Hello there, why not take a few seconds to register on our forums and become part of the community? Just click here.

Photography tips

Discussion in 'Through the Lens' started by white_feather, Jan 26, 2009.

  1. Advertisement
    Then Id be curious like others to see these "famous" names that have never picked up a digital SLR.
  2. Draiman

    Draiman Arachnoking

    Me as well.
  3. Draiman

    Draiman Arachnoking

    From f/11 to f/16 is not one stop. Aperture affects the amount of detail. Shutter speed does not make up for that. A high shutter speed "freezes" motion and adds crispness and sharpness to the photo, but detail and depth of field is still dictated by aperture control. You are confusing sharpness with detail.
  4. jharr

    jharr Arachnosquire

    Hang on there. Actually the control you get with a "high end" camera is illusory. There are only a few variables you can control in between your subject and the ccd.
    1. amount & color of light striking/reflecting off of the subject
    2. aperature
    3. shutter speed
    4. ISO (actually 'gain' in the case of digital cameras)
    ALL of the rest is post processing. This is all analogous to film cameras. My Nikkormat FTn gives me the same degree of control. If I develop my own film, I can control it even more. If I make my own prints I can control it even more. Again, there are analogues with digital processing, but my point is that all of those features on the D300 are not actually giving more control to the photographer. Ansel Adams was in perfect control of the image from the moment he actuated the shutter to the moment he took the print off of the drying line, as have been generations of photographers using what would be considered 'low end' gear.

  5. codykrr

    codykrr Arachnoking Old Timer

    Last edited: Mar 7, 2009
  6. Draiman

    Draiman Arachnoking

    You mean "grain"? ISO helps in poorly lit situations, and definitely does a lot more than impart "grain" to a photo. ;) :clap:

    Illusory? In this thread you've never ceased to surprise me. Do you get that amount of control with a compact, or point&shoot, camera? With a P&S, because of the tiny sensor (for most), there is practically no bokeh, no depth of field and poor ISO performance, among others.
  7. codykrr

    codykrr Arachnoking Old Timer

    ok see if it loads right this time...another L.p. shot...again critisize please... View attachment 76146
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2009
  8. delayedinsanity

    delayedinsanity Arachnopeon

    Um, yes it is.

    f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32

    Those are what are known as 'full stops'. So f/16 to f/11 is dropping one stop. If you are seeing other numbers in between that, it is because your camera lets you change stops in fractions, usually halves or thirds. Depending on the camera you can even change this, such as on one of mine.

    In a sense yes, but that's not exactly a very good explanation. Aperture is the opening in your lens that controls the amount of light to hit the film on 35mm's or your CMOS on a digital. By opening the aperture (lowering the f/stop) you let in more light and therefore reduce your depth of field - this is how you get those infamous subject in focus and background out of focuspictures, for example. By closing the aperture (raising the f/stop) you are letting in a smaller amount of light into the camera lens and thus extending your depth of field - how you get those great landscape shots where everything is in tight focus from close to far.

    Bokeh, or the quality of the out of focus areas of your photo has absolutely nothing to do with the camera/sensor, and everything to do with the glass. So in this case once again while you run a much better chance of having higher quality bokeh in an SLR, if your lenses are cheap, this can once again potentially be outperformed by a point and shoot. Not saying it will be, or often is, just that it could be.

    Actually yes it does. For example the following speeds are considered the norm on all cameras (digital and film);

    1/1000, 1/500, 1/250, 1/125, 1/60, 1/30, 1/15, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1s

    So if you had your camera set to, lets say, f/11 at 1/60, and you decided to close your aperture to f/16, you would then raise your shutter speed to 1/125 to get the same exposure. If you opened it up to f/5.6 you would lower your shutter speed to 1/15 for the same exposure, and so on and so forth.

    While you may want to use shutter priority (the option on SLR's usually marked S or Tv, or just the action of setting it first on full manual) to stop motion in some scenario's, shutter speed and aperture are very tightly entwined.

    Trust me, I may not be a great photographer but I know the technical stuff.

    No, I'm sure he means gain. ISO back in the film days was also known as ASA, aka your film speed. A higher speed film had chemicals that reacted quicker to light therefore allowing for proper exposure when much less light was present. In the case of digital cameras, it's now a form of 'gain', much like on your guitar amp, where it attempts to compensate for lower light situations, in many situations causing more noise to appear on your camera.

    This is one definite place where a higher end camera is much more useful. For example, my 400D allows for an ISO of up to 1600, but you wouldn't really want to use it if you can help it. The pictures are extremely noisy due to the abilities, or lack thereof, of the CCD. However the same ISO setting on a 1D would produce a much better, higher quality picture due to it's full frame, higher megapixel sensor.

    I'm new here, and I don't want my introduction into the community to seem like it's part of a fight, so I'm going to reiterate what I've said one last time and step back from all of this; It is the photographer that is far more influential on a photograph than the equipment, always, always, always. Good equipment never hurts, and if you have the money to spend on a D3 for hobbyist purposes, be my guest. But if you're younger, or just can't afford more than a point and shoot, don't let anybody here or anywhere else ever tell you that you can't get amazing shots. Period.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2009
  9. Draiman

    Draiman Arachnoking

    Firstly, my comment on aperture affecting detail was not an explanation or definition of the term.

    Secondly, no, an average p&s cannot and will not outperform a SLR or DSLR in terms of depth of field. P&S cameras have very small sensors, and that means poor bokeh capability.

    Thirdly, you seem to be giving definitions and explanations for every photography term I use - for instance "Bokeh, or the quality of the out of focus areas", "Aperture is the opening in your lens that controls the amount of light", and "By opening the aperture (lowering the f/stop)". What's up with that? Did you think I did not know? You need to learn to be less condescending.
  10. jharr

    jharr Arachnosquire

    No, I meant 'gain'. That means that when you dial up the ISO on your digicam, what is really happening is that you are increasing the voltage gain to the ccd and thereby increasing its sensitivity. The side effect of that is not 'grain'. Grain is what you get from high-ISO films caused by the size of the actual silver nitrate crystals. On a digicam, you get ccd noise. It is waaay different than grain.
    As far as comparing 'high end' and 'low end' gear goes, I thought it was fairly clear (apparently not) that I was talking about cameras for which you can actually control the 4 things I mentioned. The discussion was whether Cody's D80 would be capable of producing a similar quality of photo as a more expensive camera (say a D300) with more features. I was simply pointing out that in that case, more features don't necessarily mean more 'control' of the image. Control your light, aperture, shutter speed, ISO (and composition and focus) and you have done all you can do. More buttons or menu items won't necessarily help you do any of that.

  11. Draiman

    Draiman Arachnoking

    I have a D40. I know someone who uses a D300. The D300 has much more ISO control than the D40, for your information. What does that mean? It means the D300 gives me more control over my overall image than the D40 does, due to the extra control I get for ISO, among others. In turn, what does that mean? It means yes, you do get more overall control with more high-end gear.
  12. delayedinsanity

    delayedinsanity Arachnopeon

    I wasn't trying to be condescending, my apologies if it came across that way. What I was trying to do, given that the majority of people here are just hobbyist photographers and probably don't have the time or care to take a class on the subject, was to be concise about my explanations so that anybody could easily follow what was being discussed.

    How many people can you walk up to in the street, flip open a magazine and ask them what they think of the bokeh in particular picture, and actually get a reply other than 'huh?'? That's what I was trying to keep in mind.
  13. Draiman

    Draiman Arachnoking

    I interpreted it as condescending because your reply quoted my post, so it certainly seemed as if the information was meant for me.
  14. Agreed well put! :clap:

    Try taking full body shots of your Ts from farther back. Those lenses you have are not going to give you good crisp close images. I see that shot you posted was shot at 135mm, so you zoomed and cropped a lot to get the image you posted. You lose quality when you do that. I would try some full body shots of the Ts and see if they are better. Don't zoom or crop.
  15. delayedinsanity

    delayedinsanity Arachnopeon

    I was definitely debating a few things with you that we may not have seen eye to eye on, but the verbose explanation was with the thought in mind that while you would have no problem understanding me, others may not. Saving time in the future I guess? Meh. I've seen so many pissing matches online and back in college from people, some with money, others without, about the quality of equipment. A lot of people, in so many fields, get so discouraged when they don't think they have the best of the best, and some folks who are really good at what they do, but don't recognize it, have quit for that reason.

    Just to be clear, I'm not saying that you've said or implied this Gavin, this is for everybody; saying that somebody with a d40 is less capable than somebody with a d3 is like saying that anybody without an OBT is just a wannabe, and it just isn't true, agree?
  16. Draiman

    Draiman Arachnoking

    Theoretically, yes, but nevertheless, anyone who has a D3 is likely to be more capable than someone with a D40. Why?

    - Anyone who uses a D40 is most likely an amateur (like I am)
    - Anyone who uses a D3 is very likely a professional photographer; and hence must surely be more skilled than the average D40 user
  17. Tunedbeat

    Tunedbeat Arachnolord Old Timer

    Not just identical settings, but same lens on each camera body. Not all lenses are identical in quality. Surely everyone must know this. :D

    Best thing you can do is learn your camera and equipment, there are tons of online researches that can help you. You can't become a better photographer without lots of practice.
  18. Draiman

    Draiman Arachnoking

    Damn...slipped my mind. :wall:
  19. That is why this hobby is so awesome. I am no where near as good as I can be, but I make goals to get better! It would be boring if we all woke up and could take a 10/10 picture every single time, that would ruin the challenge of it all.
    And Tunebeat I look at your images all the time. :worship:

    Don't feel bad I glossed over that tidbit too. Odd comparison to make with two different cameras and lenses lol.
  20. jharr

    jharr Arachnosquire

    • Default: ISO 200 - 3200
    • Boost: ISO 100 - 6400
    • 1/3, 1/2 or 1.0 EV steps

    • Default: ISO 200 - 1600 (+ Hi 1 = 3200)
    • 1.0 EV steps

    Ok, so your friend has more iso settings and he can crank it up to 6400 (I would wager that he rarely or never goes above 800). You've got to be in a very unusual situation where iso 200+1/3 at f11 (which you can't do with your D40) is going to give you a noticeably different result than iso 200 at f11-1/3 (which you can do with your D40). I could be wrong, I haven't done the experiment, but seriously would the difference be worth the price considering you can probably completely eliminate any difference in post-processing? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, really, but I would hate for anyone to come away from reading a discussion like this thinking that another couple of grand in hardware is going to make them a better photographer.


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.