Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > General photography questions please!

Reply
Thread Tools

General photography questions please!

 
 
Doc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2004
"~~Just me~~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
> overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
> with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
> internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
> the store I bought it from says tough luck!).


>
> I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
> send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
> tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
> to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
> appreciate the help!


> -Sam



Sam, you sound like a pretty naive guy-- someone who's rather easily taken
advantage of.

My advice is to stay away from downtown at night- it's too dangerous for
someone like you. You'd probably be mugged or taken advantage of by some
fast woman or a grifter/hustler. (Hey sailor, new in town-- want to take my
picture-- want to buy this new lens I've got down this dark alley?)

Consider trying out your shiny new lens someplace safe- like the zoo, or
maybe outside church Sunday morning...

Doc


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DHB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2004
stanb,
please correct me if I am wrong but it's become my understanding
that the Field Of View (FOV) crop factor is a result of the sensor's smaller
size. Thus a 300mm lens would act like a 480mm lens only because the sensor
in smaller not because the lens is actually a 480mm lens.

Thus "if I" understand this correctly it's just like moving an enlarger
head closer to the photographic paper, you get a cropped image because much
of the focused image is now outside the photographic paper's size.

So nothing has changed with regard to the focal length of the lens being
used regardless if it's used on a full 35mm sensor size DSLR or a SDLR with
a FOV crop factor of 1.6x such as a 10D or 300D. With a 50mm lens on a 10D
the minimum shutter speed should be 1/50th of a second or above so a 1/60
sec. would work even though the effective FOV is actually 80mm. So you
would not need a minimum shutter speed above of 1/80th or 1/125 sec. just
because it's going to yield an effective FOV of 80mm due to it's smaller
sensor size.

If my understanding is incorrect, I apologize & would ask somebody to
explain it better so that I too may learn, but I am fairly certain that I am
correct as I have given it much thought & it had me a bit confused for some
time.

Respectfully, DHB

"stanb" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Without IS you are limited to the old rule of thumb - to shoot handheld

your
> shutter speed must be higher than the focal length - ie at 300 mm on your
> 300d your minimum shutter speed must be 1/500 or higher. (300*1.6=480mm).

IS
> gives you 3 stops - so minimum speed would be 1/60 sec. Needless to say

all
> thos ehuge white lenses that you see at the footy are IS.
>
> You may howver gain a little more stabilty by using a monopod, this might
> allow a stop if your careful. Iso 1600 would allow faster shots, but with
> higher noise.....Otherwise its back to the tripod!
>
> "~~Just me~~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I lurked here briefly around Christmas before buying a camera to see
> > what everyone was talking about, helping me make a decision on what to
> > buy. So other than that, I'm new here.
> >
> > Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
> > overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
> > with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
> > internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
> > the store I bought it from says tough luck!). I'm comming from a
> > Nikon coolpix 995 & almost bought the finepix s7000, but decided that
> > would be an intermediate step that I didn't need to waste money on. My
> > photography experience pretty much boils down to taking close up
> > pictures of coins witha tripod & perfect lighting.
> >
> > So my next subjects with my new camera are nightime city settings.
> > Bustling streets lighted with signs & billboards, interesting shots
> > inside stores & coffee shops, zipping in on tall buildings, all using
> > my new 75-300mm lens. As you might be ready to guess, out of the 700
> > or so evening/night pictures I've taken, I don't have one shot to show
> > for where I didn't shake & blure the picture.
> >
> > This is where I need help. I'm learning & understanding about the
> > light/aperature thing along with shutter speed & film speed, & I know
> > a tripod will help (however unpractical this is walking around a city
> > at night), and I've also been told to get the Image Stabilizing
> > version of my lens (back to lousy return policy with camera store
> > above), but there has to be something in the technique area I can do
> > to improve my aim with practice. I mean come on.. I've seen these guys
> > at football games with 2 1/2 foot lenses snapping pictures with no
> > tripod, & they must get SOME good pictures.
> >
> > I've been practicing alot. I'll setup a pop can, or something with
> > small writing about 8 ft away, & zoom in on the writing, & snap away
> > for hours. In a mediocre light, I'll get 1 out of about 100 pictures
> > that I find almost exceptable as a steady shot. Maybe I expect too
> > much? But to me, if I can see the lettering fuzz off in one direction
> > or another even the slightest bit when zooming in on the picture, than
> > it wasn't a steady shot.
> >
> > I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
> > send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
> > tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
> > to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
> > appreciate the help!
> >
> > Also, my coin pictures aren't up to the quality I had with my coolpix
> > 995. I thought the 18-55 lense would do the job, & its close, but
> > still leaves things a bit burry. Any tips for close up macro work?
> > lens recommendations (that I might be able to afford)?
> >
> > Thanks for any replies in advance!
> >
> > -Sam
> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jeffrey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2004
I believe that the 1.6 conversion factor must be included in the rule of
thumb. The basis for the rule of thumb I presume, is related to the
magnification of the image, and the effect of that magnification on the
movement of the lens. If this presumption is correct, then the 1.6x factor
should be included.

The point that you raise may affect the effective speed of the lens. In
that situation it might depend on whether it is a EFS or EF Lens. It is my
understanding that with the EFS lens, the lens is closer to the sensor so
thal all the light coming into the lens might be seen by the sensor. I
would presume therefore that with a normal EF lens, the light outside the
smaller sensor area would be lost. This is probably why, Canon have
introduced the EFS lens as less glass is required to produce an equivalent
speed lens.

Jeffrey


"DHB" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1qHLb.199$(E-Mail Removed)...
> stanb,
> please correct me if I am wrong but it's become my understanding
> that the Field Of View (FOV) crop factor is a result of the sensor's

smaller
> size. Thus a 300mm lens would act like a 480mm lens only because the

sensor
> in smaller not because the lens is actually a 480mm lens.
>
> Thus "if I" understand this correctly it's just like moving an

enlarger
> head closer to the photographic paper, you get a cropped image because

much
> of the focused image is now outside the photographic paper's size.
>
> So nothing has changed with regard to the focal length of the lens

being
> used regardless if it's used on a full 35mm sensor size DSLR or a SDLR

with
> a FOV crop factor of 1.6x such as a 10D or 300D. With a 50mm lens on a

10D
> the minimum shutter speed should be 1/50th of a second or above so a 1/60
> sec. would work even though the effective FOV is actually 80mm. So you
> would not need a minimum shutter speed above of 1/80th or 1/125 sec. just
> because it's going to yield an effective FOV of 80mm due to it's smaller
> sensor size.
>
> If my understanding is incorrect, I apologize & would ask somebody to
> explain it better so that I too may learn, but I am fairly certain that I

am
> correct as I have given it much thought & it had me a bit confused for

some
> time.
>
> Respectfully, DHB
>
> "stanb" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Without IS you are limited to the old rule of thumb - to shoot handheld

> your
> > shutter speed must be higher than the focal length - ie at 300 mm on

your
> > 300d your minimum shutter speed must be 1/500 or higher.

(300*1.6=480mm).
> IS
> > gives you 3 stops - so minimum speed would be 1/60 sec. Needless to say

> all
> > thos ehuge white lenses that you see at the footy are IS.
> >
> > You may howver gain a little more stabilty by using a monopod, this

might
> > allow a stop if your careful. Iso 1600 would allow faster shots, but

with
> > higher noise.....Otherwise its back to the tripod!
> >
> > "~~Just me~~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I lurked here briefly around Christmas before buying a camera to see
> > > what everyone was talking about, helping me make a decision on what to
> > > buy. So other than that, I'm new here.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
> > > overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
> > > with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
> > > internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
> > > the store I bought it from says tough luck!). I'm comming from a
> > > Nikon coolpix 995 & almost bought the finepix s7000, but decided that
> > > would be an intermediate step that I didn't need to waste money on. My
> > > photography experience pretty much boils down to taking close up
> > > pictures of coins witha tripod & perfect lighting.
> > >
> > > So my next subjects with my new camera are nightime city settings.
> > > Bustling streets lighted with signs & billboards, interesting shots
> > > inside stores & coffee shops, zipping in on tall buildings, all using
> > > my new 75-300mm lens. As you might be ready to guess, out of the 700
> > > or so evening/night pictures I've taken, I don't have one shot to show
> > > for where I didn't shake & blure the picture.
> > >
> > > This is where I need help. I'm learning & understanding about the
> > > light/aperature thing along with shutter speed & film speed, & I know
> > > a tripod will help (however unpractical this is walking around a city
> > > at night), and I've also been told to get the Image Stabilizing
> > > version of my lens (back to lousy return policy with camera store
> > > above), but there has to be something in the technique area I can do
> > > to improve my aim with practice. I mean come on.. I've seen these guys
> > > at football games with 2 1/2 foot lenses snapping pictures with no
> > > tripod, & they must get SOME good pictures.
> > >
> > > I've been practicing alot. I'll setup a pop can, or something with
> > > small writing about 8 ft away, & zoom in on the writing, & snap away
> > > for hours. In a mediocre light, I'll get 1 out of about 100 pictures
> > > that I find almost exceptable as a steady shot. Maybe I expect too
> > > much? But to me, if I can see the lettering fuzz off in one direction
> > > or another even the slightest bit when zooming in on the picture, than
> > > it wasn't a steady shot.
> > >
> > > I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
> > > send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
> > > tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
> > > to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
> > > appreciate the help!
> > >
> > > Also, my coin pictures aren't up to the quality I had with my coolpix
> > > 995. I thought the 18-55 lense would do the job, & its close, but
> > > still leaves things a bit burry. Any tips for close up macro work?
> > > lens recommendations (that I might be able to afford)?
> > >
> > > Thanks for any replies in advance!
> > >
> > > -Sam
> > >

> >
> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
~~Just me~~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2004
I have to disgree on the scanner being better for coins. With the
right light setup I can get awesome cartwheels, & the light just
dances on the strike of the coin. And proofs? Again with the lighting,
I can get it so part of the deep mirror is black & some is reflective,
& it just looks beautiful. I could never go back to a scanner.

-Sam


On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:33:22 GMT, scott <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <YgvLb.26214$ti2.14541@lakeread03>,
> "Bill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> As for your coin shots, I don't know how close the kit lens (18-55) can
>> focus in macro mode, since I don't own one, but I would definitely redommend
>> a tripod, since lenses at macro settings have a fairly shallow depth of
>> focus, so it's critical that the camera doesn't move once the focus is set.

>
>I think that you'll find that a good scanner works better than any
>camera on coin scanning - always sharp/consistent and a LOT faster
>than photographing them. ... been doing it for years ... after my ten
>year old grandson clued me in! Jeeeesh!
>
>S


 
Reply With Quote
 
~~Just me~~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2004
Well, I did save on the initial camera purchase by buying online, & I
had read a review somewhere else on the digital rebel that also listed
lenses, & that was the price it mentioned for that lens. Not to
mention it was in the range with all the local brick & mortar stores.
Actually this is the first time I've gotten into something where the
online prices versus the brick & mortar prices where so vastly
different, & I have a couple other money sink hobbies. I know there is
savings online, but in photography its rediculous

I wouldn't say that I'm niave, I just got a little to excited about
this camera & made a hasty purchase.





On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:59:13 GMT, "Doc" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"~~Just me~~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>
>> Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
>> overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
>> with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
>> internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
>> the store I bought it from says tough luck!).

>
>>
>> I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
>> send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
>> tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
>> to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
>> appreciate the help!

>
>> -Sam

>
>
>Sam, you sound like a pretty naive guy-- someone who's rather easily taken
>advantage of.
>
>My advice is to stay away from downtown at night- it's too dangerous for
>someone like you. You'd probably be mugged or taken advantage of by some
>fast woman or a grifter/hustler. (Hey sailor, new in town-- want to take my
>picture-- want to buy this new lens I've got down this dark alley?)
>
>Consider trying out your shiny new lens someplace safe- like the zoo, or
>maybe outside church Sunday morning...
>
>Doc
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
~~Just me~~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2004
Thanks for all the replies everyone! I'm understanding all of this a
little better now, & will act on some of this advice & see what I can
come up with. I guess the night thing really wouldn't be a problem if
didn't get dark before I got home form work. Its just this time of the
year, I don't get much daylight for picture takin.

I also hope to see more replies to what Stan, DHB, & Jeffery have
going with the 1.6 multiplier deal. It seems everyone is selling it as
a true magnification factor, & even though I'm not very experienced
with photography, it didn't seem right. I compared my lense extended
to 300mm with a friends camera & lens extedned to 200mm, mine didn't
seemt that much more. And especially not what, 280mm worth more? But
hey, I'm just a newbie, so what do I know.

But thanks again! I'm learning, & I appreciate the voices of
experience.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Don
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2004
Go to this site for a read. Lots of good info

http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/menu/menyou.html

regards

Don from Down Under


"~~Just me~~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Hi all,
>
> I lurked here briefly around Christmas before buying a camera to see
> what everyone was talking about, helping me make a decision on what to
> buy. So other than that, I'm new here.
>
> Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
> overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
> with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
> internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
> the store I bought it from says tough luck!). I'm comming from a
> Nikon coolpix 995 & almost bought the finepix s7000, but decided that
> would be an intermediate step that I didn't need to waste money on. My
> photography experience pretty much boils down to taking close up
> pictures of coins witha tripod & perfect lighting.
>
> So my next subjects with my new camera are nightime city settings.
> Bustling streets lighted with signs & billboards, interesting shots
> inside stores & coffee shops, zipping in on tall buildings, all using
> my new 75-300mm lens. As you might be ready to guess, out of the 700
> or so evening/night pictures I've taken, I don't have one shot to show
> for where I didn't shake & blure the picture.
>
> This is where I need help. I'm learning & understanding about the
> light/aperature thing along with shutter speed & film speed, & I know
> a tripod will help (however unpractical this is walking around a city
> at night), and I've also been told to get the Image Stabilizing
> version of my lens (back to lousy return policy with camera store
> above), but there has to be something in the technique area I can do
> to improve my aim with practice. I mean come on.. I've seen these guys
> at football games with 2 1/2 foot lenses snapping pictures with no
> tripod, & they must get SOME good pictures.
>
> I've been practicing alot. I'll setup a pop can, or something with
> small writing about 8 ft away, & zoom in on the writing, & snap away
> for hours. In a mediocre light, I'll get 1 out of about 100 pictures
> that I find almost exceptable as a steady shot. Maybe I expect too
> much? But to me, if I can see the lettering fuzz off in one direction
> or another even the slightest bit when zooming in on the picture, than
> it wasn't a steady shot.
>
> I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
> send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
> tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
> to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
> appreciate the help!
>
> Also, my coin pictures aren't up to the quality I had with my coolpix
> 995. I thought the 18-55 lense would do the job, & its close, but
> still leaves things a bit burry. Any tips for close up macro work?
> lens recommendations (that I might be able to afford)?
>
> Thanks for any replies in advance!
>
> -Sam
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2004
"DHB" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> please correct me if I am wrong but it's become my understanding
>that the Field Of View (FOV) crop factor is a result of the sensor's smaller
>size. Thus a 300mm lens would act like a 480mm lens only because the sensor
>in smaller not because the lens is actually a 480mm lens.


So far so good. The lens focal length is really still 300 mm. The
extra enlargement happens between the image on the sensor and print or
screen.

> Thus "if I" understand this correctly it's just like moving an enlarger
>head closer to the photographic paper, you get a cropped image because much
>of the focused image is now outside the photographic paper's size.


Right. Some of the lens image circle is no longer being used.

> So nothing has changed with regard to the focal length of the lens being
>used regardless if it's used on a full 35mm sensor size DSLR or a SDLR with
>a FOV crop factor of 1.6x such as a 10D or 300D. With a 50mm lens on a 10D
>the minimum shutter speed should be 1/50th of a second or above so a 1/60
>sec. would work even though the effective FOV is actually 80mm. So you
>would not need a minimum shutter speed above of 1/80th or 1/125 sec. just
>because it's going to yield an effective FOV of 80mm due to it's smaller
>sensor size.


But here you're wrong. The "shutter speed equals inverse focal length"
rule is based on the overall magnification of the optical system. With
a certain amount of shake, a 50 mm lens produces a certain amount of
blur on the film/sensor, which is enlarged to a certain size blur on the
print. When you switch to an 80 mm lens, the same amount of shake
produces a larger-sized blur on the film and on the print because of the
greater magnification of the longer lens. So you need to raise the
shutter speed to about 1/80 (in practice 1/100) to keep the blur the
same size on the print.

If you keep the 50 mm lens but switch to a 10D or 300D body, you get
the same size blur *on the image plane* as the 50 mm lens on the
full-frame camera. But the smaller image from the 10D needs to be
enlarged more to produce the same-size print, and so the amount of blur
*on the print* is larger by a factor of 1.6 X. Thus, you also need to
use 1/80 sec or higher to get the same size blur on the print.

The key is magnification of camera shake between camera and print.
Either using a longer focal length with the same size image, or using a
smaller image size with the same focal length, increases this
magnification and so you need a faster shutter speed.

Another way of looking at it: a 50 mm lens on a 10D has the same field
of view as an 80 mm lens on a full-frame camera. Thus, the same amount
of camera shake produces the same amount of blur in the final print at
the same shutter speed. That, whatever shutter speed you need for the
80 mm/full frame case is also what you need for the 50 mm/10D case.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
DHB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-10-2004
Dave Martindale,
thank you for taking the time to explain this
concept in such detail. Apparently I wan only looking at it from an
optical/technical perspective. There is a more practical application side
to this "shutter speed equals inverse focal length" rule than I had
considered. If I now understand it correctly, than 1 should be looking to
even faster shutter speeds if I'm planning to print 8X10" prints or larger.

Thanks to the willingness of people like you with more practical
knowledge than I have, I live & learn from my mistakes & the shared wisdom
of others. My DSLR pictures are improving but I am still on the
camera/lenses learning curve & enjoying it all a great deal.

Thanks again to all, because I read much more than I contribute & I
always welcome corrective criticism because it's such a great way to learn.
My ego does not stand between me & learning, life is too short for that!

Respectfully, DHB

"Dave Martindale" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bto9vp$7n2$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "DHB" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > please correct me if I am wrong but it's become my

understanding
> >that the Field Of View (FOV) crop factor is a result of the sensor's

smaller
> >size. Thus a 300mm lens would act like a 480mm lens only because the

sensor
> >in smaller not because the lens is actually a 480mm lens.

>
> So far so good. The lens focal length is really still 300 mm. The
> extra enlargement happens between the image on the sensor and print or
> screen.
>
> > Thus "if I" understand this correctly it's just like moving an

enlarger
> >head closer to the photographic paper, you get a cropped image because

much
> >of the focused image is now outside the photographic paper's size.

>
> Right. Some of the lens image circle is no longer being used.
>
> > So nothing has changed with regard to the focal length of the lens

being
> >used regardless if it's used on a full 35mm sensor size DSLR or a SDLR

with
> >a FOV crop factor of 1.6x such as a 10D or 300D. With a 50mm lens on a

10D
> >the minimum shutter speed should be 1/50th of a second or above so a 1/60
> >sec. would work even though the effective FOV is actually 80mm. So you
> >would not need a minimum shutter speed above of 1/80th or 1/125 sec. just
> >because it's going to yield an effective FOV of 80mm due to it's smaller
> >sensor size.

>
> But here you're wrong. The
> rule is based on the overall magnification of the optical system. With
> a certain amount of shake, a 50 mm lens produces a certain amount of
> blur on the film/sensor, which is enlarged to a certain size blur on the
> print. When you switch to an 80 mm lens, the same amount of shake
> produces a larger-sized blur on the film and on the print because of the
> greater magnification of the longer lens. So you need to raise the
> shutter speed to about 1/80 (in practice 1/100) to keep the blur the
> same size on the print.
>
> If you keep the 50 mm lens but switch to a 10D or 300D body, you get
> the same size blur *on the image plane* as the 50 mm lens on the
> full-frame camera. But the smaller image from the 10D needs to be
> enlarged more to produce the same-size print, and so the amount of blur
> *on the print* is larger by a factor of 1.6 X. Thus, you also need to
> use 1/80 sec or higher to get the same size blur on the print.
>
> The key is magnification of camera shake between camera and print.
> Either using a longer focal length with the same size image, or using a
> smaller image size with the same focal length, increases this
> magnification and so you need a faster shutter speed.
>
> Another way of looking at it: a 50 mm lens on a 10D has the same field
> of view as an 80 mm lens on a full-frame camera. Thus, the same amount
> of camera shake produces the same amount of blur in the final print at
> the same shutter speed. That, whatever shutter speed you need for the
> 80 mm/full frame case is also what you need for the 50 mm/10D case.
>
> Dave



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2004
"DHB" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>If I now understand it correctly, than 1 should be looking to
>even faster shutter speeds if I'm planning to print 8X10" prints or larger.


Ultimately, it depends on the visual angle covered by the print, and
your own standards for sharpness.

If you view an 8x12 inch print from twice as far away as a 4x6 inch
print, the standards are the same for both. But if you view the 8x12
from the same distance as the 4x6, it covers twice the andle, and you
should be using a shutter speed twice as fast to limit the blur to the
same apparent size.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General....very general.... no important for u forever hi Python 0 03-18-2009 08:21 AM
Canon 40D - what default settings would you change for general photography? EAL Digital Photography 14 01-25-2009 01:45 PM
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography Progressiveabsolution Digital Photography 12 03-24-2005 05:18 PM
Opinion on General Photography Magazine Steven Wandy Digital Photography 12 06-25-2004 11:06 PM
Win98se versus XP for PhotoShop, general photography. Rudy Von Tschudi Digital Photography 67 12-18-2003 07:50 AM



Advertisments