'm thinking about getting a digital camera! I am not a photographer, I do not know the fancy terms. I've never had one before either. All I know is I hate my iPhone camera, its grainy and blurry and just, ugh. I would like to use my new camera for generic things like life events and kittehs. But I'd also like to use it to take nice photos of my newly found super dorky costume obsession. I'd like to spend not too much, maybe $100-$200?
So what cameras do you guys have, what do you suggest, etc.? Yeah I've been going on Amazon and stuff trying to read reviews... my brain hurts. I need real people suggestions!
There are pretty much three classes of cameras. Within each class there is a scale of price and quality.
Class 1 is point and shoot. It has one lens. It zooms a bit. It takes better pictures than a phone camera. Usually has lots of user friendly features. Very small and portable.
Class 2 is mirrorless. This is becoming very popular lately, and I have one. Basically it's a "real camera" with interchangeable lenses. The only difference is that it does not have a mirror and the sensor is smaller. It takes pictures almost as good as a big fancy camera, but not quite. It does have lots of the user friendly features of a point and shoot, but you do need to know something about photography to really make it work well for you.
Class 3 is a DSLR. A real digital camera with a mirror and interchangeable lenses and everything. Expensive, and you need to know how to take photos. However, it also has the max quality.
On top of all this there is always the option to get used/old model cameras. Sometimes a camera that is no longer made is more expensive if it was a popular model. But for something like a low end DSLR, or last years model, you can get it cheap from someone who is upgrading.
Hmm... not exactly sure which type I want. Its more like, what's the best quality I can get for not too much moneys - quality mainly meaning picture quality. Point and shoot appeals for its smallness and inexpensiveness, but the fancier cameras would be cool if I could get for the same price, like buying a used one from someone.
Basically I've been inspired by this super awesome photoshoot. I'd like to do photoshoots like this and get a similar nice clean look that can capture details. I realize this guy probably had an amazing super expensive camera, but if I could get close at all that'd be cool. Since I don't know anything about photography I don't really know what I want as far as features.
It's hard to just make a decision by cost alone. Brand new point and shoot cameras can range in price from $90 to $900. The other kinds can range from $500 to $9000.
I can also tell you that I have seen amazing pictures taken with a really crappy point and shoot because the photographer was an expert and controlled the lighting very well. I have also seen really shitty pictures taken with extremely expensive cameras because the person using it just pressed the button and didn't know anything about photography.
That being said, you will have to spend much more than $200 to even remotely approach the quality in that photoshoot.
As someone who didn't know anything about photography a year ago, here is what I can tell you about my experience. I used to have a point and shoot camera, and I used it very rarely. I just didn't have the instinct to take it out and snap photos. When it got burgled, I didn't replace it for a long time and just used my phone camera. I actually used my phone camera, and in that sense it was better. The best camera is one you have on you and you actually use.
Eventually I realized nobody in our group was taking enough pictures of things. Also sometimes I wanted to take a picture with better quality than the phone camera, and I couldn't. I was thinking of getting a point and shoot again because it is dumb to spend a lot of money on a hobby I might not get into. I always think of my friend's dad who bought a bowling ball and shoes, but rarely actually bowls.
I also realized that the cheap point and shoot cameras are small, and better than the phone camera, but not that much better. If I was to get one of those, I should just save my money and use the phone camera instead. Phones are getting better cameras all the time. The iPhones now have better cameras than the point and shoot I used to have, minus optical zoom.
Then I discovered the mirrorless cameras. Almost as a good as a DSLR, interchangeable lenses, but much smaller and easier to carry around. They are also cheaper, though not cheap. Additional lenses also cost hundreds of dollars each. I bit the bullet and got one.
What happened was the opposite of what happened in the past. I expected to not use it much because I was fail at photography. What happened was I actually used it more and learned basic photography through practice. Because my camera was fancier, and because I learned things while using it, it was more fun for me to use, and I used it a lot more. I took a lot of shitty pictures, but I also took a bunch of pictures that are pretty good. They also get better all the time as I learn more.
So my personal suggestion is that you either don't waste your money on a cheap camera, or you save up for one that is kinda good. A low end DSLR or mirrorless camera will be easy enough to use out of the box. On mine you can just press the auto button, and it basically becomes a point and shoot. Then as you use it more you will learn to turn off auto mode and take better pictures. If it has interchangeable lenses, you will have lots of room to learn and grow and improve your skills without having to buy a new camera for many years. And if you buy lenses compatible with a particular system, you can upgrade the camera many years from now when you are awesome, and your lenses will be compatible with it.
I totally get what you're saying about quality and all that. I appreciate your feedback on the nicer cameras, if I go in that direction I'll look into the mirrorless camera. However I'm not expecting to get something super amazing for a small amount of money, it seems very "you get what you pay for" with cameras. This is not a thing I will be doing often. For everyday stuff, as long as the quality is better than my crappy iPhone camera, I'm good. I don't even plan on taking the camera around with me unless its a special event, maybe vacation, etc. I do want something that'll be decent for my costume pics, since I've started blogging about it and realized all of my pics are either crappy ones I took or from me scouring the internet trying to find pics other people took.
I'm thinking, if I go all out and spend say $800 on a nice camera and end up not using it that much or not feeling it was worth it, I'm out $800-$200(original amount I wanted to spend) = $600. If I buy a $200 camera, but decide I'm suddenly really into this photography thing and get a $800 camera later, I'm only out $200 for the lower end one. This reasoning makes sense to me anyway. :-/
So the reason I'm asking for suggestions is to see if anyone has anything good to say about a particular inexpensive camera, or knows where to get a nice one for cheap, etc. Reading Amazon reviews is getting really annoying. :-P
I think you will be dissapointed when the $200 camera takes pictures that aren't significantly different from your iPhone pictures. The only thing they really offer is a small amount of zooming.
Yeah, something like that shoot is going to require (at minimum) a prosumer DSLR. Also, to put Scott's argument into perspective, my Galaxy S3 takes photos at 10MP and 1080p, which is what most point-n-shoots do, minus a zoom lens.
Photography is very much a hobby of initial investment. Yeah, that refurbed Nikon D90 and a 35mm/f1.8 is going to cost you around $800 total, but once you have a good body, you'll only need another camera when you want to get one. Digital rot used to be a huge problem back when we had exponential CMOS progress, but sensor development has slowed significantly.
Being a photographer means biting the bullet on paying at least $400 to get started. It's not something you'll regret, but it's necessary.
Gees are they really that bad? I've never owned a camera not attached to a phone so I've got no frame of reference here. I guess I could go to a best buy and do some comparison shots or something... :-/
Comments
PROTIP: If you have really bad insomnia, try going through the derivatives of sin(x).
Damn, this powers of two thing is too easy.
"Environmental science is my favorite thing. The process of science is awesome. Observation is awesome. Keeping detailed records? Awesome. But the best part is drawing conclusions based on all that stuff. I am so enthusiastic about making educated conclusions that after getting my undergraduate degree and working for two years in forest management, I went to law school to learn how I could help environmental law and policy better reflect scientific conclusions. You could say that my single biggest career goal is to educate the public about environmental science in order to direct our entire society toward evidence-based actions, and you would be completely correct."
Seems redundant.
I would use that on my cover letter. That could end up sticking out more and getting attention of the hiring staff.
Edit: Also, nobody has responded to any of the professionally-worded ones. Kinda feeling like I have nothing to lose here.
Someone has bound to ask this question on this forum before, I did a search though and didn't find anything recent....
I'm thinking about getting a digital camera! I am not a photographer, I do not know the fancy terms. I've never had one before either. All I know is I hate my iPhone camera, its grainy and blurry and just, ugh. I would like to use my new camera for generic things like life events and kittehs. But I'd also like to use it to take nice photos of my newly found super dorky costume obsession. I'd like to spend not too much, maybe $100-$200?
So what cameras do you guys have, what do you suggest, etc.? Yeah I've been going on Amazon and stuff trying to read reviews... my brain hurts. I need real people suggestions!
Do you want point-n-shoot, or do you want to be able to change lenses?
Class 1 is point and shoot. It has one lens. It zooms a bit. It takes better pictures than a phone camera. Usually has lots of user friendly features. Very small and portable.
Class 2 is mirrorless. This is becoming very popular lately, and I have one. Basically it's a "real camera" with interchangeable lenses. The only difference is that it does not have a mirror and the sensor is smaller. It takes pictures almost as good as a big fancy camera, but not quite. It does have lots of the user friendly features of a point and shoot, but you do need to know something about photography to really make it work well for you.
Class 3 is a DSLR. A real digital camera with a mirror and interchangeable lenses and everything. Expensive, and you need to know how to take photos. However, it also has the max quality.
On top of all this there is always the option to get used/old model cameras. Sometimes a camera that is no longer made is more expensive if it was a popular model. But for something like a low end DSLR, or last years model, you can get it cheap from someone who is upgrading.
Basically I've been inspired by this super awesome photoshoot. I'd like to do photoshoots like this and get a similar nice clean look that can capture details. I realize this guy probably had an amazing super expensive camera, but if I could get close at all that'd be cool. Since I don't know anything about photography I don't really know what I want as far as features.
I can also tell you that I have seen amazing pictures taken with a really crappy point and shoot because the photographer was an expert and controlled the lighting very well. I have also seen really shitty pictures taken with extremely expensive cameras because the person using it just pressed the button and didn't know anything about photography.
That being said, you will have to spend much more than $200 to even remotely approach the quality in that photoshoot.
As someone who didn't know anything about photography a year ago, here is what I can tell you about my experience. I used to have a point and shoot camera, and I used it very rarely. I just didn't have the instinct to take it out and snap photos. When it got burgled, I didn't replace it for a long time and just used my phone camera. I actually used my phone camera, and in that sense it was better. The best camera is one you have on you and you actually use.
Eventually I realized nobody in our group was taking enough pictures of things. Also sometimes I wanted to take a picture with better quality than the phone camera, and I couldn't. I was thinking of getting a point and shoot again because it is dumb to spend a lot of money on a hobby I might not get into. I always think of my friend's dad who bought a bowling ball and shoes, but rarely actually bowls.
I also realized that the cheap point and shoot cameras are small, and better than the phone camera, but not that much better. If I was to get one of those, I should just save my money and use the phone camera instead. Phones are getting better cameras all the time. The iPhones now have better cameras than the point and shoot I used to have, minus optical zoom.
Then I discovered the mirrorless cameras. Almost as a good as a DSLR, interchangeable lenses, but much smaller and easier to carry around. They are also cheaper, though not cheap. Additional lenses also cost hundreds of dollars each. I bit the bullet and got one.
What happened was the opposite of what happened in the past. I expected to not use it much because I was fail at photography. What happened was I actually used it more and learned basic photography through practice. Because my camera was fancier, and because I learned things while using it, it was more fun for me to use, and I used it a lot more. I took a lot of shitty pictures, but I also took a bunch of pictures that are pretty good. They also get better all the time as I learn more.
So my personal suggestion is that you either don't waste your money on a cheap camera, or you save up for one that is kinda good. A low end DSLR or mirrorless camera will be easy enough to use out of the box. On mine you can just press the auto button, and it basically becomes a point and shoot. Then as you use it more you will learn to turn off auto mode and take better pictures. If it has interchangeable lenses, you will have lots of room to learn and grow and improve your skills without having to buy a new camera for many years. And if you buy lenses compatible with a particular system, you can upgrade the camera many years from now when you are awesome, and your lenses will be compatible with it.
However I'm not expecting to get something super amazing for a small amount of money, it seems very "you get what you pay for" with cameras. This is not a thing I will be doing often. For everyday stuff, as long as the quality is better than my crappy iPhone camera, I'm good. I don't even plan on taking the camera around with me unless its a special event, maybe vacation, etc. I do want something that'll be decent for my costume pics, since I've started blogging about it and realized all of my pics are either crappy ones I took or from me scouring the internet trying to find pics other people took.
I'm thinking, if I go all out and spend say $800 on a nice camera and end up not using it that much or not feeling it was worth it, I'm out $800-$200(original amount I wanted to spend) = $600.
If I buy a $200 camera, but decide I'm suddenly really into this photography thing and get a $800 camera later, I'm only out $200 for the lower end one. This reasoning makes sense to me anyway. :-/
So the reason I'm asking for suggestions is to see if anyone has anything good to say about a particular inexpensive camera, or knows where to get a nice one for cheap, etc. Reading Amazon reviews is getting really annoying. :-P
Photography is very much a hobby of initial investment. Yeah, that refurbed Nikon D90 and a 35mm/f1.8 is going to cost you around $800 total, but once you have a good body, you'll only need another camera when you want to get one. Digital rot used to be a huge problem back when we had exponential CMOS progress, but sensor development has slowed significantly.
Being a photographer means biting the bullet on paying at least $400 to get started. It's not something you'll regret, but it's necessary.