 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:52:55 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>
>> Step your aperture a bit to cut the background light, and use a flash.
>
>1. What's an aperture? [No GLaDDOS jokes please.]
The aperture on a camera is a hole or an opening through which light
is admitted. Besides letting in more or less light it controls the
depth of field. A small aperture gives a greater depth of field. It is
also referred to as the f number or stops. I assume that Sabrina meant
for you to decrease the aperture to cut down the total light entering
the camera and use the flash as a fill in light. You would need to use
your camera in manual mode as in automatic it would increase the
exposure time to compensate.
>2. Will a flash make any difference in an outdoor scene shot from a
>distance of 25 feet?
One can only suck it and see.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> Look at those shiny shiny trousers, the second photo is much better
> though you need an iron on that shirt; hmm the rolled-up sleeve thing is
> definitely you.
Now you understand what I mean by "paying money for clothes that look
wrecked already"? The shirt was wrinkled up like that in the shop.
Apparently it's meant to look like that. Similarly, the jeans were
half-faded to hell already. As for the sleeves, they're actually
buttoned up like that. I have no idea why...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The aperture on a camera is a hole or an opening through which light
> is admitted. Besides letting in more or less light it controls the
> depth of field. A small aperture gives a greater depth of field. It is
> also referred to as the f number or stops. I assume that Sabrina meant
> for you to decrease the aperture to cut down the total light entering
I'd say open up the aperture actually, to blur the background and make
Andrew stand out more. Increase the shutter speed to compensate for the
increased aperture, then increase it further until the background is a bit
darker. Then use some flash to make Andrew appear at a satisfactory
brightness.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Step your aperture a bit to cut the background light, and use a flash.
>> 1. What's an aperture? [No GLaDDOS jokes please.]
>
> The aperture on a camera is a hole or an opening through which light
> is admitted. Besides letting in more or less light it controls the
> depth of field. A small aperture gives a greater depth of field. It is
> also referred to as the f number or stops. I assume that Sabrina meant
> for you to decrease the aperture to cut down the total light entering
> the camera and use the flash as a fill in light. You would need to use
> your camera in manual mode as in automatic it would increase the
> exposure time to compensate.
Right. So sharp images require bright illumination and/or a long shutter
time?
Did I mention that my camera really struggles to produce a visible image
except in the most blindingly brilliant sunshine? Seriously, you can use
it as a webcam, but unless you're standing with a laptop next to
Stonehenge at noon on the Summer Solstice, the image just comes out dark
brown. My camera just seems to have a superlatively insensitive light
detector...
>> 2. Will a flash make any difference in an outdoor scene shot from a
>> distance of 25 feet?
>
> One can only suck it and see.
Hey, I'm just glad I got the whole of me in shot that time.
In order to take these pictures, I had to find an object of
approximately the correct height, balance the camera on it, align the
camera to where I think I'm going to stand, set it to timer mode, press
the button, walk over to the spot I think it's aimed at, strike a pose,
wait for the camera to shoot, walk back to the camera and check the shot.
Needless to say, I got bored of this very quickly. The 2nd shot is the
best image I managed to get all day. :-/ And even then I had to crop it
to get the right parts into shot. (It would have helped if the camera
was at head height rather than knee height!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> They don't do you justice.
>
> How do you know? For all y - oh, it's you. ;-)
Fancy a drink on Saturday?
I might wear the outfit. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:19:15 +0200, "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> The aperture on a camera is a hole or an opening through which light
>> is admitted. Besides letting in more or less light it controls the
>> depth of field. A small aperture gives a greater depth of field. It is
>> also referred to as the f number or stops. I assume that Sabrina meant
>> for you to decrease the aperture to cut down the total light entering
>
>I'd say open up the aperture actually, to blur the background and make
>Andrew stand out more. Increase the shutter speed to compensate for the
>increased aperture, then increase it further until the background is a bit
>darker. Then use some flash to make Andrew appear at a satisfactory
>brightness.
>
Probably better, I wish Sabrina had said step up or down. There are a
few ways of doing what's wanted but the best is to bracket the normal
exposure IMHO.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:24:28 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>Right. So sharp images require bright illumination and/or a long shutter
>time?
Yes and no :)
Long shutter times can induce blur from hand shake or other movements.
It is a balance getting the correct exposure.
>Did I mention that my camera really struggles to produce a visible image
>except in the most blindingly brilliant sunshine? Seriously, you can use
>it as a webcam, but unless you're standing with a laptop next to
>Stonehenge at noon on the Summer Solstice, the image just comes out dark
>brown. My camera just seems to have a superlatively insensitive light
>detector...
Hmm! A digital camera then. Have you checked the mode you are using it
in and/or the settings? From what you say it sounds duff or the ASA
(film sensitivity in non-digital cameras) setting is wrong but the
photos look OK.
In the first one were you just pleased to see me? :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:25:00 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> They don't do you justice.
>>
>> How do you know? For all y - oh, it's you. ;-)
>
>Fancy a drink on Saturday?
I'll have to check the day, I'll come back
>I might wear the outfit. ;-)
I'm not a fashion Queen
[Quote from "Gone with the wind"]
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Fancy a drink on Saturday?
>
> I'll have to check the day, I'll come back
OK. I'm not 100% sure what I'm doing either, but I think I'll be free...
>> I might wear the outfit. ;-)
>
> I'm not a fashion Queen
>
> [Quote from "Gone with the wind"]
[Apparently it was meant to be "I don't really care"...]
Actually, my line almost looks like I'm flirting. o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:19:04 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Look at those shiny shiny trousers, the second photo is much better
>> though you need an iron on that shirt; hmm the rolled-up sleeve thing
>> is definitely you.
>
> Now you understand what I mean by "paying money for clothes that look
> wrecked already"? The shirt was wrinkled up like that in the shop.
> Apparently it's meant to look like that.
Pfft that's just so they can sell it, just iron the damn thing :-P
> Similarly, the jeans were half-faded to hell already. As for the
> sleeves, they're actually buttoned up like that. I have no idea why...
Oookay.
Ah joy I've just upgraded to Opera 9.5 which feels like upgrading XP to
Vista; it didn't import passwords, mail, or the spell checker and now I've
got some of it working it's not marking incoming replies to my own posts -
how fun.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
