The Learning Curve

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Do they? What do you mean by better - more pleasant or a more accurate reproduction of the input signal? In other words, do they introduce a distortion that sounds pleasant (like a warming filter on a lens) or is there something about them that cannot be reproduced by solid state electronics?

I don't know what it is, frankly. It definitely sounds a lot warmer and the low end is a lot punchier, so I guess it could be likened to using a warming filter. It's strange, but it's one of those intangible things that you just can't put your finger on, but when you hear it side by side (all digital recording vs. analog to digital) there's a definite difference and imo it's a big one. The majority of our clients still record digitally but it's all run through analog output gear, board, mic pres, pre amps, compressors/limiters. Most of our vintage gear still have tubes in them. Some have been altered to run w/out the tubes because as they fail due to age, we can no longer get the parts. We don't ever throw anything away thinking we can always use it for parts later on. Anyway, all those things really help to warm it up. We've been brought in at the last minute to remix and 'save' many at home all digitally recorded projects that later became local and regional radio hits. Sometimes the only difference between a hit and a failure is the recording process because if it sounds like you know what, it'll never get airplay, and w/out airplay no one's going to hear it/buy it. I'm not the engineer, (so I am definitely not a techie) I just co-own the studio, but it is a successful commercial facility (knock wood it stays that way) when more and more are shutting up and moving things to their back bedroom, so we must be doing something right.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

As for Hyperfocal... this is on where it helps a lot to have an older and/or high-end lens that actually has DoF markings on it. The reason to use the hyperfocal distance actually directly related to Dcanoli's question.

Think of it this way. At a given aperture, you'll have a certainly size DoF. If you set your lens to focus at infinity, then you only get about half of your available DoF - in other words, you'll get the range of things closer in focus, but since you're already at infinity, the extra DoF is effectively "lost".

In order to get the maximum DoF, you need to focus at the hyperfocal distance - this is the focus point where, as your given aperture, infinity is just barely in focus. This will give you the largest possible DoF while still keeping far-away objects sharp and in focus.

Now, ideally, you are using a lens with the markings that tell you this information... for example, here's my Zenitar 16mm fisheye (I just happen to have a decent shot of its markings online.)

The red line in the middle is where the center of your focus is. The yellow markings above it are the distance, this is part of the focus ring. This is currently set to focus at about 1.2 meters. Now, notice the matching green aperture numbers that are on either side of the red focus indicator. Those tell you the DoF for that aperture.

To get the hyperfocal, you move the infinity indicator to the marker for the aperture you're using. In this shot, if you're using F8, you should be able to get infinity in focus. Looking on the other side, F8 likes up to around 0.65 or 0.7 meters. That means that at the current focus setting and F8, everything about from 0.7 meters to infinity will be in focus. This is a pretty huge DoF, because it's such a wide lens - set it here and by and large, you don't even have to worry about focusing it, because virtually everything will be in focus. For comparison, if you focused the lens directly at infinity, your DoF would only be around 1.2 meters to infinity - the difference would be quite a bit more on a lens with more focal length.

So, are you thoroughly confused yet? Obviously, hyperfocal is much easier to determine when your lens has all the markings, which is getting rarer and rarer nowadays. Even rarer is the little red "R" that's on that lens, that is for infrared photography.

I'm confused, but that's not new. My new 18-200VR has the infinity marker and the markings for feet and meters, also it's marked to show how many mm you are at. It doesn't have the aperture markers though. My old kit lens doesn't even have any of the above except for the mm. No wonder it's so difficult to grasp the concept!

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Sorry guys, been away for a while.

I wanted to include this: Focusing to Infinity


Sure. I'll add it to the Index. (Still have to read your link myself.) Can you tell us more about it? I've never heard the term before.

Hah! If I could tell you all about it I wouldn't be asking to have a discussion about it! I just came across the article the other day; I'm still learning about it. A lot of what is covered in the article was covered in your link that you posted. The link I posted also has a couple of download-able charts, and goes in depth into the mathematical reasoning behind it all I hate math and often ask myself why I picked photography as a hobby. I think it would be easier if I understood the math part of it all better. Oh yeah, and if any of my lenses had the aperture markings on the outside in addition to the distance scale, that would probably make it easier to understand. What Groucho posted made some sense of it all, but it's still difficult to grasp because I don't have anything to compare it to on my lenses.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Hah! If I could tell you all about it I wouldn't be asking to have a discussion about it

Got me there! I guess I meant, like the focus to infinity question, it would be helpful to know why you'd need it (at least that's how it makes most sense to me).

Glad Groucho stepped up to the plate with that reasonable explanation.

I'm going to bold this part for those looking for the "short answer"

In order to get the maximum DoF, you need to focus at the hyperfocal distance - this is the focus point where, as your given aperture, infinity is just barely in focus. This will give you the largest possible DoF while still keeping far-away objects sharp and in focus.

I hate math and often ask myself why I picked photography as a hobby.

Yes, I'm getting the feeling here that in photography, the more you learn, the more there is to learn. Sheesh, and here I thought I'd kind of "get it" after a while.

 

[wenrob]

*subbing*

What a GREAT thread! I mainly hang out w/the digi scrappers but was sent over here. I've had my Nikon d40 for a year but am just now starting to play around w/manual settings. Also just starting to get it. My hubby has you all to thank for my sudden case of "lens lust."

Looking forward to learning more.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Glad you found us, wenrob. Feel free to bring up any subject, tell us about your photography style, post pictures, whatever.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

As for Hyperfocal... this is on where it helps a lot to have an older and/or high-end lens that actually has DoF markings on it. The reason to use the hyperfocal distance actually directly related to Dcanoli's question.

Think of it this way. At a given aperture, you'll have a certainly size DoF. If you set your lens to focus at infinity, then you only get about half of your available DoF - in other words, you'll get the range of things closer in focus, but since you're already at infinity, the extra DoF is effectively "lost".

In order to get the maximum DoF, you need to focus at the hyperfocal distance - this is the focus point where, as your given aperture, infinity is just barely in focus. This will give you the largest possible DoF while still keeping far-away objects sharp and in focus.
Now, ideally, you are using a lens with the markings that tell you this information... for example, here's my Zenitar 16mm fisheye (I just happen to have a decent shot of its markings online.)

The red line in the middle is where the center of your focus is. The yellow markings above it are the distance, this is part of the focus ring. This is currently set to focus at about 1.2 meters. Now, notice the matching green aperture numbers that are on either side of the red focus indicator. Those tell you the DoF for that aperture.

To get the hyperfocal, you move the infinity indicator to the marker for the aperture you're using. In this shot, if you're using F8, you should be able to get infinity in focus. Looking on the other side, F8 likes up to around 0.65 or 0.7 meters. That means that at the current focus setting and F8, everything about from 0.7 meters to infinity will be in focus. This is a pretty huge DoF, because it's such a wide lens - set it here and by and large, you don't even have to worry about focusing it, because virtually everything will be in focus. For comparison, if you focused the lens directly at infinity, your DoF would only be around 1.2 meters to infinity - the difference would be quite a bit more on a lens with more focal length.

So, are you thoroughly confused yet? Obviously, hyperfocal is much easier to determine when your lens has all the markings, which is getting rarer and rarer nowadays. Even rarer is the little red "R" that's on that lens, that is for infrared photography.

So how do you get the Hyperfocal distance or figure it out when you don't have the aperture markings on your lens, Groucho? I have a depth of field preview button on my D80 but when I've tried to use it in the past, I honestly didn't see any difference. Someone mentioned that maybe I had the aperture wide open and that's why I didn't notice a difference??? (Or maybe I'm losing it!)
Is it possible to figure out Hyperfocal distance without the aperture markings on your lens? Is that when we would have to resort to using the mathematical calculations in the article?
And I don't get why it looks blurry when you look through the viewfinder and then you take the photo and it's supposed to be fine. That just seems strange to me. Why do they do that? Why not make it look in focus -- the way you want the photo to look? In a situation like this, would having the live preview mode on a DSLR help?

 

[wenrob]

On my lens, 18-200 VR you just match up the white dot on the end of the lens and the white dot on the ring. Yep, it looks blurry but it comes out fine. Not sure if that helps at all or not. Honestly, I didn't understand the post you quoted at all! But I know that's how the distance thingy (I'm SO technical) works on my lens. You're supposed to be able to get focus throughout the whole picture that way. (I don't even know if this is your original question though?)

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

On my lens, 18-200 VR you just match up the white dot on the end of the lens and the white dot on the ring. Yep, it looks blurry but it comes out fine. Not sure if that helps at all or not. Honestly, I didn't understand the post you quoted at all! But I know that's how the distance thingy (I'm SO technical) works on my lens. You're supposed to be able to get focus throughout the whole picture that way. (I don't even know if this is your original question though?)

Sorry, but I don't get it. My 18-200VR lens has a white dot on the end of the lens and a white dot near the focus ring/distance scale thing that show how many mm you are at. On the other side of that is another gold marking that I guess shows in the distance scale infinity, mm, feet. But none of the marking actually move. The distance scale moves internally when I twist the ring around, but none of the markings on my lens actually move. Am I missing something? Okay, obviously, I am, but what am I missing??? Thanks for trying to help btw...
ETA: I don't have any markings on the ring itself.

 

[wenrob]

You know what, you're right, I just played around w/it. I'm very new to all this myself and never noticed that I wasn't actually moving the dot on the ring. What a dope I am. I guess I'm no help at all except to say taking pics at the SD Zoo on vacation if I turned the ring until it blurred (apparently not matching dots ), the animals would be in clear focus and you couldn't see the fence in front of them.
edited to add a pic:

I wish I could give you all the technical stuff but I have no idea what it is or if it even pertains to what you're asking but I played and played til I got pics like this.

 

[Groucho]

I'm confused, but that's not new. My new 18-200VR has the infinity marker and the markings for feet and meters, also it's marked to show how many mm you are at. It doesn't have the aperture markers though. My old kit lens doesn't even have any of the above except for the mm. No wonder it's so difficult to grasp the concept!

You'll have a hard time, I think, finding any newly-designed lenses that still have the depth of field markings on them. All my lenses that are fairly old (including the cheapest ones) have the markings. All my Pentax lenses with aperture rings (which are pre-digital lenses like the 50mm F1.4 and 31mm F1.8) have them. My Tamron 28-75mm with aperture ring does not have them, and none of my "digital" Pentax lenses have them. Of course, the information changes at different focal lengths. My zooms with markings have curving lines that are revealed as the lens is zoomed in or out. I'm not sure how the markings could be put on a lens with internal focus (where the length doesn't change) or ones where the zoom ring doesn't move relative to the lens mount?

There is a roll-you-own table here that may be useful... I haven't played with it but I assume it's fairly accurate?

Glad Groucho stepped up to the plate with that reasonable explanation.

That's the danger of a stream-of-consciousness explanation - it ends up being a little messy. As for when it's useful, it's probably very good for any time you're staying still and want to know how large of a range your focus will be - like if you're shooting things in a small area, what aperture will you need to make sure that the entire area is in focus, and then to focus ring in the middle. Or especially for landscape, to make sure you aren't wasting some of your DoF on things past infinity.

Yes, I'm getting the feeling here that in photography, the more you learn, the more there is to learn. Sheesh, and here I thought I'd kind of "get it" after a while.

A friend once said (talking about computers), "I don't even know what I don't know!" I think that's a fair assessment of lots of different things that we deal with often.

So how do you get the Hyperfocal distance or figure it out when you don't have the aperture markings on your lens, Groucho? I have a depth of field preview button on my D80 but when I've tried to use it in the past, I honestly didn't see any difference. Someone mentioned that maybe I had the aperture wide open and that's why I didn't notice a difference??? (Or maybe I'm losing it!)
Is it possible to figure out Hyperfocal distance without the aperture markings on your lens? Is that when we would have to resort to using the mathematical calculations in the article?
And I don't get why it looks blurry when you look through the viewfinder and then you take the photo and it's supposed to be fine. That just seems strange to me. Why do they do that? Why not make it look in focus -- the way you want the photo to look? In a situation like this, would having the live preview mode on a DSLR help?

See above for a way to figure it out. The DoF preview should give you the accurate focus, except that everything is dimmer. Think of the lens as your eye. When it's wide open, your eyes have to focus exactly on something. If you squint your eyes, you can see more things in focus (this is well-known to all of us who need glasses or contacts!) It's the same with your lens - the smaller the opening (ie, aperture - and the smaller aperture means a larger F-stop), the more is in focus, but everything is dimmer. This is why your lens is "wide open", just like your eyes, when composing the photo. Just how dim it gets depends on what you set the aperture to, but it will always be dimmer. If you get into a pretty small aperture (like F11 or higher), it will be very dim.

One of my really old lenses has manual settings for this - you set the aperture via a ring, but the lens stays wide open until you flip a level on the lens itself. It is then stopped down to the aperture you chose (and will change if you change the aperture) and stays that way until the photo is taken. After that, it opens again until you manually stop it down for the next photo.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Thanks Groucho! That Depth of Field chart is very helpful and your explanation about the Aperture and squinting make it so much easier to understand. I wish I could take something like the Chart with me wherever I go as sort of a cheat sheet! Maybe I'll make print out at various focal lengths.

 

[wen-tom]

sorry to but in and completely change your subject guys but i wanted to share some pics with you all..

I am ashamed to say that the majority of my pics were taken with the auto settings i just didn't seem to have the time or maybe the skill/knowledge to set any manual settings quicky enough to not completely miss what i was trying to shoot. i guess speed will come with practice..

anyway, i would welcome any feeback on any aspect of my pics but please be gentle with me

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

sorry to but in and completely change your subject guys but i wanted to share some pics with you all..

I am ashamed to say that the majority of my pics were taken with the auto settings i just didn't seem to have the time or maybe the skill/knowledge to set any manual settings quicky enough to not completely miss what i was trying to shoot. i guess speed will come with practice..

anyway, i would welcome any feeback on any aspect of my pics but please be gentle with me

I'm no expert, but I think you have a good eye. Those are some nice photos!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Nice first pictures, wen-tom. Just think how they'll compare to the next trip's.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Photography Terms/Slang thread - dr zero

 

[wenrob]

Okay, I've hesitated to ask this because I don't want to look like a complete dork but here goes.
I've read "Understanding Exposure" twice now and find it full of valuable info but some I'm still a little lost on. As I mentioned before I'm only now learning to shoot manual. So, to my understanding each exposure is either half or double of the one before or after right? (hope that makes sense) In the book, when he talks about metering off the grass he says you must use -2/3 exposure to get it right. On my exposure compensation there are only whole numbers, -/+ 1, 2,3 etc. So w/that and f stops being half or double, how the heck do I get -2/3? I'm obviously missing something but what? I'm using a Nikon d40.

 

[Groucho]

I'm not sure if your camera has the option, but many DSLRs let you choose whether you want exposure steps in halves or thirds. That means +0.5, +1, +1.5, etc, or +.33, +.66, +1, +1.33, etc.

I wouldn't worry about it if they recommend -.66 compensation, that kind of thing is pretty fluid all in all (otherwise cameras would never get exposure wrong), and the difference between -.5 and -.66 is pretty minimal and easily tweakable after the fact. Even the whole -.66 is pretty minor and unless you have a lot of blown detail, you'll usually be able to change that much very safely after the fact, especially if shooting in raw format.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Don't worry about Dorky questions here, wenrob, please. I wish we'd hear more of them so we all know we're not alone.


I'm at a weird stage. I'm feeling almost completely lost with my camera. I think I got so much beginning information floating around in my head that it got clogged or something. Because I can't seem to apply my knowledge during photo shoots and I'm not happy with the way my pictures are coming out. I know in my head it's just part of the learning curve, but I'm feeling kind of frustrated.


Anyone else have this happen? Thanks for letting me vent.

 

[handicap18]

Okay, I've hesitated to ask this because I don't want to look like a complete dork but here goes.
I've read "Understanding Exposure" twice now and find it full of valuable info but some I'm still a little lost on. As I mentioned before I'm only now learning to shoot manual. So, to my understanding each exposure is either half or double of the one before or after right? (hope that makes sense) In the book, when he talks about metering off the grass he says you must use -2/3 exposure to get it right. On my exposure compensation there are only whole numbers, -/+ 1, 2,3 etc. So w/that and f stops being half or double, how the heck do I get -2/3? I'm obviously missing something but what? I'm using a Nikon d40.

The D40's exposure compensation is available in 1/3 increments from +5 to -5. Its is only available in P, S or A modes. M mode you have full control over the settings so you can create your own exposure compensation by adjusting the shutter speed or aperture (or both) based on the reading in the view finder. So if 1/60th at f/8 is the "correct" exposure, but you want it -2/3ths, then in Manual change your f/stop from f/8 to f/6.3 (I think I went the right way). Knowing what the full stops are is a big help (f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22).

I tried looking through the manual online, but couldn't find where you adjust the increments for EC in the menu. You may be able to change it between 1/2 stops or 1/3 stops. Those are the options on my D50. Unless 1/3 is the default setting on the D40. On my camera it is under the Custom Setting Menu and is listed as EV step.

When your in P, S or A press the +/- button. You should get something on your screen that looks like 0.0. When you turn the command dial it should change (depending on the direction you turn the dial) -0.3 to -0.7 to -1.0 etc...

Don't worry about Dorky questions here, wenrob, please. I wish we'd hear more of them so we all know we're not alone.


I'm at a weird stage. I'm feeling almost completely lost with my camera. I think I got so much beginning information floating around in my head that it got clogged or something. Because I can't seem to apply my knowledge during photo shoots and I'm not happy with the way my pictures are coming out. I know in my head it's just part of the learning curve, but I'm feeling kind of frustrated.


Anyone else have this happen? Thanks for letting me vent.

Everyone hits a plateau at one point or another, sometimes a number of different times. Every now and then you may have to take 1 step backwards in order to take 2 or 3 steps forward.