Thursday, February 14, 2013

Theme Thursday: Trees or Branches


Exp:1/1000, F5.7, ISO400

Today we are NOT going to talk about manual focus vs. autofocus, or how badly I need a tripod.

We are going to talk about ISO.

I don't know what it stands for, but it used to be the number that corresponded to the sensitivity of film to light.

I'm not using film anymore.  I heard Kodak made their last roll of Kodachrome.  So now, ISO refers to the sensitivity of the image sensor in your camera to light.  Frankly, I don't think I'd be fooling around so much on my huuuuuuge learning curve if I had to buy film and pay for developing all of my errors.

I have to make analogies for all of this scientific mumbo jumbo, so after mulling this over, I came to the conclusion that ISO is like skin tone.  The higher the ISO, the more SPF that film or image sensor would need if it were a person.

That doesn't make sense.  Yet.

Someone with 1600 ISO or above is very Irish, super white, never tans, only burns, maybe freckles and burns, but he only comes in two colors:  white or red.  He is VERY sensitive to light.

ISO1600

High ISOs are very good in low light settings, indoor sporting events, churches, museums, plays and other no-flash zones, and blowing out the candles shots. High ISOs don't do well in broad daylight.  High ISOs let you use faster shutter speeds and smaller apertures, like a tiny pale white Irish speed demon.

In addition to light sensitivity, high ISOs are noisier.  Like Irish people, or Gingers.  Noise or grain refers to the undesirable snowy tv effect on a bad digital image.  Wikipedia shows a good example.  I cannot read that definition though.  Super techy.

According to that link I've been using to learn as I go, "100 ISO is generally accepted as ‘normal’ and will give you lovely crisp shots (little noise/grain)."


ISO 100

A 100 ISO was too dark for this shot though.  Maybe because it was a cloudy day.  This tan ISO was too leathery to pick up what I needed to see.



ISO200 but sunny
The sun peeked out.  I was constantly hitting that WB button, the one that stands for White Balance, and clicking back and forth between the cloud and the sun.  

Here's the same shot below but better:



still ISO 200


I'm not sure why this one looks so much better than the one above.  Maybe because this one had the correct white balance and the sun in the above one took me off guard.  This could be the winner.

ISO400


Here is a slight more sensitive ISO400.  Susan's looking a little pale, but you can't see all of the bags under her eyes.  She''s just recovered from the stomach flu at this time, and I think that this shot looked the most like reality.  Whether or not that's the goal of photography is up for debate.

ISO800


I wanted to test all of my ISOs, just to be sure.  Yep, ISO800 is like a daywalker. According to Urban Dictionary,
The Daywalker is a Ginger that does not burn in direct sunlight. Hated by true Gingers, the Daywalker can sustain extended periods in sunlight and even has traces of a soul. Because they are still part Ginger, freckles may or may not be present.Ben, the Daywalker, went out during the day to buy his Ginger sister a sunlight umbrella, so she wouldn't have to take night classes.

Somewhat sensitive to light, ISO800 is probably great on really overcast day, or indoors in a normally lit environment.

In summary,

High ISO = High Sensitivity to Light = Faster Shutter Speed Ability (action shots) = Smaller Aperture (or light hole) enabling you to take nice photos in low light.

Everything I read on the web when I google "benefits of tiny aperture" mentions something called "depth of field."  I took a 4 hour photography class called "Getting to Know Your DSLR"  two years ago.  I was in waaaay over my head, as most of the participants were professional photographers who had recently switched to DLSR from old school fancy cameras.  Would you believe the  instructor kept using his photos from BILLBOARDS in his presentation?  I took pages and pages of notes, and on every page I wrote "DOF" several times.  DOF is depth of field.  

I still don't know what it is or how to use it.  I'll figure it out, maybe not by next week.  But, I'll let you in on the big secret in layman's terms when I do.  Belt sizes, SPF, light holes, it's what I do.  It's the only way it makes sense to me in my head.   

15 comments:

  1. I like your ISO 200 picture better, but I guess that is personal prefrence. I tend to learn for dark/deeper colors. You have a very pretty smile as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, that is my fifteen year old daughter, Susan, three days after getting her braces off. She sure looks happy, and she was such a good sport too. At what point, I made her kneel in the snow, and she complied with minimal complaint.

      Delete
  2. If you don't make an ebook out of this when you're all done, the world will have missed something truly amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I refuse to add to my children's obsession with Ginger vocab, so I will not be sharing this with them. And I agree, the last one is the best, she looks like a snow queen!

    Also, I spent 40 bucks on film and developing two rolls of film this summer and got about 5 nice pictures. Yeah, that camera, as beautiful and sophisticated as it made me feel, is now retired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I read online that the ginger term is offensive in the UK. I have lots of gingers and daywalkers in my fam, and they taught me the terms and use them themselves, but I understand the concern.

      Delete
    2. Oh goodness, I was just joking about the gingerisms, sorry it didn't come off that way. We too have gingers in the fam, and also some friends that my kids, um, enjoy teasing a little too much. (cringe)

      Delete
    3. No worries! We're all about snark, sarcasm, and teasing in our house too.

      Delete
  4. You are so right about the cost of film limiting experimentation. My nice camera is a film camera, so it mostly sits doing nothing while I experiment with my cell phone. Oh well-- the modern age!

    I love seeing all the different variations in ISO. It's great to see the process behind getting the best shot.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you so much for the tutorial! I got a DSLR camera for the first time at Christmas and am learning how to use it. Your analogies are perfect for me to remember. And, I did not know the term Ginger was considered offensive. We have gingers in our family and my kids taught me the term.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Love this! thank you for the tutorial! I'm not sure I quite "get it" yet, but with practice, I'll understand a little more ofwhat you are describing. That photo is perfect. the brown/white and pop of blue in her eyes and scarf are perfect. She is stunning!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. You are way ahead of me in the area of photography! Thank goodness for point-and-shoot cameras or I wouldn't have any pictures of my family at all LOL. But, I am getting more interested now that I am trying to take pictures of food for my blog. So all of this is helpful! I need to get a better camera and am in the process of researching. Your pictures are great (love the background and the colors) and your daughter is beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I tend to go with as low an ISO as possible even if it means a super slow shutter speed because I love those images crisp and I have the freakish ability to hold the camera v.v.v.v. still. But then I get them on the computer and they're just dark and kinda depressing. Higher ISOs, here I come!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I know nothing about photography - but my old eyes like the first shot the best. The beautiful girl seems to just jump off the page!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just discovered last week how high my ISO was set. And now I have it lower and love love love the difference in images.

    And I'm with Cari: make an e-book of these posts!

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The higher the ISO, the more SPF that film or image sensor would need if it were a person."

    Brilliant!

    ReplyDelete

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Theme Thursday: Trees or Branches


Exp:1/1000, F5.7, ISO400

Today we are NOT going to talk about manual focus vs. autofocus, or how badly I need a tripod.

We are going to talk about ISO.

I don't know what it stands for, but it used to be the number that corresponded to the sensitivity of film to light.

I'm not using film anymore.  I heard Kodak made their last roll of Kodachrome.  So now, ISO refers to the sensitivity of the image sensor in your camera to light.  Frankly, I don't think I'd be fooling around so much on my huuuuuuge learning curve if I had to buy film and pay for developing all of my errors.

I have to make analogies for all of this scientific mumbo jumbo, so after mulling this over, I came to the conclusion that ISO is like skin tone.  The higher the ISO, the more SPF that film or image sensor would need if it were a person.

That doesn't make sense.  Yet.

Someone with 1600 ISO or above is very Irish, super white, never tans, only burns, maybe freckles and burns, but he only comes in two colors:  white or red.  He is VERY sensitive to light.

ISO1600

High ISOs are very good in low light settings, indoor sporting events, churches, museums, plays and other no-flash zones, and blowing out the candles shots. High ISOs don't do well in broad daylight.  High ISOs let you use faster shutter speeds and smaller apertures, like a tiny pale white Irish speed demon.

In addition to light sensitivity, high ISOs are noisier.  Like Irish people, or Gingers.  Noise or grain refers to the undesirable snowy tv effect on a bad digital image.  Wikipedia shows a good example.  I cannot read that definition though.  Super techy.

According to that link I've been using to learn as I go, "100 ISO is generally accepted as ‘normal’ and will give you lovely crisp shots (little noise/grain)."


ISO 100

A 100 ISO was too dark for this shot though.  Maybe because it was a cloudy day.  This tan ISO was too leathery to pick up what I needed to see.



ISO200 but sunny
The sun peeked out.  I was constantly hitting that WB button, the one that stands for White Balance, and clicking back and forth between the cloud and the sun.  

Here's the same shot below but better:



still ISO 200


I'm not sure why this one looks so much better than the one above.  Maybe because this one had the correct white balance and the sun in the above one took me off guard.  This could be the winner.

ISO400


Here is a slight more sensitive ISO400.  Susan's looking a little pale, but you can't see all of the bags under her eyes.  She''s just recovered from the stomach flu at this time, and I think that this shot looked the most like reality.  Whether or not that's the goal of photography is up for debate.

ISO800


I wanted to test all of my ISOs, just to be sure.  Yep, ISO800 is like a daywalker. According to Urban Dictionary,
The Daywalker is a Ginger that does not burn in direct sunlight. Hated by true Gingers, the Daywalker can sustain extended periods in sunlight and even has traces of a soul. Because they are still part Ginger, freckles may or may not be present.Ben, the Daywalker, went out during the day to buy his Ginger sister a sunlight umbrella, so she wouldn't have to take night classes.

Somewhat sensitive to light, ISO800 is probably great on really overcast day, or indoors in a normally lit environment.

In summary,

High ISO = High Sensitivity to Light = Faster Shutter Speed Ability (action shots) = Smaller Aperture (or light hole) enabling you to take nice photos in low light.

Everything I read on the web when I google "benefits of tiny aperture" mentions something called "depth of field."  I took a 4 hour photography class called "Getting to Know Your DSLR"  two years ago.  I was in waaaay over my head, as most of the participants were professional photographers who had recently switched to DLSR from old school fancy cameras.  Would you believe the  instructor kept using his photos from BILLBOARDS in his presentation?  I took pages and pages of notes, and on every page I wrote "DOF" several times.  DOF is depth of field.  

I still don't know what it is or how to use it.  I'll figure it out, maybe not by next week.  But, I'll let you in on the big secret in layman's terms when I do.  Belt sizes, SPF, light holes, it's what I do.  It's the only way it makes sense to me in my head.   

15 comments:

  1. I like your ISO 200 picture better, but I guess that is personal prefrence. I tend to learn for dark/deeper colors. You have a very pretty smile as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, that is my fifteen year old daughter, Susan, three days after getting her braces off. She sure looks happy, and she was such a good sport too. At what point, I made her kneel in the snow, and she complied with minimal complaint.

      Delete
  2. If you don't make an ebook out of this when you're all done, the world will have missed something truly amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I refuse to add to my children's obsession with Ginger vocab, so I will not be sharing this with them. And I agree, the last one is the best, she looks like a snow queen!

    Also, I spent 40 bucks on film and developing two rolls of film this summer and got about 5 nice pictures. Yeah, that camera, as beautiful and sophisticated as it made me feel, is now retired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I read online that the ginger term is offensive in the UK. I have lots of gingers and daywalkers in my fam, and they taught me the terms and use them themselves, but I understand the concern.

      Delete
    2. Oh goodness, I was just joking about the gingerisms, sorry it didn't come off that way. We too have gingers in the fam, and also some friends that my kids, um, enjoy teasing a little too much. (cringe)

      Delete
    3. No worries! We're all about snark, sarcasm, and teasing in our house too.

      Delete
  4. You are so right about the cost of film limiting experimentation. My nice camera is a film camera, so it mostly sits doing nothing while I experiment with my cell phone. Oh well-- the modern age!

    I love seeing all the different variations in ISO. It's great to see the process behind getting the best shot.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you so much for the tutorial! I got a DSLR camera for the first time at Christmas and am learning how to use it. Your analogies are perfect for me to remember. And, I did not know the term Ginger was considered offensive. We have gingers in our family and my kids taught me the term.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Love this! thank you for the tutorial! I'm not sure I quite "get it" yet, but with practice, I'll understand a little more ofwhat you are describing. That photo is perfect. the brown/white and pop of blue in her eyes and scarf are perfect. She is stunning!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. You are way ahead of me in the area of photography! Thank goodness for point-and-shoot cameras or I wouldn't have any pictures of my family at all LOL. But, I am getting more interested now that I am trying to take pictures of food for my blog. So all of this is helpful! I need to get a better camera and am in the process of researching. Your pictures are great (love the background and the colors) and your daughter is beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I tend to go with as low an ISO as possible even if it means a super slow shutter speed because I love those images crisp and I have the freakish ability to hold the camera v.v.v.v. still. But then I get them on the computer and they're just dark and kinda depressing. Higher ISOs, here I come!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I know nothing about photography - but my old eyes like the first shot the best. The beautiful girl seems to just jump off the page!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just discovered last week how high my ISO was set. And now I have it lower and love love love the difference in images.

    And I'm with Cari: make an e-book of these posts!

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The higher the ISO, the more SPF that film or image sensor would need if it were a person."

    Brilliant!

    ReplyDelete