Sammy Yousef wrote:
Detail Man wrote:
Many beginners don't know much about DoF either.
Well, why else would one adjust F-Number ? I kind of doubt if you would be teaching about "diffraction" to such relative newbies. Adjusting F-Number to attenuate light is just plain stupid.
f/ number is not just a depth of field control. It has other effects.
You don't have to know a great deal about diffraction to know that setting too high an f/ number is going to give you softer pictures.
Wow, Sammy, you've opened my eyes to a whole new world ! So I started a little thread:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3475094
f/ number is your primary control of how much light you're letting in when using flash at or below flash sync speed. Shutter doesn't factor in because the flash duration is shorter than the shutter duration. Granted that's not a concept many new photographers understand. (It was a real eye opener when I "got it").
OK. I'll buy that one. In the case of flash, the extra light makes up for the light attenuation.
Most new users don't shoot in Aperture or Manual mode. Should DoF be taught earlier? Yes. But a new photographer is typically overwhelmed with settings and ideas at the start.
Sure. I was. So, get the lowest feasible Shutter Speeds worked out for various situations - and then onward to DOF. It truly is a lot to handle. Have yet to see a thread on these DPR forums where the large bulk of the contributors themselves have not (often) expressed the strangest (non mathematical) linguistic ways of talking and thinking about DOF. Then, in the end (after all the jawing), they likely just make crude guesses, anyway. Many seem to think that their itty-bitty EVF/LCD screens and preview modes will guide them. Good luck with that bit ...
Their first experience with wanting to take control is typically motion blur. At least the beginners I have observed (and my own experience).
Makes sense. Make that Lesson One (Shutter Time). Lesson Two would be DOF (F-Number).
Ideally yes. In practice I've seen few inexperienced camera users in A or M modes.
Well, it would seem that in order to learn about such matters, that is what needs to happen.
Following the above order ensures (nearly) best possible SNR. Minor tweaking of F-Number and/or Shutter Speed can then be used to "fine tune" to the desired recorded Image Brightness.
There are situations in which raising ISO early makes sense. For instance if you walk into a low light concert and refuse to raise your ISO you're going to have trouble. If you're trying to shoot your friends in low light at a party/pub/club, you'd be crazy to refuse to raise ISO.
But that is not what I said. Trying reading what I wrote. I said:
... minimizing as much as is practical (given desired DOF and implementable camera-stability) the F-Number and Shutter Speed prior to adjusting the ISO setting.
A bit of "anticipation" on the ISO setting is fine. The important thing to do is to ensure that the minimum possible ISO setting value is utilized (
after adjusting F-Number and Shutter Speed).
...and after a handful of grainy shots users understand this well.
Really ? If so, it's a mystery to me why this whole sensor-level Exposure (as opposed to the mere scaling of ISO settings) has led to scads of agitated and upset people going on and on about how Brightness is essentially no different than sensor-level Exposure (which is pure bunk).
Seems to me that if they (themselves) adjusted F-Number and Shutter Speed prior to ISO as a matter of course in their technique, then they would "get it" (about maximizing SNR by maximizing sensor-level Exposure), and there would not be any issue to froth at the mouth about.
Or is that something that you think is just "too hard" to learn how to do ? If so, time to go "Auto".
Some people get good results never progressing beyond auto.
Then they hardly need much addition help (if any), do they ? Wait till the little box in the preview-screen turns "green", hold your breath, gently squeeze that little button located on top.
There's still framing/composition, timing, people skills etc.
Yeah, but how much of that stuff (of meaningful value) can really be imparted in an instructional setting ? Those things are learned by actually capturing images (as opposed to listening to lectures, advice, and silly "rules of composition"). Everybody is different in what they want to shoot and how they want to shoot it. That road is made by walking (not talking). They need to get out there and do it - then see what results back home on the "big screen".
But yes the technical side is hardly a challenge if they never venture out of auto, and they won't get the most out of their gear. You'd be much better teaching them about the exposure triangle to get their interest and get them utilising other modes before going into intricacies about the definition of Exposure.
Funny thing, though, is that with the squared relationship of the F-Number, nobody calculates that stuff in their head. You just get the basic interplay into your head. The more important part is developing a strategic order of operations in one's setting-adjustment techniques (as I have previously described), so that the DOF and camera/subject stability desired is there, while also maximizing SNR.
Most/all people reading this message are interested in doing better than that. People use a wide variety of different techniques.
Indeed. And the last thing they usually feel that they need is somebody telling them to "change".
I find I grow most when I make a voluntary change/discover a new idea. Like most, I HATE forced change.
Perhaps that's why some of the best people at everything are the ones who teach themselves what they know and figure out. One's own self-criticism - and natural curiosity as to how to improve matters - may well (in some cases, anyway) be a better teacher than some authority-figure, or boring textbook approach ?
I'm a real "do it myself-er" and rarely "read the directions" type person. In the end, I find and reduce the "errors in my ways" my taking an active and direct interest in better understanding what affects what. (I think) in many disciplines, those who want to try to passively absorb knowledge by proxy (especially where aesthetics are involved) may travel a slow road of progress. Jumping in, getting one's hands dirty, and self-criticism is the way that (I, myself) learn.
Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
- Oscar Wilde
DM ...
