Two Very Basic Things I Learned Today

By 'learned', I mean "I actually 'get it'" (well, kind of get it in the case of item #2), as opposed to "I've read it and it makes sense".

#1.  The Tripod Is My Friend

Yes, every photography book, website and article says 'use your tripod for sharp photos'.  Sure.  Makes sense.  Except that it means that you actually have to find the tripod, set up the tripod, and adjust the camera to make sure you are getting what you want.  Given then I have been a 'turn on the camera and push the button' sort of photographer for my entire life, the extra steps of the tripod have heretofore seemed a bit overwhelming.

And while using a tripod is still not second-nature, it is clearly worth the time to set it up.

0.769s, f/4.1, ISO 80, 100mm

 

1/2, f/3.8, ISO 80, 28mm

1/160, f/8.3, ISO 400, 60mm

The first guitar, BTW, can be seen in the upper left-hand corner of the second photo; with the camera mounted on the tripod, I just angled the camera straight up at it.  Nice and sharp.  

The last photo, maybe I could have taken it without the tripod, but given that it was 14F out when I took the photo, I was able to take several photos with several different settings (to see what the differences would be) without inadvertently changing my angle.  Very handy.

#2.  Action Photos Should Be Taken With a Shutter-Priority Setting NOT an Aperture-Priority Setting.

Yes, I know this should be patently obviously to even the most casual of camera users.  But for some reason I've been shooting with an aperture-priority setting hoping something good would happen (don't ask my why, although I'm going to justify it by saying that the light has generally been flat/varied, and I somehow thought the aperture setting would help with the light).  Yeah, not so much.

Cases in point:

From a distance (like if you don't biggify it), it is not a horrible picture.  But the point of focus isn't very in focus if you look at it closely.  Because aperture affects depth of field as well as the amount of light let in.  So when I use the zoom for an action photo in an aperture-priority setting, the chance of my subject being really sharp is nil.  Duh.

1/800, f/4.2, ISO 80, 105mm

So I get it through my thick skull, I will repeat the above comment: aperture-priority affects depth of field as well as light; aperture-priority + action shot + zoom = "muddy" photo.

1/1600, f/4.2, ISO 400, 120mm

While the last example is a tad better, it's 'muddy' - my guess would be because of the aperture (but I could be wrong).

1/2000, f/4, ISO 400, 85mm

Will using the shutter-priority setting cure all that ails me?  Probably not, but I'll try it tomorrow and see what happens.  This is, after all, a learning process.

Which means more frisbee time for my "long-suffering" doggies.  *grin*

1/8, f/3.6, ISO 400, 50mm

Bokeh, eh?

After reading an article on bokeh this morning with some stunning examples, I went from having never heard of it before to wanting to try my hand at it.   I didn't quite replicate any of the photos in the article, but for a first attempt, I'm happy.  And I got a little more understanding of how aperture affects the depth of  field.

1/15, f/3.9, ISO 800, 70mm

At least my subject cooperated by staying put!

Although I think I need a bigger tree, or better lighting closer to the tree.*grin*

1/40, f/3.1, ISO 800, 28mm

Trial and Error (Mostly Error)

Today I decided to play around with shutter-priority and aperture-priority settings.

The first thing I learned, if you're going to go for really fast shutter-speed, you'd better have a ton of light, or a large aperture setting.  (I actually wonder if I can open the lens up enough on this camera to actually use the 1/4000 shutter speed.)  However, it did make for some interesting effects - sort of like the old tv shows where they'd shoot in daylight with a dark filter to show it was really at night.

1/4000, f/6.8, ISO 80, 28mm

Yeah.  I clearly needed to open the aperture and probably change the ISO for that one.  But when I cropped to just the mountain and the sky, it was kinda cool, in an 'oops' sort of way.

Cropped version of above.

However, as I slowed the shutter speed down a bit, I got more usable photos (in the shutter priority, it is adjusting the aperture for me, I think).

1/1600, f/4.1, ISO 80, 90mm

1/1600, f/4.1, ISO 80, 90mm

1/1600, f/4.1, ISO 80, 90mm

Not 'tack sharp' like I would like, but I don't know if that's a function of the camera or the operator.  Also, in some of them, Abby is a bit dark.

Here's a random macro photo.  I'm not sure if the disembodied foot creeps me out or is cool.

1/800, f/3.7, ISO 80, 55mm

Later in the day I decided to try some aperture priority photos of the girls napping.

1/13, f/3, ISO 800, 24mm

1/2, f/7.6, ISO 800, 28mm

I took several versions of the above photo, narrowing the aperture until the tv was out of focus.  Abby is not as sharp as I would like, but that's why I'm doing this.

1/3, f/3.1, ISO 800, 28mm

I just like the last photo - it sort of captured the lazy afternoon I was having with the girls.

Did I learn anything?  Yes.  I've learned that there really IS a relationship between shutter speed, aperture and ISO, and I learned that I haven't figured out that relationship yet!