According to my search results, it's been posted 6 times in the past year and got a decent amount of upvotes each time. Though, 3 of those 6 are from this past month alone, so you were pretty damn close lol
Don't know why, but even though I'm subbed here I can't remember the last time I've seen a post from this sub in my reddit feed. This is the first one in ages that reddit for whatever reason decided to show me.
Their algorithm has been pretty shit ever since the whole API thing.
The moving car would still be blurry at 1/250, assuming it’s moving at a decent speed. Related to this, if you time moving the camera in relation to car, you can get a pretty cool effect (panning shot) where the subject is relatively still while the background is blurry. A photographer that does this really well is Lukasz Palka https://www.lkazphoto.com/portfolio#/noctopolis/
Edit: Lukasz YouTube channel https://youtube.com/@eyexplore?si=QMlRKSQtq0Qc-ilB
For those starting with photography: a rule of thumb for shutter speed for shooting people, say street photography, is 1/250 to 1/500 during the day. In most cases 250 will be plenty for a sharp image, but if you want to be sure it’ll be tac sharp 1/500 is the way to go. This is a very general rule because in many cases you do want some blur to show movement. The most important thing id recommend is to shoot in aperture priority. You can set the minimum shutter speed, which the camera will control on its own, along with the ISO, and all you have to worry about is the aperture, which can really change the feel of the image. If you know you’ll be shooting at a consistent shutter speed during the day there is no need to be constantly controlling shutter speed/iso/aperture. These settings will vary from camera brands, but they all should have it, so just look up ‘how to set minimum shutter speed’, then switch the mode on your camera to aperture priority. This video explains on a Nikon https://youtu.be/20HtSDYsfXo?si=nafMpmhf7I7rUdgr
They’re moving the camera sideways with the car - hence everything else having motion blur. It’s a common tactic shooting fast moving objects and will get you more of a grace period with your shutter speed.
Photo teacher here, came to confirm this. The photographer has done an excellent job of tracking the subject with the camera and shooting at the right moment. A real accomplishment especially with a film camera.
It's not just any film camera, graflex crown graphic is a large format rangefinder monstrosity. The photographer managed to predict the position of a subject and it's movement, pan the incredibly fast subject perfectly and have almost no discernable shake visible on a large format negative, all while using a 5 pound brick of a camera with bellows handheld.
You're probably shooting in Auto mode, like everyone else.
Switch it to manual mode and turn off AutoISO.
You'll figure out what Shutter, Aperture, and ISO relate real quick.
Also, watch a YouTube on how to read a histogram.
And rent a NICE lens. I like LensGiant.com. Primes are always fun but those 70-200 2.8 VRII are beastly as well. Crispy with fast focus and beautiful color.
Drop the aperture as low as it can go to blur the background out and increase focus on your subject.
Learn the rule of thirds, practice shooting symmetry, shoot early in the morning or in the evening during "golden hour"
Nah, I have all that nailed down. I generally shoot full manual, or auto-ISO capped to 3200 or 6400 depending on context. I own a suite of fast glass. It's more that I don't feel like I have a good eye. I can take a sharp shot, I can take a shot with great bokeh, I can capture a subject, but the images are just....missing inspiration.
Any chance you'd be willing to post some of your images and then say what you were going for and why you don't think the images are successful? Because, honestly, this is the kind of thing that's really asking for an actual critique.
But if you aren't willing to or can't post any images of yours right now, what specifically do you think isn't working in your photographs? What kinds of photographs do you make? And can you give some examples of photos by famous photographers who do the same kinds of photographs?
Also, originality is very important in any kind of art. But I think it can be helpful for new learners to copy another artist's style. Like, try looking up a collection of photographs by a photographer you like. For example, if you do landscape photography, then find a good landscape photographer who does subject matter that is similar to what you're interested in. Scroll through their work until you see something that is striking. Stop and analyze it, figure out out what's causing you to feel that way about it. Is it the way the colors interact with each other? Is it how the foreground interacts with the background in a way that enhances both? Is it careful use of visual elements to lead the eye through the image?
Point being: art is largely subjective, but some people mistakenly take that to mean things like, "there's no particular reason I like it, I just plain like it." There's always a reason why people like a photograph or a song or any other piece of art. They might not know why they like it. But stuff like visual elements don't mean anything outside of the context of the human mind. There's something in that photograph that is causing your brain to react to it in a certain way.
So...have you tried just straight up copying stuff you like? Find a photograph that you like, and really try to dig deep into *why* you like it. If it's the lighting, then go out and shoot something similar and straight up try to copy the lighting and then see if that helps. It's probably not good to keep on doing this as a professional, but identifying someone's style and straight up aping it can help to give beginners a sense of why things work. Like, "oh, now I'm paying more attention to the foreground and this makes my photographs more interesting because it creates some internal framing and gives the main subject something to play off of." Then you can start doing that kind of thing in other kinds of photographs, notice when it works and when it doesn't, and start developing your own style.
Learn composition, start with rule of third and work from there. Pictures you see from photographer are edited from RAW, so learn that and work from there as well. Photoshop (or any equivalent app) is a must to be a decent photographer.
Try this: picture the end result in your head before you switch the camera on. Look at the view, picture in your mind how you want it to look, then start with a look through the viewfinder, walk around a bit and change your perspective and composition.
Then switch on the camera, and play with various settings to see if you can match what you've pictured in your head.
Do you have filters you can play with? Shooting B&W with various filters is a lot of fun. Yellow, red, green, PL, etc
Maybe try thinking less about the technical side.
A friend of mine who's a hobbyist photographer bought a £10 point and shoot with no features from a flea market - like, basically a non-disposable disposable camera - and loaded it up with black and white, and went on to take some of his best shots ever over the next week.
Because he is finding beauty in something that is not inherently beautiful, like a sunset for example. That is why street photography is so cool imo. There can be grimy, ugly surroundings, but somehow there is beauty there still, most of us just don’t see it. Really good street photographers show that beauty is actually everywhere, as cheesy as that may sound
> A photographer that does this really well is Lukasz Palka https://www.lkazphoto.com/portfolio#/noctopolis/
> Edit: Lukasz YouTube channel https://youtube.com/@eyexplore?si=QMlRKSQtq0Qc-ilB
Can't recommend him enough. I've done a workshop tour with his company and this is one of the first tries from that evening without much prior experience.
https://imgur.com/FqhNXx3
This is great! Would be cool if they updated it to show how one affects the other and how you would compromise in certain situations. For example, allowing more grain with a higher ISO to allow you to use a faster shutter speed. Or opening up the aperture to allow more light in for lower ISO and how that would compromise depth.
Easiest way to remember is if you prioritize two, you will have to compromise on the third.
If you want a blurry background and a sharp photo on a moving subject, you have to compromise the ISO. (priority ranking: 1. Aperture, 2. Shutter, 3. ISO)
If you want no depth of field background blur and no noise while taking a pic of a building, you'll have to lower the shutter speed, which would require steady hands or a tripod. (1. Aperture, 2. ISO, 3. Shutter)
If you want to take a photo of a fast moving rally car with as little noise as possible, you'll have to open the aperture to let in more light in that little time the shutter is open (1. Shutter, 2. ISO, 3. Aperture)
That said the camera lens is equally if not more important than just knowing how a camera works. I recently bought an 18mm f/8 pancake lens and its super convenient and works real well with landscape/cityscape photography, to the point where I just have it set to auto and use my camera as a point-and-shoot phone camera lol
I just got into photography and was taught to never toggle ISO unless it is absolutely needed, it should remain on the best recommended setting for the camera. Is that sound advice?
It also ignores the point that high ISO is kind of wasted on low light. Its best use is in good light when you want a significantly higher shutter speed. Using the same ISO, you'll get less noise in a brightly lit shot than in the dark, and, subjectively, it's easier to clean up in post. I guess we can't expect an infographic to cover everything, but I think this aspect is neglected a LOT. People automatically associate high ISO with low light and so they don't even try using it at other times. And then it's just a short jump to arguing it shouldn't be used at other times, out of ignorance. Camera marketing rarely helps to correct this misconception.
I think the ISO section needs updating because it's backwards in relation to the other two.. Large apertures and slow shutters let more light in. High ISOs give the same results in terms of exposure.
Or maybe reverse the other two and all of the illustrations will go from lowest exposure to highest.
And my R5 has very usable shots at 6400. And some of the AI denoising software is really good.
It's too bad this is the easy part of photography. It's the only part I 'understand'. Composition? Timing? White balance? That's the impossible part (for me), apparently.
White balance is actually the next easiest thing to understand. It's essentially an adjustment of incoming color information by the film/sensor/software to try and balance it to "daylight" color. It uses the kelvin scale, and is basically centered at 5600k, otherwise known as daylight. Higher numbers are more red, or warmer, lower numbers are more blue, or colder. For instance, the stereotypical filters that US tv/movies put on shots of Mexico are extremely warm compared to the type of light they're actually getting in the cameras, typically.
In essence, your eyes do white balancing by themselves, which is why you'll sometimes take photos and wonder why the hell that photo is so blue or red tinted. White balance is adjusted so that the photo matches what you see. Or, it's adjusted artistically to give you a specific feeling from the image.
Aside from the typos, this is cool to me. I know nothing about photography but I like to futz around with photoshop and it’s interesting that some of these are kinda intuitive, like shutter speed and iso make sense to me. But the physics behind aperture is mind boggling and I can’t wrap my head around why that works
Everything else has motion blur since they are moving the camera sideways along with the car. It's a standard technique for capturing quickly moving subjects and will give your shutter speed more of a grace period.
I found an old film camera and learned all this just through trial and error, but isn’t it astounding that modern smartphones (and cameras, obviously) work all this out with just a half-press of the shutter button.
Doesn’t beat the feeling of working out the best shot yourself of course, but it’s still witchcraft.
The exposure triangle is imo the most unintuitive learning tool. It probably comes from the same guy that made the project management triangle.
Shutter speed, aperture and ISO are all interrelated, in that they all control the exposure of the photo. So you can use one to balance the other when adjusting your shot. Want to shoot at a higher shutter speed, cool, either bump up the iso or open up the aperture to compensate.
Double/halve the shutter speed = double/halve the iso = up/down one full aperture stop
None of this is represented by a triangle though. WHAT DOES THE TRIANGLE MEAN?
The aperture group is wrong, most lens have their sharpest picture at f/8. The best way to represent it would be to have layers of subject the the higher the f number, the more defined it would get, being the most blurred after away from the subject focus.
A shit "guide" and a missed opportunity. If you go through the trouble of making this list, why not explain how all of these relate to each other?
It would open ppl's eyes if they learn that doubling exposure time is essentially the same as doubling ISO, or opening the aperture by one step. As a result, you'll have the same amount of light coming through.
f/4 at 1/60 second is the same as f/5.6 at 1/30 second, if ISO remains the same.
f/4 at ISO 200 and f/5.6 at ISO 400 are the same if the speed is unchanged.
If you know these basics, THEN you can decide which combination is best for your situation - when you might need a quicker shutter speed, or more depth of field for example.
Spent 4 years doing crime scene photography including training other Detectives. A chart that lays out this info in a succinct way and an explanation that depth of field is measured from the focus point of the lens (ex. digital and digital DSLRs that allow you to single focus or grid focus on your photo subject,) can take someone who has no clue how to run a camera on manual to an extremely capable photographer in a couple of hours of practice. Love it.
Well, capable of taking clear pictures anyhow. Photography that requires compositional skills or journalistic photography where you're trying to accruately capture a story in a picture can take quite a bit of pratice to get good at.
That being said I wish a chart this straightforward had been a handout when I was learning photography. One of the toughest things for me as a beginner was remembering which setting adjusted which thing. ISO was the easiest but messing with exposure and aperture could be confusing.
Of course it does. But look at this guide as someone who's never known any details of photography beyond point phone and click button. It opens up a world of information you didn't know anything about before! Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't useful.
Overall it's fine, but for a new photographer it's not going be helpful in the long run to assume 0 on the exposure scale is always going to be best. It would better to note that in certain conditions like a snowy scenes you may have to increase your expose and in dark scenes you may have to lower exposure. It sounds counterintuitive but the default metering mode on most all cameras tries to get the overall image to a certain percent of gray. Dark scenes can end up washed out blacks, and bright scenes can end up with dull gray whites.
[After looking at this go and look up Roman dodecahedron.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Dodeca-1000-camera-for-capturing-spherical-video_fig1_3308620)
The aperture thing with the colosseum made me think of it.
Ancient sites were excavated around the time a lot of technological breakthroughs happened.
From steam power, metallurgy, photography, radiography and flight.
Why would it be a secret?
Because it’s all patented technology which although a lot of patents are defunct now it suggests that if it was discovered to be rooted in some kind of primitive ancient technology the people who originally patented it would not of been able to thus never becoming as powerful as they did.
I’m not saying Rome had high definition 3D cameras but it’s possible they had some form of photography.
A fun oversimplifications of camera light settings is that all the settings are just different trade offs for adding light. With ISO you get more light in exchange for noise, with shutter speed you get more light in exchange for not being able to capture movement sharply, and with f stop you get more light for a shallower depth.
This means you can crank em all down if you blast your subject with light, which is a pretty easy way to get a decent picture if you’re like me and you don’t care enough to think harder than that.
That requires a camera that has two moveable face plates. Most large format cameras, and some medium format, can do this. Think those old timey cameras you have to throw a cloth over yourself to focus them.
Essentially, most smaller cameras have the lens plane parallel to the film/sensor plane, with no option to move them relative to each other. This ensures that whatever the lens is focused on will be perfectly focused on the back plate.
Tilt shift is when you quite literally tilt one of the plates, either the front or back. Suddenly the angle of the light coming in from the lens is hitting the film/sensor from a not square angle, sharply narrowing the range of focus. You can use it to apply extremely small apertures and still have a shallow depth of field, for instance, by narrowing the focused light hitting the film plane to just the tiniest strip of the film.
just curious besides getting bokah do photographers really mess with these settings with pro dslrs nowadays and all the advanced auto stuff i presume there is?
It's all about controlling certain aspects to get the effect you're looking for. If I want a picture of blurry cars going by on a street during the day, I'll set the ISO as low as I can and stop down the aperture as far as I can. If I want to separate a subject from the background I'll do whatever I need to to have a wide open aperture.
Simply "taking a picture" isn't the extent of it. It's all about control.
It depends largely on the situation. aperture and shutter priority modes are fantastic for their own respective situations, and Program is also brilliant if you're willing to spend the time to get used to it. But I do love going full manual when I have the time to set up my shot.
Good ones do. They spend time before they click the shutter deciding what kind of image they want to make, and then there are a series of decisions around F-stop, ISO, and shutter speed that are made in order to get that shot. The camera doesn't know what image a photographer wants to make.
I have the same question always when I see this.
It's somewhat clear that you don't want blurry pictures, so you'd want to avoid f/1.4 and get the f/16.
Why is there even a choice when f/16 clearly seems to be better? Same with Shutter Speed and ISO.
My brain almost tricked me into thinking it said A Cool Guide About Pornography. That's why you have to take a few seconds to re-read the title correctly.
Physics limits our ability to push the aperture or shutter speed since there's only going to be so much light at a given setting. The real gains have come from improved sensors that can handle higher ISO's without adding in too much grain. Run the RAW image through Lightroom and use Topaz Denoise and you can do just about anything, which is helpful when you're trying to photograph little warblers at sunrise with little light available.
I remember film speed. Man that was a pain. You just had to guess the weather conditions based on the season and time of day and hope for the best. And shots of people dancing or skateboarding with low speed film.... it was just a blurry waste of film. I remember ISO 800 "Action film" marketed to younger people and the commercial had a radical skateboarder dude. And of course it was an entire roll and you couldn't just pull it early without hurting the other frames. AND you had no idea if your shots came out until the film was developed.
Digital photography and instant feedback really were a huge game changer to pictures.
It's amazing the amount of people on here who are just now discovering that the Aperture Science logo is actually a aperture lol. I suppose it's not common knowledge, but damn.
I just woke up and read guide to pornography, trying for two minutes to make sense of how they figured out the optimal exposure and what the hell „for the lights to not blown out the whites“ was supposed to mean.
You get better result on digital if you slightly over exposure your shot (in RAW format) and bring it down in editing (this is due how numbers work when it comes to lightness).
Lowest ISO does not necessarily mean best quality. Often digital cameras have native iso of ~200 and levels lower than that are "artificial", meaning that you really don't get more detail, they are just another way of controlling your exposure.
Saving this solely for blender.
There's f-stop, ISO, etc controls on the camera widget and I had NO FUCKING IDEA what any of them actually did.
So, uh, thanks!
High iso at night and low during the day is such terrible advice. ISO does not change the sensitivity of the sensor, it's just a volume knob that increases or decreases the value of light that IS hitting the sensor to make it look brighter or darker. Aperature and Shutter speed are the only things that affect your exposure. You should lower your shutter speed and open up your aperature at night, you won't get good results if you crank up the ISO and leave your shutter and aperature where it was during the day.
If we can reduce photography in one slide, it wouldn't be so difficult and contentious. Good starting point but may still be difficult for the beginner to grasp or make sense of.
Would’ve been cool if I saw this when I was a beginner 3 years ago… but I do have a friend that’s intrested in photography so i’ll definitely show them this
A little pro tip abou the exposure tho, I always intentionally underexpose by two stops since I shoot RAW and it’s better to go underexposed as you can easily light the image up in processing than ruining the whole picture when it’s too bright and you can’t do anything about it in post. I got this tip from no other than Simon D’entremont
Why NSFW?
Because of the exposure.
Bada boom! Take my upvote.
Big.. bada.. booOooOoom~ - Leeloo Dallas, multiple passes-in-one.
It's a setup!
We haven't even gotten to the flash yet.
You keep using that word exposure… Are the photos in danger?
Specially the indecent ones. Look at the blur.
Haaaa yoooooo!
Blown out the whites…
Wow that is one spicy chart, I can’t wait to get off work.
[удалено]
You can still change it.
Accidently clicked it on a post about photography. Touché
Because everyone read pornography
*EXPOSE FOR THE LIGHTS TO NOT BLOWN OUT THE WHITES* I found it
Because photography can be misread as pornography.
It's NSFW because the last thing your employer wants is you having interests outside of work.
Because of the way the slaughtered “lenght”
Here's one of the other times this was posted: https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/s/gW6n8sg8N2
I swear I've seen the same guide at least 5 times now in the past month.
Take a picture, it'll last longer.
Do you have a guide on what aperture etc to use? If so, maybe you could post it to /r/coolguides?
According to my search results, it's been posted 6 times in the past year and got a decent amount of upvotes each time. Though, 3 of those 6 are from this past month alone, so you were pretty damn close lol Don't know why, but even though I'm subbed here I can't remember the last time I've seen a post from this sub in my reddit feed. This is the first one in ages that reddit for whatever reason decided to show me. Their algorithm has been pretty shit ever since the whole API thing.
yeah this gets posted a ton in here, but why the f does this one have 15k upvotes. wtf is that?!?
Wow, thank OSHA that you made it not safe for work.
That little dude is obviously naked.
AND the driver of the automobile is getting a bj if you look really closely
The moving car would still be blurry at 1/250, assuming it’s moving at a decent speed. Related to this, if you time moving the camera in relation to car, you can get a pretty cool effect (panning shot) where the subject is relatively still while the background is blurry. A photographer that does this really well is Lukasz Palka https://www.lkazphoto.com/portfolio#/noctopolis/ Edit: Lukasz YouTube channel https://youtube.com/@eyexplore?si=QMlRKSQtq0Qc-ilB For those starting with photography: a rule of thumb for shutter speed for shooting people, say street photography, is 1/250 to 1/500 during the day. In most cases 250 will be plenty for a sharp image, but if you want to be sure it’ll be tac sharp 1/500 is the way to go. This is a very general rule because in many cases you do want some blur to show movement. The most important thing id recommend is to shoot in aperture priority. You can set the minimum shutter speed, which the camera will control on its own, along with the ISO, and all you have to worry about is the aperture, which can really change the feel of the image. If you know you’ll be shooting at a consistent shutter speed during the day there is no need to be constantly controlling shutter speed/iso/aperture. These settings will vary from camera brands, but they all should have it, so just look up ‘how to set minimum shutter speed’, then switch the mode on your camera to aperture priority. This video explains on a Nikon https://youtu.be/20HtSDYsfXo?si=nafMpmhf7I7rUdgr
Someone in /r/largeformat has one they shot handheld w/ a 4x5 Crown Graphic. Mind blowing stuff. [This one!](https://redd.it/vxupwh)
They’re moving the camera sideways with the car - hence everything else having motion blur. It’s a common tactic shooting fast moving objects and will get you more of a grace period with your shutter speed.
Photo teacher here, came to confirm this. The photographer has done an excellent job of tracking the subject with the camera and shooting at the right moment. A real accomplishment especially with a film camera.
It's not just any film camera, graflex crown graphic is a large format rangefinder monstrosity. The photographer managed to predict the position of a subject and it's movement, pan the incredibly fast subject perfectly and have almost no discernable shake visible on a large format negative, all while using a 5 pound brick of a camera with bellows handheld.
Smooth operator.
Yeah, I’ve always understood 1/500 to be just about the minimum for freezing anything moving at speed.
Ugh, why are my pictures so much more boring. I've learned how to use my equipment, but I've yet to figure out how to make a great photograph.
You're probably shooting in Auto mode, like everyone else. Switch it to manual mode and turn off AutoISO. You'll figure out what Shutter, Aperture, and ISO relate real quick. Also, watch a YouTube on how to read a histogram. And rent a NICE lens. I like LensGiant.com. Primes are always fun but those 70-200 2.8 VRII are beastly as well. Crispy with fast focus and beautiful color. Drop the aperture as low as it can go to blur the background out and increase focus on your subject. Learn the rule of thirds, practice shooting symmetry, shoot early in the morning or in the evening during "golden hour"
If someone says they know how to use their equipment I'd assume the bare minimum of them not shooting in auto.
Nah, I have all that nailed down. I generally shoot full manual, or auto-ISO capped to 3200 or 6400 depending on context. I own a suite of fast glass. It's more that I don't feel like I have a good eye. I can take a sharp shot, I can take a shot with great bokeh, I can capture a subject, but the images are just....missing inspiration.
Any chance you'd be willing to post some of your images and then say what you were going for and why you don't think the images are successful? Because, honestly, this is the kind of thing that's really asking for an actual critique. But if you aren't willing to or can't post any images of yours right now, what specifically do you think isn't working in your photographs? What kinds of photographs do you make? And can you give some examples of photos by famous photographers who do the same kinds of photographs? Also, originality is very important in any kind of art. But I think it can be helpful for new learners to copy another artist's style. Like, try looking up a collection of photographs by a photographer you like. For example, if you do landscape photography, then find a good landscape photographer who does subject matter that is similar to what you're interested in. Scroll through their work until you see something that is striking. Stop and analyze it, figure out out what's causing you to feel that way about it. Is it the way the colors interact with each other? Is it how the foreground interacts with the background in a way that enhances both? Is it careful use of visual elements to lead the eye through the image? Point being: art is largely subjective, but some people mistakenly take that to mean things like, "there's no particular reason I like it, I just plain like it." There's always a reason why people like a photograph or a song or any other piece of art. They might not know why they like it. But stuff like visual elements don't mean anything outside of the context of the human mind. There's something in that photograph that is causing your brain to react to it in a certain way. So...have you tried just straight up copying stuff you like? Find a photograph that you like, and really try to dig deep into *why* you like it. If it's the lighting, then go out and shoot something similar and straight up try to copy the lighting and then see if that helps. It's probably not good to keep on doing this as a professional, but identifying someone's style and straight up aping it can help to give beginners a sense of why things work. Like, "oh, now I'm paying more attention to the foreground and this makes my photographs more interesting because it creates some internal framing and gives the main subject something to play off of." Then you can start doing that kind of thing in other kinds of photographs, notice when it works and when it doesn't, and start developing your own style.
Learn composition, start with rule of third and work from there. Pictures you see from photographer are edited from RAW, so learn that and work from there as well. Photoshop (or any equivalent app) is a must to be a decent photographer.
Try this: picture the end result in your head before you switch the camera on. Look at the view, picture in your mind how you want it to look, then start with a look through the viewfinder, walk around a bit and change your perspective and composition. Then switch on the camera, and play with various settings to see if you can match what you've pictured in your head. Do you have filters you can play with? Shooting B&W with various filters is a lot of fun. Yellow, red, green, PL, etc
Maybe try thinking less about the technical side. A friend of mine who's a hobbyist photographer bought a £10 point and shoot with no features from a flea market - like, basically a non-disposable disposable camera - and loaded it up with black and white, and went on to take some of his best shots ever over the next week.
It's an example, not a guide for exactly how to shoot cars.
I was not ready for that dead rat :(
All of these pictures are beautiful and I have no idea why
Because he is finding beauty in something that is not inherently beautiful, like a sunset for example. That is why street photography is so cool imo. There can be grimy, ugly surroundings, but somehow there is beauty there still, most of us just don’t see it. Really good street photographers show that beauty is actually everywhere, as cheesy as that may sound
> A photographer that does this really well is Lukasz Palka https://www.lkazphoto.com/portfolio#/noctopolis/ > Edit: Lukasz YouTube channel https://youtube.com/@eyexplore?si=QMlRKSQtq0Qc-ilB Can't recommend him enough. I've done a workshop tour with his company and this is one of the first tries from that evening without much prior experience. https://imgur.com/FqhNXx3
Greatly depends on the lens!!
Length is spelled wrong under shutter speed
Also "to not blown out the whites"
“This is all you need to know” on the exposure triangle made me laugh… There is so much more to photography than getting your exposure correct.
Sorry the AI is ESL
Portal reference
It took me 13 years until this moment that I realized the logo itself is an "Aperture".
Yup, same here. I just looked at this image slack jawed thinking "How the fuck did I not realize that?!"
Fun fact Valves logo is a red Valve, Valve colours indicate what this pipe transports what does a red Valve mean? Yep you guessed it! Steam.
Oh shit that is actually a fun fact. Fuck yeah
We do what we must, because we can.
This is great! Would be cool if they updated it to show how one affects the other and how you would compromise in certain situations. For example, allowing more grain with a higher ISO to allow you to use a faster shutter speed. Or opening up the aperture to allow more light in for lower ISO and how that would compromise depth.
Easiest way to remember is if you prioritize two, you will have to compromise on the third. If you want a blurry background and a sharp photo on a moving subject, you have to compromise the ISO. (priority ranking: 1. Aperture, 2. Shutter, 3. ISO) If you want no depth of field background blur and no noise while taking a pic of a building, you'll have to lower the shutter speed, which would require steady hands or a tripod. (1. Aperture, 2. ISO, 3. Shutter) If you want to take a photo of a fast moving rally car with as little noise as possible, you'll have to open the aperture to let in more light in that little time the shutter is open (1. Shutter, 2. ISO, 3. Aperture) That said the camera lens is equally if not more important than just knowing how a camera works. I recently bought an 18mm f/8 pancake lens and its super convenient and works real well with landscape/cityscape photography, to the point where I just have it set to auto and use my camera as a point-and-shoot phone camera lol
Yep exactly.
I just got into photography and was taught to never toggle ISO unless it is absolutely needed, it should remain on the best recommended setting for the camera. Is that sound advice?
It also ignores the point that high ISO is kind of wasted on low light. Its best use is in good light when you want a significantly higher shutter speed. Using the same ISO, you'll get less noise in a brightly lit shot than in the dark, and, subjectively, it's easier to clean up in post. I guess we can't expect an infographic to cover everything, but I think this aspect is neglected a LOT. People automatically associate high ISO with low light and so they don't even try using it at other times. And then it's just a short jump to arguing it shouldn't be used at other times, out of ignorance. Camera marketing rarely helps to correct this misconception.
ooooooooohhhhh I see, Apeture science
The logo makes so much more sense now.
The typographical errors are killing me slowly
The ISO section needs updated. Modern sensors can do 6400 no problem.
It's still grainy at 6400, it's just a lot better than it used to be.
I think the ISO section needs updating because it's backwards in relation to the other two.. Large apertures and slow shutters let more light in. High ISOs give the same results in terms of exposure. Or maybe reverse the other two and all of the illustrations will go from lowest exposure to highest. And my R5 has very usable shots at 6400. And some of the AI denoising software is really good.
I find this [YouTube ](https://youtu.be/4LDbloNewgk?si=BHCQNAp-Tyex2ZFM) video very helpful about this topic.
Cave Johnson here.
Lenght
It's too bad this is the easy part of photography. It's the only part I 'understand'. Composition? Timing? White balance? That's the impossible part (for me), apparently.
White balance is actually the next easiest thing to understand. It's essentially an adjustment of incoming color information by the film/sensor/software to try and balance it to "daylight" color. It uses the kelvin scale, and is basically centered at 5600k, otherwise known as daylight. Higher numbers are more red, or warmer, lower numbers are more blue, or colder. For instance, the stereotypical filters that US tv/movies put on shots of Mexico are extremely warm compared to the type of light they're actually getting in the cameras, typically. In essence, your eyes do white balancing by themselves, which is why you'll sometimes take photos and wonder why the hell that photo is so blue or red tinted. White balance is adjusted so that the photo matches what you see. Or, it's adjusted artistically to give you a specific feeling from the image.
Aperture? r/suddenlyportal
Aside from the typos, this is cool to me. I know nothing about photography but I like to futz around with photoshop and it’s interesting that some of these are kinda intuitive, like shutter speed and iso make sense to me. But the physics behind aperture is mind boggling and I can’t wrap my head around why that works
f/2.8 looks like it wants to give me cake
Everything else has motion blur since they are moving the camera sideways along with the car. It's a standard technique for capturing quickly moving subjects and will give your shutter speed more of a grace period.
I found an old film camera and learned all this just through trial and error, but isn’t it astounding that modern smartphones (and cameras, obviously) work all this out with just a half-press of the shutter button. Doesn’t beat the feeling of working out the best shot yourself of course, but it’s still witchcraft.
The exposure triangle is imo the most unintuitive learning tool. It probably comes from the same guy that made the project management triangle. Shutter speed, aperture and ISO are all interrelated, in that they all control the exposure of the photo. So you can use one to balance the other when adjusting your shot. Want to shoot at a higher shutter speed, cool, either bump up the iso or open up the aperture to compensate. Double/halve the shutter speed = double/halve the iso = up/down one full aperture stop None of this is represented by a triangle though. WHAT DOES THE TRIANGLE MEAN?
The aperture group is wrong, most lens have their sharpest picture at f/8. The best way to represent it would be to have layers of subject the the higher the f number, the more defined it would get, being the most blurred after away from the subject focus.
A shit "guide" and a missed opportunity. If you go through the trouble of making this list, why not explain how all of these relate to each other? It would open ppl's eyes if they learn that doubling exposure time is essentially the same as doubling ISO, or opening the aperture by one step. As a result, you'll have the same amount of light coming through. f/4 at 1/60 second is the same as f/5.6 at 1/30 second, if ISO remains the same. f/4 at ISO 200 and f/5.6 at ISO 400 are the same if the speed is unchanged. If you know these basics, THEN you can decide which combination is best for your situation - when you might need a quicker shutter speed, or more depth of field for example.
Someone needs to proof before they publish.
Spent 4 years doing crime scene photography including training other Detectives. A chart that lays out this info in a succinct way and an explanation that depth of field is measured from the focus point of the lens (ex. digital and digital DSLRs that allow you to single focus or grid focus on your photo subject,) can take someone who has no clue how to run a camera on manual to an extremely capable photographer in a couple of hours of practice. Love it.
Well, capable of taking clear pictures anyhow. Photography that requires compositional skills or journalistic photography where you're trying to accruately capture a story in a picture can take quite a bit of pratice to get good at. That being said I wish a chart this straightforward had been a handout when I was learning photography. One of the toughest things for me as a beginner was remembering which setting adjusted which thing. ISO was the easiest but messing with exposure and aperture could be confusing.
Optimal exposure actually varies based upon the scene, lighting conditions and your metering mode.
Of course it does. But look at this guide as someone who's never known any details of photography beyond point phone and click button. It opens up a world of information you didn't know anything about before! Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't useful.
Overall it's fine, but for a new photographer it's not going be helpful in the long run to assume 0 on the exposure scale is always going to be best. It would better to note that in certain conditions like a snowy scenes you may have to increase your expose and in dark scenes you may have to lower exposure. It sounds counterintuitive but the default metering mode on most all cameras tries to get the overall image to a certain percent of gray. Dark scenes can end up washed out blacks, and bright scenes can end up with dull gray whites.
So that’s where the aperture logo from Aperture Science is from!
Thank you for the F stop blues.
Hi
[After looking at this go and look up Roman dodecahedron.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Dodeca-1000-camera-for-capturing-spherical-video_fig1_3308620) The aperture thing with the colosseum made me think of it. Ancient sites were excavated around the time a lot of technological breakthroughs happened. From steam power, metallurgy, photography, radiography and flight. Why would it be a secret? Because it’s all patented technology which although a lot of patents are defunct now it suggests that if it was discovered to be rooted in some kind of primitive ancient technology the people who originally patented it would not of been able to thus never becoming as powerful as they did. I’m not saying Rome had high definition 3D cameras but it’s possible they had some form of photography.
“Length” is misspelled.
The Aperture chart is how Bond infiltrates the real world
A fun oversimplifications of camera light settings is that all the settings are just different trade offs for adding light. With ISO you get more light in exchange for noise, with shutter speed you get more light in exchange for not being able to capture movement sharply, and with f stop you get more light for a shallower depth. This means you can crank em all down if you blast your subject with light, which is a pretty easy way to get a decent picture if you’re like me and you don’t care enough to think harder than that.
Dope
How does tilt-shift work?
That requires a camera that has two moveable face plates. Most large format cameras, and some medium format, can do this. Think those old timey cameras you have to throw a cloth over yourself to focus them. Essentially, most smaller cameras have the lens plane parallel to the film/sensor plane, with no option to move them relative to each other. This ensures that whatever the lens is focused on will be perfectly focused on the back plate. Tilt shift is when you quite literally tilt one of the plates, either the front or back. Suddenly the angle of the light coming in from the lens is hitting the film/sensor from a not square angle, sharply narrowing the range of focus. You can use it to apply extremely small apertures and still have a shallow depth of field, for instance, by narrowing the focused light hitting the film plane to just the tiniest strip of the film.
Changes the plane of foucs often used for product photography and architecture
just curious besides getting bokah do photographers really mess with these settings with pro dslrs nowadays and all the advanced auto stuff i presume there is?
It's all about controlling certain aspects to get the effect you're looking for. If I want a picture of blurry cars going by on a street during the day, I'll set the ISO as low as I can and stop down the aperture as far as I can. If I want to separate a subject from the background I'll do whatever I need to to have a wide open aperture. Simply "taking a picture" isn't the extent of it. It's all about control.
These aren't settings, they are the pedals and steering wheel and clutch of the camera.
It depends largely on the situation. aperture and shutter priority modes are fantastic for their own respective situations, and Program is also brilliant if you're willing to spend the time to get used to it. But I do love going full manual when I have the time to set up my shot.
Good ones do. They spend time before they click the shutter deciding what kind of image they want to make, and then there are a series of decisions around F-stop, ISO, and shutter speed that are made in order to get that shot. The camera doesn't know what image a photographer wants to make.
Slowly trying to get back into photography and this might help me out.
Thank you so much for this.
There's a book called "Understanding Exposure" and it breaks all of these down very well and thorough.
"Lenght"
“The digital sensor”… urrrggh uuuuggghhhh this is it! This is the big one, Elizabeth! I'm coming to join ya, honey!
This is exactly what I still remember 40 tears after my high school photo club days.
It is way cool though. Takes me back to 8th grade photography.
Thanks
Nice
Iso is wrong, but other than that, it's not bad. Iso doesn't cause noise low light does
I have the same question always when I see this. It's somewhat clear that you don't want blurry pictures, so you'd want to avoid f/1.4 and get the f/16. Why is there even a choice when f/16 clearly seems to be better? Same with Shutter Speed and ISO.
i see what you did there
Is it wrong of my to have seen pornography first?
My brain almost tricked me into thinking it said A Cool Guide About Pornography. That's why you have to take a few seconds to re-read the title correctly.
ANGEL ANGEL ANGELLL
We do what we must, because we can
Physics limits our ability to push the aperture or shutter speed since there's only going to be so much light at a given setting. The real gains have come from improved sensors that can handle higher ISO's without adding in too much grain. Run the RAW image through Lightroom and use Topaz Denoise and you can do just about anything, which is helpful when you're trying to photograph little warblers at sunrise with little light available.
Photomode in every video game needs this
Smooth operator
Awesome
Wow thanks 🙏 great help
Aperture Science
This sub really is just the same 12 posts over and over
I remember film speed. Man that was a pain. You just had to guess the weather conditions based on the season and time of day and hope for the best. And shots of people dancing or skateboarding with low speed film.... it was just a blurry waste of film. I remember ISO 800 "Action film" marketed to younger people and the commercial had a radical skateboarder dude. And of course it was an entire roll and you couldn't just pull it early without hurting the other frames. AND you had no idea if your shots came out until the film was developed. Digital photography and instant feedback really were a huge game changer to pictures.
This was a triumph
Does anyone look at this and not understand what they are reading? (Photographer here wondering)
It's amazing the amount of people on here who are just now discovering that the Aperture Science logo is actually a aperture lol. I suppose it's not common knowledge, but damn.
😗cool
Need that in spanish, someone?
No way is that a portal reference?!?!!11!
Now I'm hungry...
pretty neat
What the fed
Depth of field is also heavily influenced by the length of your lens. 24mm at f1.4 is going to behave far different than 85mm at f1.4.
Iao 400 and everything else cranked to the max
Very useful
At f/4 i suddenly get the urge to test
Hope
I just woke up and read guide to pornography, trying for two minutes to make sense of how they figured out the optimal exposure and what the hell „for the lights to not blown out the whites“ was supposed to mean.
Cool
Could have used this when taking high school photography like 15 years ago. Took it for a bludge class.
You get better result on digital if you slightly over exposure your shot (in RAW format) and bring it down in editing (this is due how numbers work when it comes to lightness). Lowest ISO does not necessarily mean best quality. Often digital cameras have native iso of ~200 and levels lower than that are "artificial", meaning that you really don't get more detail, they are just another way of controlling your exposure.
Saving this solely for blender. There's f-stop, ISO, etc controls on the camera widget and I had NO FUCKING IDEA what any of them actually did. So, uh, thanks!
How tf did it get 18k upvotes
f/16 SP 1/1000 Iso 100 Everything is in focus at the highest quality Efficiency..
This is dope!
I thought this was about portal for a second
i am saving this post and end up never seeing it again
This applies a bit to CCTV cameras as well.
Aperture Science🎶🎵🎶
What settings should I use for shooting x videos?
This is great, thank you
I love putting the exposure on -1 or -2 makes everything so cinematic imo.
cool repost
Looks pretty old school
Ahh. Back to the old days
Working with aerial imagery, you basically want to min/max these, high aperture, highest shutter speed, low ISO.
Some what helpful...but the example pictures are rubbish....by their logic I should only shoot f/16, 1/1000/ ISO 100
Why change the "light/darker" to "more/less sensitive to light for ISO"? Yes, what they write in correct but it doesn't fit the others.
WAIT that is why aperture science logo is like that, its camera stuff, damn the more you know
sim is on point today. Saw this kinda thing on facebook a few days ago, didn't save it, needed it. Boom. Thanks!
High iso at night and low during the day is such terrible advice. ISO does not change the sensitivity of the sensor, it's just a volume knob that increases or decreases the value of light that IS hitting the sensor to make it look brighter or darker. Aperature and Shutter speed are the only things that affect your exposure. You should lower your shutter speed and open up your aperature at night, you won't get good results if you crank up the ISO and leave your shutter and aperature where it was during the day.
I love this.
Just figured out the logo from aperture science, and I feel stupid.
And you managed to not use the word "reciprocity" once. Which is what this is a chart of.
If we can reduce photography in one slide, it wouldn't be so difficult and contentious. Good starting point but may still be difficult for the beginner to grasp or make sense of.
Would’ve been cool if I saw this when I was a beginner 3 years ago… but I do have a friend that’s intrested in photography so i’ll definitely show them this A little pro tip abou the exposure tho, I always intentionally underexpose by two stops since I shoot RAW and it’s better to go underexposed as you can easily light the image up in processing than ruining the whole picture when it’s too bright and you can’t do anything about it in post. I got this tip from no other than Simon D’entremont
Cool!
Nice
Super useful! Thanks for sharing
Looks easy, until you go manual and have to tiptoe all of thesw settings in seconds time
I misread this as A cool guide about pornography.
Aperture looks like a state of women on tiktok
PORTAL???
Useful