I am sooooo jelous of the depth of field and focal length of your camera. I have had shots lined up perfectly with a beautiful composition, and when I snap the pic .. it's like the camera took the picture throught the reverse end of binoculars.
Far away objects are REALLY far away , out of focus, poorly lit and the natural framing gets shot to hell.
If I took the same pic - the art gallery would be almost white while the Fairmont would be a slightly yellow haze in the background appearing about 12 blocks in the distance.
How much control do you have over your lens and apature?
Depth of field is increaced by using smaller apatures (i.e. higher f-stop values), which of course means longer exposures. Moving up one f-stop means doubling the exposure. For example 2 seconds at f16 is the same exposure as ¼ second at f2, but the shot at f16 will have a *much* greater depth of field.
Standing further back and zooming in will compress the illusion of distance, the more you zoom, the more "squished together" things will appear.
The problem with apeture has always been LIGHTING - if you close your apeture - you have to increase the lighting to preserve the look. So sure - your depth of field increases - but everything goes dark unless you go for great lighting. And its not like you can wheel a truck full of searchlights everywhere you go.
Lucky for digital photography - Jpegs do not have an ASA sensitivity. So in most cases a light reading is not reqired
I do know that you can get a better shot from standing further away and zooming in - but my camera only has 'digital'zoom (ie NO ZOOM) so that , the horrible lens width , the field of view - all of them have pretty much made my camera useless for anything but closeups and casual , quickshots.
These are the things you learn from getting the cheap equipment you never really know what you want until you try to use it.
I guess a good digital camera with all these features would prolly land about $800. And unfortunately I am not THAT interested in still photographs and traditional photography more videography (not cinematography - too expensive as a hobby) and my money is tied into multimedia authoring equipment (video cameras, NLE computers, music editors, Lighting and green screen)
I could have had a cheap hobby...I could have collected pop bottles ..but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.. I had to chose the most expensive hobby in history.
But you are wrong about lighting. You only have to increase the lighting if you are reducing the aperture without increasing the exposure time. My example of 2 seconds at f16 and ¼ second at f2 let precisely the same amount of light through the lens.
And just because you aren't exposing film doesn't change mean the amount of light coming through the lens is not relevant. CCD's do have light sensitivity ratings that are equivalent to ASA ratings, in fact my camera has three settings in this regard, 100 ASA equivalent, 200 ASA, and 400 ASA.
In the end you have four variables regarding exposure, regardless of whether you are exposing film or a CCD:
1. Luminosity (i.e. how much light you have to work with) 2. Sensitivity (i.e. "ASA" - how much light you need) 3. Aperture (i.e. How big a hole you let the light pour through) 4. Exposure (i.e. How long you let the light flow through the hole)
The all work in terms of halves an doubles: all these combinations will result in the film or CCD getting hit by the same number of photons:
1600 lumens, 400 ASA, f8, ¼ second 3200 lumens, 200 ASA, f4, 1/8 second 1600 lumens, 400 ASA, f16, ½ second 1600 lumens, 200 ASA, f16, 1 second 800 lumens, 100 ASA, f16, 4 seconds
So yeah, doubling the lumens will compensate for halving the aperture, but so will doubling the exposure time. So while it's impractical to be trucking around searchlights, you can carry a tripod, brace the camera, or just plain hold still for the longer exposures.
Problem is you are thinking in terms of moving pictures where you are only going to get a maximum of 1/24th of second with film or 1/30th of a second with video to expose your image. Exposure time is a constant with moving pictures, not so with still photography.
"So yeah, doubling the lumens will compensate for halving the aperture, but so will doubling the exposure time....Problem is you are thinking in terms of moving pictures where you are only going to get a maximum of 1/24th of second with film or 1/30th of a second with video to expose your image. Exposure time is a constant with moving pictures, not so with still photography."
You are right , I guess I am thinking with time constraints. But I have found that with most pictures (in the general public) People are ASSHOLES!! They love to bump into you , walk into your shot , get in the way - or generally are filled with their ownn self importance that the somehow think they DESERVE to be in a total strangers picture. I have had to take most of my shots guerilla style .. get in..snap the shot quickly .. and get out without a trace before some inconsiderate bastards fuck up your work. I also find setting up a tripod a pain in the ass. especially when I am moveing locations constantly.
Have you seen the little tripod I bring to the club sometimes? I can use it against my chest. If I hold my breath I can get good pictures up to about 4 seconds or so (just holding the camera anything over a ¼ second is iffy). It doesn't work if I am zoomed in too far because then my heartbeat becomes an issue. Alternately I can hold it against a wall, pillar, or other stationary surface with one hand and trip the shutter with the other.
Working around the people who get in your way or bump you is a different talent. I don't know what to say there other than keep both eyes open and stay conscious of what going on around you. I'm running around in crowded clubs and pulling off longer exposures. Sometimes, though, the only way to get the good shot (like at the fashion shows) is to be more of an asshole than the next guy.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Date: 2002-12-12 10:44 am (UTC)composition, and when I snap the pic .. it's like the camera
took the picture throught the reverse end of binoculars.
Far away objects are REALLY far away , out of focus, poorly lit
and the natural framing gets shot to hell.
If I took the same pic - the art gallery would be almost white
while the Fairmont would be a slightly yellow haze in the background appearing about 12 blocks in the distance.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-12 11:13 am (UTC)Depth of field is increaced by using smaller apatures (i.e. higher f-stop values), which of course means longer exposures. Moving up one f-stop means doubling the exposure. For example 2 seconds at f16 is the same exposure as ¼ second at f2, but the shot at f16 will have a *much* greater depth of field.
Standing further back and zooming in will compress the illusion of distance, the more you zoom, the more "squished together" things will appear.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-12 11:54 am (UTC)Lucky for digital photography - Jpegs do not have an ASA sensitivity. So in most cases a light reading is not reqired
I do know that you can get a better shot from standing further away and zooming in - but my camera only has 'digital'zoom (ie NO ZOOM) so that , the horrible lens width , the field of view -
all of them have pretty much made my camera useless for anything
but closeups and casual , quickshots.
These are the things you learn from getting the cheap equipment
you never really know what you want until you try to use it.
I guess a good digital camera with all these features would prolly land about $800. And unfortunately I am not THAT interested in still photographs and traditional photography
more videography (not cinematography - too expensive as a hobby) and my money is tied into multimedia authoring equipment
(video cameras, NLE computers, music editors, Lighting and green screen)
I could have had a cheap hobby...I could have collected pop bottles ..but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.. I had to chose the most expensive hobby in history.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-12 12:39 pm (UTC)But you are wrong about lighting. You only have to increase the lighting if you are reducing the aperture without increasing the exposure time. My example of 2 seconds at f16 and ¼ second at f2 let precisely the same amount of light through the lens.
And just because you aren't exposing film doesn't change mean the amount of light coming through the lens is not relevant. CCD's do have light sensitivity ratings that are equivalent to ASA ratings, in fact my camera has three settings in this regard, 100 ASA equivalent, 200 ASA, and 400 ASA.
In the end you have four variables regarding exposure, regardless of whether you are exposing film or a CCD:
1. Luminosity (i.e. how much light you have to work with)
2. Sensitivity (i.e. "ASA" - how much light you need)
3. Aperture (i.e. How big a hole you let the light pour through)
4. Exposure (i.e. How long you let the light flow through the hole)
The all work in terms of halves an doubles: all these combinations will result in the film or CCD getting hit by the same number of photons:
1600 lumens, 400 ASA, f8, ¼ second
3200 lumens, 200 ASA, f4, 1/8 second
1600 lumens, 400 ASA, f16, ½ second
1600 lumens, 200 ASA, f16, 1 second
800 lumens, 100 ASA, f16, 4 seconds
So yeah, doubling the lumens will compensate for halving the aperture, but so will doubling the exposure time. So while it's impractical to be trucking around searchlights, you can carry a tripod, brace the camera, or just plain hold still for the longer exposures.
Problem is you are thinking in terms of moving pictures where you are only going to get a maximum of 1/24th of second with film or 1/30th of a second with video to expose your image. Exposure time is a constant with moving pictures, not so with still photography.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-12 01:16 pm (UTC)Digital zoom is not zoom..it's cropping
"So yeah, doubling the lumens will compensate for halving the aperture, but so will doubling the exposure time....Problem is you are thinking in terms of moving pictures where you are only going to get a maximum of 1/24th of second with film or 1/30th of a second with video to expose your image. Exposure time is a constant with moving pictures, not so with still photography."
You are right , I guess I am thinking with time constraints.
But I have found that with most pictures (in the general public)
People are ASSHOLES!! They love to bump into you , walk into your shot , get in the way - or generally are filled with their ownn self importance that the somehow think they DESERVE to be in a total strangers picture. I have had to take most of my shots
guerilla style .. get in..snap the shot quickly .. and get out without a trace before some inconsiderate bastards fuck up your work. I also find setting up a tripod a pain in the ass. especially when I am moveing locations constantly.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-12 01:58 pm (UTC)Working around the people who get in your way or bump you is a different talent. I don't know what to say there other than keep both eyes open and stay conscious of what going on around you. I'm running around in crowded clubs and pulling off longer exposures. Sometimes, though, the only way to get the good shot (like at the fashion shows) is to be more of an asshole than the next guy.