# 08 Technical Assignment #5, f/2 and below - Due March 15th.



## Battou (Mar 1, 2008)

Due Date: Saturday March, 15 2008

This is a technical assignment to use low aperture settings (or wide apertures)_ f_/2 and below.

Small _f_/stops like _f_/1.8, _f_/1.4, and so on decrease the Depth of field (DOF) decreasing the clarity and sharpness of the background beyond the subject. Use of such open apertures generally requires sharp on the spot focusing of the subject at hand, as only that within the Depth of field will be in focus creating that known as _*Bokeh*_ (or appearance of out-of-focus areas) surrounding the subject.

As always New shots only please .


----------



## kundalini (Mar 1, 2008)

WTF?

How many assignments are on tap now?  MissMia and Monkeykoder had 'em going already.  Is this something different?  There is already a "Shallow Depth of Field" thread.

BTW, your *Bokah* is actually spelled *Bokeh*.


----------



## Battou (Mar 1, 2008)

kundalini said:


> WTF?
> 
> How many assignments are on tap now?  MissMia and Monkeykoder had 'em going already.  Is this something different?  There is already a "Shallow Depth of Field" thread.
> 
> BTW, your *Bokah* is actually spelled *Bokeh*.



The Bokeh was an error in spell check software, Also there have been three asignments for the past few sessions two for subject and one for technical, also deadlines have been added for several reasons including but not limmited to reuse of subject matter. BB, MissMia, Monkeykoder and I have been chatting about this. 

Pertaining to the Techincal assignments:





			
				monkeykoder said:
			
		

> Truthfully I agree with you at least on the Technical Assignments.  I'm really not knowledgeable enough to really be in charge but no one else seemed willing to step up to the plate.  I'm really only doing technical assignments you'd want to talk to MissMia to get the next subject assignment.   I'd be more than willing to give up the Technical Assignments to you if you were willing to take it up school is taking up all of my brainpower right now.



Review:
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113659

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35835

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=107992


----------



## kundalini (Mar 2, 2008)

Right, so it's late, Iv'e read a couple of the links and if I understand , this is just another adjunct to what been already in place since the first of the year.  Okay, Ill play...........maybe tomorrow, perhaps next week.

Sometimes, I just find life's simple pleasures a bit funny.


----------



## Battou (Mar 2, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Right, so it's late, Iv'e read a couple of the links and if I understand , this is just another adjunct to what been already in place since the first of the year.  Okay, Ill play...........maybe tomorrow, perhaps next week.
> 
> Sometimes, I just find life's simple pleasures a bit funny.



Yup, that is the case.


----------



## Jimmy1234 (Mar 2, 2008)

On a Nikon D40x how do I set it below f/2?


----------



## Battou (Mar 2, 2008)

Jimmy1234 said:


> On a Nikon D40x how do I set it below f/2?



With the aperture ring on the lens.


----------



## Jimmy1234 (Mar 2, 2008)

Battou said:


> With the aperture ring on the lens.


 
ok, forgive my ignorance.. but how do you do that?,  I looked on my lens and couldnt find anything to adjust.

Maybe my lenses dont do that?


----------



## domromer (Mar 2, 2008)




----------



## kundalini (Mar 2, 2008)

Jimmy1234 said:


> ok, forgive my ignorance.. but how do you do that?, I looked on my lens and couldnt find anything to adjust.
> 
> Maybe my lenses dont do that?


 

Jimmy, it is a lens thing.  Going on the info in you sig, your lenses aren't capable.  Thus the paradox of this assignment.  It should be open to all, regardless of their equipment.  Sorry dude.


----------



## petey (Mar 2, 2008)




----------



## Jimmy1234 (Mar 2, 2008)

Yeah,  I just figured out how to adjust it on the camera, however my camera wont go below f4.5. oh well I dont get to play this time, I will just read and take notes.

Thanks Kundalini!


----------



## domromer (Mar 2, 2008)

Here's another.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 2, 2008)

Jimmy1234 said:


> Yeah, I just figured out how to adjust it on the camera, however my camera wont go below f4.5. oh well I dont get to play this time, I will just read and take notes.
> 
> Thanks Kundalini!


I feel for you dude.  I feel the need to miss this assignment on those grounds alone.  Have a look, there is a "Signs" assignment going on at the moment.  Feel free to participate.


----------



## Battou (Mar 2, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Jimmy, it is a lens thing.  Going on the info in you sig, your lenses aren't capable.  Thus the paradox of this assignment.  It should be open to all, regardless of their equipment.  Sorry dude.



Sadly some will be unable to add to the imagery due to lack of equipment, but on the reverse end users like jimmy will be able to see that not all lenses are the same and there are some shortcummings for particular intentions and goals. I understood this from the start, this is part of why there is no particular subject material any more.

I my self only have two lenses that are able to do this and one of them is damaged and both of them are kit lenses that came with the bodies from manufacturer. 



			
				Jimmy1234 said:
			
		

> ok, forgive my ignorance.. but how do you do that?,  I looked on my lens and couldnt find anything to adjust.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah,  I just figured out how to adjust it on the camera, however my camera wont go below f4.5. oh well I dont get to play this time, I will just read and take notes.
> 
> Thanks Kundalini!



Don't worry about it, I don't expect any one to know everything. One of the streingths of this section to learn from others by example, Hopfully this will help you deside if you want to invest in a lens capable or not in the future.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 2, 2008)

Battou said:


> Sadly some will be unable to add to the imagery due to lack of equipment, but on the reverse end users like jimmy will be able to see that not all lenses are the same and there are some shortcummings for particular intentions and goals. I understood this from the start, this is part of why there is no particular subject material any more.


Therein lies the fallacy of this entire assignment.  The purpose, I assumed, for these assignments was to enable the entire TPF community an opportunity to contribute and participate.  The standard here is you can submit a post IF you have the right equipment.  To me, that is bogus.



Battou said:


> I my self only have two lenses that are able to do this and one of them is damaged and both of them are kit lenses that came with the bodies from manufacturer.


Irrelavant



Battou said:


> Don't worry about it, I don't expect any one to know everything. One of the streingths of this section to learn from others by example, Hopfully this will help you deside if you want to invest in a lens capable or not in the future.


Your so-called strength, is in fact a weakness.  That choice, if applicable, can be decided throughout the entire TPF format.  I do not believe that someone's current shortcomings ( sorry folks, no disrespect) with respect to their current equipment has any bearing to an open forum assignment.  My opinion, and this is only mine, is that a community assignment should to be open to ALL. Period.

Sorry Battou, but your argument has no merit for me.


----------



## Jimmy1234 (Mar 2, 2008)

I am new here, and my oppinion i,m sure doesnt have much wieght. However I agree with you Kundalini.  I came here to learn, and in my opinion, most people that are trying to learn photography, or people that are noob's wont have a lens's to play this assignment either.  I am here to see if I want to make this a carear after I retire. and I want to learn if I have the creative eye, or the mind to create art.  If, and when I decide that, then I will buy the apropriate lenses. until then I will use the equipment I have.  Which in my opinion is some very good stuff!


----------



## Battou (Mar 3, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Therein lies the fallacy of this entire assignment.  The purpose, I assumed, for these assignments was to enable the entire TPF community an opportunity to contribute and participate.  The standard here is you can submit a post IF you have the right equipment.  To me, that is bogus.
> 
> 
> Irrelavant
> ...



This arguement as you so plainly put it is over. Your point is based soly on oppinion, and as far as I am conserned your oppinion is moot as you seem to have failed to realize the previous four tech challenges hindered their partissipants simply by their location in the world. Half the world let alone TPF users could comply with the assingments simply due to winter weather and a few others. Some of the more knowledgable could side step this but that leaves the rest to sit there waiting for the next.

One can not just up and move to the far end of the world to take a picture, Yes some could get around it but not all. How ever anyone can accuire necessary equipment by what ever means be it buy or borrow. Equipment is a far more of a choice than the conditions outside or location. Yes I can understand that not everyone can afford a thousand dollar lens, but seriously it's a lens, there are dozens of ways to shoot a lens without owning it.

If this assignment holds no merit for for you then discontinue posting as this meaningless squabble is draining any thoughts to partissipation.

My next post in this thread will have only a picture in it, I'm threw arguing over this.


----------



## jstuedle (Mar 3, 2008)

Battou said:


> Due Date: Saturday March, 15 2008
> 
> This is a technical assignment to use low aperture settings (or wide apertures)_ f_/2 and below.
> 
> ...



I have always considered small apertures as the physically small apertures. Like f/22 is smaller than f/16. Physically big apertures are like F/2 and /1.2. Just an observation. Maybe the terms have changed in recent years.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 3, 2008)

Battou said:


> This arguement as you so plainly put it is over. Your point is based soly on oppinion, and as far as I am conserned your oppinion is moot as you seem to have failed to realize the previous four tech challenges hindered their partissipants simply by their location in the world. Half the world let alone TPF users could comply with the assingments simply due to winter weather and a few others. Some of the more knowledgable could side step this but that leaves the rest to sit there waiting for the next.
> 
> One can not just up and move to the far end of the world to take a picture, Yes some could get around it but not all. How ever anyone can accuire necessary equipment by what ever means be it buy or borrow. Equipment is a far more of a choice than the conditions outside or location. Yes I can understand that not everyone can afford a thousand dollar lens, but seriously it's a lens, there are dozens of ways to shoot a lens without owning it.
> 
> ...


 
I was actually striving for meaningful dialogue and debate as I was confused with the parameters of your assignment.  The term "argument" is not only classically defined as a disagreement, but often meant to be a process of reasoning.  And yes, I was a little put off by the innocous exclusions of the whole.  However as you have decidedly taken a foothold with your position, I can only offer these three links for your benefit.

http://www.spellcheck.net/
http://dictionary.reference.com/
http://thesaurus.reference.com/

I would suggest to use them wisely and often.

I expect your future photos within this thread to be inspiring to us all.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 3, 2008)

Jimmy1234 said:


> ok, forgive my ignorance.. but how do you do that?


 
On your lenses... you cannot.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 3, 2008)

jstuedle said:


> I have always considered small apertures as the physically small apertures. Like f/22 is smaller than f/16. Physically big apertures are like F/2 and /1.2. Just an observation. Maybe the terms have changed in recent years.


 
I believe you are right.  I like to make comments like "numerically smaller" or if I make no references, the larger the opening of the aperture, the smaller the F-stop number used.  Keeps things clear fo those who are not sure about how things work (not that I am implying that anyone here doesn't know how things work, just that we can confuse some of the less experienced in our group if we are not precise and consistant in our jargon).


----------



## AlexParlett (Mar 3, 2008)

Lens Babie abuse to be honest.

But shrugs, i never use my 1.4s, prefer my 2.8 zooms so much more. The assignment doesnt offer anything really, slapping on a large aperture lens and taking a photo isnt really anything technical, this would be more based in composition and thats already taken by signs.


----------



## Dioboleque (Mar 4, 2008)

This could be totally dumb, but what about combining the technical assignment with the subject assignment by perhaps coming up with a standard list of technical subjects which would be included in the post for the subject assignment and people would be encouraged to apply different technical aspects to the same subject and to specify which techinal aspect was used in their post?


----------



## lockwood81 (Mar 5, 2008)

Used f2 so that the front bars would be so blurred you couldn't see them.


----------



## BrandonS (Mar 6, 2008)

^I really like that as an example.  I never thought of doing something like that.


----------



## B192734 (Mar 7, 2008)

I couldn't quite get it below F2.7, but it has the same concept behind it.


----------



## domromer (Mar 7, 2008)

shot on Ilford Delta 100, scanned on a Nikon super coolscan 9000.


----------



## wings777 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think this was f/1.4, taken on the bus.


----------



## matt-l (Mar 9, 2008)

My First assignment to!


----------



## Kidmarc (Mar 9, 2008)

One of my first photos with my new XTI.


----------



## Battou (Mar 9, 2008)

lockwood81 said:


> Used f2 so that the front bars would be so blurred you couldn't see them.




Nicely done, I tried the same concept a couple days prior to your posting that, however I failed miserably, the chainlink fence I tried to focus out was to much material and I ended up with a ghost....

A couple of droplets at _f_/1.4 and _f_/2


----------



## 250Gimp (Mar 12, 2008)

Here is my go at this assignment!!

Marbles at f1.8






Here is another one from the same batch.  f2.8, but it gives a similar effect because of the close up.






Enjoy!


----------



## Tyler2026 (Mar 13, 2008)

I was really wondering how things would come out on this assignment. It seems like everyone did a great job.


----------



## motherlee (Mar 13, 2008)

Here is my first attempt at an assignment.






taken at f/2


----------



## Foxtrot (Mar 13, 2008)




----------



## motherlee (Mar 13, 2008)

Here is one more shot.  This time my son's toys...






Thanks!


----------



## Foxtrot (Mar 13, 2008)

My vote is for dead dog #1


----------



## asherexplore (Mar 13, 2008)

I think i can pp this better. but i felt like throwing it out here quickly.

Shot at 1.4 with my new 50 while testing it out.

Steps


----------



## asherexplore (Mar 13, 2008)

oh and here is another test shot that is fun.

(im going to explaine the content as its kindof obscure)
Its a young tree held tight by two poles, to keep it from blowing over or whatever.

Also shot at 1.4 with the new 50

Treetied


----------

