I was saddened by the results of my photographic efforts in France last summer. Ugly, bland photos. I must attribute this to my lack of experience and the fact that I lost my manual and, thus, fiddled blindly with the camera settings.

I am desperate not have repeat performance for my upcoming trip to the visually spectacular Iceland! While I will work on my knowledge and technique, I can't help wondering if I'm working with the wrong gear? (The photos were that bad... am I really that inept?) Yes, I'm sure that most of the problem is myself and my lack of experience, however, just to be sure, will someone look over my info and give me some constructive criticism?

Nikon N75
Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6
Sigma 100-300mm f/4.5-6.7
I have a few seemingly useless filters besides an "Optica High-Def Polarizer" which doesn't even seem to exist when I try to research online.
I also have cheap Samsonite 2600 tripod that I haven't used but fear is too flimsy.
I believe I used Kodak 400 speed film which was processed by CVS (not 1-hr.)

Finally, as I continue to read and learn, it seems I might be best prepared with a wide-angle lens and a new polarizer when in Iceland. Any thoughts? Some lenses I saw in KEH within my prioritized budget:

Sigma 17-35 F2.8-4
Sigma 18-35 F3.5-4.5
Tokina 20-35 F3.5-4.5

Suggestions for a thin polarizer? One that would fit a wide-angle?

Honestly, if all I really need to do is keep learning and practicing, let me know. I can take it! Otherwise, all advice appreciated!!

In order to help you, we need more information about exactly what is wrong with the photos. Are they blurry, poorly exposed, or what?

It's unlikely that your equipment is to blame. You may just need more practice using it properly. There are many books available about photography that will help without going into the specifics of equipment.

Phillip

You seem to be isolating the difficulties on equipment and its operation. This either needs to become resolved or you need to look beyond it.

Good photography starts in the soul, then the eye, then the mind. You need to make sure your analysis of the problem goes back to the proper foundational level.

Time to show us your work and explain what you are after. You may be very surprised to discover where you need to develop.

On the other hand, if you are fumbling around with camera operation, you obviously have homework to do.

Philip and Boku have already covered most of the bases, but here are a few more details that come to mind:


I strongly urge you to pick up the Magic Lantern instruction book for your camera. If at all possible, work your way through it before your trip, so that if you have any questions, you can post them here.


I'm not intimately familiar with the Sigma lenses you have, but the only problem I would expect is that your resulting film frames might be a tad soft when printed larger than 8x10 or so.


Even in strong daylight, shooting at focal lengths longer than 100mm without a tripod is a recipe for serious blurring. The traditional guideline is that your shutter speed needs to be faster than the reciprocal of your focal length - for example 1/300th sec or faster if shooting at 300mm - but a tripod is by far the safer route.


Forget about filters until you master the basics.


If you were using print film (negatives) and you are judging your results from mass produced prints, that might be your main problem right there. Nothing can kill a good image faster than an auto-everything photo lab print. Both the white point and the black point are typically clipped, contrast and saturation are cranked up, little effort is made to eliminate colour casts, etc.


28 is already quite wide for a 35mm camera. I think you would be better served waiting until you can get consistently good results from the 28-300 range you already have before going further afield. (Most ultra-wide lenses like 17-35 are sold for use on dSLRs, attached to the majority of which they effectively become 25-52mm lenses.)