ISO, Shutter Speed, F-stop Examples

THis entry has 11 photographs with brief explanations of my choices for ISO, shutter speed and F-stop.  I will try to remember to post them with my photographs on Facebook also.

This first photograph is of Horse Bend just outside Page Arizona.

ISO 100, shutter speed,  Shutter speed 1/25, F-stop 22 (F22).  My primary concern was to have the whole photograph sharp and is the reason for the high F-stop.  Since there was no motion shutter speed was not a concern.  I did want to risk any digital noise so I used a low ISO 100.

F4, 1/500 Shutter Speed, ISO 400.  I wanted to freeze motion, and used 1/500.  The elevated ISO was to insure the shutter speed, and F4 was to provide sufficient depth of field.

F5.6, 1/640, ISO 800.  This the highest ISO I trust for my camera.  I wanted to freeze action, and still didn't.  Little buggers are hard to stop.  I would have liked to get to 1/1000 but I would have underexposed the shot.  THe F5.6 is the lowest I can achieve with this lens.  Don't you just love the flowers?

F4,1/2500, ISO 200.  Here I wanted to freeze action.  THe primary consideration was the shutter speed, and is the reason it was so high.  The F-stop was set to insure she was sharp, and the ISO was slightly elevated to help with the shutter speed.

Dallas.   F2.8, 1/25, ISO 800.  There was hardly any light.  So I raised to the highest ISO I trust, shot at the slowest shutter speed I trust, and set the F-stop to the lowest the lens would handle.  Not bad for hand held.

Las Vegas. Bellagio Fountain at night.  F2.8, 1/25, ISO 400.  I could have made a couple of changes here.  I should have raised the ISO to 800 and raised the shutter speed to 1/50 or there abouts (new word).  On the other hand the motion of the water did not hurt that much.  Many people when they shoot a pic like this use a flash, but I suggest not doing so.  The flash isn't strong enough to do any good.  Just go with the light on the fountain.  There was enough light.  I also shot this through glass.  The flash would have ruined it.  The light would have bounced off the glass and made an ugly.  You might as well turn off the flash if there is glass.

F9, 1/500, ISO 100.  Well here I went over to the ugly side.  Almost makes me shutter to think I'm posting this "pic".  I needed a faster shutter speed or a slower bird.  I could have used a lower F-stop, or higher ISO.  Then I could have gotten a faster shutter speed.

 F7.1,  1/2500, ISO 200.  THe challenge here was to stop motion, and is the reason for a high shutter speed.  The F-stop could have been higher and maybe the birds would have been sharper.  The ISO was to help with the shutter speed.  I stood and shot for about an hour.  I had never shot waves like this and needed to find a setting that would work.

F1.4, 1/6400, ISO 200.  My idea here was to focus attention on the stamen.  I chose the shallow depth of field, and the high shutter speed to off set it.

F8, 1/800, ISO 200.  I was hoping the purple ones would be sharp, but they weren't.  I should have used a slower shutter speed and a higher F-stop.

F22, 1/10, ISO 50.  Here to get that flowing look of the water fall required a slow shutter speed.  I had to use a tripod.  THe F-stop setting and ISO were set to help get that slow shutter speed.

I hope these examples help you understand ISO, F-stop, and shutter speed.  I have not told you all the whole story though.  All DSLR's have settings allowing the photographer to decide the F-stop and letting the camera to decide the shutter speed or the photographer to decide shutter speed and the camera to decide the F-stop.  I can not help much with the settings, because each manufacturer is different.  I suggest you find something stationary and mess with the settings.  Go ahead over/underexpose a few photographs and change each of the settings, you will learn.  You will start to recognize the trade off among ISO, shutter speed, and F-stop.

There is another dynamic about depth of field I should have discussed.  THe distance that is sharp changes as you get closer or further away from the subject.  As you get closer the distance that is sharp will get smaller, and if you get further away it will get greater.  Now I know there is a scientific explanation for this, but you will not find it here.  It is just not my cup of expresso. So anyway if you are 100 feet away from the subject maybe 2 feet will be sharp, but if you are 10 feet away only 4 inches will be sharp.  Now just so you understand I just made all those numbers up.  I'm just hoping you understand.  If not well write me.

I have had a couple of people talk to me recently about wildlife photography.  They wanted to know how to get those photographs.  Wild life photographers are good hunters.  They have learned patience.  They can wait on a subject for a long time.  They get to understand the subject's habits.  They have equipment ready.  I will usually put my 400mm lens on the camera before leaving the house or car.  I will set it at the fastest shutter speed the light will allow and then adjust ISO and F-stop accordingly.  There is just not a way to set ISO, shutter speed, or F-stop as turkeys fly off or deer bolt.   It just doesn't happen.

Next time light outside the camera.

F-stop

Here it is the last way to control light in camera.  It is called F-stop.   The F-Stop in days gone by was set on the lens, but now it is controlled usually by a wheel on the camera.  It is stated using numbers like 1.4, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, or 22.    It is the result of a opening in the shutter.  The smaller the number the larger the opening and more light is allowed to the sensor.  The larger the number the smaller the opening and less light gets to the sensor.  So, at an F-stop of 4 more light gets to the sensor than at F-stop 16.  As with ISO and shutter speed there is another dynamic.  It is called depth of field.

Before I continue I must admit ignorance.  I know the end result, but I have little to no understanding about the science regarding depth of field, and I really don't want to know.  I will use the word "focus" to discuss the end result, but it actually has to do with the way light is interpreted in camera not with camera focus.  I will also use the word sharp.  For those of you who want to understand the workings, I applaud you, but I'm not going to deal with it here.

Depth of field defined by me is the part of the photograph that is sharp.  With a smaller F-stop less of the photograph will be sharp.  It is best understood by using examples.

 THis is a picture of forks.  It is taken with an F-stop of 1.4.   There are not many forks in focus.

 THis photograph was taken at F4.  There are a few forks in focus.

 THis photograph was taken at F8.  Almost all the forks are in focus.

This photograph was taken at F22.  Everything is in focus.

Just like shutter speed and ISO improper F-stop settings can result in an under/overexposed photograph.  With the F-stop set too low the photograph will be overexposed photograph with it set too large the photograph will be underexposed.   The other dynamic is the amount of the photograph that is in focus.  With a low numbered F-stop less of the photograph will be in focus and with a high numbered F-stop more of the photograph will be in focus.  This dynamic is called depth of field.

Depth of field is often used to focus attention, or to detract attention, and opens up many different opportunities for photographers, it is best demonstrated with examples.

This photograph was shot with an F-stop of 1.8.  It focuses attention on her finger, and should at least make the viewer wonder what the &%(*#$%^ is going on. 

Just like in the fork examples here is a use of depth of field to focus attention on the model.   The camera was set to F4.

These were shot using F4 (F-stop 4) .  These photographs are meant to be symbolic of their relationship.

This photograph was shot at F22.  All of it needed to be in focus.  

This photograph also was shot at F22 for the same reason.

To conclude F-stop can be used to correct an over/underexposed photograph.  For an overexposed photograph the F-stop should have been set to a higher number, allowing less light to get to the sensor.  If the photograph was underexposed the photographer should have used a lower number allowing in more light.  So now you have three different ways to correct exposure: shutter speed, ISO, and F-stop.  There have been more books written on this than there are tics on a coon dog.  The trick for the photographer is deciding what to adjust and when.  My final post on controlling light will be to summarize.    

ISO

  ISO is usually stated on the camera as ISO 100, 200, 125, 160 etc. all the way up to 51000 each camera manufacturer may have variations.   It identifies the sensors sensitivity to light.  The lower the ISO number the less sensitive to light it is.  The higher the number the greater the sensitivity to light.  Also the higher the ISO the greater the chance for digital noise.  The noise can become so bad that it will make the picture ugly.  See discussion with examples in a previous post here:  http://grangerphotography.blogspot.com/2011/02/getting-that-camera.html

This leads to  the ISO balancing act.   You could use a high ISO and shoot, but then you would risk digital noise.  On the other hand you could shoot with lower ISO, and risk underexposed photographs.   The challenge then is to find the right balance.  Usually I will shoot at the lowest ISO I can to get a properly exposed photograph.  In this way I will avoid unwanted noise.  I have provided three examples.  The first photograph was shot at 100 ISO and is overexposed, in the second the ISO is 800 and is correctly exposed,  and the final photograph is overexposed.  In the final photograph the digital noise is quite noticeable if you click on it twice and look at the cabinet.

If you recall in the discussion regarding shutter speed:   http://grangerphotography.blogspot.com/2011/03/shutter-speed.html  we can control the amount of light getting to the sensor.   To correct the underexposed photograph above I could have slowed the shutter speed, and the first photograph would not have been underexposed.  In the final photograph I could have used a faster shutter speed and it would not have been overexposed.   Let's look at a couple of real examples:

There were a number of egrets and they were quite active.   I wanted to freeze action and used a shutter speed of 1/4000 of a second.  To achieve this I set my ISO to 160.

IN this photograph the swan was rather docile.  Again I wanted to freeze action, but I was not that concerned, and used shutter speed 1/250.  The ISO was 100. 

In this photograph it was just after daylight.  I set the ISO to the highest useable setting on my camera 800.  I set the shutter speed to 1/50.  I knew the shutter speed was iffy ( is that a word).  So I took a bunch of photographs hoping to catch them when they weren't moving.  I got lucky.  

This photograph was taken in a dimly lit room.  I used ISO 800 and shutter speed 1/20 of a second.  You can see the motion of his hand was not stopped by the shutter speed.   I consider it a useable photograph.

 

In this photograph ( last example) I used ISO 200 even though it was the middle of the day because I wanted a fast shutter speed.  I selected 1/3200 of a second to stop the action of the players and ball.

ON newer cameras useable ISO is getting higher and higher.  In other words there is less risk of digital noise making the selection of high ISO's less of a concern.   For my camera ISO 800 is about the top, but there are cameras now that are achieving  ISO of over 12000.  

To summarize:  In low light a slow shutter speed can be used or a higher ISO.  A slow shutter speed risks motion, and a high ISO risks digital noise.  

In bright light  a faster shutter speed and/or a lower ISO can be used, giving the photographer greater flexibility.   The photographer may choose just about any combination of shutter speed and ISO to get the right exposure.  

Next I will discuss F-stop.  It is the last way to control light in camera.  

  

Shutter speed

Finally, something I can sink my teeth into.

Photography is nothing more than recording light.  Light is more frequently talked about by Pros than cameras or lenses.  It is the understanding of  light and how to manipulate it that sets them apart.  In the next series of posts I will be discussing how you, yes you, can control light using camera settings.   There are three basic ways of controlling light in camera: shutter speed, F-stop, and ISO.   In this first post shutter speed will be the topic.

Cameras usually have a variety of different shutter settings.  While the shutter is open the camera will record all activity and will allow light to get to the sensor for a specific length of time. The speeds are usually stated as 15, 30, 60, 125 etc. but they are actually 1/15th a second, 1/30th a second, 1/60th a second and 1/125th a second.  There are some P&S's that do not allow for changes in settings, but most do.  DSLR's usually allow for much higher shutter speeds than P&S's.  Shutter speeds can be as fast as 1/8000th of a second. There will frequently be shutter speeds as slow as 30 seconds.  On many cameras there will also be a bulb setting.  With bulb you can slow the shutter speed to any length of time even a week (longer) if you choose.  It is important to understand shutter speeds effects motion and light.

Shutter speed has a direct effect on light.   The longer the shutter speed the more light gets to the sensor and a faster shutter speed  causes less light to get to the sensor.  If too much light gets to the sensor it will result in an overexposed photograph.   (Example)

 I should have used a faster shutter speed.  If the shutter is not open long enough the photograph will be underexposed.  Example:

I should have used a slower  shutter speed.

There are two types of motion, camera shake and subject motion.   Camera shake is caused by the photographer.  It is impossible to stand completely still (Just accept it please), and so with longer shutter speeds  the photographers motion will be recorded.  It will result in a soft ( A fancy way of saying blurry) picture.  Longer lenses exaggerate the motion.  A 400mm lens will show more shake than a 50mm lens.  Faster shutter speeds tend to overcome camera shake, but allows less light to reach the sensor.  It becomes a balancing act between light and motion to get the proper photograph.

 Consider this situation.  A photographer is at the Grand Canyon at daybreak.  He sets his camera up on a tripod, and adjusts the shutter speed to 1/15th of a second.  There is little light and the photographer has elected a slow shutter speed.  Our photographer becomes overwhelmed  with the beauty and falls into the canyon with his camera.  He knows he is about to die.  He decides to take one last photograph, and clicks the shutter.  Folks that photograph will be ugly.  He is moving at too great a speed, and he is shaking from fear.  There is not a chance his photograph will freeze action.  It will just be a blur.  This is the photograph:

Wait just before he hits the ground Superman appears and saves him. Just then the photographer sees an eagle diving at top speed in an effort to catch lunch.  The photographer politely asks Superman to help him take the picture.   Superman stops and holds the camera rock solid so there would be no camera shake.  The photographer clicks the shutter.  Yes he screwed up again.  Eagles can fly at around 40 MPH.  Subject blur.  Yes, that eagle is going way to fast for a shutter speed of 1/15th of a second.   This is the photograph:



















The challenge for the photographer is to balance the need for shutter speed against the light of the subject.   I normally shoot sports or wildlife at no less than 1/500th of a second.  If it is dusk, sunrise, or a poorly lit gym, I may have to sacrifice shutter speed and risk blur to get the shot.  The blur may the result of camera shake or subject motion.   If you are shooting a 2 year old indoors then the challenge is to get the 2 year to stand still or use a fast shutter speed.  Super glue could be a solution, but frequently parents object.  So the answer is to increase shutter speed.   If there is not enough light to increase the shutter speed then the resulting photograph will probably go over to the dark side (underexposed).

This is the first step understanding light and photography.  Next I will add another element ISO to control light, and make the balancing act a little more difficult.

Getting that Camera for Real

What camera should I get?  It is one of the most asked questions.  The short answer is the one you will use, and understand.  In fact I don't know what processed me to write this at all.  I bet most of you have a camera already.   Others will get theirs as a gift and still others will go to the store and get the one they can afford.  There are a bunch of cameras out there, and just as many Web Sites reviewing them.  I recommend:  (  http://www.dpreview.com/  )  I'm not even going to try to tell you which  one to get.  I use Canon, now.  I formerly used a Nikon.  Before that I shot Pentax.  Forgot Mamiya, it fit in there somewhere.   Right now I want to switch.  It is a costly deal to switch.  There are many good brands: Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji, Samsung, Ricoh, Leica  and I'm sure I have missed some.

Several years ago I was asked to shoot a tournament.  I never had.  I owned a Nikon camera that I swore I would have forever.  It is now gone.  I own three Canons.  After shooting the tournament I knew one thing for sure.  I owned the wrong lens.  Not the wrong camera the wrong lens.  The most important decision is the lens.  No one asks me about lenses they ask about cameras.   They would be better of to ask about lenses.  You would be better off buying any old camera and getting a good lens.  I beat this to death in the previous post and now I'm done.

Today I am considering a new camera.  I already have good lenses (I just can't keep from talking about lenses).  My first thought is to continue with canon, but....(There is always a but) .   Brand identification can lead you down a very bumpy road indeed.  Just so you know I think Canon produces a great line of cameras.  I own 3 of their cameras, all my lenses they make, and I use their flash guns (Another problem) Now the story.

Canon produced the 1D Mark III.  It would take 10 frames a second, 10 megapixel, sealed against weather, with more settings than a person can count.  It was a sport or wild life shooters dream camera.  Except....it had a problem focusing.  Well, if the subject was stationary it did the job, but if the subject was moving....not good (remember sports wildlife) .  Canon after pressure from purchasers, and reviews and about 9 months bent to pressure.  They agreed to fix of the cameras and redesigned the model.  The designed model worked and the fix worked.  The camera cost about $4700.  Yes $4700.  It wouldn't focus.  So what did they do next?  They released the 5D Mark II and guess what.  Yeah there are problems with the focus.  It only costs $2500, but..... I frequent a site that publishes user reviews.  On the first page of the site there are 12 reviews, 8... yes  8 complain about the focus.  Check it out here:                                                                      (  http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=368&sort=7&cat=15&page=1  ).  
In defense there are a number of great photographers that use the 5D Mark II and the 1D Mark III.  One of my favorites uses the the 5D Mark II ( He has published many books).  Just the same focus problems.  It is kinda like buying a new car and then being told, "It drives well as long as you go straight."  There are two lessons first don't be the first to buy.  Wait see if there are any problems with that new model.  Second lesson is even the leader can trip, stumble and fall.  Choose carefully it will be your camera for several years.

So let's get down to it.  The big decision is between DSLR (interchangeable lens camera) and P&S (cameras with out interchangeable lenses) cameras.  If you have always used a P&S and have been satisfied. I suggest you buy another.  If you are dissatisfied then you have another decision, get another better P&S or DSLR.  I am tempted to quit right now, but I feel the need to confuse you readers.

Outside of the interchangeable lens thing there are some more subtle differences.  The sensor, the thing that actually records the picture, are larger in DSLRs.  The advantage of a larger sensor is it can record more information.  Think of it this way.  Lets just say I wrote this on facebook.  I would have gotten that alert that says too many character a long time ago, less room.  I know some of you may like that, but for a camera more information is better.  It gives more detail.  More like this blog.  If you are going to only print 4x6 inch prints or post on the net it doesn't make much difference, but if you are putting it on a billboard.....Well you get the drift.  Next a P&S is easier to carry.  It will slip into a purse or pocket and some are so light they can stay there.  There are some P&S cameras that are too large for this and look more like traditional cameras.  They usually have more bells and whistles.  There just isn't a DSLR camera made that will go into a pocket and they will be too heavy for a purse.  A lot of pro photographers buy P&S's because of their convenience.   The next difference is ISO.   A higher ISO will allow you to get pics with less light.  (Has to do with that sensor thing)  DSLR's usually have higher useable ISO's because of the larger size.  THe final difference is the flash.  (discussed here) Usually DSLR's have a superior flash because they can add more light than P&S's.  Most, not all, P&S's have rather anemic flashes.  They will light about 10 feet give or take a foot or two.  DSLR's can have an onboard flash, hot shoe or both. A hot shoe is on top of the camera and can be used to attach a flash (purchased separately).   The hot shoe flash is the most powerful. (A few P&S's do have a hot shoe)

Confused yet?  Ok here is more simple version.

DSLR's usually have better optics, but not always.  (I know I keep saying that about the lens)
DSLR's have larger sensors which are better.  P&S's will usually provide prints up to at 8x10's and                                     probably 11x14's.
DSLR's usually have better ISO performance than P&S's. (Negating use of flash in some instances.)
DSLR's usually have better flashes than P&S's.
DSLR's are difficult to carry and will spend time at home. P&S's are not heavy and are easy to carry.
DSLR's cost more.
DSLR's are more complex to use properly.  (usually)

There are other differences, and differences between different DSLR's and different P&S's.  Anyone who wants to chime in the comments please do so.  Also take note the number of times I said "usually", there just aren't many absolutes.  Finally if you want my assistance when buying just ask, or if you own and want my help operating your camera, just ask.  That would be easier than trying to evaluate all those cameras out there.   Still the easiest answer is  "Get the one you will use and will take the time to understand."

A special thanks to Irene.  She said,  "Ted why not add pictures."  I know.   I am a photographer, and that should have come to mind quickly....

Photography is all about light.  I know you thought it was about taking a photograph, but no it is about light.  So next is shutter speed, then ISO, then F-stop.  I promise these will be shorter and will have more pictures thanks to Irene.  http://www.dpreview.com/

Getting that Camera

Well I wrote this post and then discovered it was a series of definitions.  I think some of you may want to know what those dials are for and what some of the terms mean.   So, I will deal with getting the camera in my next post.  Really I promise.

There is one thing before I get down to it.  This is boring stuff, and I try to avoid it as much as possible.  It is like reading a cook book, pretty boring.  In the end you might be a better cook, but that boring part drives me crazy.  I prefer to just take a picture.  It is the fun part.  At times my hand shakes in anticipation because  I know I am going to nail it.  It is a high for me.  This stuff is just too analytic. It creeps in and tricks you into thinking there is a best way of taking a photograph.  The key to taking a good photograph is taking a picture.

OK.  Here it comes.  Cameras for me break down into two types point and shoot and interchangeable lens cameras.  Point and shoots (P&S) I  define as those cameras that do not have a lens you can remove.  THe interchangeable lens cameras, called digital single lens reflex (DSLR) cameras,  have different lenses you can attach to the camera.  There are other differences between the two, but this is the primary difference.

Lenses are more important than the camera.  (Providing the camera actually works.)  I cannot stress the importance of the lens enough.  A great lens will make you a better photographer.   It will give you the best image quality (IQ).   So when you are cruising the net looking for a lens look for something that describes the IQ.  I know all those camera companies tell you to get mega pixels, face recognition, smile recognition, blink recognition, GPS, or one that serves as a hammer (My brother says that mine can be used).  I say buy IQ.

Lenses are more important than the camera.  I just wanted to make sure.  After the IQ you should next consider what type of lens.  There are two categories zoom lenses and fixed lenses.  Zoom lenses  are the ones that zoom.  Probably that didn't help much.  They can bring the subject in closer or move it further away without you having to move.  There are two types of zoom lenses, ones that push and pull and ones that twist.  It is generally accepted that twisty ones are better, and cost more.  Don't forget the IQ.  I think all P&S's have a zoom lens.  If you buy a DSLR and there is a lens attached it will probably be a zoom lens.  On P&S cameras the zoom is usually defined in two ways optical and digital.   With an optical zoom the lens is bringing the subject closer, and with digital zoom the camera is doing the work.   In other words with digital zoom the camera is actually cropping the photograph, and with optical this is not happening.  For my money you are better off cropping in  the computer.

Lenses are more important than the camera.  Did I say that before?  Oh well, who cares?  Those fixed focal lenses won't bring the subject closer or move it further away.  You will have to zoom with your feet.  I mean actually walk closer or back up.  They really won't help with weight loss though.  Well, if you had to walk a really long way they might.  Hey, there is an idea.  As seen on TV weight loss lens.

OK lets compare and contrast the categories of lenses.  The reader should keep in mind that the things I'm about to state are general rules and there are exceptions.  There was a time when fixed lenses were considered superior by far, but it is no longer the case.  There are many zooms that rival and even surpass fixed lenses.  Zoom lenses cost more, unless you have to buy several fixed lenses to accomplish what the zoom can do.  Fixed lenses can have a lower F-stop (This is a topic all its own.  Maybe later. Having a lower F-stop is usually better.  F 2.8 is better than 5.6.)  The lower the F-stop the more it the lens will cost.

One final word on lenses, people spend time selecting cameras and little time with lenses.  It really should be the other way around.  Ask any pro and they will tell you the same thing, the better the lens IQ the better the photograph.  I read an article not long ago about a photographer who was using a D10, introduced in 2003, to shoot magazine covers.  His lenses were the best.  I learned the hard way.  When I started shooting sports I used an OK lens.  I soon discovered that it would not produce the results needed.  I bought another superior lens that cost more, and made more money.  I should have just spent the money the first time around.  Once you have decided on a lens look for a used one.  There are a bunch of them for sell on EBAY, or sites that sell used equipment.

Pixels, pixels, pixels I'm sick of them.  Just sick of them. Get more, get more.  I don't even know why.  They are dots.  Yes, dots, granted a bunch of dots, but dots they are.  I shot with a 4 megapixel camera for years.  I bet some of you have pics I shot with that camera.  I even bet that there are some who have 11x14 prints.  Here is the draw back to pixels the more you have the more space they take.  Larger more expensive SD cards, more computer hard drive space, and more memory are needed.  So if you usually print 4x6's then a six mega pixel camera will get the job done and you'll even get an 8x10.

Shutter lag is the length of time after pushing the shutter until the picture is taken.  There is nothing more frustrating than pushing the shutter and nothing happens until the action is over.  Most cameras made today have a short shutter lag, but not all.  When I say short I mean less than 4 tenths of a second.  Do a search before buying.  I don't care what bows and whistles it has, get a short shutter lag.  Just think, little Tommy threw a spoonful of ice cream and hit Aunt Louise in the middle of the forehead and the shutter lag caused you to miss it. You throw the camera against the wall.  Usually not a good thing for the camera, the wall, or your pocket book.   Short shutter lag gets the shot saving the day, money and frustration, and allows you to embarrass your aunt.  You can also wait until Tommy gets older and brings his new girl friend over and show her what he did.  Hey another opportunity for a photograph.


ISO (I don't care what it stands for) is the measure used to determine the sensitivity to light.  In other words the lower the ISO number the less sensitivity to light.  The higher the number the greater the sensitivity to light.  There is a trade though.  With ISO 100 there is less digital noise than at ISO 800.  If the digital noise gets bad enough the picture is ugly (Ugly is my scientific term).  On the hand with a high ISO you can achieve a higher shutter speed which will freeze action or get the photograph with less light.  You can use the higher ISO when Tommy is learning to ride a bike, and you want a shot of him falling.  Another time would be at a wedding when the minster says, "No flash unless it is a bolt of lighting."  Camera companies lie about ISO.  In most of the newer cameras they will give an ISO of up to 51,000.  You would be capable of shooting a cup of black coffee, in a cave at midnight.  They don't tell you about the noise, and the ugly. So again search find the useable ISO.  Not the one the company says, but the one you can actually use without it getting ugly.  Examples below.  Click on the photograph to enlarge and then again to see the noise more plainly.  ISO 3200 is the UGLY.

Photograph size is determined by the number of pixels.  Yeah I already made my stance clear on pixels, but I'm not going to say I'm sick of them.  (I am though.)  The more pixels the larger you can make a print.  This is not always true, but in most cases it is.  It is pretty widely accepted that to print 300 dots per square inch (DPI) or 240 DPI is needed.  People confuse pixels and DPI and they should not.  They are different.  So if you want to print you should shoot with a large number of pixels.  On the other hand if you are only showing the pics on a computer, internet, facebook, TV, or digital picture frame only need 72 DPI is needed.  I regularly have people bring in pics from a  1-2 megapixel camera phone to print.  They have gone over to the ugly side at 4x6 inches even though they look great on the internet.  My suggestion use the highest pixel setting. You can make it smaller in your computer, but making it larger is much more difficult.

 RAW (don't know) and JPEG (don't care) are different ways of capturing an image.  When shooting in JPEG the camera interprets the image.  In other words it does some editing of the photograph in camera. Raw does not do this to the extent that a JPEG does.  RAW leaves the decision to the photographer, and the software that the photographer uses.  The software is called a RAW converter.  Most professionals use RAW.  If you want control shoot in RAW.  If you want to make minor adjustments or none at all use JPEG.

Just writing this makes me not want to take another picture.  I'm thinking about going outside and counting the blades of grass.  Bored.

White balance describes the different colors of light.  Yeah there are a bunch of different colors of light.  The flash has a color, incandescent bulbs another, sunlight another and on and on and on.  Most of you should probably use auto and forget it.  I do most of time, but I occasionally change it in computer.  If you have ever gotten a pic with a yellow or blue cast it probably was a white balance problem.  This is a real problem shooting indoor sports.  Those lights flicker different colors, and usually gyms replace them at different times causing them to give off different colors.  So first there is a blue color, then a kind of brown, and then one that is right and it starts all over again.   THe first pic white balance problem second is corrected

Modes are the camera's way of setting the camera to get "the best photograph".   I read a review the other day on a camera that had 20 different modes including pet, fireworks, food (really).  If you remember to set the camera mode correctly it will more than likely be a miracle.  If you do though, it will probably help.  I never use them.  If someone else wants to discuss them contact me, or use the comments section to enlighten us all.

Image stabilization is used to control camera shake.  I don't know how it works.  Camera shake is the motion of the camera caused by photographer movement. It will allow you to take picture using a slower shutter speed without camera shake.  For the most part 1/30 of a second is the slowest shutter speed without there being camera shake, but with image stabilization 1/15 of a second and slower may be achievable.  If however the subject is moving image stabilization doesn't really help and it is called motion blur.

Almost done is anyone awake out there.

Flash, ya'll know what that is.  No I'm not talking about an old man in a trench coat standing on the corner.  The other kind of flash.  Come on get with it.  There are two basic kinds of flashes on board and flash guns.  The guns are better and cost more.  With an on board flash you will usually light up about 10 feet.  So if you are sitting in the back of an auditorium waiting for Tommy to get his diploma, and then jump up to take that shot...UGLY is about to happen.  Oh you can show people the back of several people's heads, but Tommy will be in darkness.  With a flash gun you stand a chance.  Many will light up over 100 feet.  There is another difference the guns usually recycle faster.  So with a flash gun you may get two chances as he is handed his diploma, but with an on board flash you'll only get the back of those heads once.

Video.   My suggestion is get a video camera, but I don't know much about this.  Anyone who wants to venture in can.

Next getting that camera.  Promise.  Well, unless I change my mind.  Yes I'm in touch with my feminine side.

Purpose

I am starting this blog to give my humble incites into the world of photography.   I hope from the postings you can learn from my failures and successes.  Most of the readers here I expect will be in the beginning stages of photography, and it is my hope to help you get better.

I read once about a National Geographic photographer (forgot his name and assignment).  He had been sent to Africa.  If memory serves me correctly and he took over 10,000 photographs while there.  I counted the ones published there were 9.  Just nine.  I remember thinking I can do that.  Of course it is just not that simple, but in some ways it is.  From the article I took away three lessons take a bunch of photographs, go there and get someone to pay your way.

The first lesson, take a bunch of photographs, is for two reasons.  First, if you found it worth shooting once why not twice or even three times.  Come on it was pretty, cute, silly or whatever.  Sure you stood there and got that shot, now down on your knees or stomach.  How about stand over it?  Or under it?  Did you think about behind it?  It is the digital age use that card up.  You will hate it if you get home and think I should have done this or that.  I don't care if your photographing a dog, a flower, or Aunt Mildred take a bunch.  I think you get my drift.  You may want to protest that people will object.   Oh, fudge muffins.  Everyone is used to having their picture taken.  It's done at the grocery store, turnpike, bank, pharmacy, casinos, cell phones do it, Walmart parking lot, and even cameras do it.  I'll bet you have a camera within arms reach right now.  Do you get it?   Take a bunch of photographs.  The other reason is you want to get better.  To get better  you need to practice.  Shoot a rifle?   Target...practice   Cook?....I'll practice on the family.  The other day I spent an hour photographing in a bathroom.  Oh come on I wouldn't photograph that.  (Well I might.)  It was the fixtures, the way the light hit the wall, door knob, just the stuff there.  I wanted to now if I could make it interesting.  Sure you laugh at me, but the other day I finished fourth in a contest.  I had shot typing paper.

The next lesson is go there.  You could stay home, and watch snooky (Whatever her name is, on whatever the show is called.  I think it should be: Washed up on Shore.) or you could go there.  Where is there?  Where ever the photograph is.  In the bathroom, down at the bottoms, a National Park, Europe, Africa.  It is where ever you find the pretty.  So let me define the pretty.  It is a flower, a dog, Aunt Mildred.  I found pretty in a piece of paper, at the ocean, my cats, the mountains, my wife, basketball.  It is there go find it. After all it's the digital age and there is delete.

This last one is a little tricky.  Since it is tricky, I'm not going to spend much time on it.  If you get good enough someone will pay you to go to the pretty.

OK so next time I'll discuss camera selection.