I think it's an almost perfect metaphor as it is pretty much maps exactly to what really is happening (albeit with photons instead of water and CCD capacitors or film emulsion instead of a bucket )
Chat Forum
[closed]
How to get better at photography?
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
I've just read both explanations simon/graham and can't get my head round either at the moment (but that's probably a lack of sleep/long working week thing messing my head).
And of course when you talk about a larger aperture, you mean a smaller F number? The inverse thing is not computing very well right now! I also thought the larger the F number the smaller the DOF, but I've just found out that this is wrong! Right?!
Ahbuggerit, thanks for the compliments! Bought a photo mag today which as "10 golden rules" in it. Might get a chance to read it over the weekend.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I also thought the larger the F number the smaller the DOF, but I've just found out that this is wrong! Right?!
No, the larger the F number, the smaller the aperture and the larger the DoF. So yes, you're right that you were wrong
Posted 2 years ago # -
And of course when you talk about a larger aperture, you mean a smaller F number?
Yep, it's actually a fraction so F-numbers should be correctly written as f/2.8, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8 etc which makes it a bit easier to see, as a half is obviously bigger than a quarter.
I also thought the larger the F number the smaller the DOF
Larger the aperture the smaller the DOF. A big hole lets light through at all kinds of random angles, so only some of it is in focus. A small hole only lets a narrow angle of light through, so more of the scene can be focussed. (Think of threading a bunch of spokes through a wedding ring, compared to threading them through a napkin ring).
Posted 2 years ago # -
Bought a photo mag today which as "10 golden rules" i
think of them as lead or perhaps depleted uranium...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Larger the aperture the smaller the DOF.
welcome to the world of reciprocals! Both the aperture and the shutter speed are expressed as fractions, of focal length and a second respectively, and in both cases a bigger number means less exposure.
Posted 2 years ago # -
A recent sfb shot completely ignoring those "depleted uranium" rules, yet somehow managing to have an obvious subject, strong lead-in lines, thirds, foreground interest, triangular geometry and framing.
(Edit: nice shot by the way simon)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Graham suggests the camera is like a bucket.
However if you think about it, a milk bottle is almost exactly like a lens. It is wide at the base but tapers to small diameter opening at the top which is sealed with a foil cap to prevent spillage. But that is not what makes it like a lens. No, because the bottle contains milk which is exactly like the light, the milk (or photons) may be poured from the bottle (or lens) and the bottle can be returned to the milkman to be refilled with different milk (or images). But what about garden birds? Yes there is the danger that as your milk sits on the doorstep the foil cap might have holes pecked in it allowing the ingress of contaminant making the milk unpalatable. Sadly things are liable to go sour due to an unwelcome little t1t. Don't you agree Simon?
apologies to Humphrey Lyttelton
Posted 2 years ago # -
*Bbbzzzzzztt*... Repetition of milk.
Oh sorry, wrong game
Posted 2 years ago # -
A recent sfb shot completely ignoring those "depleted uranium" rules, yet somehow managing to have an obvious subject, strong lead-in lines, thirds, foreground interest, triangular geometry and framing
thanks I'm sure, but I never thought about any of those things when either taking the shot or cropping it. I just did what I thought looked right. I did include the tree on the left for contrast...
Don't you agree Simon?
well, I agree bits of milk bottle can start forest fires
Posted 2 years ago # -
I just did what I thought looked right.
Yep, you naturally intuit "the rules" but I don't think that makes naming them or thinking about them somehow toxic to your photography.
Posted 2 years ago # -
you naturally intuit "the rules" but I don't think that makes naming them or thinking about them somehow toxic to your photography.
I put a lot of effort into surpressing their memory as I think they stultify freedom of expression
Posted 2 years ago # -
Wouldn't want to restrict your artistic range simon
Posted 2 years ago # -
Fworr! NOW do you see why I have no time for technical details ??
Posted 2 years ago # -
Fine set`o hips on the girl in pink
New camera play time. Tried a few different sttings on these pics just for experimental reasons.
Just happened to look in the mirror, watching & waiting on wife finishing work, noticed this & snapped.
Tell me/us what your thoughts are.Posted 2 years ago # -
Interesting thread, which I've followed without contributing (I don't think I've much to add anyway).
My thoughts:
Kit - I frequently look at your Flickr photos in the photo-a-day pool and I've seen a lot that I like. Some of your Drumlanrig ones were excellent and show a bit of thought about how to use a camera to convey a mood or an effect. I like quite a few of your 365 shots too. Obviously not every shot is going to be a standout but I firmly believe you learn by doing and, crucially, by looking at what others are shooting to gain ideas and inspiration. Some technical knowledge about how an image is created is crucial if you want to grow as a photographer.
What happened to Photo Club? Did Ti29er get a High Court Injunction against it?
Posted 2 years ago # -
To prove Dr correct.
I'm not sure whose image it is, but I thought a little crop might help.PhotoClub? No idea what that is? Please elaborate.
There's no "right" or "wrong". It's just that if you wish to earn a living from photography there's a level or standard your images need to be at.
You can go and study photography at Uni, do a Masters even, it doesn't make your photography any more saleable - I know, my assistant has letters galore after his name & he's the first to admit his skills lie outside of the actual picture taking process. Clients still pay him £500 a day to be the 2nd photographer at my bigger weddings.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm not sure whose image it is, but I thought a little crop might help.
it's mine
This is how I cropped it:
the thumbnail above is a fixed 225x150 for the front page of the website. I nearly always go widescreen to fit the browser window
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
