Author | Thread |
|
05/22/2007 12:46:42 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by Joey Lawrence:
In reality, it's really harsh acid when I pop the pill babay. |
Yeah, been there, hope to never, ever,evereverever.... go back. ::shudder:: |
|
|
05/22/2007 12:38:59 AM · #2 |
In reality, it's really harsh acid when I pop the pill babay. |
|
|
05/20/2007 01:58:21 AM · #3 |
actually i didnt do much to this, dodge and burn and then i used
joey lawrence "pop the pill" which is like acid but less harsh.
|
|
|
05/19/2007 08:49:40 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Almilan: Well, I sort of hoped this might have become a learning thread, as someone put it. |
Learning how the controls on your camera affect photographs is always a good thing to experiment with. You will want to conduct real experiments to see the effects for yourself, of course.
Things to look for with aperture experiments:
1-For a given lens DOF will increase with higher f/numbers.
2-DOF is shallower for closer up objects than it is for objects further away.
3-Telephoto lenses have shallower DOF than other lens types
4-Wide angled and fisheye lenses have much wider DOF than other lens types and aperture changes have less effect with them since they have near infinite DOF already.
5-Macro lenses have the shallowest DOF of all because objects are so close to the lens; therefore, increasing the aperture number plays a more critical role when using them.
|
|
|
05/19/2007 07:42:15 PM · #5 |
Thanks for the tip wavelength - I'll have a go at what you suggest:) |
|
|
05/19/2007 07:35:00 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Almilan: Well, I sort of hoped this might have become a learning thread, as someone put it. I think I was wrong, apart from those of you who gave more detailed explanations of all things which can have an effect on dof. These explanations were useful - thanks to those of you who gave them:-)
I guess I just wanted to know how easy or not it is to understand the aperture someone used to make a capture - so I can understand how different apertures affect photographs.
Anyway, I'm going to experiment to see how much changing f stop etc can change a shot. This is one of many things I want to understand better.
Although I have a few books on photography, I had not really grasped how apertures affect images. Thanks to this site and the www, I now understand things better.
Did anyone else find this thread potentially useful? |
As a thinking exercise, and bacause of seeing Les's original I did.
For an experiment, you can try something like setting up a bunch of crayons in a row extneding away from your camera, with most of them in frame. So, if you were looking at it from the top, they would be a 45degree diagonal from one side of the camera leading away.
Keep the lighting as steady as you can, and take several shots with the f/ incrementing up from 2.8 to the minimum (highest number). You'll see a marked difference in the DOF, but at some point the DOF will stabilize and no more will be in focus. You might notice that you'll lose a bit of sharpness at the smallest apertures, much due to diffraction and other things I haven't taken the time to understand.
Try the same at different focal lengths as that will change your DOF also. |
|
|
05/19/2007 06:39:59 PM · #7 |
Well, I sort of hoped this might have become a learning thread, as someone put it. I think I was wrong, apart from those of you who gave more detailed explanations of all things which can have an effect on dof. These explanations were useful - thanks to those of you who gave them:-)
I guess I just wanted to know how easy or not it is to understand the aperture someone used to make a capture - so I can understand how different apertures affect photographs.
Anyway, I'm going to experiment to see how much changing f stop etc can change a shot. This is one of many things I want to understand better.
Although I have a few books on photography, I had not really grasped how apertures affect images. Thanks to this site and the www, I now understand things better.
Did anyone else find this thread potentially useful?
|
|
|
05/19/2007 06:02:28 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Almilan: ok, ok, I get the message. Maybe this was a stoopid idea of mine.
Shall crawl back under my stone.....until my next brainwave.
165lbs ;-) |
Just call me fatty :( |
|
|
05/19/2007 06:02:05 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Almilan: ok, ok, I get the message. Maybe this was a stoopid idea of mine. |
It wasn't a stooopid idea. It just didn't work because we don't have enough info to make a really good guess.
Out of all of us, I think only kirbic could actually do the math. :-)
|
|
|
05/19/2007 06:00:05 PM · #10 |
ok, ok, I get the message. Maybe this was a stoopid idea of mine.
Shall crawl back under my stone.....until my next brainwave.
165lbs ;-)
|
|
|
05/19/2007 05:53:53 PM · #11 |
I fear I will soon have to ignore this thread.. sigh |
|
|
05/19/2007 05:50:20 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: Originally posted by sabphoto:
5'6 huh...I say 150 max |
close enough, 148 w/o cheese :-D |
ugh, I got on the scale the other day and I weigh 202, but I'm 6'2" |
|
|
05/19/2007 05:20:51 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
5'6 huh...I say 150 max |
close enough, 148 w/o cheese :-D
Message edited by author 2007-05-19 17:21:07.
|
|
|
05/19/2007 05:19:42 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: Originally posted by RainMotorsports: Originally posted by Brad: 173.8lbs |
I weigh a 177 pounds and am a hell of alot thinner then leroy lol. |
Think again :-P
Add a crucial piece of info. I'm 5'6 |
again I think we need more info.
are you holding any cheese? lol
5'6 huh...I say 150 max |
|
|
05/19/2007 04:46:49 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports: Originally posted by Brad: 173.8lbs |
I weigh a 177 pounds and am a hell of alot thinner then leroy lol. |
Think again :-P
Add a crucial piece of info. I'm 5'6
|
|
|
05/19/2007 04:45:48 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Brad: 79kg x 2.2 - 173.8lbs
He's cut shed a lot of cheese with his new diet. |
Lower ...
|
|
|
05/19/2007 04:43:36 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: LOL, what a funny thread :-) Can we play guess my weight next? |
188 pounds
|
|
|
05/19/2007 03:38:30 PM · #18 |
79kg x 2.2 - 173.8lbs
He's cut shed a lot of cheese with his new diet. |
|
|
05/19/2007 03:30:46 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Brad: 173.8lbs |
I weigh a 177 pounds and am a hell of alot thinner then leroy lol. |
|
|
05/19/2007 03:29:43 PM · #20 |
|
|
05/19/2007 03:28:47 PM · #21 |
LOL, what a funny thread :-) Can we play guess my weight next?
umm 79kgs?
i think its a fun thread |
|
|
05/19/2007 03:26:40 PM · #22 |
I tell you what this thread is the worse idea ever. |
|
|
05/19/2007 03:25:47 PM · #23 |
trick :)
(I had been shooting low-light in manual exposure mode
the night before and forgot to reset my camera,
but because I was shooting in RAW, I was able to save it) |
|
|
05/19/2007 02:56:53 PM · #24 |
I guess we could play guess your weight Fotoman, but it won't help me take better pics ;-)
So, what do we need to help us guess the f?
Lens length, camera, and shutter speed. And, I if the pic has been cropped.
So I'm learning about all the things that influence dof. Interesting. |
|
|
05/19/2007 02:52:54 PM · #25 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 01:06:44 AM EDT.