# Is f2.8 larger or is f/22 larger



## APPRo (Jan 14, 2010)

My friend and I are having a friendly debate about aperture.

He insists that f/22 is larger than f/2.8 and I disagree, because it's measured as 1/22 and 1/2.8.

1/2.8 is a larger number than 1/22 isn't it?


----------



## jensgt (Jan 14, 2010)

2.8 is more open.


----------



## Bugs81 (Jan 14, 2010)

APPRo said:


> 1/2.8 is a larger number than 1/22 isn't it?



Correct.


----------



## Craig G (Jan 14, 2010)

2.8 is a larger opening than a 22.
Smaller the opening the larger the aperture


----------



## AUS-10 (Jan 14, 2010)

Heres some picture for the visual learners 

Aperture: What Is It Really? | Dolce Pics - Digital Photography Tips


----------



## TJ K (Jan 14, 2010)

f/22 is a larger number than f/2.8. F/2.8 is a larger hole than f/22.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 14, 2010)

f/2.8 is a larger number 1/2.8 or a little over a half versus f/22 which is considerable LESS than a half...

f/2.8 is larger aperture opening than f/22.

f/22 is a larger (deeper) depth of field than f/2.8.


----------



## sburatorul (Jan 14, 2010)

pugs nailed that one!


----------



## APPRo (Jan 14, 2010)

Pugs said:


> f/2.8 is a larger number 1/2.8 or a little over a half versus f/22 which is considerable LESS than a half...
> 
> f/2.8 is larger aperture opening than f/22.
> 
> f/22 is a larger (deeper) depth of field than f/2.8.



Thanks Pugs,

That settles that for now


----------



## NateWagner (Jan 14, 2010)

Pugs said:


> f/2.8 is a larger number 1/2.8 or a little over a half versus f/22 which is considerable LESS than a half...
> 
> f/2.8 is larger aperture opening than f/22.
> 
> f/22 is a larger (deeper) depth of field than f/2.8.



+1


----------



## Rockford (Jan 14, 2010)

AUS-10 said:


> Heres some picture for the visual learners
> 
> Aperture: What Is It Really? | Dolce Pics - Digital Photography Tips


 

Yepp Ten,

 I discovered a simular article yesterday on this very topic, and once I seen it visually, I got it. Visual really helped.


----------



## Rockford (Jan 14, 2010)

Next question pertaing to open aperture = great landscape and portraits. 
Correct 

How does shutter speed now play into this.

 I beleive a fast shutter speed is for action, and a slow one for  night shots, landscapes and portraits

Correct


----------



## jnm (Jan 14, 2010)

Aperture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## iskoos (Jan 14, 2010)

That's it???

Come on guys!.. we need a few more of you to repeat the same answer.
I am kind of disappointed with your lack of willingness to help the OP...:mrgreen:


----------



## jensgt (Jan 14, 2010)

Rockford said:


> Next question pertaing to open aperture = great landscape and portraits.
> Correct
> 
> How does shutter speed now play into this.
> ...



more open is going to be good for portraits because it blurs the background...for landscapes you want to have a deeper depth of field so you want a smaller (bigger number) aperture.  


as for shutter speed yes for action you need it to be fast.  for night shots its going to need to be slow.  For landscape I guess it depends...you could go either way...and for portraits, unless you are shooting with a tripod and your subject is going to stay very still...I would not go with a slow shutter speed.  

Of course I am pretty much a beginner myself so if anybody wants to correct me go right ahead!


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 14, 2010)

see sig #1


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 15, 2010)

RLJ said:


> I saw a formula on how they got the aperture numbers, but it didn't make sense so I ignored it. Just remember that the bigger the number, the smaller the hole.
> 
> For me, the aperture setting is based upon what my light meter tells me. I dial in the type of film, and read the dial when I point it at the subject. Whatever it says is what I do.
> 
> ...


Interesting theory.

I would however say that, Aperture should receive more consideration then simply the tool to adjust your light meter.
I went over it quite a bit in here.... Even the formula.(if you get bored)
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...9084-exposure-your-photographic-triangle.html


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 15, 2010)

RLJ said:


> I saw a formula on how they got the aperture numbers, but it didn't make sense so I ignored it. Just remember that the bigger the number, the smaller the hole.
> 
> For me, the aperture setting is based upon what my light meter tells me. I dial in the type of film, and read the dial when I point it at the subject. Whatever it says is what I do. Seeing the conditions under which it gives a particular reading helps me get a grasp on what the numbers refer to.
> 
> ...


 What?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 15, 2010)

RLJ said:


> I saw a formula on how they got the aperture numbers, but it didn't make sense so I ignored it. Just remember that the bigger the number, the smaller the hole.
> 
> For me, the aperture setting is based upon what my light meter tells me. I dial in the type of film, and read the dial when I point it at the subject. Whatever it says is what I do. Seeing the conditions under which it gives a particular reading helps me get a grasp on what the numbers refer to.
> 
> ...



Really? WOW! I'm going to have to review my way of doing things. :lmao:

Only on the web will we find the blinds leading the blinds...


When I read pros worried about losing their business to amateurs with DSLRs I have to wonder how pro they are... Is anyone worried about this person?

Sorry buddy. Back to the text book.


----------



## KKJUN (Jan 15, 2010)

Bugs81 said:


> APPRo said:
> 
> 
> > 1/2.8 is a larger number than 1/22 isn't it?
> ...




best answer yet.


----------



## Dao (Jan 15, 2010)

RLJ said:


> I saw a formula on how they got the aperture numbers, but it didn't make sense so I ignored it. Just remember that the bigger the number, the smaller the hole.
> 
> For me, the aperture setting is based upon what my light meter tells me. I dial in the type of film, and read the dial when I point it at the subject. Whatever it says is what I do. Seeing the conditions under which it gives a particular reading helps me get a grasp on what the numbers refer to.
> 
> ...



hum .... I must went to the wrong direction for the past 1 1/2 years of my photography learning since everything I learned were different.


----------



## robdavis305 (Jan 15, 2010)

Smaller the # the larger the opening - Larger the # the smaller the opening is.


----------



## Dao (Jan 15, 2010)

RLJ said:


> Perhaps you didn't notice I wasn't talking about modern things. As I said it sure does work like a charm. But then, maybe I'm just gifted and can produce excellent photographs by doing everything wrong.
> 
> I learned from the manuals that came with the equipment. But what would the people that designed and built the equipment know? Be sure and tell Kodak they don't know what they are doing too.
> 
> I withdraw from this flame forum. Too bad we can't be nice and learn from the ways of others.



RLJ, I apologize if I offend you from the last post.  I really don't mean that.  However, the concept you present seems to be off.   Perhaps we can discuss about that so that we can all improve. Really no need to leave this forum.

I really do not think there are much different in regards of Exposure between film or digital SLR cameras.  ISO/ASA <> Shutter Speed <> Aperture should works the same.


----------



## Olympus E300 (Jan 15, 2010)

RLJ said:


> I wonder why it works so well? Read a profile. I don't use modern cameras, and I don't use textbooks.
> 
> I was afraid this would degenerate into a flame board. It's just that. Congrats, I'm gone from this forum. Maybe I'll find a good one.


 
With all of your 8 helpfull post, I'm sure that you'll be dearly missed...LoL.  Seriously, this is a fantastic board - by far the best that I have joined recently!  The problem with people such as yourself is that you seem to lack the ability to let the doo-doo roll off of you.  Its an I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T  F-O-R-U-M...Your feelings are bound to get hurt once in a while if you can't learn to sift through the bs.  Another thing, perhaps you're a little overly sensative?  ...Personally I feel that if you can't safely wade through the swamp, I don't want you anywhere around my canoe anyway.  Having said that, I bid you farwell.  Though, I would rather see you grow and lose the name calling "flame board" attitude and stick around.  If you can learn to accept a little critisim once in a while, learn not to get your back in a hump so quickly and accept that we ALL make mistakes from time to time then this can be a really great place.  There are some AMAZINGLY talented folks here who are more than happy to help.

My advice...Put on your BS deflectors and stick around.

- Dan


----------



## NateWagner (Jan 15, 2010)

first of all, when you quote you have to leave the front half of the tags in there or it doesn't show as a quote. 

Second... it doesn't matter if you use a modern camera or not. shutter speed is not tied to the film. 

Film speed is roughly equivalent to a digital camera's ISO. Thus, you will have to dial in the ISO/ASA for the camera's light meter to read the scene correctly. However, you can still work with both the aperture and the shutter speed to come up with the proper exposure. 

Secondly, as you said when using flash the shutter speed does not matter a great deal in the lighting. The shutter speed only controls for the amount of ambient light allowed in the image. Thus, you will find that if you vary the shutter speed then more or less ambient light (that light which is not from your flash) will be let in this is particularly useful if the room you are shooting in has nice ambient light and you just want to add a touch of extra lighting. 

wow, "I withdraw from this flame forum"? you have been on here for all of 9 posts.


----------

