# Really good explanation for people starting out with photography



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

I think this short explanation is really good as base when starting photographing. What do you think?


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 2, 2016)

You don't happen to be the author of that article and owner of that site?


----------



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> You don't happen to be the author of that article and owner of that site?


Who knows 
I usually like to know why things are like they are, and this tries to explain it. I will add some pictures in the future

What do you think about going this deep into the why perspective?


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 2, 2016)

Sounds like a rather convoluted 'Yes'.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 2, 2016)

junni said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't happen to be the author of that article and owner of that site?
> ...



So your first post is to spam the forum?


----------



## table1349 (Aug 2, 2016)

I think this does a far better job. Digital Photography Tutorials
Plus it's not spam.


----------



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

I don't see that as spam, i have put serious effort to think about and write the explanations and help other that want to learn things this way. I don't attend much in online discussions, but i like to teach


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 2, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> You don't happen to be the author of that article and owner of that site?


That's what I was thinking too.


----------



## zombiesniper (Aug 2, 2016)

junni said:


> I don't see that as spam



You may not but that's exactly how I reported it.


----------



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

I'm sure the


gryphonslair99 said:


> I think this does a far better job. Digital Photography Tutorials
> Plus it's not spam.



I'm sure you are right in that, but that site is quite heavy. I have collected the most central aspects shortly, and your referenced site may not be the best one to throw at someone that just has started. What i have tried to collect is the things i wish someone would have told me when i started. It may not fit all, but if someone sees it as useful i'm happy. I would also be greatful for replies of faults in the information


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 2, 2016)

junni said:


> I don't see that as spam, i have put serious effort to think about and write the explanations and help other that want to learn things this way. I don't attend much in online discussions, but i like to teach



Yet you sign up here just to plug it.

That makes it spam.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 2, 2016)

linking to articles off site are against the rules. 
if you wish people to read the article, post it here instead of as a link to a website.


----------



## Designer (Aug 2, 2016)

junni said:


> I think this short explanation is really good as base when starting photographing. What do you think?


You're expecting a beginner to read and understand this?   Good luck!

I see that you go from elementary concepts using misleading analogies, to complicated concepts that are far outside the required knowledge base of a beginner.  As a guide for beginners it is not very useful.


----------



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

pixmedic said:


> linking to articles off site are against the rules.
> if you wish people to read the article, post it here instead of as a link to a website.


I could do that! but then the information will be dead, and future corrections and additions will not be there. But maybe i will do that when it's more mature.


----------



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

Designer said:


> junni said:
> 
> 
> > I think this short explanation is really good as base when starting photographing. What do you think?
> ...


There may be a gap between the elementary concepts and the complicated concepts to fill. Thanks for that response, but which are the misleading analogies?


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 2, 2016)

Awww, it's gone already -- I missed it.

Joe


----------



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

junni said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > linking to articles off site are against the rules.
> ...




I now upload the article here so anyone can comment about things that may be wrong. I tried to give a red line from something most people already is familar with (the maginifying glass) and then take that step by step to the knowledge i have now.

The site contains at this point the following tutorial:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a simple man and want to see things simply. According to me the simplest way to understand things is the physical point of view. Therefore these explanations will proceed from there. I will not go into vendor specific fancy features of modern cameras, but it will be about the most central things one need to know when doing manual and semi-automatic photographing. These things has newer changed and will be relevant for photographers a long, long time from now


*The basic camera explained*
*Light*
Everything in photography can be described as capturing light on a surface. Light from the sun and our artificial lights is illuminating our world, surfaces of objects reflect the light. The reflected (and sometimes direct) light travels to the camera where it passes the lens and hits the sensitive surface on the back of the camera.

*Exposure*
Exposure is about how bright the photo will be. The sensitive surface, the image sensor in the back of the camera may be a plate covered with light sensitive film, a plastic film with light sensitive crystals or a digital image sensor like in digicameras. When the light hits the sensitive surface, its exposure will increase on the spot where it hit. The longer the light hits the spot and the brighter it is, the more will the spot be exposed.

*Color*
The light hitting a spot on the image sensor consists of a set of different pure colors. If the image sensor is a color sensor, it usually contains three differently filtered receptors. This make the receptors react to different colors. Usually these colors are red, green and blue. The ligt spot will expose these differently depending on the colors in the color set.  It's this this gives us the colors on a picture.

*Angle of view*
The angle of the picture is simply the maximum and minimum angle of the light that will pass thru the lens and still hits the sensor.

*The lens*
A camera doesn't need to have a lens, the first cameras didn't have one. In the first cameras the light was simply traveling through a small hole, and then directly hitting the plate at the back of the camera. You may have noticed this effect yourself if you have been in a dark room, and there have been a tiny hole in the wall letting outside light in, since this causes an upside down picture of the landscape outside on the wall opposite to the hole. If you haven't, try it by going into a room with one small window, cover the window with a cardboard with a small hole, so that all light coming into the room comes through the hole. The effect is more noticeable if you put a white paper near the hole because usually the wall is quite far from the hole which will dilute the light.

Why do we have the lens then? This is because with the hole, the image is sharp only if the hole is small. The larger the hole is, the blurrier the image will be and the smaller the hole is, the less light will we get in. This problem is solved by replacing the hole with a lens with a correct focal length (the focal length should be the same as the distance from lens to sensor if we want to focus on objects far away). The lens will focus all the light coming from a specific angle into a point on the image sensor regardless of where on the lens the light goes through. You have surely tried this in your youth with your magnifying glass. The sun causes a small bright spot on your mums tablecloth and leaves behind a beautiful smoking black spot. The black spot is actually an exposure of the sun on the cloth, and the reason you don't manage to get the spot smaller than to a certein point is because when the spot is as smallest there is actually a sharp picture of the sun projected on the cloth

*Focusing distance and depth of field*
Since the introduction of the lens in cameras we got this effect. It does that the image is sharpest on objects at a given distance from the camera called the "focusing distance". The more the distance of an object deviate from the "focusing distance" the blurrer it becomes

I try to explain it.
Let's take the example of the magnifying glass and the sun. The magnifying glass is positioned above the tablecloth so that the sun is maximally focused. This makes a sharp small image of the sun on the tablecloth. The image is sharp because we adjusted the distance of the magnifying glass so that the (almost) parallelly incoming light from the sun is correctly focused on the cloth. If we replace the sun with a flashlight 50 cm above the magnifying glass the image of the flashlight will be blurred. The reason is that the light from the flashlight will hit the edge of the magnifying glass with a different angle than it hits the centre, while the sun hit's both places with the same angle. The light hitting the magnifying glass near the edge will not be reflected to the same point as the light going through the centre, but by moving the magnifying glass further away from the cloth this will be corrected, and the flashlight will be sharp. This is how one can adjust the focusing distance

The depth of field is the distance from the focusing distance point that still is considered acceptably sharp. In a simple camera with only one lens, the depth of this field depends on the size of the lens. With a larger lens the depth of field will be short, and with a tiny, tiny lens objects at any distance will be sharp.


*Terms*
*Focal length*
Focal length is the distance from the optical centre in the lens to the image sensor in the camera. It's the focal lens that determines the angle of the picture. With simple lenses consisting of one symmetric glass lens, the optical centre is in the centre of the glass. With more complex lenses (every DSLR camera lens) that actually are assemblies of a many simple lenses, the optical centre is more complex to determine and depends on the type of the lens (luckily it's written on all lenses). With zoom lenses the optical centre moves when the lens is zoomed, its this movement that causes the zoom effect

*Aperture*
This is an iris diaphragm / adjustable hole that covers the lens and gives you the ability to control how much light you will get into your camera, this is one way of controlling the exposure. Another very important effect from this is that it affects the "depth of field" since a smaller aperture hides part
of the lens mechanism making the lens act smaller, and as explained that will give a deeper depth of field.

*Shutter speed*
Since the exposure depends on both light intencity and the exposure time it's nice to be able to control it. Except of controlling shutter speed for adjusting exposure, it can be used in combination with aperture for artistic things like photographing running water on long exposure time, or photographing star rings caused by rotation of the earth

*ISO*
Faking additional exposure by amplifying the signal from the image sensor before it's digitalized. By raising this value you will add noise to the pictures, but it's necessary when photographing in poor light conditions where the exposure time otherwise would become too long and the pictures would get motion blur. According to me a noisy picture is better than one with a lot of motion blur, and by using it moderately with a good camera it doesn't cause so much noise. This is a similar but better way of doing something like taking a underexposed (too dark) picture and then raising the light levels with a photo editing program


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 2, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Awww, it's gone already -- I missed it.
> 
> Joe


It was fairly short broken down into segments which were redundant later on, with a menu on the left that jumped to that segment.  OP must be from England too as the work Colour was used.

edit: Hey, look ... ^^^ there it is above.


----------



## goooner (Aug 2, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> It was fairly short broken down into segments which were redundant later on, with a menu on the left that jumped to that segment.  OP must be from England too as the work *Colour *was used.
> 
> edit: Hey, look ... ^^^ there it is above.


Or *not *from the states or Canada


----------



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

goooner said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > It was fairly short broken down into segments which were redundant later on, with a menu on the left that jumped to that segment.  OP must be from England too as the work *Colour *was used.
> ...



I'm actually from Finland, and my english is not the best which you may notice


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 2, 2016)

junni said:


> The site contains at this point the following tutorial:



You're on the right track with a few things here, but you've also got a lot of errors and confusion going on here. I'll make a few notes to help.




junni said:


> *Colour*





junni said:


> The light hitting a spot on the image sensor will have a specific colour temperature if it's a clear colour.



"clear" colour is not appropriate terminology -- we don't use the term "clear" colour and it has no meaning.



junni said:


> If it's a greyish color it is a mix of many colour temperatures. If the image sensor is a colour sensor, it usually contains three different types of receptors that react to different colour temperatures. Usually these colour temperatures are the temperatures of red, green and blue. This gives us the colours on a picture.



You seem to be confusing light wavelengths with color temperature. For example white light is made up of the full spectrum of visible wavelengths but nonetheless will have a measurable (single) color temperature.

*


junni said:



			Focusing distance and depth of field
		
Click to expand...

*


junni said:


> Since the introduction of the lens in cameras we got this effect. It does that the image is sharpest on objects at a given distance from the camera called the "focusing distance". The more the distance of an object deviate from the "focusing distance" the blurrer it becomes.
> 
> I try to explain it.
> Let's take the example of the magnifying glass and the sun. The magnifying glass is positioned above the tablecloth so that the sun is maximally focused. This makes a sharp small image of the sun on the tablecloth. The image is sharp because we adjusted the distance of the magnifying glass so that the (almost) parallelly coming light from the sun is correctly focused on the cloth. If we replace the sun with a flashlight 50 cm above the magnifying glass the image of the flashlight will be blurred. The reason is that the light from the flashlight will hit the edge of the magnifying glass with a different angle than it hits the centre, while the sun hit's both places with the same angle. The light hitting the magnifying glass near the edge will not be reflected to the same point as the light going through the centre, but by moving the magnifying glass further away from the cloth this will be corrected, and the flashlight will be sharp. This is how one can adjust the focusing distance



DOF isn't focusing distance. That whole sun, flashlight magnifying glass bit needs to go -- it's a convoluted mess.



junni said:


> The depth of field is the distance from the focusing distance that still is considered acceptably sharp, this point depends on the size of the lens. With a large lens the depth of field will be short, and with a tiny, tiny lens objects at any distance will be sharp



DOF does involve a range of acceptable sharpness. It does not depend on the size of the lens. Lens focal length is one of many factors involved in determining DOF.



junni said:


> Another very important effect from this is that it affects the "depth of field" since a smaller aperture hides parts of the lens making the lens act smaller, and as explained that will give a longer "depth of field".



Making the lens act smaller is not a correct explanation of how the aperture alters DOF.


*


junni said:



			ISO
		
Click to expand...

*


junni said:


> Controlling the exposure by amplifying the exposed picture electrically.



ISO is commonly talked about using the "amplification" analogy but that's got a lot of problems. ISO does not control exposure and amplification in the sense of increasing something as the term implies is incorrect.

Back to work.

Joe


----------



## table1349 (Aug 2, 2016)

junni said:


> I'm sure the
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


Throwing correct concise information is exactly what newbies need.  Photography is not some simple little process we can throw a few simple analogies at and have it mean anything.  If it was, anybody and everybody would master the craft in a day or two. The art of photography is a complex process based on physics that needs to be understood correctly from the very beginning.  Doing so eliminates many beginner issues.   

Several misleading errors have already been pointed out in the article so I will not address them.  My analogy is simple.....There is no reason to reinvent the wheel, it's already been done and works just fine.


----------



## Designer (Aug 2, 2016)

Maybe I'll write one someday.  Too busy right now.


----------



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> junni said:
> 
> 
> > The site contains at this point the following tutorial:
> ...



Thanks for your reply, Joe. I will study your notes, and many of them are surely correct, and will help me correcting my text. But there may have been som misconceptions. For instance, I never meant that DOF is the same as focusing distance, the way i named my sections may look like that but i will correct it. I agree on your explanations about DOF, and i'm quite sure i understand it correctly. I may need to clarify my examples better, and learn the terminology so that readers get me. 

The intension is to make a short intensive tutorial that explains these things by studying something we all are familiar with (The magnification glass), so i would like to laborate with that. Mayby finding more intuitive examples, and later some pictures (They don't lie)


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 2, 2016)

And this is why I stick to taking photos... lots of pretty photos...


----------



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> And this is why I stick to taking photos... lots of pretty photos...


That's the most important thing, isn't it. The mastering of the technology is not enough. Without artistic skills you will not succeed in photography

With only artistic skills one can take excellent pictures using auto.

I'm myself mostly interested about the technical bit which doesn't make me a very good photographer. But it's too interesting to give it up


----------



## KmH (Aug 2, 2016)

Did you know:
1. The image sensor pixels in a digital camera are not digital. They are analog light sensors that store a small electrical voltage proportional to how much light falls on them during an exposure.

2. The analog light sensors (pixels) cannot 'see' nor record light color temperature. They can only 'see' and record luminosity. In other words they can only 'see' and record shades of gray from white to black.


----------



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

KmH said:


> Did you know:
> 1. The image sensor pixels in a digital camera are not digital. They are analog light sensors that store a small electrical voltage proportional to how much light falls on them during an exposure.


I'm aware ofthis, but in the heat of writing, the terminology easilly becomes inexact. Especially when i try to write in a language understood without any photographic background. Still it's good to not have false information, so i will correct this. Thanks for this note



KmH said:


> Did you know:
> 2. The analog light sensors (pixels) cannot 'see' nor record light color temperature. They can only 'see' and record luminosity. In other words they can only 'see' and record shades of gray from white to black.


The sensor sees only the amount of collected photons, yes. But there are grids of color filters that makes a part of the sensor only be hit by photons from the red spectra, another part by the blue spectra and the rest by the green spectra. When i try to explain this simply i say that some pixels see red, some blue and some green.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 2, 2016)

To be honest if I was starting out, this article would confuse the crap out of me.  LOL


----------



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> To be honest if I was starting out, this article would confuse the crap out of me.  LOL



I need to rewrite the confusing parts, correct the terminology, and add explaining pictures. The initial parts isn't so confusing, or are they?
This way of learning may not be for everyone. It's for people that has the tendency to stieve after seeing the big abstract picture first, and then learning the details afterwards. 

I'm very confident that the model that i'm trying to explain in it self is correct and when i have managed to get it out with good language and correct terminology, it will be simple and fast to learn.

This will not make you good at using your camera since i'm not going into details about camera settings, but it will help you know how it all hangs together


----------



## table1349 (Aug 2, 2016)




----------



## snowbear (Aug 2, 2016)

I think your idea is good, but as it has already been mentioned, some of your material goes beyond the basics.  Fix the technical errors and work on the translation, and post the corrected version.


----------



## junni (Aug 2, 2016)

snowbear said:


> I think your idea is good, but as it has already been mentioned, some of your material goes beyond the basics.  Fix the technical errors and work on the translation, and post the corrected version.


Thanks for your support. I already corrected some things, and updated the old post. I will correct more when i find it incorrect. I will not correct things I'm confident is correct without a discussion that convinces me that i'm wrong.


----------



## junni (Aug 3, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> junni said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure the
> ...



I have familarized myself with the site Digital Photography Tutorials, and I'm really surprised about how well it explains things. Its very pedagogically designed, so yeah for most people this may be a really good way to start. Any suggestions on which direction i should take my site then. I want to have a spare time to project to work with, and i'm interested in photography, so thats the reason i started doing the tutorial.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 3, 2016)

Yes I do have a suggestion, forget the blog for now.  It is obvious from your original attempt that you have a rudimentary understating of photography.  For now I would suggest you learn photography first. Truly learn the photographic art.  Once you have a very good working understanding of photography then you can consider a blog that will actually have value to others.  

Understand that by learn photography, I do not mean that the acquisition of knowledge comes simply from reading.  Pickup a camera and learn everything you possibly can.  Books are great for a start, but books have no experience, just pages with print.  Experience is the best teacher, lots of experience.  Not just the basics.  Photography is about light, not sensors.  Study and learn light.  Learn the physics of photography and be able to put that learning to real use.  Once you have mastered the mechanics you can apply them to the creative side.  

_"With only artistic skills one can take excellent pictures using auto."  _This is a false assumption.  Artistic skills are not automatic.  Auto mode takes a photo based on a predetermined algorithm.  It has no brain, no imagination and has no ability to create.  This is where photographic skills come in to play.  You have to understand what it is the camera sees and then manipulate the camera via the various setting to get it to see what you see and want to record.  

If you feel the need to write a blog at this point, then do what all good teachers do, write about something you know.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 3, 2016)

junni said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > junni said:
> ...



That's one of the best sites on the Internet and I also reference it regularly. It is however terse and does have inaccuracies. There are errors in the DOF explanation and although you were incorrect in what you tried to present about ISO you were at least pointed in the right direction whereas this site has it all wrong.

Joe


----------



## junni (Aug 4, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Yes I do have a suggestion, forget the blog for now.  It is obvious from your original attempt that you have a rudimentary understating of photography.  For now I would suggest you learn photography first. Truly learn the photographic art.  Once you have a very good working understanding of photography then you can consider a blog that will actually have value to others.
> 
> Understand that by learn photography, I do not mean that the acquisition of knowledge comes simply from reading.  Pickup a camera and learn everything you possibly can.  Books are great for a start, but books have no experience, just pages with print.  Experience is the best teacher, lots of experience.  Not just the basics.  Photography is about light, not sensors.  Study and learn light.  Learn the physics of photography and be able to put that learning to real use.  Once you have mastered the mechanics you can apply them to the creative side.
> 
> ...



Altrough i agree i have rudimentary understanding about photography as a whole, i still consider i have a good understanding about the physics relating optics and geometry. I have been studying optics and i have done proved correct calculations on lenses. I'm still confident the model i explained "with wrong photography terms" still is completely correct.


----------



## Designer (Aug 4, 2016)

I think overall that you have lost sight of who your readership is.  Remember; beginners will not understand nor will they care about the finer points of optics.  All they want to do is take photographs.  

Simple it up, use correct terminology, avoid jargon, use analogies only if they help the average beginner to understand the concepts, keep the concepts very simple, forget the optics lesson, and relate each aspect of your tutorial to the camera and the user.


----------



## junni (Aug 4, 2016)

Designer said:


> I think overall that you have lost sight of who your readership is.  Remember; beginners will not understand nor will they care about the finer points of optics.  All they want to do is take photographs.
> 
> Simple it up, use correct terminology, avoid jargon, use analogies only if they help the average beginner to understand the concepts, keep the concepts very simple, forget the optics lesson, and relate each aspect of your tutorial to the camera and the user.



Thanks for those suggestions, i think i should do that, or should i rename the article "the optical concepts of photography explained for nerds"


----------



## Designer (Aug 4, 2016)

junni said:


> ..should i rename the article "the optical concepts of photography explained for nerds"


If your intent is to delve into the optics of photography, then sure, rename it, but I don't think the term "nerds" is going to help with readership numbers, and optics is not for beginners, either.  

Go ahead and write your article, and post it up here.  Don't delete the original, just add it here or begin a new thread.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 4, 2016)

I quit trying to read it because it's unclear as written; it needs to be translated properly for an English speaking audience.

What I did read didn't make sense as an explanation of photography for beginner camera users (or for photographers in general). The description of ISO for example seemed inaccurate and showed a lack of knowing and understanding (which I believe has already been mentioned). It seems like you need to take time to develop your skills and understanding of photography first.

If you're discussing optics it seems like you'd need to do research and test out your theories, etc. Maybe doing your own blog would be an option.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 4, 2016)

Truthfully I was going to start a webpage for beginners.

Essentially teaching how to go from AUTO to a Scene mode, and the differences,
and then to a Program Mode, and differences, all the way to Manual.  With examples and learning along the way.

But I'm too busy, never got past that concept in my head.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 4, 2016)

This is a perfect example of over complicating things without real understanding of the practical applications. LOL


----------



## junni (Aug 4, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Truthfully I was going to start a webpage for beginners.
> 
> Essentially teaching how to go from AUTO to a Scene mode, and the differences,
> and then to a Program Mode, and differences, all the way to Manual.  With examples and learning along the way.
> ...



Start simply by writing down the ideas in a text editor. Then when you have a little time, create a website with some simple template. Then when you have more time, focus on the website look and feel and make that your own.


----------



## junni (Aug 4, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> This is a perfect example of over complicating things without real understanding of the practical applications. LOL


This was not intended as a guide how to use your camera, but as an explanation of why things are like they are. People tend to think differently, but for me the knowing why is very important, becaus i tend to translate that into new knowledge. For me it makes it easier to learn about related things, when i can see the red line, and i think there are other thinking this way


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 4, 2016)

junni said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > This is a perfect example of over complicating things without real understanding of the practical applications. LOL
> ...



I never mentioned anything about using the camera.  These are not camera features.  You tried to explain something that it doesn't look like you have practical knowledge of how they're being applied in the real world to create photographs, and you over complicate it.  Yes, people tend to think differently.  Have you applied these concepts to actually taking photos?  What happen to the shadow areas when you use low ISO?  What happen to the highlights?  Aperture in relation to DOF and motion?  Shutter speed in relation to motion and ambient light?  Shutter speed in relation to flash?  There are a lot more to ISO, shutter speed, and aperture when you actually take a photo.   In the photography world there are so many pretentious people who try to sound like they're more knowledgeable than they are.  To be frank, the title should be changed from "Really good explanation for people starting out with photography" to "My half assed explanation for people starting out with photography".


----------



## junni (Aug 4, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> What happen to the shadow areas when you use low ISO?  What happen to the highlights?


Intuitively i started thinking about higlights being clipped with high iso becouse the charging of the sensors may become near fully charged, i don't know if this is correct? About the shadows than, i have read something on the fly about that and low iso, i don't really recall it, but i think that with low iso shadows will be dark which is more correct than with higher iso where the noise will cause the shadows to be lighter than they actually should be? I don't know if these are correct. I usually try to keep the ISO Low



Vtec44 said:


> Aperture in relation to DOF and motion?


If you keep the focal lengt untouched, then the aperture with bigger number will cause the DOF to be smaller. A smaller aperture number will also allow more light to enter, which will shorten the exposure time and make motion sharper. A small number on the aperture will ofcourse do the opposite.



Vtec44 said:


> Shutter speed in relation to motion and ambient light?


Fast shutterspeed will of course make motion sharp and slow causes motion blur, ambient light will require long shutter speed



Vtec44 said:


> Shutter speed in relation to flash?


The flash in itself is very fast (Usually under 1 ms) which will make pictures sharp with a short shutterspeed, hoever. One can use a long shutter speed in combination with flash if one want to get motion blur on the picture together with a sharp exposure from the flash for artistic reasons



Vtec44 said:


> There are a lot more to ISO, shutter speed, and aperture when you actually take a photo.  In the photography world there are so many pretentious people who try to sound like they're more knowledgeable than they are.


I agree. There are things like positioning of motives on the pictures, making people feel confortable when they pose as motive, being ablo to use natural lighting in creative ways, and so on



Vtec44 said:


> To be frank, the title should be changed from "Really good explanation for people starting out with photography" to "My half assed explanation for people starting out with photography".


Hello Frank!


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 4, 2016)

junni said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > What happen to the shadow areas when you use low ISO?  What happen to the highlights?
> ...



I rest my case, no practical understanding and straight online reading.  Your answers would be different if you actually photograph and apply some of these concepts.  How pretentious are you trying to explain these to new photographers when you don't have a complete understand of the concepts yourself?


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 4, 2016)

junni said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > What happen to the shadow areas when you use low ISO?  What happen to the highlights?
> ...



It is not correct.



junni said:


> About the shadows than, i have read something on the fly about that and low iso, i don't really recall it, but i think that with low iso shadows will be dark which is more correct than with higher iso where the noise will cause the shadows to be lighter than they actually should be? I don't know if these are correct.



Again not correct.



junni said:


> I usually try to keep the ISO Low



When possible that's the best thing to do.

Don't let the naysayers discourage you from pursuing your efforts. I like the way you've responded to criticism in this thread -- you have a positive attitude and clearly want to learn and seem excited to learn.  James is behaving like a photo snob. He may have practical experience using his camera but I'm pretty sure he's not too clear on how it actually works.

Joe


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 4, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> James is behaving like a photo snob. He may have practical experience using his camera but I'm pretty sure he's not too clear on how it actually works.
> 
> Joe



You're absolutely correct.  I'm never 100% clear unless it's somehow directly affect my ability to produce the result I need.  This is why I never write technical articles because it would be pretentious of me explaining something that I have no clear concept of, and tell all the new photographers it's really good.  If that's being a snob then HELL YEAH I AM A SNOB!


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 4, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > James is behaving like a photo snob. He may have practical experience using his camera but I'm pretty sure he's not too clear on how it actually works.
> ...



That's not being a snob. This is being a snob; "This is a perfect example of over complicating things without real understanding of the practical applications. LOL"

And this; "Have you applied these concepts to actually taking photos? What happen to the shadow areas when you use low ISO? What happen to the highlights? Aperture in relation to DOF and motion? Shutter speed in relation to motion and ambient light? Shutter speed in relation to flash? There are a lot more to ISO, shutter speed, and aperture when you actually take a photo."

English is not his native language. It's clear from the thread that he has a good attitude about correcting errors, improving his work and learning. As such discouragement and derision are not appropriate responses.

Joe


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 4, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



That's being sarcastic and they're rhetorical questions.  I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.  

BTW, English isn't my native language either.


----------



## Dave442 (Aug 4, 2016)

I think it is very good you are writing the things down, better than having all those ideas floating around in the head, especially when doing things outside your native language. Keep at it.  

Funny that when I saw the magnifying glass analogy I had recently read a couple articles that used the magnifying glass to help explain circles of confusion. 

You could call it "10 things happening inside your camera and you didn't know it".


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 4, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.



You're not hurting my feelings. I'm not the person you've been Trumping on.

Joe


----------



## tecboy (Aug 4, 2016)

I get headaches while reading your article.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 4, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.
> ...



My sarcasm... again! LOL 

To be honest, I wouldn't have even commented on this thread if it wasn't because 1.  First post spam.  2.  Tried to be slick about it when he got called out.

Now back to other important things... like watching paint dry.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 4, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...




BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRINGGGGGGGGGGGG!

Come on over to my place and watch the corn grow!  Fun! Fun! Fun!


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 4, 2016)

480sparky said:


> BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRINGGGGGGGGGGGG!
> 
> Come on over to my place and watch the corn grow!  Fun! Fun! Fun!



Be there in 5.


----------

