The Recent F/stop Controversy

Started 1 month ago | Discussions
bolt2014
bolt2014 Regular Member • Posts: 150
The Recent F/stop Controversy
5

The post about getting rid of the "F/stop" definition turned into such a technical subject that most photographers become lost in the jargon. I think that too many photographers become so embroiled in the technical aspects that they forget that photography is more about being creative . 

-- hide signature --

Shoot photos not camera brands!

 bolt2014's gear list:bolt2014's gear list
A3000 Nikon D5500 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Sigma 19mm F2.8 DN | A +7 more
Mackiesback
Mackiesback Senior Member • Posts: 6,485
Re: The Recent F/stop Controversy
16

It's a gear site.

 Mackiesback's gear list:Mackiesback's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 5000 Nikon Coolpix A Nikon D50 Nikon D100 Nikon Df +18 more
tex Veteran Member • Posts: 7,857
No it's not
8

For the majority of people here, the technical bits are the happy part.

-- hide signature --

tex_andrews, co-founder and webmaster of The LightZone Project, an all-volunteer group providing the free and open source LightZone photo editing software.
"Photography is the product of complete alienation" Marcel Proust
"I would like to see photography make people despise painting until something else will make photography unbearable." Marcel Duchamp

 tex's gear list:tex's gear list
Pentax 645Z Pentax K-1 Pentax K-1 II Ricoh Theta V Pentax smc FA 77mm 1.8 Limited +29 more
camerosity Senior Member • Posts: 1,555
Re: No it's not

tex wrote:

For the majority of people here, the technical bits are the happy part.

Any many folks here have college degrees in photography, so we love the technical discussions.

 camerosity's gear list:camerosity's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7800 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon 1 J5 +12 more
Tuloom Veteran Member • Posts: 3,145
Re: The Recent F/stop Controversy
4

bolt2014 wrote:

The post about getting rid of the "F/stop" definition turned into such a technical subject that most photographers become lost in the jargon. I think that too many photographers become so embroiled in the technical aspects that they forget that photography is more about being creative .

The bigger the hole the more bokeh.

All you need to know.

Mark_A
Mark_A Forum Pro • Posts: 14,715
Re: The Recent F/stop Controversy
3

Tuloom wrote:

The bigger the hole the more bokeh.

All you need to know.

It is the dof knob ..

Dial a bigger number get more dof, a smaller number less dof

Mark_A

Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 15,916
Re: The Recent F/stop Controversy
7

bolt2014 wrote:

The post about getting rid of the "F/stop" definition turned into such a technical subject that most photographers become lost in the jargon.

f-stop is hardly technical at all: a wider aperture lets in more light, but for a longer lens takes light from a smaller area of the illuminated subject. So for a given exposure a longer lens needs a physically wider aperture. As the widening of the aperture is proportional to the extra (focal) length then it makes sense - and makes setting exposure very much easier - if the aperture is expressed as a proportion of focal length. That's all f-stop is; it would take some searching to find anything less technical.

Oh, and a wider aperture gives shallower depth of field so that, too, is most easily expressed by reference to f-stop.

I think that too many photographers become so embroiled in the technical aspects that they forget that photography is more about being creative .

Actually, too many photographers forget that without the technicalities there would be no cameras and nothing to be creative with. What's the point of creativity if your pictures are badly exposed and/or are blurred out of recognition because you didn't get depth of field right?

I suppose it's theoretically possible for someone to get too embroiled but in 60+ years of photography I've never met any.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

riveredger Veteran Member • Posts: 3,297
Re: No it's not
5

camerosity wrote:

tex wrote:

For the majority of people here, the technical bits are the happy part.

Any many folks here have college degrees in photography, so we love the technical discussions.

"College degree in photography"... no comment

Michael Fryd
Michael Fryd Forum Pro • Posts: 11,280
Re: The Recent F/stop Controversy
5

bolt2014 wrote:

The post about getting rid of the "F/stop" definition turned into such a technical subject that most photographers become lost in the jargon. I think that too many photographers become so embroiled in the technical aspects that they forget that photography is more about being creative .

The more you know your tools, the easier it is to realize your creative vision.

A creative photographer can imagine what he wants the final image to look like.  The technical photographer knows how to produce that image.   I want to be the guy who is both.

 Michael Fryd's gear list:Michael Fryd's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW130 Canon EOS D60 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5DS Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +15 more
MediaArchivist
MediaArchivist Veteran Member • Posts: 5,107
Controversy?
7

There is no controversy. There is math (arithmetic, at that), and math-challenged. Other "controversies" one might see these days end up being better explained as chemistry-challenged or statistics-challenged musings.

-- hide signature --

Want a roXplosion!?

 MediaArchivist's gear list:MediaArchivist's gear list
Sony a99 II Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF Sony 24mm F2 SSM Carl Zeiss Distagon T* Sigma APO Macro 180mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Sony Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F1.4 ZA SSM +24 more
Michael Fryd
Michael Fryd Forum Pro • Posts: 11,280
Re: The Recent F/stop Controversy
2

bolt2014 wrote:

The post about getting rid of the "F/stop" definition turned into such a technical subject that most photographers become lost in the jargon. I think that too many photographers become so embroiled in the technical aspects that they forget that photography is more about being creative .

I don't think the issue was about being technical.

With photography, as with many other subjects, there are multiple frames of reference that one can use.  A big part of the "f/stop" discussion was which frame of reference to use.

Traditionally, Photographers use the light per unit area ("exposure") as their frame of reference.   The primary reason we use relative apertures (f/stops) is that it makes it easier to relate the aperture to the light per unit area.   Light per unit area is key when shooting film.

The question is that when one is shooting digital, is it still a good idea to place such importance on light per unit area.  In terms of the resulting image, the correlation is much stronger with total light captured.

That's a reasonable question to ask, and a reasonable discussion to have.  There are certainly pros-and-cons to either frame of reference.

it's not so much a technical question as a philosophical one.  Is the frame of reference designed for the limitations of film the best frame of reference to use for digital?

 Michael Fryd's gear list:Michael Fryd's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW130 Canon EOS D60 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5DS Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +15 more
riveredger Veteran Member • Posts: 3,297
Re: The Recent F/stop Controversy

Michael Fryd wrote:

bolt2014 wrote:

The post about getting rid of the "F/stop" definition turned into such a technical subject that most photographers become lost in the jargon. I think that too many photographers become so embroiled in the technical aspects that they forget that photography is more about being creative .

I don't think the issue was about being technical.

With photography, as with many other subjects, there are multiple frames of reference that one can use. A big part of the "f/stop" discussion was which frame of reference to use.

Traditionally, Photographers use the light per unit area ("exposure") as their frame of reference. The primary reason we use relative apertures (f/stops) is that it makes it easier to relate the aperture to the light per unit area. Light per unit area is key when shooting film.

The question is that when one is shooting digital, is it still a good idea to place such importance on light per unit area. In terms of the resulting image, the correlation is much stronger with total light captured.

That's a reasonable question to ask, and a reasonable discussion to have. There are certainly pros-and-cons to either frame of reference.

it's not so much a technical question as a philosophical one. Is the frame of reference designed for the limitations of film the best frame of reference to use for digital?

Well, sir, I think light per unit area is easier to maximize than is total light gathered.  One does not need a larger sensor for the former (which, incidentally will also maximize the total light captured for a given sensor), but will need a larger sensor to significantly impact the latter.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,950
"Photography is more about being creative"
6

bolt2014 wrote:

The post about getting rid of the "F/stop" definition turned into such a technical subject that most photographers become lost in the jargon. I think that too many photographers become so embroiled in the technical aspects that they forget that photography is more about being creative .

I imagine most would not disagree that "photography is more about being creative", but understanding the technical side doesn't get in the way of that end. Well, maybe for some it does, like this guy who said:

Further proof that the equivalence people have done permanent damage to the art of photography.

By the way, the guy who said that is the same guy who started the thread you're referencing and didn't return to post in it.

Anyway, I must confess that I'm not quite sure how the "equivalence people" managed to do that. Maybe we need some people to come forward and tell us their stories of how good their photos were until they read all the discussions on Equivalence, and how their photography suffered as a result -- like before and after photos:

Before I learned about Equivalence:

After I learned about Equivalence:

You know -- something like that. 

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,950
Re: The Recent F/stop Controversy
4

riveredger wrote:

Michael Fryd wrote:

bolt2014 wrote:

The post about getting rid of the "F/stop" definition turned into such a technical subject that most photographers become lost in the jargon. I think that too many photographers become so embroiled in the technical aspects that they forget that photography is more about being creative .

I don't think the issue was about being technical.

With photography, as with many other subjects, there are multiple frames of reference that one can use. A big part of the "f/stop" discussion was which frame of reference to use.

Traditionally, Photographers use the light per unit area ("exposure") as their frame of reference. The primary reason we use relative apertures (f/stops) is that it makes it easier to relate the aperture to the light per unit area. Light per unit area is key when shooting film.

The question is that when one is shooting digital, is it still a good idea to place such importance on light per unit area. In terms of the resulting image, the correlation is much stronger with total light captured.

That's a reasonable question to ask, and a reasonable discussion to have. There are certainly pros-and-cons to either frame of reference.

it's not so much a technical question as a philosophical one. Is the frame of reference designed for the limitations of film the best frame of reference to use for digital?

Well, sir, I think light per unit area is easier to maximize than is total light gathered.

One in the same, for a given camera and scene.  That is, if I maximize the exposure of a photo, I've also maximized the total light gathered.

One does not need a larger sensor for the former (which, incidentally will also maximize the total light captured for a given sensor), but will need a larger sensor to significantly impact the latter.

Of course, maximizing the exposure on a smaller format will result in less total light gathered than if one maximized the exposure on a larger format.  However, neither is easier than the other.

riveredger Veteran Member • Posts: 3,297
Re: The Recent F/stop Controversy

Great Bustard wrote:

riveredger wrote:

Michael Fryd wrote:

bolt2014 wrote:

The post about getting rid of the "F/stop" definition turned into such a technical subject that most photographers become lost in the jargon. I think that too many photographers become so embroiled in the technical aspects that they forget that photography is more about being creative .

I don't think the issue was about being technical.

With photography, as with many other subjects, there are multiple frames of reference that one can use. A big part of the "f/stop" discussion was which frame of reference to use.

Traditionally, Photographers use the light per unit area ("exposure") as their frame of reference. The primary reason we use relative apertures (f/stops) is that it makes it easier to relate the aperture to the light per unit area. Light per unit area is key when shooting film.

The question is that when one is shooting digital, is it still a good idea to place such importance on light per unit area. In terms of the resulting image, the correlation is much stronger with total light captured.

That's a reasonable question to ask, and a reasonable discussion to have. There are certainly pros-and-cons to either frame of reference.

it's not so much a technical question as a philosophical one. Is the frame of reference designed for the limitations of film the best frame of reference to use for digital?

Well, sir, I think light per unit area is easier to maximize than is total light gathered.

One in the same, for a given camera and scene. That is, if I maximize the exposure of a photo, I've also maximized the total light gathered.

One does not need a larger sensor for the former (which, incidentally will also maximize the total light captured for a given sensor), but will need a larger sensor to significantly impact the latter.

Of course, maximizing the exposure on a smaller format will result in less total light gathered than if one maximized the exposure on a larger format. However, neither is easier than the other.

Your first comment was exactly what I stated (parenthetically) in my next sentence

As to your second comment, I would say that it depends entirely on the equipment you have on hand at a given moment. The fact that I could gather more light with a FF camera when I only happen to have my 1" sensor compact with me is not going to change the outcome of ny photo. It will, though, encourage me to bring my DSLR out next time

camerosity Senior Member • Posts: 1,555
Re: No it's not
3

riveredger wrote:

camerosity wrote:

tex wrote:

For the majority of people here, the technical bits are the happy part.

Any many folks here have college degrees in photography, so we love the technical discussions.

"College degree in photography"... no comment

It just means some of us here have a more technical background than others here. (Some of us are working pros as well).

Anyone can buy a digital SLR these days and call themselves a Pro. That's why a lot of professional wedding photographers left the business, because prices went down through the floor.

I'm proud of the two years I spent in college studying Commercial Photography, it wasn't wasted time and it earned me 12 years of work in the professional photo industry after I graduated.

You can pooh-pooh it all you want, but for me, it was an amazing time of my life that I'd gladly repeat if I could. And that I was able to do it during the film era makes it even more meaningful for me as film still represents the purest form of photography there is (seeing those guys out there with the 8x10 view cameras on a tripod never ceases to blow me away).

 camerosity's gear list:camerosity's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7800 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon 1 J5 +12 more
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,950
Re: The Recent F/stop Controversy
3

riveredger wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

riveredger wrote:

Michael Fryd wrote:

bolt2014 wrote:

The post about getting rid of the "F/stop" definition turned into such a technical subject that most photographers become lost in the jargon. I think that too many photographers become so embroiled in the technical aspects that they forget that photography is more about being creative .

I don't think the issue was about being technical.

With photography, as with many other subjects, there are multiple frames of reference that one can use. A big part of the "f/stop" discussion was which frame of reference to use.

Traditionally, Photographers use the light per unit area ("exposure") as their frame of reference. The primary reason we use relative apertures (f/stops) is that it makes it easier to relate the aperture to the light per unit area. Light per unit area is key when shooting film.

The question is that when one is shooting digital, is it still a good idea to place such importance on light per unit area. In terms of the resulting image, the correlation is much stronger with total light captured.

That's a reasonable question to ask, and a reasonable discussion to have. There are certainly pros-and-cons to either frame of reference.

it's not so much a technical question as a philosophical one. Is the frame of reference designed for the limitations of film the best frame of reference to use for digital?

Well, sir, I think light per unit area is easier to maximize than is total light gathered.

One in the same, for a given camera and scene. That is, if I maximize the exposure of a photo, I've also maximized the total light gathered.

One does not need a larger sensor for the former (which, incidentally will also maximize the total light captured for a given sensor), but will need a larger sensor to significantly impact the latter.

Of course, maximizing the exposure on a smaller format will result in less total light gathered than if one maximized the exposure on a larger format. However, neither is easier than the other.

Your first comment was exactly what I stated (parenthetically) in my next sentence

As to your second comment, I would say that it depends entirely on the equipment you have on hand at a given moment. The fact that I could gather more light with a FF camera when I only happen to have my 1" sensor compact with me is not going to change the outcome of ny photo. It will, though, encourage me to bring my DSLR out next time

Indeed.  However, an important lesson that Equivalence explains is that, for a given DOF and exposure time, the same total amount of light is projected on the sensor for *all* systems.  So, for a larger format to have a light gathering advantage over a smaller format, the larger format *must* use a more narrow DOF or a longer exposure time.  That's worth knowing, methinks, even if one is otherwise uninterested in other Equivalence related topics.

Aaron801 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,977
Really?
1

f-stop is just the standard definition... has been for years. No reason I can see to change it now. Not sure if any of this talk has anything to do with light transmission (or t-stop) but I get that this can be a bit different than the f-stop value. it's not typically a very large difference though and is really only important when you're shooting film/vide, which is why those lenses are rated in t-stops... so it seems that it's all good, right?

-- hide signature --

my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Panasonic 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 OIS
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 55,572
Re: "Photography is more about being creative"

Great Bustard wrote:

bolt2014 wrote:

The post about getting rid of the "F/stop" definition turned into such a technical subject that most photographers become lost in the jargon. I think that too many photographers become so embroiled in the technical aspects that they forget that photography is more about being creative .

I imagine most would not disagree that "photography is more about being creative", but understanding the technical side doesn't get in the way of that end. Well, maybe for some it does, like this guy who said:

Further proof that the equivalence people have done permanent damage to the art of photography.

By the way, the guy who said that is the same guy who started the thread you're referencing and didn't return to post in it.

Anyway, I must confess that I'm not quite sure how the "equivalence people" managed to do that. Maybe we need some people to come forward and tell us their stories of how good their photos were until they read all the discussions on Equivalence, and how their photography suffered as a result.

The Equivalence Controversy is like the Taiping Rebellion.

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,950
Re: "Photography is more about being creative"
5

mamallama wrote:

The Equivalence Controversy is like the Taiping Rebellion.

More like the Copernican Revolution.  Amazingly similar, actually.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads