OT 35mm SLR camera



We can now add turntables to the very long list of things you know nothing about.
--
*Nostalgia isn't what is used to be.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/12/2016 14:07, whisky-dave wrote:

And?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/12/2016 14:07, whisky-dave wrote:

Is that an admission?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/12/2016 14:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

His reference is in the post he replied to, so he can't read properly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Design has nothing to do with how good a lens is or not. Ah well.
--
*Why 'that tie suits you' but 'those shoes suit you'?*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, 5 December 2016 15:30:18 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

Yes I know but not when it comes to being prime or not.
You'd only buy a prime lens for a particualr purpose. Teh word prime only mean of fixed focal lenght

So who needs a prime then.

So are you still claiming that prime lenes are the best considerign virtually all cheap crappy phones have prime lenes why are you saying prime lenes are the best.

Yes they do so what they are also prime lenes and in general not as good as traditional lenses althoguh they have a few advantages.

The way chefs use prime steak it describes a steak NOT the quality of it.

you've got no idea claimign smartphones have the best lenes because they are prime.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/12/2016 16:00, whisky-dave wrote:

Who needs a zoom then?

There are plenty of crappy zooms about so why are you always going on about phones for?
The picture quality of a modern phone probably exceeds a camera at a similar price these days.
They tend to be restricted in software to be all auto and you have to download a different app to get manual control if you want to.

In what way aren't they as good?

We know lenses come in a range of qualities, its only you that wants to compare a £20 body cap lens with a £5k zoom so you can claim zooms are better.

You have no idea claiming zooms have the best lenses because they are expensive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:47:44 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

Most people that's why zoom lens are sold as kit lenses with most camera. systems.

you're the one claiming prime lenes are best is that why they put them in p hones ? Prime lenes are cheaper lighter and easier to make than zooms.

No it doesn't.

Yes I know I have a few for my ipad. Doesn't make them better than stand alone cameras for quality, might do for convience and price.

fixed focal lengh and you can get dounugh shapes with bright out of focus l ights and there;'s no diaphram on the majority so you can't stop down.
if they were that good they'd be more avaibable but they aren;t

oms are

I never said zooms were better they are mmopre convient and most peole cho ose them over primes for the majority of uses .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 09:04:33 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave

Going home time is it , time to run for the bus. Don't suppose we will hear from you till Monday when you can use your employers facilitiies and time to amuse yourself on usenet again.
G.Harman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/12/2016 17:24, whisky-dave wrote:

Expensive prime telephoto lenses have lenses made of special glass to make sure the red and blue end of the spectrum focus at the same focal point. So they are 'something ultra special' and that costs money.
Look for the letter ED in an expensive prime TP lens.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/12/2016 11:45, whisky-dave wrote:

People who know what they are doing and understand photography use prime lenses because they are typically F1.8, F1.4, F1.2 and even F1.0 for really loaded folks.
Do you understand the concept of depth of field and low light photography ?.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:18:22 UTC, Andrew wrote:

less you pay a fortune for them

e them.

Far more than you obviuously do. My lens on my Pratkica L2 was a prime lens it was 50mm f1.8 and the camera and body cost me £50.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/11/2016 14:32, whisky-dave wrote:

I see you, you can't do photography with a prime lens now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Presumably anyone who wants to take photos will acquire (buy, borrow, be given cast-off by a friend etc) a camera of some sort. Whether that camera is one in a phone, or a compact or an SLR depends on many factors such as what they intend to photograph, how interested they are in photography as an end in itself, how much they can afford etc)

I would imagine that some people still learn in "their" car (I'm including a friend's or relative's car) and are taught by friend/relative, but I imagine that the proportion is gradually dwindling and that most now are taught by a professional instructor and learn in his car, partly because there is a lot of theory and best practice which a professional instructor will teach more correctly than someone who has been driving for years but has slipped into bad habits.

As for learning to drive only much more so: not least because few people can afford to own and run their own plane. but they can afford to hire time in one.

I wonder how true that is. I really don't know, but I'd have thought that someone who is sufficiently interested in learning about photography may well already have a camera, and it may even be a bridge or SLR rather than a compact or a phone/tablet camera (though thy may well have those too).

Fair question for a novice to ask. There is a temptation to think that a longer zoom (even if it is digital) and a faster ISO setting is "best". An instructor (and I'd include a shop assistant being asked those questions) should be able to explain, briefly, why that is not always the case. We all have to start learning somewhere.
To go back to driving as an analogy. Before I started to drive I thought that a car was incredible powerful and that "if you are skilful enough you can drive safely much faster than a poxy 30 limit". The first time I sat behind the wheel and let the clutch up, I learned how easy it is to stall a car engine. The first time I drove in snow I learned how long the stopping distance of a car is on a poor surface. The first time I drove in heavy traffic with lots of cars and people coming from different directions I realised how much you have to take into account what "some other fool" might do. It seems almost embarrassing to admit how naive I was. But we all have to start learning somewhere, so naive questions like "why don't I just use (direct) flash for all indoor photos" or "why don't I just turn my digital camera's ISO up to 3200 for everything" (or "why don't I just use super-fast 800 ASA film") or "why don't I just use 40x digital zoom" (or "why don't I just enlarge from a small part of the negative") are valid questions and are part of the learning process.

Yes, you choose something that is good for learning with. Reasonably cheap but with sufficient scope for learning, and therefore not too automated.
I suppose, using a car analogy, you might say that while it is best to learn on a manual, you might learn a fair amount in an automatic which has manual override (ie you still learn *when* to learn even if you don't learn *how* to do so smoothly). That's roughly equivalent to using an SLR in A or S mode, where the camera does *some* but not *all* the thinking for you. To learn to drive properly, should you perhaps learn on a car that does not have synchromesh, so you learn to judge exactly how to match the engine and road speed. Or is that overkill? In the same way, how many or how few labour-saving devices do you allow the student to use?

How much detail do you want?
At the first level, you choose how you will want to display the photos - do you want prints or slides? Yes, you can make prints from slides (Cibachrome) and I'm sure you can make slides from negatives, though that might be a fairly involved process for an amateur to do. That's the first decision.
Do you want to take black and white or colour? B&W prints from colour negatives ranged from appallingly muddy and low contrast (if you just expose B&W paper from a colour neg - yes, I've tried that!) to fairly good if you use proper filtration to compensate for the orange mask on the neg and for the non-panchromatic sensitivity of normal B&W paper. I've even made surprisingly good B&W prints from slides, by putting a slide in the enlarger and making a B&W negative print, and then contact-printing onto more B&W paper. But for most purposes, use B&W film for B&W prints - and also if you want to do your own developing and printing (B&W is a lot more forgiving than colour, and a lot cheaper).
So you've decided on neg/slide and B&W/colour.
Now film speed. That is influenced a lot by the subject and lighting conditions. If you'll be taking pictures in low lighting and/or with a long lens where shutter speed needs to be high to avoid camera shake, you'd opt for a fast film. If fine detail and higher contrast are important, but light will be plentiful, you'd go for a slower film.
Ah, another one: daylight or tungsten-balanced lighting. That's more important with slides because the only way to compensate for tungsten lighting on daylight film is a blue filter (or an amber one for the converse) - and that may need a faster film because of the light loss. For negatives you might be able to get away with using daylight film and no filter even for tungsten - and let the printing stage correct for that. Purists would probably have kittens at that statement, but you *may* be able to get away with it. I'd need to do comparisons of same subject and lighting, with and without blue filter, and trusting that the printing lab really *did* fully correct the colour cast, before I could make a clear decision on that.
Finally you choose the specific make/model of film. When I was doing B&W I tended always to use Ilford film: FP4 (100) for normal photography, HP4 (400) if I needed the advantages of higher speed, and increased grain wasn't going to be an issue. I'm not sure how I first plumped for Ilford rather than Kodak or Agfa for B&W.
For colour prints, I tended to use Kodakcolor and its variants, though to be honest I couldn't see much difference in the prints from unbranded film of equivalent speed. Gut feel and snobbishness made me go for a proper brand.
For colour slides, it gets more interesting because there is less variation and automatic correction that is out of your hands. I tended to find that Kodachrome was best in situations which weren't *too* contrasty, and that Ektachrome had a slightly higher latitude when there are bright highlights and blacker shadows. But Ektachrome has a slight blue cast compared with Kodachrome. Agfa slide film tends to give a warmer response that is a bit more "homely" and less clinical than Kodachrome or (even more so) Ektachrome.
Another factor is ease of processing: Kodachrome has to be sent away to Kodak; Ektachrome (and maybe Agfa - can't remember about that) can be developed by local photographic shops/labs so the turnaround time may be quicker.
So there are lots of factors in choosing a film, but it's very easy to be lazy, particularly when you'll be taking pictures in lots of different conditions where you want a good all-round film that is not too slow but not too grainy - maybe FP4 for B&W, Kodacolor 100 or 200 for colour prints and Ektachrome 200 for slides, as default (lazy!) settings.
But be prepared to experiment with other films where conditions dictate. One thing I should have experimented with was weak colour filters on slide film for slight colour correction - either sunlight versus shade, or Kodakchrome versus Ektachrome, or for enhancing autumn or sunrise/sunset colours. But it all costs money.
Digital has the advantage that you don't need to choose film based on prints versus projection, and that once you've learned your camera's sensor you know how much its exposure latitude is and whether you can trust its default colour settings for sunlight, shade, tungsten, fluorescent (*), or whether you need to apply your own correction. You still need to choose an appropriate ISO setting to minimise noise without sacrificing DoF and shutter speed. It's tempting to go for the highest ISO that produces good results. Experimenting with my SLR, pictures at extremes of ISO seem to be identical in terms of exposure, colour cast and contrast (ie using the same metering mode, the image brightness/colour at 200 or 3200 ASA is the same). But of course noise increases with ISO - otherwise we'd shoot everything at 3200 unless you want a very wide aperture and/or a very slow shutter speed. So its a matter of working out what you can get away with. Can you hold the camera steady enough to take the picture at a lower ISO? Do you have a tripod that will allow it? Is on-camera direct flash a sufficiently good alternative to a very slow shutter speed and ambient light? Artistically it often isn't, but maybe for a quick record shot it's acceptable.
(*) Yes, I know there are many different types/colours of fluorescent tube :-) Thanks goodness for being able to white-balance digital off a sheet of paper for situations like that!

I fully agree. You need a camera that allows you to turn off those features, which is why an SLR is better than an Instamatic or compact. And you will probably learn even less with a mobile phone camera.

On my very first digital camera I'd probably have initially used whatever the camera was set to, or maybe Auto-ISO or maybe something similar to the speed of film I'd have used. And I'd have looked at the results and thought "hmmm, maybe 3200 ASA isn't the best choice for a landscape where I want fine detail" :-) But I'd have learned what worked and what didn't. The same sort of things as I'd have experimented with in terms of film, with the big advantage that I can see the results immediately and don't have to use a whole roll of film to compare a low and high ISO. My choice of ISO would probably have been influenced by what film I'd have used - transferring knowledge that I'd already acquired because both film and digital have shortcomings at high ISO, even if the effects are a bit different.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 15:46:11 UTC, NY wrote:

No the majoroty choose a smartphone as their default camera. You do know that few buy music centres either now.

an

Exactly and someone paying money for a photography course will have a reaso n to go on it rather than spend the money on beer. Why would they go on a course have you ever asked them. Is it really because they want to lknow how to use their phone ?

g a

so NOT their choice of car then isnlt that the point. Most learn on the basics, same with DIY the first tool, you give a child to leanr DIY shouldn;t be an angle grinder, teach them how to use a file firs t.

y a

ot

re

o

And that proves my point . If you opt for learning to drive in an automatic that deosn't make you proficiant to drive a manual car. Can you work out why ?

A friend teaches photogrphy at a south london college presently she's use 5 0+ year old paper doing exibition on industrial design, she got 93% in her degree the highest ever I think. Most of those she teaches are 17+ university level students studying photog raphy and digital media you do know why the two are seprate.
It;s loke her we have studetns stuying microwave engineering which is s bit difernt from setting your oven to 100% for 5 mins.
Sane with electronics her teh studetns are also concerned with how the devi ces work they need to know about N & P junctions, doping and diffenct chara cteristics of semiconductors, TV repair guys don;t need to. A TV repair course is quite different from an electronics course.
I really don't know, but I'd have thought that

You'd be suprurised. you'd think those interetsed in driving formula one wi ll have their own F1 car too ?
> and it may even be a bridge or SLR rather than a

They may also have a hassblad with digital back doesn;t mean they know how to use it.

has

n

ll

Yes and you can't always leant by buying a camera designed to do everything for you. I can buy the same truffel oil as any chef but will my chips be taster than theirs ? As they say it;s not what you;'ve got it's what you can do with it.

u

And can you ?

a

g

You didn't read or know about that first ? Even I know stopping distances are longer in poor weather.

ght

I thought everyone knew that but maybe that's because I sit on busses witho ut a smartphone to star at I look a observe. The advert for an eastren european hair stylist always amusing me, been the n for 6 months now, I do wonder if anyone else has even seen it. Same as th e one for a waitress but that was only up a week.

best to not start learnign in alambourgini or other powerfull car for some odd reason.

l

ast

I

are

and how do you learn those....
So why wouldn't you choose 3200 ISO for all shots ? and why wouldn't you.

p

Exactly .

arn

Most do for some reason don;t they.

*

So why do so few driving schools have such dual drive cars ?

I thought they called it T mode as in Time and aperature rather than speed and aperature, helps stop confusion with film speed which people tend to un derstand more easily than camera speed or sensor speed. Camera speed tends to be the fastest shutter Time or perhaps shooting FPS.

nd

I do worry when I asked them what 6X1 is and they get the calculator out. I even did that to a lecture he was wrooied that his motors ws getting hot so I asked some details I said that's 4W he said is it, I said but you're a mathamatitian he said yes I am, I don't do arithamtic and laugted.

R

What's detail got to do with it ? Have you ever been asked that Q or condidere4d it with a digital camera ?

do

me)
Yes I used to do that lovely smell. I had my own darkroom well a section of my bedroom sectioned off.

I did that when we taught photography at school level using FP4 part develo ping it then removing the film from teh spool exposing it to light then put tign it back in teh tanks, can;t remmenr the details but remmeber using sod uim hypochlorate and potassium permanganet. (which I hear is good for ather letes foot).

see sometimes you have to think before you take a p[hoto rathe rthan afterw ards this proves the point about thinking before shooting, something that r arly happens with degital because you can takes 100s of shots and they wonl t cost you as penny. Doing the same with film would make you a crap photogr apher, and ceetainly not one that can make money.

you donlt need to bother with digital just keep snapping hopefully you'll g et what you want or post process.

which you donlt need to think about with digital the camera sets what it ne eds which might not be what you want.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Varies according to manufacturer. Nikon use S for Shutter prioirty, Canon use T (or Tv) for shutter priority. I referred to "S" simply because my SLR is Nikon so that's the notation I'm used to.

Sorry, I was ambiguous. I meant "how detailed to you want my answer to be", not "how fine do you want the detail in the image".

Given that a digital camera has a fixed (non-interchangable) sensor, it's not entirely relevant. The nearest equivalents are what pixel resolution you choose (digital cameras can average a 2x2 or 3x3 square of pixels which reduces noise but at the expense of drastically reducing the resolution - roughly equivalent to taking a photo on 120 film versus on 16 mm Instamatic.

I was actually thinking of duplicating an existing negative to a positive slide by contact printing or lens, with a suitable film for the job. But yes, there's also taking photos on neg film and developing it as slides.
I've never tried it with FP4, but I know there are chemicals for doing it, either exposing the film in its spiral to a light for a stated time or else by using a chemical that achieves the same. I think Ektachrome uses one method and Kodachrome the other, for colour slides.
I do remember being given a kit (film and chemicals) made by Agfa: a *very* slow film (I think it might have been 16 ASA) and chemicals to develop it and reverse it. My local photo shop had it as soon-to-expire stock and knew I was interested. The results were rather dark, though I may have over-developed it after reversal or under-developed before reversal. Fairly contrasty and crisp, about the same tonal range as a print, but as a slide.

I never said that you shouldn't make as many decisions up-front as possible. I was saying that sometimes with film you can change horses in mid-stream, with difficulty or complications, and with digital you can *if you want* make changes afterwards, though there's nothing wrong with making them before.
My digital camera produces subtly different photos if I set it to black and white, as opposed to converting a colour image to B&W afterwards. However there are a lot of settings that can be tweaked to increase contrast or to vary the proportions of R, G and B that are used to generate the B&W image - equivalent to putting a red filter over the lens to darken a blue sky.

You keep saying "digital sets what it wants", implying that all digital cameras are always set to auto. OK, in a novice's hands, that may well be true - and if the camera helps someone produce a reasonable picture, that's a good thing. Maybe some of those people will be sufficiently encouraged to take it to the next level and learn more.
But we're talking about people who have taken a conscious decision to learn more about photography and so who can be trusted to turn off auto settings because they are motivated to learn about photography and know that this is best done on a manual /semi-auto camera.
Auto-ISO is great for getting the sharpest picture in low light without having to remember to increase the ISO. It has its place when you just need a quick picture, and when you might miss the opportunity if you have to manually set ISO, aperture and shutter speed. But like every single auto setting, you need to know when to turn it off and go for the slowest speed that does the job (or the fastest that produces acceptable results, which is the same thing seen from the opposite perspective).
Anyway, I've answered your question about the factors used in deciding on a film. Yes, with digital there a fewer (but not zero) factors. You still need to decide what ISO to use, based on the same criteria - how much light is there and can you get the required aperture and shutter speed at this ISO or do you need to increase. I tend to leave my camera set on 200 (its lowest setting) for most daylight photography, and increase if indoors, at dusk etc unless I have a static subject and a tripod. I don't use 3200 very much because the noise does start to become noticeable. I remember finding it useful when I was taking "action photos" of red squirrels at play in a rather secluded clearing where I was lucky even at that speed to get 1/100 at my lens's widest aperture, which didn't really freeze the squirrels in some shots and I got more camera shake than I'd have liked - why is it that viewing hides make it so difficult to erect a tripod so you can actually see through the lens from the seat provided? ;-( So I had to go handheld with the lens braced on the bottom of the window frame which wasn't ideal. Maybe I should have chosen a sunnier day, but that would have presented its own problems with harsh tree/leaf shadows rather than the more diffuse light of an overcast day.
I remember having to produce a series of comparison photos to show the use of short shutter speed to capture movement and long to enhance the motion blur, for a photo course. I chose a waterfall (OK, a bit of a cliche) and found that the only place where I could get the right angle had a tree branch in the foreground. For the short shutter speed I wound up the ISO to 3200, opened the lens right up and got a speed of something like 1/4000 sec which captured water droplets coming off the water. And the branch was nicely out of focus. But for the long exposure I had to stop the lens right down to something silly like f32 (lens diffraction becomes significant) and turn the ISO to the lowest possible. And still I could only manage 1/2 sec and I'd like to have managed several seconds. Obviously I should have had a neutral density filter (or even a polarising filter at a pinch - anything to cut down the amount of light), but I didn't. But more important. the small aperture had brought that stray foreground branch into reasonable focus so it became intrusive. I remember commenting on this to the tutor and he commiserated with me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/11/2016 19:01, NY wrote:

Ektachrome uses the E6 process which can be done at home. I believe the colours are already in the film, whereas Kodachrome used the K14 process, which had 14 complex stages, using rather environmentally unfriendly chemicals that add the colours in. I believe you could have processed Kodachrome using standard black and white chemicals if you really wanted to.
Kodak no longer make the chemicals to process Kodachrome, so that's it, FIN.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Kodachrome had wonderful colours though.

They don't make the film, either.
--
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 19:01:44 UTC, NY wrote:

eed

o

LR

Well as long as we realise that these things aren't written in stone.

PS.

",

?

you

ic.
which is key as you don't need to worry about that with film and when you d o worry or rather the studetn worries it's easier for most to understand fi lm and grain than ISO noise and pixel density.
Remmeber what photograhy is it;s isn't counting pixels it's not about teh p rocessor speed of your computer or the amount of memeory you have or teh ca rd speed it comes from the use of light check up where the word photography came from it isn't to do with digital images. if you want someone to get you a image then you don;t need a photogrpaher y ou'll use a graphic illustrator or graphic artsist whi can get great images wiothout even the use of a camera.

a
n.

t

er

ood

You don;t need to know about photography to do that, my dad used to have th at done by taking his transparencies to ASDA. Photogrphy is about getting t he orginal image as close to how you want the finsished artical as possible .

,

There wasn't a stated time when I did it you just carried on exposing it t o light for perhaps 5 miniutes didn't really matter and depended on the str engh of the light source I used a photo flood bulb, and the film was remove d from the spiral otherwise you'd get shadows across the frames.
With print reversal I remebr that being more crital with a few seconds to 1 0 second perhaps of switching on a white light while the print was developi ng.

le.

,

Photogrphy is about using teh light at the time, that's why you have jobs l ike dorector of photogrphy in movies it's not really about the equipment.

nd

o

e -

And I';d say that is far easier to understand with fil,m using monochrome f ile the students given a red yellow orange and perhaps a blue filter and to dl to take a photo of say a field with sky. Now explain why the clouds and foilage look so differnt depending on the fi lter.
Try the same with a digital camera and the studetnas yuo say will start mes sing with exposure and wonlt understand why or what they are doing until af ter they get the result. The basicas are more easily explained and taugh when the gimmicks or settig n arent; abvailble or in the way.
Sure easy in a one on one situation by try that with 30 school kids that al l have smartphones and you might understand.

t

The vast majority are and stay that way as few will understand why manual w ill be perhaps a better choice
.OK, in a novice's hands, that may well be

That's what most beginners are and they are the sort of people that will ta ke photogrphy courses at colleges, I doubt David Hamiltion would consider g oign to his local college to learn photography, well his dead now but I dou bt he would have gone.

Is it ? It certainly worked for the monkey, but is he a good photographer ? (the monkey) surely it's better to know exactly what you are doing so you can get more than one good shot during your life.

Maybe that's why people go on such courses then rather than read an instruc tion manual, surely these manuals tell you how to operate they camera don;t they. All my cameras have had such manuals.

rn

Yes we are.

is

Why would they know that, how would they know the difernce between the sett ings.

So why not leave it at maximuim for everything ? Why not alsways buy the fastest film you can ?

d

is

I'm betting trh majoroty still use auto even when taking a picture of a chu rch that has been there 100s of years so no worry about missing it. My dad was like that but at least he knew about aperatures. So in this situatioin with a digital camera you can set 1/4000 at f22 IS O 12,800
With film you;'d have to think. 12,800 didnlt exist you;d havev to decide w hether to open the aperature or increase shutter speed an inteligent decisi on would need to be made bassed on what's at hand. of course you could just wait for a better camera srt it to 1/16000 at f64 ISO 104,000 (I think that's my maxium) have you heard about the 4 million ISO camera canon I think.

a

eed

yuo donl;t with digital.

not with digital.

or

I leave it at auto unless I know manual will be best.

0

well there;s another thing try explaining that to a noob photographer and h ow it relates to exposure time ISO aperature and even focal lenght of lens used. I just use IS unless using a tripod. here's an example of problems

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYTctgQucZE
using a 70-300mm canon lens
I;m filming the fox in my garden and want to take a still photo, the noise alerts the fox. The 'noise' digital camera . So you really need to know about you're equipment to make the best use of i t.

see

be

of

Those are things photographers think about and picture takers do not.

e

You can demonstarte this using pencil and paper you don;t need a digital ca mera. flip-books etc...

I've no waterfalls near me I guess I could use a student empting a bottle o f water over thier head with the added bonus that it'd amuse me as well as teach them something :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.