Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
You're right of course the shutter on a mechanical camera even new could be off by as much as a third of a stop. In an old Modern Photography essay by Keppler, I remember reading that the fast shutter speeds, i.e. those above 1/1000 sec. could be off by as much as 2/3 stops. If there is that much variation why add more? If you cannot trust the marked speeds why attempt using unmarked speeds. I really don't see the point. Are you saying that DOF is so important that you would rather not change your lenses f stop and would rather adjust the shutter to an in-between setting? At least there is some claim to linear response with in-between f settings. There none with in-between shutter speeds. With the latitude of most modern print films, (those produced in the last 50 years at least), I doubt very much that you will see anything like that much variation in the print. Unless you were already just at the edge of an acceptable exposure. At 06:39 AM 7/18/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Do you really think your shutter and aperture >are that accurate? > >Here's a simple test. Shoot a frame with flash >and set the SS and half of sync speed. (1/250 if >sync is 1/125). Then see what the % error is on >the print. It'll be off at least 10%, unless you're >lucky a really good body sample. > >Also, even if you guestimate on what the ss will be >between clicks, you may get closer to what you want >on the neg than by sticking to the detents. > >The camera should serve the photographer. > >Collin > >>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:52:27 -0400 >>From: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>But there is no guarantee of just what shutter speed will be delivered or >>for that matter how it will relate to the meter reading. > > >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< > >- >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
Do you really think your shutter and aperture are that accurate? Here's a simple test. Shoot a frame with flash and set the SS and half of sync speed. (1/250 if sync is 1/125). Then see what the % error is on the print. It'll be off at least 10%, unless you're lucky a really good body sample. Also, even if you guestimate on what the ss will be between clicks, you may get closer to what you want on the neg than by sticking to the detents. The camera should serve the photographer. Collin >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:52:27 -0400 >From: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >But there is no guarantee of just what shutter speed will be delivered or >for that matter how it will relate to the meter reading. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
But there is no guarantee of just what shutter speed will be delivered or for that matter how it will relate to the meter reading. At 01:13 PM 7/17/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Au contraire! >Your mechanical bodies will do it for shutter speed as well. >(I just haven't check out my ZX-M to see if it's mechanism >will allow that feature.) > >Collin > >At 11:41 AM 7/17/01 -0400, you wrote: >>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:35:19 -0400 >>From: "Anand DHUPKAR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question >> >>in between settings - for aperture, not for shutter speed. > > >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< > >- >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
Yes, I just discovered about a week ago that I can get ½ apertures on my Spotmatic. There is a slight click about halfway between the actual markings. And when I take the lens off and look at the aperture size, it is halfway between the two. Jody. --- Anand DHUPKAR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in between settings - for aperture, not for shutter > speed. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
Depends on the camera, but most mechanical cameras allow this. I don't do it though because you don't know what shutter speed you are using - going between 1/60 and 1/125 you might get 1/75, 1/90, 1/115 - you don't know, and it's hard to line it up at the same place again. Of course these mechanical shutters aren't perfect either, as it will fire at a slightly different speed everytime at the same setting, but that's more consistant. Electronic shutters are only stepless in automatic, but are have less variation in manual because they are electronically timed. BTW, the ZX-M's shutter speed dial is not stepless, you only get full stops except you can select 1/100, even if you aren't using a flash. Todd At 02:32 PM 7/17/01 -0400, you wrote: >You mean that if you set shutter speed in betwen 125 and 250, you would get >shutter speed in between ? Are you sure ? In fact, as I understand, those >were called stepped shutter speeds and then when electronic shutters were >introduced, we have stepless shutters - which support stepless when you >select aperture. However, you can not select shutter speed in between the >marked steps i.e. say 125 and 250 or 250 and 500 or 500 and 1000 > >I used Minolta SRT 101, SRT 303 and Pentax KM. >Never got in between settings for those shutter speeds > > > >>From: Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question >>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:13:07 -0500 >> >>Au contraire! >>Your mechanical bodies will do it for shutter speed as well. >>(I just haven't check out my ZX-M to see if it's mechanism >>will allow that feature.) >> >>Collin >> >>At 11:41 AM 7/17/01 -0400, you wrote: >>>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:35:19 -0400 >>>From: "Anand DHUPKAR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Subject: Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question >>> >>>in between settings - for aperture, not for shutter speed. >> >> >>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >> <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< >> >>- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
Au contraire! Your mechanical bodies will do it for shutter speed as well. (I just haven't check out my ZX-M to see if it's mechanism will allow that feature.) Collin At 11:41 AM 7/17/01 -0400, you wrote: >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:35:19 -0400 >From: "Anand DHUPKAR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question > >in between settings - for aperture, not for shutter speed. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
Because they are limited to customers with lots of spare money. (Sorry, just couldn't resist a straight line like Alan provided) Alan Chan wrote: > Hate to say that but those aren't limited edition lenses, but Limited > lenses. I don't understand why they were called Limited however. -- Tom "Graywolf" Rittenhouse Graywolf Photo, Charlotte, NC, USA -- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
in between settings - for aperture, not for shutter speed. >From: Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:53:49 -0500 > >The detents on your aperture ring, as well as on >the shutter speed dial of those who have one, is >only a guide. If you need a setting in between >it's available to use. The camera will automatically >use one, and is kind enough to let you know what >it's doing. > >Collin > >>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:25:20 -0400 >>From: "Jeff Eikenberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>The aperture ring on my 28-80 lense notates the above apertures that fall >>into it's range. However, when I go into aperture-priority mode on the >>camera with the lense set to "Auto Aperture", the camera gives me, for >>example, f13 and f19, which are not avail on the aperture ring. So, my two >>questions: >>1- Are these "odd ball" apertures considered to be full stops, ie f13 to >>f16 >>being one stop? >>2- When in "Auto Aperture" mode on the lense, can I actually shoot at f13, >>19 ect. >> I usually shoot at 3.5 5.6 16 or 22, so I never really noticed >>this >>until recently. Thanks in advance for all of your help, and I'm glad to be >>a >>part of this group! - >>See ya >> Jeff > > >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< > >- >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
thanks for the source of TTYL. I wonder why is it internet jargon, though. i remember my daughter's winnie-the-pooh show - pooh bear says TTFN - tata for now !! >From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:22:18 -0400 > >On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:05:22 +1000, Paul Jones wrote: > > > What does TTYL mean? > >"Talk To You Later" > >There are a million of them. Do a Google search on "Internet Jargon >File" or similar and you'll find more of them than you'd ever want to >admit existed. :-) > >IMO - In My Opinion >IMHO - In My Humble Opinion >IMNSHO - In My Not So Humble Opinion >L8R - Later >BTW - By The Way >IIRC - If I Recall Correctly >... ad nauseam > >TTYL, DougF > > >- >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
>film;), NPH 400, and a Lowepro Bag to carry it all. My future gear: A money >tree in the backyard so I can fill up my bushel basket and go buy the MZ-S, >the limited edition lense, and a skid of Fuji Pro Films! Hate to say that but those aren't limited edition lenses, but Limited lenses. I don't understand why they were called Limited however. Btw, when you got the money tree seeds, don't forget to mail some to your list members... I have already allocated some space in my backyard. >I've got two questions concerning apertures that I'm sure someone can help >me with. First of all, I was under the impression that full-stop apertures >were in the following increments: 1.4 2.0 2.8 3.5 5.6 8.0 11 16 22 >32 45 64 Should be... 2.8, 4, 5.6, ... >The aperture ring on my 28-80 lense notates the above apertures that fall >into it's range. However, when I go into aperture-priority mode on the >camera with the lense set to "Auto Aperture", the camera gives me, for >example, f13 and f19, which are not avail on the aperture ring. So, my two >questions: >1- Are these "odd ball" apertures considered to be full stops, ie f13 to >f16 >being one stop? 1/2 stops. >2- When in "Auto Aperture" mode on the lense, can I actually shoot at f13, >19 ect. Certainly. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
The detents on your aperture ring, as well as on the shutter speed dial of those who have one, is only a guide. If you need a setting in between it's available to use. The camera will automatically use one, and is kind enough to let you know what it's doing. Collin >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:25:20 -0400 >From: "Jeff Eikenberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >The aperture ring on my 28-80 lense notates the above apertures that fall >into it's range. However, when I go into aperture-priority mode on the >camera with the lense set to "Auto Aperture", the camera gives me, for >example, f13 and f19, which are not avail on the aperture ring. So, my two >questions: >1- Are these "odd ball" apertures considered to be full stops, ie f13 to f16 >being one stop? >2- When in "Auto Aperture" mode on the lense, can I actually shoot at f13, >19 ect. > I usually shoot at 3.5 5.6 16 or 22, so I never really noticed this >until recently. Thanks in advance for all of your help, and I'm glad to be a >part of this group! - >See ya > Jeff * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
I can usualy pick most of them, but that was a newy to me. Cya - Original Message - From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 3:22 PM Subject: Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question > On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:05:22 +1000, Paul Jones wrote: > > > What does TTYL mean? > > "Talk To You Later" > > There are a million of them. Do a Google search on "Internet Jargon > File" or similar and you'll find more of them than you'd ever want to > admit existed. :-) > > IMO - In My Opinion > IMHO - In My Humble Opinion > IMNSHO - In My Not So Humble Opinion > L8R - Later > BTW - By The Way > IIRC - If I Recall Correctly > ... ad nauseam > > TTYL, DougF > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
Talk To You Lumberjack. - Original Message - From: "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 10:05 PM Subject: Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question > Hey Doug, > > What does TTYL mean? > > Cya > - Original Message - > From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 2:51 PM > Subject: Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question > > > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:25:20 -0400, Jeff Eikenberry wrote: > > > > > Hello to all! I'm Jeff Eikenberry from Muskegon, MI. I've been into > > > photography for 2-1/2 yrs and at the "seriously obsessed" level for > about a > > > year. I just discovered this site last week, and found it to be very > > > informative (and a complete riot:) > > > > Boy, I hope you've got a job that pays well! :-) > > > > > I was under the impression that full-stop apertures > > > were in the following increments: 1.4 2.0 2.8 3.5 5.6 8.0 11 16 > 22 > > > 32 45 64+ > > > > Each full stop lets in twice as much light as the stop "below" it and > > half as much as the stop "above" it. The thing to remember is that the > > amount of light is proportional to the area of the lens opening, while > > the f-stop is proportional to the diameter (or radius) of that opening. > > So, doubling the light means doubling the area, but only multiplies the > > f-stop by 1.414 (square root of 2). On the other side, halving the > > light means halving the area, but reduces the f-stop to 0.707 of the > > higher value (1 over the square root of 2). So, one possible full stop > > progression would run like > > > > 1.0 1.4 2.8 4.0 5.6 8 11 16 22 32 45 > > > > So, I'm basically saying that you're right. :-) > > > > > 1- Are these "odd ball" apertures considered to be full stops, ie f13 to > f16 > > > being one stop? > > > > They're not full stops, but they're perfectly valid aperture values. > > Just because the viewfinder shows 13 then 16 does _not_ mean that > > they're a stop apart. What it means is that's the smallest difference > > the _viewfinder_ can show at that point in the exposure scale. > > Actually, f/13 and f/16 are more like a half stop apart. If I had the > > gumption I'd figure it out ... something like log2(16) - log2(13) or > > some such. > > > > > 2- When in "Auto Aperture" mode on the lense, can I actually shoot at > f13, > > > 19 ect. > > > > Yes, you can. The viewfinder is telling you (as closely as it can) what > > aperture the computer in the camera selected. It is not restricted to > > full stops. It might even not be using the exact value shown in the > > viewfinder; e.g., it could have chosen f/15.6 and only be able to show > > f/16. It would be a bit of a pain in the old wazoo if the computer was > > restricted that way. In fact, the computer can pursue apetures that you > > can't select from the aperture ring on the lens, because it can control > > the lens aperture with finer "grain" than the aperture ring. > > > > Hope this helps. :-) > > > > TTYL, > > DougF > > > > > > - > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:11:56 -0500 (CDT), Chris Brogden wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Doug Franklin wrote: > > > So, one possible full stop progression would run like > > 1.0 1.4 2.8 4.0 5.6 8 11 16 22 32 45 > > ...with an f2 stuck in there somewhere. :) OOPS! Big oversight, that one. Sorry about that folks. TTYL, DougF - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:05:22 +1000, Paul Jones wrote: > What does TTYL mean? "Talk To You Later" There are a million of them. Do a Google search on "Internet Jargon File" or similar and you'll find more of them than you'd ever want to admit existed. :-) IMO - In My Opinion IMHO - In My Humble Opinion IMNSHO - In My Not So Humble Opinion L8R - Later BTW - By The Way IIRC - If I Recall Correctly ... ad nauseam TTYL, DougF - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Greeting from newcomer & aperture question
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Doug Franklin wrote: > So, one possible full stop progression would run like > > 1.0 1.4 2.8 4.0 5.6 8 11 16 22 32 45 ...with an f2 stuck in there somewhere. :) Other than that, an excellent post, IMO. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Aperture Question...
To say "Shoot everything at f/22" is mighty general. - with some lenses, f/22 will yield diffraction which might prevent quality enlargements if clarity is the goal. - f/22 might provide a great depth-of-field, but not all photos require it or benefit from it. Sometimes a nice landscape requires some out-of-focus elements to give a 3-D effect, or focus the eye of the viewer on a particular part of the picture. It could be a question of style. (Some people really want everything in focus.) It could be a question of wanting to be like someone else. (Ansel Adams and buddies liked f-64...) It could be a personal preference. Whatever the reasoning behind the blanket statement, it probably will do no good to debate it. When you shoot, you can use what you want. If you did want f/22 in all situations, you'd probably be carrying a tripod (should anyway), cable release, and maybe even a neutral density filter or two (if you were shooting in bright daylight with fast film) There are no absolutes. This image (see link below) was shot at about f/8 to get a shutter speed that would allow hand-held work with this beast of a zoom - the scan does not do the shot justice but even as presented, I don't think there is anything disturbingly out-of-focus: http://whitemetal.com/photos_2001/scenic_2000_02.htm Paul M. Provencher (ppro) -Original Message- From: Tanya & Russell Mayer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 1:46 AM To: Pentax Discussion List Subject: Aperture Question... - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
Any serious landscape photgrapghy is done on tripod so amount of light kind of doesn't matter if you want maximum depth of feild, yes, always shoot at your smallest aperature, but don't focus at infinity! Use your depth of field scales and put infinity near the outer edge of the scale! - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
Tanya asks: > She claimed that his number one tip was to shoot EVERYTHING in landscape > photography at f22 to ensure maximum depth of field. Ok, so here is my > question, (and please forgive me if I am wway off track here), but when > you are shooting, say a lake, or a beach scene at 6.30 at night and you need > more light, doesn't it make sense to shoot as wide open as possible? Depends if you're using a tripod. I did some half-hour night-sky exposures the other night with the 15mm on a tripod. I was going to try one while lying back with the camera on my chest to see how my breathing/heartbeat affected the star trails but I'd have needed a couple of hours and I didn't want to freeze :) I shoot most of my landscapes around f/5.6 to f/11 to maximise lens resolution where applicable. The resolution of a lens is generally best at these apertures and actually decreases towards f/22 because of diffraction. If you want to see this quantified take a look at: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/index.html and have a browse through the numbers. If I need more depth of field I'll stop down further and use the hyperfocal distance, until I run out of handholdable shutter speeds when I face the question: "am I too lazy to get the tripod?". Yesterday when I faced with this decision the tripod was a 30-minute round trip of hilly walking away. I looked at my lens focussing scale and moved back by a metre instead :) I also use mirror lockup (yes, handheld) to get an extra stop of shutter speed below the "1/focal length" rule-of-thumb. > The > lady I spoke to argued the point of depth of field with me, but unless I am > rally mistaken, I thought that the theory behind a lens which focuses at > "infinity" meant that after your subject is a certain distance away from the > lens (eg. 8 metres on my Vivitar 28/2) the focusing switches to infinity > which basically means that everything is in focus anyways? Correct, although it depends on the aperture you're shooting at. You can get even more DOF using what's known as the hyperfocal distance. I don't put all my faith in the lens focussing scale though, as the "cutoff" point between "in focus" and "not in focus" is not abrupt and some lenses will indicate a "wider" zone of "sharpness" than others for a given focal length and aperture. When using this method I always try to keep at least one stop "in reserve" by focussing with the f/8 scale when set to f/11, for example. This gives me a little extra margin in case the lens manufacturer has a different definition of "acceptably sharp" to my own opinion. If DOF is important (I'm talking desired DOF which is not necessarily maximum) then I would strongly recommend a camera with DOF preview. I find it absolutely indispensable, not only for a rough check of my hyperfocal distance, but particularly for my macro work when I'm most often shooting around 1:2 magnification at about f/4-5.6 (a DOF of about a couple of millimetres). It really helps on those ultra-rare portraits I've been known to take as I can see just how my background is going to look (although you don't get to see the effect of your flash on those highly reflective things you didn't see:). > I mean, if that > is not the case, than what is the use of having a "fast lens" when only a > miniscule amount of your shot will be in focus? Handheld exposures in low light. I've been known to use my 24mm f/2.0 wide open because of bad light and slow film. My 15mm f/3.5 has been known to frustrate me because it's so darn slow :) (nevermind the 200/4 or 400/5.6 - I can't afford a 200/2.8 yet and couldn't even carry a 400/2.8) Also, "selective" focus can be very effective in the right situation. Usually that situation is when you have no option but to shoot at f/2.0 :) BTW I'm making the assumption that everyone's talking about 35mm gear. Larger formats tend to require smaller apertures to get the same DOF, because the lenses are longer for the same angle of view. The principles are exactly the same but the numbers are different. f/22 can be pretty useful for 6x7 or 4x5 landscapes. > I am sure that I sound really backward and totally clueless to even very > basic photography rules on this, but if her friend is truly an "expert" then > wouldn't he be correct in his f22 theory? And if he is, can somebody please > elaborate on this for me, cause I have definitely lost the plot > somewhere Don't worry, I'm absolutely clueless about taking photos of people. I do my best to exclude them from my pictures :) > Oh, btw, Merry Easter!! (Well, some people say "Happy Christmas" you know!) > 8-) I just got back from a long weekend at Lake Tekapo... to 403 new email messages! Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. email [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ "Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the
Re: Aperture Question...
I also lived in Toronto for three years consulting to Clearnet. It's my favorite city in all the world - 9 months out of the year. I had a condo at 40 Scollard St. near Bloor and Yonge St., and my favorite hangout there was Remy's. My job had me traveling and talking with folks from Pickering to Windsor and around the "Golden Horseshoe" to Ft. Erie. The older people of Toronto are most polite and good natured, and the young people of Toronto are exceptionally warm and friendly. I have relatives in London and Oshawa (as well as in Calgary, Alberta and Stanstead & Beebe, Que.) Regards, Bob... Give blood. Play hockey. From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > BTW I live in Toronto, - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
All is forgotten. Had I known that you are an old fart like me, I would have left it alone. We don't want any heart attacks here. BTW I live in Toronto, but I'm not born Canadian, so hockey and skating are not my favorite pastimes. But I do have a passion for photography, so I'll always try to add my comments, and I'll always listen for advise or constructive criticism. Regards, Jeff. - Original Message - From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 10:50 PM Subject: Re: Aperture Question... > It was not intended as a smartass remark, and I don't appreciate being > called a smartass (even if I am one.) Nevertheless, it's clear that you > believed it was. I accept responsibility for all this miscommunication. > Therefore: > > I am sorry for responding to your post in a smartass manner. I will attempt > to refrain from doing so in the future. I also apologize for my poor math. > Had I not been so stupid, I would have seen that it was closer to 10 ft and > not have asked the question. I chalk it up to a senior moment. > > I still don't understand exactly how this justifies calling me names, but > let's just forget it and try to be at least civil to each other. > > That you hate hockey is irrelevant. I love it. I grew up with it in Quebec, > forgot it when my family moved to Vermont, took it up again when Mom & Dad > moved to the Adirondacks, lost touch with it when I was forced to join the > Air Force to avoid the draft in '67. > > It's just an automatically attached tag line. It's not personal. It's not > written with anyone in mind. Therefore it is not about you. > > Regards, > Bob... > > Give blood. Play hockey. > > ----- Original Message - > From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:25 PM > Subject: Re: Aperture Question... > > > > Bob, I don't like to start an insulting match, but first of all get your > > facts straight. > > 3meters is closer to 10ft than 6ft. If you have the Super Program manual > > open on page 48, then you'll realize that my comment is taken out of it > with > > the addition of the word Hyperfocal by me. > > I'm no photographic expert (I'll give those honours to people like Bill > Robb > > and Alin Flaider), but I hate smartasses that respond to a reply that was > > meant to help someone, with a remark like "What???". > > And by the way, I hate hockey. > > > > Jeff Tokayer. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:28 PM > > Subject: Re: Aperture Question... > > > > > > > You said "...with a 50mm f1.4, you close the lens down to f22 and focus > it > > to the > > > hyperfocal distance, which in this case is about 3 meters. This will > > render everything > > > from 1.5 meters to infinity in focus." > > > > > > Focusing at about 3 meters (6 ft) will do this? > > > > > > Aside: What on earth did I do to you to elicit your last two > sentences??? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Bob... > > > --- > > > "In the carboniferous epoch > > > we were promised perpetual peace. > > > They swore if we gave up our weapons > > > that the wars of the tribes would cease. > > > But when we disarmed they sold us, > > > and delivered us, bound, to our foe. > > > And the gods of the copybook headings said, > > > 'Stick to the devil you know.' " > > > --Rudyard Kipling > > > > > > From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Really what? > > > > > > > > Jeff... > > > > > > > > Dont't give a shit. Put a sock in it. > > > > > > > > From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > Really??? > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Bob... > > > > > > > > > > From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > To get the maximum depth of field for example with a 50mm f1.4, > you > > > > close > > > > > > the lens down to f22 and focus it to the hyperfocal distance, > which > > in > > > > > this
Re: Aperture Question...
It was not intended as a smartass remark, and I don't appreciate being called a smartass (even if I am one.) Nevertheless, it's clear that you believed it was. I accept responsibility for all this miscommunication. Therefore: I am sorry for responding to your post in a smartass manner. I will attempt to refrain from doing so in the future. I also apologize for my poor math. Had I not been so stupid, I would have seen that it was closer to 10 ft and not have asked the question. I chalk it up to a senior moment. I still don't understand exactly how this justifies calling me names, but let's just forget it and try to be at least civil to each other. That you hate hockey is irrelevant. I love it. I grew up with it in Quebec, forgot it when my family moved to Vermont, took it up again when Mom & Dad moved to the Adirondacks, lost touch with it when I was forced to join the Air Force to avoid the draft in '67. It's just an automatically attached tag line. It's not personal. It's not written with anyone in mind. Therefore it is not about you. Regards, Bob... Give blood. Play hockey. - Original Message - From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:25 PM Subject: Re: Aperture Question... > Bob, I don't like to start an insulting match, but first of all get your > facts straight. > 3meters is closer to 10ft than 6ft. If you have the Super Program manual > open on page 48, then you'll realize that my comment is taken out of it with > the addition of the word Hyperfocal by me. > I'm no photographic expert (I'll give those honours to people like Bill Robb > and Alin Flaider), but I hate smartasses that respond to a reply that was > meant to help someone, with a remark like "What???". > And by the way, I hate hockey. > > Jeff Tokayer. > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:28 PM > Subject: Re: Aperture Question... > > > > You said "...with a 50mm f1.4, you close the lens down to f22 and focus it > to the > > hyperfocal distance, which in this case is about 3 meters. This will > render everything > > from 1.5 meters to infinity in focus." > > > > Focusing at about 3 meters (6 ft) will do this? > > > > Aside: What on earth did I do to you to elicit your last two sentences??? > > > > Regards, > > Bob... > > --- > > "In the carboniferous epoch > > we were promised perpetual peace. > > They swore if we gave up our weapons > > that the wars of the tribes would cease. > > But when we disarmed they sold us, > > and delivered us, bound, to our foe. > > And the gods of the copybook headings said, > > 'Stick to the devil you know.' " > > --Rudyard Kipling > > > > From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Really what? > > > > > > Jeff... > > > > > > Dont't give a shit. Put a sock in it. > > > > > > From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Really??? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Bob... > > > > > > > > From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > To get the maximum depth of field for example with a 50mm f1.4, you > > > close > > > > > the lens down to f22 and focus it to the hyperfocal distance, which > in > > > > this > > > > > case is about 3 meters. This will render everything from 1.5 meters > to > > > > > infinity in focus. > > > > > In the case of a wide angle lens, the depth of field would be > greater, > > > > given > > > > > the same aperture. > > > > > > - > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
> meant to help someone, with a remark like "What???". Correction, should have read "Really??? Jeff - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
- Original Message - From: "Jeff Tokayer" Subject: Re: Aperture Question... > I'm no photographic expert (I'll give those honours to people like Bill Robb > and Alin Flaider), Nah, I'm just a hack with pretensions of grandeur, and a camera. Thanks for the compliment, though. L8R Bill - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
Bob, I don't like to start an insulting match, but first of all get your facts straight. 3meters is closer to 10ft than 6ft. If you have the Super Program manual open on page 48, then you'll realize that my comment is taken out of it with the addition of the word Hyperfocal by me. I'm no photographic expert (I'll give those honours to people like Bill Robb and Alin Flaider), but I hate smartasses that respond to a reply that was meant to help someone, with a remark like "What???". And by the way, I hate hockey. Jeff Tokayer. - Original Message - From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:28 PM Subject: Re: Aperture Question... > You said "...with a 50mm f1.4, you close the lens down to f22 and focus it to the > hyperfocal distance, which in this case is about 3 meters. This will render everything > from 1.5 meters to infinity in focus." > > Focusing at about 3 meters (6 ft) will do this? > > Aside: What on earth did I do to you to elicit your last two sentences??? > > Regards, > Bob... > --- > "In the carboniferous epoch > we were promised perpetual peace. > They swore if we gave up our weapons > that the wars of the tribes would cease. > But when we disarmed they sold us, > and delivered us, bound, to our foe. > And the gods of the copybook headings said, > 'Stick to the devil you know.' " > --Rudyard Kipling > > From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Really what? > > > > Jeff... > > > > Dont't give a shit. Put a sock in it. > > > > From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Really??? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Bob... > > > > > > From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > To get the maximum depth of field for example with a 50mm f1.4, you > > close > > > > the lens down to f22 and focus it to the hyperfocal distance, which in > > > this > > > > case is about 3 meters. This will render everything from 1.5 meters to > > > > infinity in focus. > > > > In the case of a wide angle lens, the depth of field would be greater, > > > given > > > > the same aperture. > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Aperture Question...
Hi Tanya: You will no doubt have received many other replies to this one, but my two cents worth is this: There is no hard and fast rule for _any_ given photographic situation. Don't forget that, with many landscapes, everything is so far away that aperture setting is not crucial to depth of field, but may be crucial to sharpness: some lens suffer badly from diffraction effects at apertures smaller than f11. If you have all the time in the world to take the shot, and you want depth of field, you must choose a lens which will normally give you that (e.g. a wide-angle), and then choose a viewpoint to give you the perspective you want. Use a tripod, and set the aperture so that the area you want is sharp - if you want everything sharp, then use a small aperture and the hyperfocal distance method to work out where you need to focus. If you don't have all the time in the world, or there are other factors, such as the impossibility of choosing the best viewpoint, then you must work with what you've got. If this includes a tripod, then you basically can set any aperture that will allow the selection of a suitable shutter speed for the subject, and take it from there. There are always limiting factors - for very long exposures, as one of our group found out recently, reciprocity failure can be a serious problem. if you are shooting beach scenes, or any scene with running/moving water, do you want the water blurred or sharp? I've taken landscapes at all sorts of distances/apertures - one of my most 'wow' generating shots was taken at 1/8 sec at f1.8, resting on the top of the car, in fading light. But the nearest object was more than 500 metres away, so it's all "sharp". HTH On Sunday, April 15, 2001 3:46 PM, Tanya & Russell Mayer [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > she claimed that she had this friend who was > an "expert" on landscape photography, which I basically know ZILCH about. > She claimed that his number one tip was to shoot EVERYTHING in landscape > photography at f22 to ensure maximum depth of field. Ok, so here is my > question, (and please forgive me if I am wway off track here), but when > you are shooting, say a lake, or a beach scene at 6.30 at night and you need > more light, doesn't it make sense to shoot as wide open as possible? John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
You said "...with a 50mm f1.4, you close the lens down to f22 and focus it to the hyperfocal distance, which in this case is about 3 meters. This will render everything from 1.5 meters to infinity in focus." Focusing at about 3 meters (6 ft) will do this? Aside: What on earth did I do to you to elicit your last two sentences??? Regards, Bob... --- "In the carboniferous epoch we were promised perpetual peace. They swore if we gave up our weapons that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed they sold us, and delivered us, bound, to our foe. And the gods of the copybook headings said, 'Stick to the devil you know.' " --Rudyard Kipling From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Really what? > > Jeff... > > Dont't give a shit. Put a sock in it. > > From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Really??? > > > > Regards, > > Bob... > > > > From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To get the maximum depth of field for example with a 50mm f1.4, you > close > > > the lens down to f22 and focus it to the hyperfocal distance, which in > > this > > > case is about 3 meters. This will render everything from 1.5 meters to > > > infinity in focus. > > > In the case of a wide angle lens, the depth of field would be greater, > > given > > > the same aperture. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
Excellent explanation Bob. However with the Speed graphic it was f16 @ 1/100 sec, #5 flashbulb and be there. Usually with the focus locked on 10 ft giving a 5 to 20 foot in focus and plus/minus one stop exposure. That did for 80-90% of the shots. Soup two minutes in Dekol, squeegee and pop into the enlarger. And since it is one sheet of film at a time you didn't have to wait until you finished the roll. Trivially yours, --Tom Bob Walkden wrote: > Many landscape photographers use this technique to maximise the depth > of field in their photographs. It doesn't make it a 'rule' for taking > landscapes. It's a technique that is also used a lot by street > photographers of the Henri Cartier-Bresson type. He almost invariably > set his 50mm lens to f/11, and prefocused on 5 metres. It has also > given rise to one of the cliches of photography from the days of the > Speed Graphic press camera - 'f/8 and be there'. Press photographers > set their apertures to f/8 to get a good compromise between a > handholdable shutter speed and enough depth of field to make focusing > less critical. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
- Original Message - From: "Tanya & Russell Mayer" Subject: Aperture Question... >a woman and I were > talking about photography and she claimed that she had this friend who was > an "expert" on landscape photography, which I basically know ZILCH about. > She claimed that his number one tip was to shoot EVERYTHING in landscape > photography at f22 to ensure maximum depth of field. Nex time you talk to her, tell her you got advice from another "expert" landscape photographer (hey, I have won a few awards, that makes me an expert), who thinks that is bogus advice. I couldn't possibly get enough depth of field with my 210mm lens set at f22. F64 works much better. What? The lens only goes to f22? Weenie little lens. HAR Snowfield (again, after nearly all melting) Willie - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
Really what? Jeff... Dont't give a shit. Put a sock in it. - Original Message - From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 9:56 AM Subject: Re: Aperture Question... > Really??? > > Regards, > Bob... > > Give blood. Play hockey. > > From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To get the maximum depth of field for example with a 50mm f1.4, you close > > the lens down to f22 and focus it to the hyperfocal distance, which in > this > > case is about 3 meters. This will render everything from 1.5 meters to > > infinity in focus. > > In the case of a wide angle lens, the depth of field would be greater, > given > > the same aperture. > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
Maybe a compromise is better in this case. As you stop down, you do get better depth of field but sharpness beyond the f8 stop doesn't really improve that much. So if hand holding, it is probably better to use a faster speed to minimize shake and motion from the wind. If you use a tripod, the wind is still a consideration. Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club Newsletter Editor & EAA TC www.bellanca-championclub.com - Original Message - From: "Tanya & Russell Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 12:45 AM Subject: Aperture Question... > Hey everyone, just a quick question before hubby kicks me off the > computer... > > This may seem like a totally dumb question, but please remember that > everything I know about photography I have taught myself, so you can expect > that I will have missed a few things here and there. > > At a BBQ on Friday night (don't say it, I know BBQ = meat = very naughty > for Good Friday, but I'm a vego anyways, so there...my kids ate sausages > though. hehe)... Anyways, at a BBQ on Friday night, a woman and I were > talking about photography and she claimed that she had this friend who was > an "expert" on landscape photography, which I basically know ZILCH about. > She claimed that his number one tip was to shoot EVERYTHING in landscape > photography at f22 to ensure maximum depth of field. Ok, so here is my > question, (and please forgive me if I am wway off track here), but when > you are shooting, say a lake, or a beach scene at 6.30 at night and you need > more light, doesn't it make sense to shoot as wide open as possible? The > lady I spoke to argued the point of depth of field with me, but unless I am > rally mistaken, I thought that the theory behind a lens which focuses at > "infinity" meant that after your subject is a certain distance away from the > lens (eg. 8 metres on my Vivitar 28/2) the focusing switches to infinity > which basically means that everything is in focus anyways? I mean, if that > is not the case, than what is the use of having a "fast lens" when only a > miniscule amount of your shot will be in focus? > > I am sure that I sound really backward and totally clueless to even very > basic photography rules on this, but if her friend is truly an "expert" then > wouldn't he be correct in his f22 theory? And if he is, can somebody please > elaborate on this for me, cause I have definitely lost the plot > somewhere > > Oh, btw, Merry Easter!! (Well, some people say "Happy Christmas" you know!) > 8-) > > fairy. > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
Really??? Regards, Bob... Give blood. Play hockey. From: "Jeff Tokayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To get the maximum depth of field for example with a 50mm f1.4, you close > the lens down to f22 and focus it to the hyperfocal distance, which in this > case is about 3 meters. This will render everything from 1.5 meters to > infinity in focus. > In the case of a wide angle lens, the depth of field would be greater, given > the same aperture. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
From: "Tanya & Russell Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [skipped] > though. hehe)... Anyways, at a BBQ on Friday night, a woman and I were > talking about photography and she claimed that she had this friend who was > an "expert" on landscape photography, which I basically know ZILCH about. > She claimed that his number one tip was to shoot EVERYTHING in landscape > photography at f22 to ensure maximum depth of field. Ok, so here is my > question, (and please forgive me if I am wway off track here), but when > you are shooting, say a lake, or a beach scene at 6.30 at night and you need > more light, doesn't it make sense to shoot as wide open as possible? The [skipped] Horrors!!! A small aperture like f/22 will give great depth of field but will reduce the sharpness of your photos because the light diffracting around your aperture blades will become significant. Most lenses are sharpest at f/8 which generally good for most landscapes by most folks. With a 50 mm lens at f/22, everything from about 11 ft to infinity, but not be as sharp as the lens can be. If this much DOF is necessary, better to set the stop at f/16 and the focus at about 40 feet. Then everything from about 12 feet to infinity will be within the lenses DOF and reasonably focused. The entire photo will be sharper. If you have a manual lens, it will have a DOF scale on the lens to aid you with this. In looking back through my photos, most of the "landscapes" were shot at f/8 or f/5.6. Look at the last PUG with the theme "'scapes": http://pug.komkon.org/00octo/index.html They're all great, but look at Ann Sanfedele's photo taken at f5.6 or f.8. Isn't it great! Actually, they're all great, but this one had the exposure recorded. Tell your friend to check out the PUG and visit the previous galleries. Once in a while, folks record their settings. Regards, Bob... Give blood. Play hockey. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
Hi fairy, Unless you're grab shooting, you would want to use a tripod for serious landscape photography, so light usually wouldn't be an issue in the choice of aperture. Some landscape photographers espouse using as small an aperture as possible to maximize depth of field. In fact, several of history's great shooters called themselves the f64 club or something like that, because that shot everything at small aperture for maximum depth of field. (Large format lenses generally stop down to f64.) However, there are numerous landscape opportunities where a large aperture would be desirable. I frequently prefer to throw some foreground objects out of focus and sometimes choose an aperture just for that purpose. What's more, many of our Pentax primes are sharper at f11 or f8 than they are at f22, yet still provide adequate depth of field for an infinity focus landscape shot. In other words, the choice of aperture should depend on what your artistic goals are as well as the characteristics of the equipment your using. I've noticed in some of your still lifes that you are quite skilled in using depth of field to your advantage. The same rules can be applied to landscape photography. (By the way, I'm sure someone whose memory is better than mine will provide some clarification and correction in regard to the f64 shooters.) Paul Tanya & Russell Mayer wrote: > > Hey everyone, just a quick question before hubby kicks me off the > computer... > > This may seem like a totally dumb question, but please remember that > everything I know about photography I have taught myself, so you can expect > that I will have missed a few things here and there. > > At a BBQ on Friday night (don't say it, I know BBQ = meat = very naughty > for Good Friday, but I'm a vego anyways, so there...my kids ate sausages > though. hehe)... Anyways, at a BBQ on Friday night, a woman and I were > talking about photography and she claimed that she had this friend who was > an "expert" on landscape photography, which I basically know ZILCH about. > She claimed that his number one tip was to shoot EVERYTHING in landscape > photography at f22 to ensure maximum depth of field. Ok, so here is my > question, (and please forgive me if I am wway off track here), but when > you are shooting, say a lake, or a beach scene at 6.30 at night and you need > more light, doesn't it make sense to shoot as wide open as possible? The > lady I spoke to argued the point of depth of field with me, but unless I am > rally mistaken, I thought that the theory behind a lens which focuses at > "infinity" meant that after your subject is a certain distance away from the > lens (eg. 8 metres on my Vivitar 28/2) the focusing switches to infinity > which basically means that everything is in focus anyways? I mean, if that > is not the case, than what is the use of having a "fast lens" when only a > miniscule amount of your shot will be in focus? > > I am sure that I sound really backward and totally clueless to even very > basic photography rules on this, but if her friend is truly an "expert" then > wouldn't he be correct in his f22 theory? And if he is, can somebody please > elaborate on this for me, cause I have definitely lost the plot > somewhere > > Oh, btw, Merry Easter!! (Well, some people say "Happy Christmas" you know!) > 8-) > > fairy. > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:45:39 +1000, Tanya & Russell Mayer wrote: >Hey everyone, just a quick question before hubby kicks me off the >computer... >This may seem like a totally dumb question, but please remember that >everything I know about photography I have taught myself, so you can expect >that I will have missed a few things here and there. There are no dumb questions. The only way to find something out is to ask. >an "expert" on landscape photography, which I basically know ZILCH about. >She claimed that his number one tip was to shoot EVERYTHING in landscape >photography at f22 to ensure maximum depth of field. Ok, so here is my >question, (and please forgive me if I am wway off track here), but when >you are shooting, say a lake, or a beach scene at 6.30 at night and you need Before I get carried away about depth of field I will just say that while f22 will give you more depth of field than f11, on some lenses f11 will give you a sharper picture than f22. Pick your depth of field according to the pictures needs. You will find a lot of people talk about depth of field and say that you get more depth of field with wide angle lenses (you don't but more on that later). Most people have a simplified idea of what depth of field really is, because to understand it properly requires a lot of maths. The focal length of a lens only comes into the formulas for calculating DOF because it is required for the magnification and aperture opening part of the maths. You get more apparent depth of field from a wide angle lens because DOF is a relationship between magnification and aperture and usually using a wide angle lens you are getting less magnification and hence more depth of field. If you position your subject to have the same magnification to the film using a 100mm and a 28mm lens both set to f8 you will get the same DOF on both. All lenses focus perfectly on only a plain (sometimes flat sometimes curved, it depends on the lens) in front of the lens at any aperture. Where depth of field comes from is that for a distance in front and behind that plain of focus the combination of the lens and the film can only resolve well enough so that it "LOOKS" like more is in focus. I've borrowed this text from this website http://www.graflex.org/lenses/photographic-lenses-tutorial.html there is lots of maths there if you want to know about optics. "The light from a single subject point passing through the aperture is converged by the lens into a cone with its tip at the film (if the point is perfectly in focus) or slightly in front of or behind the film (if the subject point is somewhat out of focus). In the out of focus case the point is rendered as a circle where the film cuts the converging cone or the diverging cone on the other side of the image point. This circle is called the circle of confusion. The farther the tip of the cone, ie the image point, is away from the film, the larger the circle of confusion." When you vary the aperture you vary the angle of the cone of light coming from the back of the lens. Have a look at this site http://www.minoxlab.com/Don_Krehbiel/mpl/dkdof.htm the 2 pictures up the top explains it very well - I always run out of wards at about this point as you really need to see how it works. Sorry for the rambling. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
When you focus at infinity, everything is not necessarily in focus. If you shot at say f1.4 (extreme example I know) on a tree 500m away, the tree that is 5m away is going to be out of focus. The DOF rules still apply I believe. I tend to use f16 or smaller for my landscapes. I like a bit of DOF. Jody. > She claimed that his number one tip was to shoot > EVERYTHING in landscape > photography at f22 to ensure maximum depth of field. > Ok, so here is my > question, (and please forgive me if I am wway > off track here), but when > you are shooting, say a lake, or a beach scene at > 6.30 at night and you need > more light, doesn't it make sense to shoot as wide > open as possible? The > lady I spoke to argued the point of depth of field > with me, but unless I am > rally mistaken, I thought that the theory behind > a lens which focuses at > "infinity" meant that after your subject is a > certain distance away from the > lens (eg. 8 metres on my Vivitar 28/2) the focusing > switches to infinity > which basically means that everything is in focus > anyways? I mean, if that > is not the case, than what is the use of having a > "fast lens" when only a > miniscule amount of your shot will be in focus? > fairy. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Aperture Question...
Hi Tanya, sounds like your friend's friend's imagination has been hamstrung. However, you will find it worthwhile to understand about hyperfocal distance. The best way would probably be to find a decent book which explains it, as it is really one of those subjects that is best explained with some diagrams. However, nothing ventured... When you take a picture there is a closest point to the camera and a furthest point which are both 'acceptably sharp'. The distance between these points is the depth of field. 'Acceptably sharp' depends on various factors such as print size and viewing distance, but is not particularly important at the moment. Most older prime lenses, including Pentax ones, have a depth of field scale on them. This consists of some f-stop markings either side of a line on the lens barrel, usually something like 16 11 8 4 | 4 8 11 16. There will also be some marks for the missing f-stops, and often a red mark, which is an infra-red focussing index, which you can safely ignore. Using a 50mm lens, if you set your aperture to f/8, for example, and focus at 1 metre, you can read off from the depth of field scale where the nearest and furthest acceptably sharp points are - look at the distances of the 2 '8's. It should be about 0.9 to 1.2 metres, approx. Now focus on infinity. The nearest point in focus will be about 8 metres. The furthest point will be 'infinity and beyond!' (Copyright Capt. B. Lightyear). So you're 'wasting' depth of field by focusing on infinity. Now refocus so that the centre of the infinity symbol (a supine 8) is aligned at the f/8 mark on the depth of field scale. Check the nearest point of acceptable sharpness by reading off the distance aligned to the other f/8 mark - it should be something close to 4 metres. You're now focused at the hyperfocal distance for f/8 and you've saved some 4 metres of acceptable sharpness at the near end. If you repeat at the smallest aperture setting, say f/16, you'll see that everything from about 1.8 metres to infinity is sharp. Many landscape photographers use this technique to maximise the depth of field in their photographs. It doesn't make it a 'rule' for taking landscapes. It's a technique that is also used a lot by street photographers of the Henri Cartier-Bresson type. He almost invariably set his 50mm lens to f/11, and prefocused on 5 metres. It has also given rise to one of the cliches of photography from the days of the Speed Graphic press camera - 'f/8 and be there'. Press photographers set their apertures to f/8 to get a good compromise between a handholdable shutter speed and enough depth of field to make focusing less critical. It's up to you to decide what is a good or bad landscape, not some drongo you've never met hidden away in the outback pretending to be a very Minor White. Hope this helps. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, April 15, 2001, 6:45:39 AM, you wrote: > she claimed that she had this friend who was > an "expert" on landscape photography, which I basically know ZILCH about. > She claimed that his number one tip was to shoot EVERYTHING in landscape > photography at f22 to ensure maximum depth of field. Ok, so here is my > question, (and please forgive me if I am wway off track here), but when > you are shooting, say a lake, or a beach scene at 6.30 at night and you need > more light, doesn't it make sense to shoot as wide open as possible? The > lady I spoke to argued the point of depth of field with me, but unless I am > rally mistaken, I thought that the theory behind a lens which focuses at > "infinity" meant that after your subject is a certain distance away from the > lens (eg. 8 metres on my Vivitar 28/2) the focusing switches to infinity > which basically means that everything is in focus anyways? I mean, if that > is not the case, than what is the use of having a "fast lens" when only a > miniscule amount of your shot will be in focus? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Aperture Question...
Hey everyone, just a quick question before hubby kicks me off the computer... This may seem like a totally dumb question, but please remember that everything I know about photography I have taught myself, so you can expect that I will have missed a few things here and there. At a BBQ on Friday night (don't say it, I know BBQ = meat = very naughty for Good Friday, but I'm a vego anyways, so there...my kids ate sausages though. hehe)... Anyways, at a BBQ on Friday night, a woman and I were talking about photography and she claimed that she had this friend who was an "expert" on landscape photography, which I basically know ZILCH about. She claimed that his number one tip was to shoot EVERYTHING in landscape photography at f22 to ensure maximum depth of field. Ok, so here is my question, (and please forgive me if I am wway off track here), but when you are shooting, say a lake, or a beach scene at 6.30 at night and you need more light, doesn't it make sense to shoot as wide open as possible? The lady I spoke to argued the point of depth of field with me, but unless I am rally mistaken, I thought that the theory behind a lens which focuses at "infinity" meant that after your subject is a certain distance away from the lens (eg. 8 metres on my Vivitar 28/2) the focusing switches to infinity which basically means that everything is in focus anyways? I mean, if that is not the case, than what is the use of having a "fast lens" when only a miniscule amount of your shot will be in focus? I am sure that I sound really backward and totally clueless to even very basic photography rules on this, but if her friend is truly an "expert" then wouldn't he be correct in his f22 theory? And if he is, can somebody please elaborate on this for me, cause I have definitely lost the plot somewhere Oh, btw, Merry Easter!! (Well, some people say "Happy Christmas" you know!) 8-) fairy. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
