do f-stops and shutter really matter?

[alef]

Interesting response...can i have permission from a moderator to respond before someone interjects and starts calling me an arrongant cunt? And bins the Thread via erase rather than to allow others to possibly learn something about the difference between professional and amateur photography? If any at all?

I'm not a moderator but my call is just start a new thread and respond honestly without being a cunt!

 

[alef]

Let me try a new analogy: driving a car. If you want to be a Schumacher then obviously you have to know a good bit under the hood. But you can actually be a top notch driver without even knowing how to check the oil. The key point being that trying to figure out loads about your engine won't actually improve your driving when you're initially on the roads.

Back to photography, I'd like to compare two pictures:
alef's Lady in Tiananmen Square
squelch's Cornish Man

Your picture has a fantastic level of sharpness requiring lens and expertise I don't have, credit to you! My picture was taken with a disposable I could never blow this picture up to any size or sell prints, but it works pretty well online. I'm happy with it and very proud of it, though recognize the limitations of the shot. Do I regret not having a better camera with me? No, I love photography and my passions remain colours, shapes, compositions, patterns, textures and so on -- don't give a rat's arse about the f-stop.

If people want to spend loads of money and time on the technical sides of photography, fine, go for it. But if you just want to take interesting pictures then newbies shouldn't feel the need for anything more than any camera!

 

[Paul Russell]

Are you playing Devil's Advocate here?!

Aperture and shutter speed seem pretty important to me, given that choosing an appropriate depth of field and the pic not being blurred are important qualities in photos!

But a beginner can learn everything they need to know about aperture and shutter speed in an hour. Especially with a digital, where you can see the results instantly. Setting a camera in Program mode seems like a last resort.


Some people take the tecchie side too far though. Like people on dpreview doing 20 minute exposures with the lens cap on to seen how many stuck pixels they have. Or whatever it is. "I have 42 stuck pixels, should I take it back because I want my pictures of my cat/dog/girlfriend to be perfect".

 

[alef]

I'm genuine in my stance, though of course an hour's training is nothing to be avoided. You are right that it's not that complex.

Disagree about Program mode being a last resort, I think it's fine. Again, like a car, what's wrong with driving an automatic? Yes, using gears gives you more control, but that's not the essence of driving.

 

[boskysquelch]

If people want to spend loads of money and time on the technical sides of photography, fine, go for it. But if you just want to take interesting pictures then newbies shouldn't feel the need for anything more than any camera!

So are we going to discuss the physics and chemistry and their combination in photography....or the ability to purchase?....or the personalization of this debate?...which i attempted not to create(even though obviously I did of sorts!LOL) but before i begin my bollocks I'll state again....


My contribution to such debate is honestley given... I have been fortunate to have been given by others and the whole reason I give still(even with what has happened repeatedly when i offer knowledge Here) is that this is not "saving lives' but can assist people interested in this subject to appreciate, consider and choose a path to their intended goal.



With that said alef do you wish me to respond to your opening gambits?...with what academic ability and professionalism? Or with emotion and my personal POV?<<<<the Artistic side of me if you will.


And whaddeva won't do!

It's too sunny outside* and I'm not even at my puta...so I'm making serious effort here!


*funnily enough I don't take many picutres after 10am or before 3pm so I'm not missing much<<<<<whyzzat then?

 

[alef]

Therefore those things don't apply to a critique...interesting stance?

[changed to black text]interesting spelling + repetiton tooo mate!...think about it?

The other thread is clearly intended for critiquing specific photos, not a debate on general approaches to photography.

Yes, aperture and f-stop are the same thing, just told Skim I'd made the mistake after starting the thread. She assured me someone would point it out quickly Could a moderator please change this thread title to "do f-stops and shutter really matter?" please?

As for commenting on my spelling and hiding your sniggering comments in small yellow text, how about some genuine debate using ideas and examples?

 

[Paul Russell]

Disagree about Program mode being a last resort, I think it's fine. Again, like a car, what's wrong with driving an automatic? Yes, using gears gives you more control, but that's not the essence of driving.

Yeah, but what if you took a pic in Program mode of someone against a confusing background and it selected f8, when f2 would have made a much better pic

 

[alef]

So are we going to discuss the physics and chemistry and their combination in photography....or the ability to purchase?....or the personalization of this debate?...which i attempted not to create(even though obviously I did of sorts!LOL) but before i begin my bollocks I'll state again....

My contribution to such debate is honestley given... I have been fortunate to have been given by others and the whole reason I give still(even with what has happened repeatedly when i offer knowledge Here) is that this is not "saving lives' but can assist people interested in this subject to appreciate, consider and choose a path to their intended goal.

With that said alef do you wish me to respond to your opening gambits?...with what academic ability and professionalism? Or with emotion and my personal POV?<<<<the Artistic side of me if you will.

And whaddeva won't do!

It's too sunny outside* and I'm not even at my puta...so I'm making serious effort here!


*funnily enough I don't take many picutres after 10am or before 3pm so I'm not missing much<<<<<whyzzat then?

If you think I've got too personal then my apologies. I was only choosing to compare a photo of yours to a photo of mine to specifically illustrate the different ends of the spectrum in terms of equipment and expertise.

You've got lots of questions and various asides, but sorry I'm not able to follow your argument here, so am lost as to how to respond.

I genuinely think the technical sides of photography are vastly over-rated and brilliant pictures can be taken with any sensible camera.

 

[alef]

Yeah, but what if you took a pic in Program mode of someone against a confusing background and it selected f8, when f2 would have made a much better pic

And if you need to drive through mountains your car may choose the wrong gear, of course there are exceptions.

Clearly there's a broad spectrum and in a few situations knowledge of the basics of exposure will save you, but the vast majority of the time your energy is better spent on carefully looking around you through the lens not at it.

 

[boskysquelch]

You've got lots of questions and various asides, but sorry I'm not able to follow your argument here, so am lost as to how to respond.

This is going to be hard then.

If I am so obviously unable to give you a response you can understand, and respond to, maybe it would be better you asked me direct questions; and I will answer to the best of my ability?

And will to the best of my ability stick to only the direct questions being asked?

Fire away.

 

[wordie]

Here's my attempt to get this thread on track...

If people want to spend loads of money and time on the technical sides of photography, fine, go for it. But if you just want to take interesting pictures then newbies shouldn't feel the need for anything more than any camera!

I think there's a lot of merit in what you say Alef, and obviously many, many millions of newcomers to photography, especially in these times of the digital boom, will only be interested in simply pointing their new handy-all-singing-all-dancing-digi-cam and letting the electronics give them a pretty good "average" image of whatever they were looking at.

However, if you're interested in exploiting the full potential of the medium (photography) then it seems to me that you'll be better off if you have an understanding of the technical and mechanical basics.

My problem is that when I shoot a bad image, I want to know why, so that I can avoid doing it again. I tend to spend way too much time worrying about the technical details of photography during the day, so when I start taking photographs for myself I tend (or try) to let things flow more naturally. Or if you like, a bit more hit and miss. (Or if I'm being really pedantic I'll bracket everything!)

So in answer to the title of the thread, I would say yes, aperture and shutter certainly do matter. But I try not to let them get in the way of a good image.

 

[Cid]

Yes they matter, unless you only ever take photographs during the day in good light...

I think one of the problems with the point a click revolution lies in the ability to get a decent picture just by clicking. And this is the thing, they're invariably 'decent' or 'good'. The exceptions tend to be from people (like you) who understand photography (at least the basics) anyway, and know how to compose a picture properly.

I thought I was fairly good with a camera until I started doing architecture - yes my composition wasn't bad, but when you start talking to pro photographers you open up whole new levels where something that just looks 'good' isn't acceptable. Admittedly I noticed this most with model (as in buildings, not attractive people) photography, which is a fairly specialist field - it's when you need specific results that that disposable camera may as well go out the window. Very true of low light work too - had to photograph an installation at night a few months back, and it was surprisingly hard - autofocus goes to shit when it doesn't have a strong subject, you invariably have to end up making compromises between shutter speed and apeture that I wouldn't trust a camera to do for a second (as is evinced by the auto pictures we took at the time). As it's a one-off you need to make sure you get all your pictures right first time and this only really possible with a good understanding of what's going on in your camera - using shit like bracketing etc.

I think what I mean is that, if you have a good eye, disposable/auto cameras can yield excellent results when you stumble across a photo op (during the day). But for work that requires excellent and specific results they don't cut it at all. Especially at night, where they're just out-and-out shit. Also much prefer my old Nikon SLR to any other cameras I have - it's simple, but can be fiddled with to produce excellent results (also has fucking good viewfinder design, god knows how Nikon managed to design the annoying D70 focus area - unless I've missed something). Um... It's not really about the technical side as such, just being able to get more out of your photos. Or something.

 

[Corax]

I see what alef means, but I see no reason not to learn how to exploit what you see fully. The "eye" or whatever, and a degree of technical ability are both necessary to take a good shot, surely? The balance of those two elements has to depend upon what you intend to do with the medium.

 

[boskysquelch]

it's not important really...it's just what I am?

Um... It's not really about the technical side as such, just being able to get more out of your photos. Or something.

U barrrrrrrrrrrrthstaaaaad!...wish I'd said that!


As for the rest of yer guff...your NOT wrong either...goddammit...z'wot i've been trying to get across .... for years!...I can die a happy beligerent, bitter and miserable cunt but an 'appy one! And Corax et al too...where's this coming from...I spent years reading Sontag Berger and Clarke and didn't get near to those opinions except through years of Life experience and pursuit of knowledge...:rubs_Golden_Noddy_badge:

alef....my man!...your aren't wrong either there's is something else to this malarky too...I'll give you another analogy I think you will understand...how about, "I don't need to know maths sir, I've got a calculator."

Even Your own photgraphy shows a choice of aperture and shutter speed...you choose when to take the shot...the light entering the camera is controlled by the device...I know you think you don't but you do...eventually this becomes style...the style of a photgrapher...when regarded as a professional style is simply repetative...systematic choice of lighting and other variables that will in construct by choice of reproductive media become an image....

Thing is mate...I actually think you have a problem distiguishing between a professional and an amateur photographer?*...a photographer is a photographer is a photographer...just taking photographs doesn't make you a photographer...taking photographs over and over and over and learning through experience how to guarentee the image you wish to record does.

I tried to say this before...the term professional is a very strange word in Photography...it has not ever been a complementary one...it is always used in derrogatory context or in conversation become derrogatory...I assure you it's not my paranoia...gets discussed all the time...I can honestly say I've never heard someone say "Hello I'm a professional photographer."

*You prollly don't know but the Amateurs were the French nouveau riche modernists who stealthily refused to allow industry to make the new Art of Photgraphy, in the early years of the science, to be profittered from...but funnily enough the newly created Industrial Revolution of the US chose to democratically ignored this decision...patented the artform and sold it make to a public that thought it to be a hobbyist fad...and so the weird and wonderfull photgraphy became available to common man..or rather who ever could afford a Box Brownie...and other stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuff....but then when photgraphy became expensive and required technical attention to detail due to new matrials/technology and ultimately better imagery photgraphy was taken to new levels of professionalism...a professional is only someone who has been trained and educated to acquire the skills of his trade.


Btw f3.5@1/8sec ISO160 Lens at rough 85mm...took less than 30 secs to ask,prep,point,shoot...prolly a dozen shots taken>>>presently not to hand so i can't refer direct to...and here's the strange thang..and you know it...I argue myself out of printing...alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the time!...I'd rather see a webcam pickee on a monitor that I can feeeel for than a perfect print that I feel nothing for...and also the reverse...it's a photgraphy thang again.

 

[alef]

I do actually agree a fair amount with others here, you can open up more opportunities though good a knowledge of exposures, especially in low light or night situations. I tend to like outdoor day shots and portraits of people by windows, how much this has grown out of necessity I'm not sure.

My gut feeling remains that it's best to start out in photography not bothering in the slightest about the technical details but giving all your attention to the subjects and compositions. Later it's worth learning more, but be careful not to let it inhibit you from just pointing and clicking when needed.

 

[1927]

Let me try a new analogy: driving a car. If you want to be a Schumacher then obviously you have to know a good bit under the hood. But you can actually be a top notch driver without even knowing how to check the oil. The key point being that trying to figure out loads about your engine won't actually improve your driving when you're initially on the roads.

Back to photography, I'd like to compare two pictures:
alef's Lady in Tiananmen Square
squelch's Cornish Man

Your picture has a fantastic level of sharpness requiring lens and expertise I don't have, credit to you! My picture was taken with a disposable I could never blow this picture up to any size or sell prints, but it works pretty well online. I'm happy with it and very proud of it, though recognize the limitations of the shot. Do I regret not having a better camera with me? No, I love photography and my passions remain colours, shapes, compositions, patterns, textures and so on -- don't give a rat's arse about the f-stop.

If people want to spend loads of money and time on the technical sides of photography, fine, go for it. But if you just want to take interesting pictures then newbies shouldn't feel the need for anything more than any camera!

But your analogy is bollox!

If you wanna be a Michael Schumacher you dont need to know what happens under the bonnet,but you do need to know the importance of correct gear selection and the effect it has on acceleration fuel consumption etc. In the same way if you wanna be a good-(not neccessarily professional)-photographer you need to know the importance of aperture selection and its effect on such things as depth of field,without knowing how the internal workings of the camera actually work!

 

[Zaskar]

Yes it does.

By juggling aperture and shutter speed you can selct the depth of field, how deep the area of sharpest focus is.

Low f number, shallow depth of field, so only your subject is sharp. Great for getting attention and clarity especially if the background is cluttered.

High f number and nearly everything is in focus. Great for landscapes with a forground subject.

Shifting the focal point is a great effect in video to shift the viewers attention.

Changing shutter speed has other effects in video but i think you want to know for stills use so I wont waffle on.

The bigger the ccd (or film) the shallower dof you can get. All to do with physics and stuff.

This is a big part of the reason I want a better canera with huge ccds. Mine are currently .33 inch, better cams are .5 or .66inch and allow more creative control of dof.

Depth of field can also be reduced by using a longer lens or zooming in, a trick I often use cos of my small CCds.

Hope this helps. I expect others have said the same, I dint read all the previous.

 

[boskysquelch]

a trick I often use cos of my small CCds.

<snip waffle>Waffle!

tis different with ccds.thinks?

 

[wordie]

<snip waffle>Waffle!

tis different with ccds.thinks?

You see squelch... you can contribute sense that even dull old sods like what I am, can understand!

However, whilst dredging through the page you linked, I found this:

Photojournalists have a saying, "f/8 and be there." People interpret the expression differently, but one meaning is that f/8 will give a good picture, and being on the scene is more important than worrying excessively about technical details.

I may have got things completely confused here, but isn't this what Alef is basically saying.....? (Except in his case he was referring to 1/64th instead of f/8.... and if I were more honest, I'd admit to it being a rule of thumb I've used myself occassionally....)

 

[Zaskar]

No it is the same for film or ccd.... Dont get what you mean. Cos of some arcane physcis stuff the larger the projected image the smaller effective f number you can get and the shallower the depth of field.

I am not sure of the theory or the correct language to use in decribing this effect, but the effect is real.

 

[Zaskar]

You see squelch... you can contribute sense that even dull old sods like what I am, can understand!

However, whilst dredging through the page you linked, I found this:

I may have got things completely confused here, but isn't this what Alef is basically saying.....? (Except in his case he was referring to 1/64th instead of f/8.... and if I were more honest, I'd admit to it being a rule of thumb I've used myself occassionally....)

Middleish stops (and zooms) are often where a lens is sharpest and performs best.

 

[wordie]

Middleish stops (and zooms) are often where a lens is sharpest and performs best.

Very true... !

 

[boskysquelch]

Again i don't ave things to hand<<dead puta>>>but the thing is on the web somewhere I'm sure...baaaaaaaaaasically the d.o.field, d.o.focus and aperture sizes are directly proportional to the diagonal length of the film size...or some such,,,sorry i'd have to look up the exact thang...prolly will do ina minute...ccd exposure and stuuuuuuuuuuff is a bit different..partially the same...but the adoption of f-stops and focal lengths and the resultant images digitally produced was an industry convinience to allow users to interpretate their previously acquired knowledge...deep breath...and stuuuuufff!

As for the quote...i saw that...and was actually taught that myself by Norman Parkinson( !!!)... basically i was in a flap with him over a light meter failing...he said not to panic...showed me to cup my hand slightly and with a reasonale mid grey shadow in the palm you could expect to get a reasonable exposure of f8@1/125 for a 125ASA film...and with more experience and observation you could get a feel for even more acurate exposures...top man and a technique that took away the fear of getting an incorrect exposure with a one shot medium and getting past numbers and stuuuuufff. >>>alsooooo i don't usually do reportagey stuff for papers but was the other weeko)...was asked to attend local Rotary Club Ball,,,spent the evening being larfed at by local papparazzi sporting me 602 and a hand held flash on an extention cable(a la Weege)....while they sported all the latest Nikon blahblahblah20grands worthblahblahblah...guess who got the fullpage 15 picture spread?...and who got the thumnails in the papers index and bugger all else*?

Bit of the same but slightly different alef?


*mind u they got paid...I did it for charitttteeeeee!

 

[boskysquelch]

Very true... !

And so We enter the world of Lenses and their Abberations.

 

[Zaskar]

Like your story on the pics you shot. It's cool doing it well the wrong way with bothched stuff. For video lighting I use those 500 w halogens that cost a fiver.

The way of classing lenses by focal length is all skewed by digital cos of the smaller than 35mm ccd size. And when it comes to asa numbers and stuff and dig, well I am lost .

What I do know is that i am jealous of hte low noise, high sensitivty and size of you stills peoples silicon.

It's all something to do with the way a vid cam reads the ccd, one line at a time (interline ?) whereas a stills cam grabs it all in one chunk.

Rapidly walking out on thin ice now.....

 

[boskysquelch]

It's cool doing it well the wrong way with bothched stuff.

Which get's us back to alef's point...abit...I work(ed) with the best people and equipment and the worst people and equipment and many combinations of them ALL...and yup the image is the thing in the end...but the means to the end is in the technical application to your tools availablle to you. I have images in my that will stay with me form webcams,126 format(my first thought about pictures), to Hasseblads and Steadycams in remotely operated spheres hanging from helicopters....and I know all the ones that stay with me are there because of the quality of light they captured, subject matter and composition...the spec of aperture and other techy stuff I can see/understand but it coexists...and the better the marriage of those parts the better the whole.

Okay I am getting confusing here!...again!


re-f64:::1/64...here a thing or three::::

1/64:::the general rule of thumb is that the minimum shutter speed useable on a lens of a particular focal length...handheld..is roughly equal...so 8mm@1/8,28mm@1/30,135mm@1/125 etc etc...more physics stuff todo with light/the speed of and shutters...it's slightly different between curtain,iris and digi tooooo...and stufffffffffff!


f64::::the optimum aperture to match maximum d.o.f WITH hand ground lenses where the minimum abberations are found in the centre of the lens...as oppose to factory manufactured lens who use lens combination to reduce abberations...and stuuuuuuuuuuuuuff!


I'm always on thin ice...always!

 

[Zaskar]

Good pouints and info, so true that the light and the composition, the action, the vibe, the context all come befor all the teccy stuff. I have missed a few priceless bits of action cos I was fluffing to get the camera set up just 'so'. Much better just to point and shooot and get the action.

' steadicams in spheres hanging form a copter' , Oh I am so envious of you. I am new to all this and still at the vinegar and brown paper end of things and I dream of stedicams and even (gulp) getting paid to touch one one day.... ahhhhhh......

 

[boskysquelch]

Much better just to point and shooot and get the action.

like this oh tierney,tierney,tierney! ?

 

[Zaskar]

Nicey if a bit pricey, but those look like..... carefully set up expensive camera with much thought and expirience....... then quickly grab that action shot.

 

[Cid]

Okkkk, this is all starting to get a bit much for me... Heat's getting to me, will have a cold beer and attempt to get my head round stuff. Think I know what you nutjobs are talking about, but am gonna have a swift leaf through some photography books (my sis picked up life magazine's: The techniques of photography for £1 from come charity shop - haven't got through much, but seems quite good, if a bit old).

To get back to the point - when I go out to take photos i take my FM2n (luvverly old Nikon job), a 50mm lens and a 28mm lens. 's all i need and want (though I sometimes take a sigma 105mm macro/tele). Find a spot that typifies the lighting, set the 28mm to infinite and the 50 to about 3m, set the shutter speed and step out into the big wide world. Invariably change everything, but the changes are quick and simple. The main reason I love it is the viewfinder - it's a work of genius imo, and should've been carried into later SLRs.

Central circle (split image) is stupidly good for focusing on anything with edges, next circle (focuses when shimmering stops) is good for fast moving objects, outer (goes from matt to clear) - good for everything else. It means you can change focus quickly and confidently in response to light/subject etc. With an auto camera it'd do all this for me, but the results just wouldn't cut it imo - if I see a photo op like this I want the subject in stronger focus than the backdrop, or with this I want a feeling of movement that requires a slow shutter speed, even though it's in daylight conditions (not that those images are great mind you, quite old). Could never do that with a point and click auto jobbie, and tbh learning your way around a nice ol' slr isn't hard and is rewarding.

Then we come back to indoor work - this is taken with a powershot A70... It's not bad as such, and I actually only used a few desk lamps for illumination but it could be better, and from my tutor's point of view it has to be the best ('s a model of a building I was designing last year, sadly model was thrown away and I never finished the project ). All settings are on auto iirc, except that it's with 'slow' shutter speed. And this is the thing - with a bit of extra work and an SLR that would've been a perfect(ish) pic.

I'm not sure exactly what I'm getting at - on the one hand I think a camera you take out with you for enjoyment etc has to be simple enough that you don't miss a good photo op, on the other it has to be customisable enough that that 'good' shot can be superb. 's all a bit confusing tbh.

Now to get back to that beer