=MGN=RedEagle
Well-known member
DR St. IvesWow, I really like this one... I am learning tons just playing with my camera. How come when I change stuff like aperture the color changes?
Anyone Love Cameras Around Here?
- Thread starter =MGN=RedEagle
- Start date
Wow, I really like this one... I am learning tons just playing with my camera. How come when I change stuff like aperture the color changes?
shawn
Well-known member
The aperture is the hole in the lens that lets light in. Big number == small hole, small number == big hole. The size of the hole determines how much light gets in to the sensor, but it also affects the focal depth. If you use a small hole, a lot (or all) of the frame will be in focus. If you use a big hole, the subject will be in focus, but things at a distance will be blurry.
When you change the size of the aperture without changing the exposure time, more or less light hits the sensor, causing the image either to go bright/light (overexposed) or dim (underexposed). The colors will shift accordingly. However, you can balance the color shift by also adjusting the exposure time. If you make the hole larger, more light gets in, so you need a shorter exposure to get a similar image.
MattW's photo is an example of what's called "HDR" photography. Basically, he took three identical photos -- one normally exposed, one overexposed, and one underexposed. Then he combined them in photoshop to create an image with a high dynamic range (HDR), or with more detail at the bright end and at the dark end of the spectrum than the camera would be capable of seeing in a single image. Cameras work much like your own eyes -- just like you can't see into a dim alley on a bright sunny day, or can't look around on a bright day after emerging from a dim room. HDR works around that limitation.
When you change the size of the aperture without changing the exposure time, more or less light hits the sensor, causing the image either to go bright/light (overexposed) or dim (underexposed). The colors will shift accordingly. However, you can balance the color shift by also adjusting the exposure time. If you make the hole larger, more light gets in, so you need a shorter exposure to get a similar image.
MattW's photo is an example of what's called "HDR" photography. Basically, he took three identical photos -- one normally exposed, one overexposed, and one underexposed. Then he combined them in photoshop to create an image with a high dynamic range (HDR), or with more detail at the bright end and at the dark end of the spectrum than the camera would be capable of seeing in a single image. Cameras work much like your own eyes -- just like you can't see into a dim alley on a bright sunny day, or can't look around on a bright day after emerging from a dim room. HDR works around that limitation.
DBA
Well-known member
Welcome to the world of photography! The other guys have pretty much covered the basics, the other thing I'd add is to just go out, have fun, and shoot a lot. Also I guess "expensive" is relative.
I shoot action sports (primarily motocross) and here a couple from the past few weeks. These also show you what @turtile was referring to with the DOF, notice how the backgrounds are out of focus, especially the bottom photo. This is done by shooting at a low aperture (f/stop).
This will be in my top 20 for this year, Nicky scrubbing at the Redbud National.
Another pretty cool one from the Redbull Amateur National Championship (Loretta's) last week.
Candid shots can also be fun.
DBA
Well-known member
Thanks Allen!
How are you liking that D800? Been thinking about getting one as my secondary camera and also for special events/photos. Can't see myself using it as my primary body though, those raw files have to be crazy huge! Plus I don't really have any use for that high of a resolution during events, 24mp is more than enough.
Allen
Active member
The D800 is great. However, I can see (from your shots) you probably wouldn't benefit from using one (24 vs. 36.2mp) as you've got to print fairly large to take real advantage of the increased resolution. It's probably too slow for you as well (~4 frames/sec). I shoot mainly landscapes, so the resolution works well for me and speed (fps) really isn't a factor.
As far as file size goes, yes they are big. I'm averaging ~45,000 kb shooting RAW, 14 bit, lossless compressed files. My fairly quick computer handles them without too much slowing down, but I do notice it when I'm working on a heavily edited file in Lightroom, i.e. one with an increasing number of spot removal actions. As an amateur, I'm sure I don't have the massive file storage needs that a professional would require, but as they say, storage is cheap and getting cheaper all the time.
One other thing I've noticed is that with the increased resolution, one needs to pay increased attention to shooting discipline as far as handholding technique and shutter speeds go to take advantage of the resolution available.
If I were you, I think I'd rent a D800 for a few days to see how you would get along with the camera and the files it produces.
Are you shooting Canon, or Nikon?
As far as file size goes, yes they are big. I'm averaging ~45,000 kb shooting RAW, 14 bit, lossless compressed files. My fairly quick computer handles them without too much slowing down, but I do notice it when I'm working on a heavily edited file in Lightroom, i.e. one with an increasing number of spot removal actions. As an amateur, I'm sure I don't have the massive file storage needs that a professional would require, but as they say, storage is cheap and getting cheaper all the time.
One other thing I've noticed is that with the increased resolution, one needs to pay increased attention to shooting discipline as far as handholding technique and shutter speeds go to take advantage of the resolution available.
If I were you, I think I'd rent a D800 for a few days to see how you would get along with the camera and the files it produces.
Are you shooting Canon, or Nikon?
DBA
Well-known member
I run Nikon gear.
Yes for the bulk of what I do the resolution would be overkill and the FPS borderline slow. However the D800 has an improved autofocus system, along with a few other items, that make it perfect for what I'd use it for. During regular events it'd be my close lens (24-70 or 70-200), which doesn't get used that much. The main reason for it would be for the private shoots, where the increased resolution would be a benefit to the clients.
45 mb isn't as bad as I was expecting, mine are currently ~30 mb. I store my LR data file and image caches on a SSD to improve load/editing times. Yes storage may be cheap but IMO it could be cheaper. lol For the year I'm currently at ~24,500 photos (582 GB) and I see myself hitting 30k by year end. Storing the raw files on a pair of mirrored 2 TB drives and backing them up online via CrashPlan Pro. My dilemma is that I only have ~200 GB of storage left on these drives.
Yes for the bulk of what I do the resolution would be overkill and the FPS borderline slow. However the D800 has an improved autofocus system, along with a few other items, that make it perfect for what I'd use it for. During regular events it'd be my close lens (24-70 or 70-200), which doesn't get used that much. The main reason for it would be for the private shoots, where the increased resolution would be a benefit to the clients.
45 mb isn't as bad as I was expecting, mine are currently ~30 mb. I store my LR data file and image caches on a SSD to improve load/editing times. Yes storage may be cheap but IMO it could be cheaper. lol For the year I'm currently at ~24,500 photos (582 GB) and I see myself hitting 30k by year end. Storing the raw files on a pair of mirrored 2 TB drives and backing them up online via CrashPlan Pro. My dilemma is that I only have ~200 GB of storage left on these drives.
Trent Gillespie
Active member
wickedstangs
Well-known member
Never use Auto...
DBA
Well-known member
I'm envious of that 400 2.8 even though my 300 2.8 is working just fine for me, hey bigger is always better right?Photography nut here with my latest family photoI blame @Kier for my addiction.
View attachment 53967
P (for Professional) is the one I always use.
Trent Gillespie
Active member
It can be a bit too big at times. I seldomly use it for first look/reveals, but other than that, it stays in the safe 98% of the time... However, when used... its magical.I'm envious of that 400 2.8 even though my 300 2.8 is working just fine for me, hey bigger is always better right?
P (for Professional) is the one I always use.
Similar threads
