Thursday, October 17, 2013

What happens when you change the aperture? TT: Orange

One of my very favorite treats this year was being able to get my hot little hands on a big girl camera.  Yes, old.  Yes, used.  Yes, totally worth it.  It's like I get to be artistic without getting messy.  A neurotic girl's dream!  But I haven't really been experimenting with it much lately.  Just taking photos "in the usual way" and moving on.  Today for the orange challenge, I decided to take a few precious moments and play around with the little numbers on the screen. 

So first, here's the photo I would use if I were just posting one and not experimenting:

f1.8  --  1/1000s  --  ISO:400

(Accomplished while two biggest were proofreading their writing work, two middles were plopped in front of Olivia and tiniest was snoozing peacefully in ye olde baby cage.  Imagine me attired in a black raincoat, sneaking out the front gate and crouching under a tree on the side of the road, using my torso to shield precious toy from the rain.  Anything for my art!  Not really.  Anything to not do chores is more like it.)

Then I decided to do some experimenting.  See, I like to use a low f-stop number which actually means a large aperture. NB: Camera people invented this way of discussing these things in order to confound and confuse normal folk like me, I swear.  But I persevere!   Anyway, f1.8 is the smallest/largest aperture I got and that's what I used up there.  But what changes on a close up shots like these when I change the aperture?  Let's find out:
f1.8  --   shutter speed 1/4000s  --  ISO 400


f3.5  ---   1/1000s  --  ISO 400

f5.6  --   1/400s  --  ISO 400

f8.0  --   1/500s  --   ISO 800

f16 -- 1/200s  --  ISO1600

So what have we learned?  Well, I don't know about you guys, but I kind of can't tell the difference between a lot of these.  The first one has such a shallow depth of field that only a portion of the leaf manages to be in focus.  That may have also been user error, bee tee dub.  But all the other ones just kind of look the same to me.  So for me the moral of this particular story is that I don't really need to use my 50mm lens when taking close up shots with no distant background.  The kit lens, which goes down/up to f3.5 should be totally fine for this kind of stuff.  

Note though that I had to increase ISO and decrease shutter speed as the f stop number got bigger because the camera is letting in less and less light.  If your subject is moving or you don't have steady hands or it's super gloomy or you're indoors, the low f stop number will help you be able to use a lower ISO (better image quality) and faster shutter speed (less chance of blur).  So there's that.

Okay, hope that was helpful if there is anyone reading this who has a big girl camera but who knows less about big girl cameras than I do, which I doubt.

Now, go to Cari for more Orange.

 post signature
Pin It

13 comments :

  1. I see the difference the most markedly not in the color of the leaf (gorgeous, by the way), but in the grass. The depth-of-field blurs out more or less the the blades.

    So pretty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, now I see it. If you just look at the grass as you scroll down, you can see the blades get crisper and crisper-er

      Delete
    2. "crisper and crisper-er" ... I immediately thought of bacon.

      Delete
    3. "Bacon! It's not just crisp...it's crisper-er."

      Delete
  2. I actually prefer the ones with blurry grass. I think the leaf stands out more on the first one, because the grass isn't so clear as to distract from the beautiful color of the leaf.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's definitely about what depth of field will be in focus. I think it's easiest to tell in the grass between the first two.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think there's not much difference (no matter what crack Cari is smoking) because your subject and background are right on top of each other. Try again with a subject that's out in front of the background and you should see a difference. You know...in all your spare time :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am Cari Donaldson, and I approve of this crack-smoking reference.

      Delete
  5. Place the leaf on a fence and shoot from an angle with lots of the background in frame, you'll see a dramatic difference in each step down.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I really really really need to sit down and play with my camera. I've always shied away from the manual settings and have almost always defaulted to the ... presets. Ugh. You're making me realize this needs to change (btw, depth of field is something I do have an appreciation for. try experimenting with two objects that are further away from one another than the leaf is from the grass) ... kind of like what everyone's already said.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's just a matter of taste but I really prefer shallow depth of field - e.g. the first photo. I find a big difference between your first and last leaf shots (so pretty btw!), but that shallow depth of field takes some work to produce in outdoor photographs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you were using film the ISO would play a huge role in the grain density of the photos and your ability to blow them up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...