Aperture value


Status
Not open for further replies.

arikevin

New Member
Oct 21, 2003
656
0
0
34
Teck Whye Lane
arikevin.fotopic.net
#1
Right now, I am using F717. One thing that bothers me most is aperture value.

Okay, is biggest aperture (smallest f value) is for shooting object that is near to the camera so the subject is sharp?

If let's say, my subject is far far away from the my camera, that means I have to set the aperture value to high (smaller aperture)?

I hope the experts here can give me some tips. :D
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
41
Clementi
#2
arikevin said:
Right now, I am using F717. One thing that bothers me most is aperture value.

Okay, is biggest aperture (smallest f value) is for shooting object that is near to the camera so the subject is sharp?

If let's say, my subject is far far away from the my camera, that means I have to set the aperture value to high (smaller aperture)?

I hope the experts here can give me some tips. :D

From the little that I know...... the aperture value represents the depth of field. A small value (f/2.8) indicates a shallow depth of field. Which means that when u focus on something, anything in front of it (foreground) and back of it (background) is blur and out of focus. A large aperture value (f/11) means that more of the picture becomes sharp and in focus.

In the example u gave, if u want the subject to be sharp, u should point your focus sensor on the subject and depress the shutter halfway to focus the camera lens on the subject. This was the subject would appear sharp. Now if your aperture value is large, (f/11), then anything in front of and behind the subject will also be sharp. If the aperture value is small (f/2.8), then anything in front and behind the subject would be blur.
 

sequitur

Senior Member
Apr 17, 2003
3,267
0
0
flickr.com
#3
arikevin said:
Right now, I am using F717. One thing that bothers me most is aperture value.

Okay, is biggest aperture (smallest f value) is for shooting object that is near to the camera so the subject is sharp?

If let's say, my subject is far far away from the my camera, that means I have to set the aperture value to high (smaller aperture)?

I hope the experts here can give me some tips. :D
your concept is all wrong.

near or far has nothing to do with aperture

aperture is how much light you want to let into your camera, as well as the depth of field of your pictures.

as posted by TME, that's it.

it's not how near how far then you use what aperture.
 

SzennyBoy

New Member
Mar 3, 2002
690
0
0
46
London, UK
www.zen76903.zen.co.uk
#5
Here's a pictorial example of the effect of aperture control... note that the aperture values are effective apertures based on the 1:1 life-size magnification. The lens' focus was fixed on the centre of the composite cable and the series simply shows the effect of change the aperture from it's largest aperture (smallest f-stop number) to it's smallest aperture (largest f-stop number). Lens used for the example was a 105mm f/2.8D Micro-Nikkor.

 

wanglk

New Member
Oct 26, 2003
448
1
0
44
Singapore
Visit site
#6
I think this is a common problem using a comsumer level of digital cameras. Because of the short focal range, it is hard to imagine the meaning of DOF.
 

SzennyBoy

New Member
Mar 3, 2002
690
0
0
46
London, UK
www.zen76903.zen.co.uk
#7
wanglk said:
I think this is a common problem using a consumer level of digital cameras. Because of the short focal range, it is hard to imagine the meaning of DOF.
The focal range of the camera isn't the issue here. The extent of depth of field simply gets wider with shorter focal lengths while it get pronounceably shallower at longer focal lengths. Either case, there will always be a range of DoF for any given focal length... be it at 20mm wide-angle or 600mm tele-photo focal lengths. The issue here is the control of the lens aperture.

Consumer digital compacts (not DSLRs) do not always give the user the option of selecting apertures manually and for those that do, I've yet to see a DC with a DoF preview function which I consider a very valuable function on a camera (not practically viable on DCs because of the inherent design of these units). So the only way you can "learn" about the effects of DoF, provided you have a DC that allows manual aperture control, is to experiment and shoot off a series with varying aperture settings to see the effect.
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
41
Clementi
#8
SzennyBoy said:
The focal range of the camera isn't the issue here. The extent of depth of field simply gets wider with shorter focal lengths while it get pronounceably shallower at longer focal lengths. Either case, there will always be a range of DoF for any given focal length... be it at 20mm wide-angle or 600mm tele-photo focal lengths. The issue here is the control of the lens aperture.

Consumer digital compacts (not DSLRs) do not always give the user the option of selecting apertures manually and for those that do, I've yet to see a DC with a DoF preview function which I consider a very valuable function on a camera (not practically viable on DCs because of the inherent design of these units). So the only way you can "learn" about the effects of DoF, provided you have a DC that allows manual aperture control, is to experiment and shoot off a series with varying aperture settings to see the effect.
I wonder for DCs if the DOF previwe could be simulated by some form of software on the LCD screen.... I think it should be possible to compute quite quickly the possible scene? May not be super accurate but I think at least give a good idea?
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
41
Clementi
#9
Szenny ar.. I looked through your photograph webby and noticed that u favour Kodak film.. just like to ask why? Cos I find that Kodak MAX 400 is really really grainy even when well-exposed. Are the films u use Kodak Ultra 400 and Kodak Royal 400 the same as the MAX 400 in quality? I notice that u shoot at very small apertures..... kekeke.. I like that... but my shots on Kodak MAX400 always turn out like 1 stop under..... (no flash used) any advice? Thanks!
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
41
Clementi
#11
Zerstorer said:
TME, Max and Royal 400 are very different films. Check www.kodak.com for full description.

Royal can get in S'pore? How much? Never really seen it in even in the fridges of Ruby Photo or other shops..... like quite rare..... but if the scans Szenny made are representative of the prints, then the colour seems very neutral and a little muted...... I personally like more saturated colours... although Kodak seems better for skin tones..... THanks!
 

#12
TME said:
Szenny ar.. I looked through your photograph webby and noticed that u favour Kodak film.. just like to ask why? Cos I find that Kodak MAX 400 is really really grainy even when well-exposed. Are the films u use Kodak Ultra 400 and Kodak Royal 400 the same as the MAX 400 in quality?
I use neither Ultra or Royal... the main Kodak film I use is the T400CN chromogenic black & white film which uses the standard C-41 colour process for development. Cheaper processing and faster as well! I quite like the grains on this as I feel them to be finer than the normal B&W 400 film. My main color option is actually Fuji 100F and 400 Provia (slides). I rarely use colour film except for the occasional Kodak Gold 200 from my local camera shop.


I notice that u shoot at very small apertures..... kekeke.. I like that... but my shots on Kodak MAX400 always turn out like 1 stop under..... (no flash used) any advice? Thanks!
I normally use either centre-weighted or spot metering (centre-weighted only on the F3) and take my readings off the shadows and highlights. I then take the average reading from this and compensate accordingly (up to 1-stop max) depending on the percentage of shadow to highlights in the actual composition. I rarely use matrix-metering, even in the F5 unless I'm really lazy or when I pass the camera over to my wife for "snap-shots" (Matrix-metering and Program mode). Flash?!? on 400 film?!? :bigeyes:


...but if the scans Szenny made are representative of the prints, then the colour seems very neutral and a little muted...... I personally like more saturated colours
As for the pics on my site, these were scanned on the film scanner in colour-mode and re-converted into B&W again. The direct B&W scanning method doesn't give me the option to use the ICE function for dust removal when scanning. :(

On the colour pics, you have to realise that all the images have been re-sized and compressed to 450 pixels along the longest edge and under 50~70 kbytes file size to ease download times and save on web space. You can't really expect vibrant colours under these parameters, right? If you really want to have good saturated colours, switch to slides (Fuji Provia 100F or Velvia 50)... you won't want to use film after that! ;)
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
41
Clementi
#13
SzennyBoy said:
I use neither Ultra or Royal... the main Kodak film I use is the T400CN chromogenic black & white film which uses the standard C-41 colour process for development. Cheaper processing and faster as well! I quite like the grains on this as I feel them to be finer than the normal B&W 400 film. My main color option is actually Fuji 100F and 400 Provia (slides). I rarely use colour film except for the occasional Kodak Gold 200 from my local camera shop.




I normally use either centre-weighted or spot metering (centre-weighted only on the F3) and take my readings off the shadows and highlights. I then take the average reading from this and compensate accordingly (up to 1-stop max) depending on the percentage of shadow to highlights in the actual composition. I rarely use matrix-metering, even in the F5 unless I'm really lazy or when I pass the camera over to my wife for "snap-shots" (Matrix-metering and Program mode). Flash?!? on 400 film?!? :bigeyes:




As for the pics on my site, these were scanned on the film scanner in colour-mode and re-converted into B&W again. The direct B&W scanning method doesn't give me the option to use the ICE function for dust removal when scanning. :(

On the colour pics, you have to realise that all the images have been re-sized and compressed to 450 pixels along the longest edge and under 50~70 kbytes file size to ease download times and save on web space. You can't really expect vibrant colours under these parameters, right? If you really want to have good saturated colours, switch to slides (Fuji Provia 100F or Velvia 50)... you won't want to use film after that! ;)

Wow!! really pro... always used colour negatives..... never ventured into slides.. always too lazy.... and not much time really to go for a proper shoot..... usually it's either shooting for work (not pro work but for my workplace...) or for holiday (dun want to screw up either).... not much chance....... haiz.....

Anyway I haven't master colour negatives yet... so wait until I do before switching to another medium..... must learn to crawl before i can fly.....
 

wetdesert

New Member
Aug 14, 2003
446
0
0
#14
wanglk said:
I think this is a common problem using a comsumer level of digital cameras. Because of the short focal range, it is hard to imagine the meaning of DOF.
so why does consumer cams have short focal range and not dslr? And so cameras like minolta z1 that looks like a consumer cam but is labelled as a dslr by minolta has a true focal range?
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#15
No the Z1 is not a DSLR. It just handles like one.

Consumer cams require lenses with short focal lengths due to the tiny size of their CCD sensor which imparts a 4X Crop factor.
 

sehsuan

Deregistered
Dec 12, 2002
6,598
0
0
38
Singapore
www.sportsshooter.com
#16
wetdesert said:
so why does consumer cams have short focal range and not dslr? And so cameras like minolta z1 that looks like a consumer cam but is labelled as a dslr by minolta has a true focal range?
main thing is to save weight. dslr's can use interchangeable conventional slr lenses, remember?
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
41
Clementi
#17
wetdesert said:
so why does consumer cams have short focal range and not dslr? And so cameras like minolta z1 that looks like a consumer cam but is labelled as a dslr by minolta has a true focal range?

The Z1 and A1 digicams are called SLR-type digital cameras..... the Dynax 5, 7, 9 etc are called SLR with interchangeable lens.... the digital equivalent (sorry must quote other brands) are like the EOS300D, or Nikon D1H, D100, etc....

AFAIK, DSLR and SLR would usually mean interchangeable lens... but I think Olympus got one E-20 is a SLR but no interchangeable lens..... in my dictionary..... SLR means must have mirror and must be able to change lens lar.....
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#18
TME said:
AFAIK, DSLR and SLR would usually mean interchangeable lens... but I think Olympus got one E-20 is a SLR but no interchangeable lens..... in my dictionary..... SLR means must have mirror and must be able to change lens lar.....
Erm... ability to change lens doesn't make one a SLR. Those Voiglander Rangefinders can also change lens.

What about the Olympus series of fixed lens SLRs? The IS 1000/2000/3000/5000(or IS-1/2/3/5) series?

SLR or not depends on the reflex mirror that gives you the viewfinder image. Likewise you have TLRs that can change lens and TLRs that cannot.
 

wetdesert

New Member
Aug 14, 2003
446
0
0
#19
thanks for the replies. so am i right to say that even if a camera has a reflex mirror which makes it a slr but if it doesnt use standard lenses it will not have the normal focal range?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom