canon efs 18-55mm lens

[Bobster]

I'm flattered, but sadly you're wrong. I'm no genius, I just read up on the basics of photography so I could take better pictures when I had a compact. You don't even need to buy a book these days, it's all on the web.

please share some of your before and after photos with us..

Nah, s'okay, thanks. Not sure why you offered though, as I don't remember posting a topic asking what the "1280×1024" means on the box my TFT came in.

well the OP didn't ask if they should have bought a DSLR or not, they were asking about the f stop on their lens.. but it didn't stop you from coming into the thread and giving your 1p worth of why they shouldn't have..

and there's an amazing photographer (i'll dig his site out when i have time) who shoots with a DSLR on P mode..

[stroberaver]

please share some of your before and after photos with us..

I'll have a looksee when I get home and see if there's anything that illustrates any improvement in my images. No promises though - my name isn't David Bailey but I'll see what I've got. What I was trying to say is that it's surely more productive/beneficial to make the effort to understand and learn the theory yourself and apply it, than it is to just buy gear and then ask what it does.

well the OP didn't ask if they should have bought a DSLR or not, they were asking about the f stop on their lens.. but it didn't stop you from coming into the thread and giving your 1p worth of why they shouldn't have..

Lol, fair point

and there's an amazing photographer (i'll dig his site out when i have time) who shoots with a DSLR on P mode..

Yeah, I can't remember whose they were, but I've seen amazing professional looking images that I could've sworn were taken with a full pro setup and lighting gear, etc, but they were just taken with a Fuji compact. Amazing stuff. Personally I reckon that the ingredients towards a good image is 95% photographer/knowledge/technique, 4% lens and 1% camera.

That's obviously excluding specific things like sports photography, where your compact will never ever ever get you close to the results of a pro-grade 300/2.8 on a 8fps body.

[Bobster]

you don't need 8fps to have good timing for a photo.. hell i only use full 5fps when capturing a sequence, its just down to the right timing

[r_j_k_p]

"i've used my camera on like f/22(and more)" - ahh. Apertures that small are best avoided when possible.

what is the reason behind this. Why is shooting at a small aperture at the wide end "best avoided"?

[Bobster]

some lenses don't like going above f16, after that they can distort and all kinds of other image problems ie. dust

doesn't mean you can't try shooting @ f22

[r_j_k_p]

how does the lens react to going above f/16...
i took some pics at f/22 and the picture seemed to have come out fine?

how exactly does it distort the picture, and how does dust become a factor?


many thanks

[stroberaver]

please share some of your before and after photos with us..

Well, in April 2005 I took this image using my newly acquired KM Z3 P&S camera. I knew relatively little about photography at the time, and no I wouldn't have known what "3.5-5.6" means on a lens. As you can see the lighting is poor, the exposure is poor, and it's a decidedly poor image that was the best I could achieve without knowing about exposure and only using automatic modes on the camera.


After learning the basics of photography, such as lenses, apertures, suitable shutter speeds, metering, lighting, etc etc yada yada yada, I got a DSLR and decent tripod two years later in a similar location and shot this:

what is the reason behind this. Why is shooting at a small aperture at the wide end "best avoided"?

It doesn't matter what focal length is. Depending on the individual lenses, one you go past approx. f/11, diffraction starts to set in which will begin to seriously compromise image quality as you approach the minimum aperture of the lens - especially at the periphery of the image (if you've got a tiny, tiny hole to allow light through, it's travelling further and hitting the sensor at a greater angle at the edges of the image). However the diffraction can be used to your advantage as it creates starburst effects around light sources. I think it's safe to say that in terms of image sharpness and contrast across the whole frame, most lenses have a sweet spot between f/8 and f/11.

Lenses vary though, and more expensive, pro-grade lenses will tend to perform much, much better when wide open, shifting the sweet spot over a much greater range. I haven't got any expensive lenses though, so that's only based on what I've read!

[r_j_k_p]

so lets say for example, i had someone standing 10m away from me, and then mountains about 300m away from me..
from what little knowledge i have:
i was under the impression that using the highest iso possible (for quality reasons, ie no grain),
and the smallest aperture possible (largest f-number) (for a good depth of field);
this would probably use a fairly long shutter speed (depending on light around) so i would use a tripod.

but would there be any other ways to get a good depth of field?
and in my example above, what f-number would you guess would be enough to get both mountains and person in focus?

many thanks

[r_j_k_p]

some lenses don't like going above f16, after that they can distort and all kinds of other image problems ie. dust

doesn't mean you can't try shooting @ f22

oh wow, i was comparing some portrait pics of pics i took last weekend on edinburgh beach and i found alost exact shots of the same scene, one at f/4 and one af f/32
and i now understand what u meant by dust.
i noticed when looking at the pics there seems to be alot of dust and marks in the same place on several pics at f/32 aperture.

i did notice them when i first reviewed them, but i jus assumed that my sensor wasnt clean or something...:S

but now i think i get it..
is it because...........................:
the light getting through to the sensor for the picture exposure is only coming from a small part of the lens, so whatever dust or tiny tiny fragments are on your lens , get magnified almost, so it looks less clean??

at least i think thats what it is....

hope you can confirm if im grasping in the right areas?

many thanks

[r_j_k_p]

SEXY pic...

what aperture/iso/shutter speed did you use for that pic....
and how much post processing went into it?

[stroberaver]

i was under the impression that using the highest iso possible (for quality reasons, ie no grain),
and the smallest aperture possible (largest f-number) (for a good depth of field);
this would probably use a fairly long shutter speed (depending on light around) so i would use a tripod.

but would there be any other ways to get a good depth of field?

Lowest ISO possible (usually ISO 100) will give the best image quality, not the highest.
Yes, you're right about the small aperture and long shutter speed. The example you quote is a tricky one - it would be a case of finding a balance between stopping down too much, and having sufficient depth of field. Unless you want to print the image large, I expect you can get away with a pretty small aperture.

oh wow, i was comparing some portrait pics of pics i took last weekend on edinburgh beach and i found alost exact shots of the same scene, one at f/4 and one af f/32
and i now understand what u meant by dust.

If you're photographing people, portrait style, try to keep the aperture as big as possible - keeps the background as defocussed as possible and makes the person the only subject of the photo. Cheap lenses are also softer when wide open, which is often flattering for girls as it helps smooth their skin.

SEXY pic...

what aperture/iso/shutter speed did you use for that pic....
and how much post processing went into it?

Thanks. The exif is stripped out, but it's a 30s exposure (hence the smooth water) at f/22 (stopped right down for the starburst effect on the light sources) and ISO 100. No post processing except a very subtle boost to the contrast and saturation - this is basically how it came out of the camera.

[r_j_k_p]

damn it must be late, im typing stoopidly

i did mean to say low iso !
and i did mean to say landscape...lol