User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  4
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Confused about f/stop Chart in NTP Learning Plan

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    15 Feb 2013
    Location
    Just South(ish) of Adelaide
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Confused about f/stop Chart in NTP Learning Plan

    Ok, so I've read the f/stop chart page in New To Photography learning plan

    I get that these are the magic numbers that equate to halving the diameter of each aperture (hole) as we go from 1.4 to (1.4)^2 = 2 to (1.4)^3 =2.8
    and that if I don't touch my ISO and I want to maintain the same amount of light entering my image I will need to double the speed of my shutter
    OR if I don't touch my shutter speed and I want to mainain the same amount of light entering my image I will need to double the sensitivity to light (my ISO)

    I understand the relationship between the f/stop being a divisor of the focal length of the lens with the diameter of the aperture

    What I don't understand is why I care?

    Example:
    in the chart -
    what does knowing that I will let in the same amount of light if I leave my ISO as static
    and I make aperture diameter half the size
    as well as speeding up the shutter speed by doubling it
    as I would if I left it alone mean to my photo?

    I'm (so far) quite comfortable with the math's but I don't understand how understanding that relates to the actual photo?

    If it's on the next page, I may regret this post, but I am going to post it anyway.

  2. #2
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,641
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Aperture controls Depth of Field (DoF), i.e. how much of the subject is in focus.
    So while one exposure is the same as another from the amount of light perspective
    they have different aesthetic attributes, i.e.
    • shallow DoF (wide open, low number aperture) - blurred background
    • slow shutter speed (closed, high number aperture) - possible camera shake blur or moving subject blur
    regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
    Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff



  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    15 Feb 2013
    Location
    Just South(ish) of Adelaide
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    so if I take a photo that I think has correct exposure but the depth of field is too large and I want background blur, I decrease the size of my aperture (higher number) and compensate for that with shutter speed (faster) to change the aesthetics of the photo but still have the same well exposed shot?


    Ok it took me a while, but my brain likes that now

  4. #4
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,643
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Quanita View Post
    so if I take a photo that I think has correct exposure but the depth of field is too large and I want background blur, I decrease the size of my aperture (higher number) and compensate for that with shutter speed (faster) to change the aesthetics of the photo but still have the same well exposed shot?


    Ok it took me a while, but my brain likes that now
    exactly! But remember that as you increase ISO you also increase noise, so its all a wonderfully creative balancing act that we play.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  5. #5
    Member OAKS's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Feb 2013
    Location
    Orbost
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am thinking lower number for less dof? I might be wrong but if you have an aperture of say f11 you will have a lot more in focus than if you had a aperture of say f1.8 . so for buttery background you would be shooting with the small number (big hole) and for a scene where everything is to be in focus you would use say f11 (smaller hole). Maybe the pros could tell me if this is right........ but this is how i understand things

    cheers,

  6. #6
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,641
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The why is explained here... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...-_why_is_it_so

    f/1.4 has a much shallower DoF than f/11

  7. #7
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    15 Feb 2013
    Location
    Just South(ish) of Adelaide
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by OAKS View Post
    I am thinking lower number for less dof? I might be wrong but if you have an aperture of say f11 you will have a lot more in focus than if you had a aperture of say f1.8 . so for buttery background you would be shooting with the small number (big hole) and for a scene where everything is to be in focus you would use say f11 (smaller hole). Maybe the pros could tell me if this is right........ but this is how i understand things

    cheers,
    Yep taa... got all caught up and messed up - will edit to correct it thanks!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Quanita View Post
    so if I take a photo that I think has correct exposure but the depth of field is too large and I want background blur, I increase the size of my aperture (lower number) and compensate for that with shutter speed (slower) to change the aesthetics of the photo but still have the same well exposed shot?


    Ok it took me a while, but my brain likes that now
    Erm so in my haste to get it I swapped the ideas around... and as per @OAKS comment have corrected it above.
    Sorry If I have inadvertently confused anyone else (eek)

  8. #8
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,643
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Quanita View Post
    Sorry If I have inadvertently confused anyone else (eek)
    Nah..we all get it. Only confused one is you.

  9. #9
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    15 Feb 2013
    Location
    Just South(ish) of Adelaide
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks Rick....
    Everyone just Calls me "Q"
    IT Geek: Craft Nerd: Camera Doofus [My Blog|My Flickr]
    Samsung NX11, 18-55mm f3.5-5.6(kit), 50-200mm f4-5.6 telephoto(kit), 60mm f2.8 Macro, Adobe Photoshop CS6 on Win7
    CC welcome thanks (corn chips or constructive critique)

  10. #10
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That's the simplistic way to look at it .. wait till you find out that aperture/shutter/ISO aren't the only elements that can determine the exposure.

    Lens design(T-Stop) and even different sensors in the camera all make a contribution to the actual exposure.

    Do you watch the meter level indicator in your viewfinder as you work on the composition .. before you take the shot?
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •