Light

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by rda, Oct 9, 2004.

  1. rda

    rda Guest

    I understand the effect on exposure with regards to different exposure
    times; 1/250 allowing half the light of 1/500.

    But I am still unsure how this relates to "stops". I often hear people talk
    about altering exposure by a number of stops either way, but just how does a
    "stop" equate to amount of light getting exposed?

    Also I am unsure about aperture settings; does f2 allow double the light of
    f4 which allows double that of f8?

    Any help or pointers to websites would be great.

    --
    RDA
    300D
     
    rda, Oct 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. rda wrote:
    > I understand the effect on exposure with regards to different exposure
    > times; 1/250 allowing half the light of 1/500.
    >
    > But I am still unsure how this relates to "stops". I often hear people
    > talk
    > about altering exposure by a number of stops either way, but just how does
    > a
    > "stop" equate to amount of light getting exposed?


    "Stops" ... Interesting word. It started out as "Waterhouse stop"

    http://www.skgrimes.com/wat/

    >
    > Also I am unsure about aperture settings; does f2 allow double the light
    > of
    > f4 which allows double that of f8?
    >
    > Any help or pointers to websites would be great.



    More than you ever wanted to know:

    http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm


    In short f stops are reciprocals of the square root of 2.0 (1.4+) So
    you get 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, each one representing double the light
    gathering capability of the prior number and every other number double of
    the prior.



    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
     
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. rda

    Nostrobino Guest

    "rda" <> wrote in message
    news:paN9d.5311$...
    >I understand the effect on exposure with regards to different exposure
    > times; 1/250 allowing half the light of 1/500.


    It's the other way around: 1/500 is half the length of time of 1/250, and so
    passes half the amount of light at any given lens opening.


    >
    > But I am still unsure how this relates to "stops". I often hear people
    > talk
    > about altering exposure by a number of stops either way, but just how does
    > a
    > "stop" equate to amount of light getting exposed?


    A stop more is twice as much light, a stop less is half as much light. Two
    stops more is four times as much light, and so on. While "stop" originally
    referred to lens opening, it is now generally taken to mean altering the
    amount of light by a factor of two (in either direction) whether by changing
    the aperture or the shutter speed.




    >
    > Also I am unsure about aperture settings; does f2 allow double the light
    > of
    > f4 which allows double that of f8?


    No, f/2 passes FOUR times as much light as f/4, which passes FOUR times as
    much light as f/8.

    The f-numbers are literally fractions of f, the focal length. So an f/2
    aperture is half the focal length in diameter, f/4 is a quarter of the f.l.,
    and so on. Since area is proportional to the square of the diameter of a
    circle, an f/2 lens opening has four times the area of an f/4 opening and
    therefore passes four times as much light (in the same period of time).

    The usual sequence of f-stops is based on multiples of the square root of 2,
    approximately 1.414, so that each successive stop changes the amount of
    light passed by a factor of two. This sequence in descending order of
    aperture size is usually given as f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11,
    f/16 and so on. Of course there are intermediate f-numbers as well, and also
    there are some lenses with maximum apertures larger than f/1.4, though they
    are not very common.

    N.


    >
    > Any help or pointers to websites would be great.
    >
    > --
    > RDA
    > 300D
    >
    >
     
    Nostrobino, Oct 9, 2004
    #3
  4. rda

    rda Guest

    "rda" <> wrote in message
    news:paN9d.5311$...

    OOPS! this was meant to read.

    > I understand the effect on exposure with regards to different exposure
    > times; 1/250 allowing DOUBLE the light of 1/500.
    >


    --
    RDA
    300D
    >
    >
     
    rda, Oct 9, 2004
    #4
  5. Some of the first cameras that had aperture control did not have
    completely variable aperture- rather they had plates with various
    sized holes. Even on continuous variable aperture, the lever that
    controlled the size of the aperture had detents or 'stops' on it. At
    first there was no standard for the ratio of one 'stop' to another.
    Soon, however, the standard became such that each stop let in twice as
    much light as the next smaller one. Since the amount of light is
    proportional to the square of the diameter, the aperture DIAMETER
    (which is how f/stops began to be labeled) had a ratio of square root
    of two, or 1.41. Thus the difference between f/11 and f/8 is
    approximately 1.4, and the areas of the two stops differ by two, and
    let in two times (or 1/2 times) as much light, equivalent to doubling
    (or halving) the shutter speed.

    "rda" <> wrote in message news:<paN9d.5311$>...
    > I understand the effect on exposure with regards to different exposure
    > times; 1/250 allowing half the light of 1/500.
    >
    > But I am still unsure how this relates to "stops". I often hear people talk
    > about altering exposure by a number of stops either way, but just how does a
    > "stop" equate to amount of light getting exposed?
    >
    > Also I am unsure about aperture settings; does f2 allow double the light of
    > f4 which allows double that of f8?
    >
    > Any help or pointers to websites would be great.
     
    Don Stauffer in Minneapolis, Oct 9, 2004
    #5
  6. Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > Joseph Meehan wrote:
    >
    >> More than you ever wanted to know:
    >>
    >> http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm
    >>
    >>
    >> In short f stops are reciprocals of the square root of 2.0 (1.4+)
    >> So
    >> you get 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, each one representing double the light
    >> gathering capability of the prior number and every other number double of
    >> the prior.

    >
    > I think his problem is more basic than that; 1/250th does not allow half
    > the light of 1/500th.


    ????? I would hope not. It sound be twice. :)

    >
    > Gary Eickmeier


    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
     
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 9, 2004
    #6
  7. Joseph Meehan wrote:

    > More than you ever wanted to know:
    >
    > http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm
    >
    >
    > In short f stops are reciprocals of the square root of 2.0 (1.4+) So
    > you get 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, each one representing double the light
    > gathering capability of the prior number and every other number double of
    > the prior.


    I think his problem is more basic than that; 1/250th does not allow half
    the light of 1/500th.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Oct 9, 2004
    #7
  8. rda

    rda Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:ILV9d.674$...
    >
    >
    > Joseph Meehan wrote:
    >
    > > More than you ever wanted to know:
    > >
    > > http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm
    > >
    > >
    > > In short f stops are reciprocals of the square root of 2.0 (1.4+)

    So
    > > you get 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, each one representing double the light
    > > gathering capability of the prior number and every other number double

    of
    > > the prior.

    >
    > I think his problem is more basic than that; 1/250th does not allow half
    > the light of 1/500th.


    Thats what happens when I post in a hurry ;-)

    --
    rda
    300D
     
    rda, Oct 9, 2004
    #8
  9. rda

    Frank ess Guest

    Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
    > Some of the first cameras that had aperture control did not have
    > completely variable aperture- rather they had plates with various
    > sized holes. Even on continuous variable aperture, the lever that
    > controlled the size of the aperture had detents or 'stops' on it. At
    > first there was no standard for the ratio of one 'stop' to another.



    I am forever envious of the photographer who chose as his 'nome de
    frame'

    "F. Stop Fitzgerald".

    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Oct 10, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Logisys 15” Cold Cathode Light @ ThinkComputers.org

    Silverstrand, Aug 10, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    763
    Silverstrand
    Aug 10, 2005
  2. ishtarbgl
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    543
    ishtarbgl
    Apr 1, 2004
  3. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    4,336
    irwell
    Mar 13, 2008
  4. fill light source size vs main light size

    , Dec 11, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    924
    Dudley Hanks
    Dec 13, 2008
  5. Brian
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,134
    Bob Larter
    Jun 14, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page