Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Recommend me settings for indoor photos please
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bob Blaylock" data-source="post: 583923" data-attributes="member: 16749"><p>Taking good pictures in difficult lighting with a sophisticated DSLR is not something that any of us can tell you how to do, in the form of a simple recommendation. It's a skill that you have to learn. We cannot even tell you a fixed set of settings that will work in the situation that you describe, without being there to measure the light and judge the conditions in person.</p><p></p><p> If you do not yet have the skills to take good pictures in a particular situation, then you really ought not be putting someone else in the position of counting on you to take good pictures in that situation.</p><p></p><p> There is much you need to learn about the various aspects of photography, exposure, focus, depth-of-field, and all that—more than we can teach you in this one thread.</p><p></p><p> It sounds like you're up against a depth-of-field issue. You want everything in a shot to be in focus, but you can only get that part in focus that is at the distance to which the lens is actually focusing. A smaller aperture (indicated by a greater ƒ/ number) gets you greater depth of field, meaning a greater margin by which something can be closer or farther than the point at which the lens if focused, and still be sharp; but it comes at the cost of letting less light in. To compensate, you have to either go to a slower shutter speed (meaning you'll get more motion blur if anything is moving in the shot, or even in the whole picture, if you're not holding the camera steady enough); or increase the sensor ISO (which will give you grainier, “noisier” images).</p><p></p><p> Oddly, even though I've been heavily into photography since my youth, in the 1970s, I only in the last few years ever heard the term <em>“exposure triangle”</em>; though I've long understood the concepts associated with this term. They are the three parameters that must be balanced, in accordance to how much light there is, to get a properly-exposed picture—Shutter speed, aperture size, and sensor ISO setting (or, back in the stone-aged days, film speed).</p><p></p><p> The more light there is, the easier it is to get everything in the shot sharp and clear. As you get to lower light levels, you have to make sacrifices. A larger aperture lets in more light, but you lose depth of field. A slower shutter speed lets in more light, but you're more vulnerable to motion blur. Faster film, or a more sensitive sensor setting, requires less light, but you get a grainier or noisier image.</p><p></p><p> If there is any motion at all in the pictures you intend to take on this occasion, then your apparent desire to have everything in the shot in sharp focus is probably just not realistically achievable. If there's no motion at all, then you can put the camera on a tripod, use the smallest aperture setting available on whatever lens you use, use the lowest ISO setting,and take as long an exposure as it takes, probably on the order of several seconds.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Let me suggest that as a matter of artistic value, it is not always good to have everything sharp. Usually, there's one subject in the picture; you want that subject to be sharp, and you want everything in the background to <strong>not</strong> distract from the subject. Often, it is good for the background, foreground, and anything else that is not the subject, to be out of focus. Start thinking in those terms, and I think you'll be much closer, in this case, to being able to get pictures that you'll be pleased with.</p><p></p><p> This post turned out to be much more than I intended to write,and I've barely scratched the surface.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bob Blaylock, post: 583923, member: 16749"] Taking good pictures in difficult lighting with a sophisticated DSLR is not something that any of us can tell you how to do, in the form of a simple recommendation. It's a skill that you have to learn. We cannot even tell you a fixed set of settings that will work in the situation that you describe, without being there to measure the light and judge the conditions in person. If you do not yet have the skills to take good pictures in a particular situation, then you really ought not be putting someone else in the position of counting on you to take good pictures in that situation. There is much you need to learn about the various aspects of photography, exposure, focus, depth-of-field, and all that—more than we can teach you in this one thread. It sounds like you're up against a depth-of-field issue. You want everything in a shot to be in focus, but you can only get that part in focus that is at the distance to which the lens is actually focusing. A smaller aperture (indicated by a greater ƒ/ number) gets you greater depth of field, meaning a greater margin by which something can be closer or farther than the point at which the lens if focused, and still be sharp; but it comes at the cost of letting less light in. To compensate, you have to either go to a slower shutter speed (meaning you'll get more motion blur if anything is moving in the shot, or even in the whole picture, if you're not holding the camera steady enough); or increase the sensor ISO (which will give you grainier, “noisier” images). Oddly, even though I've been heavily into photography since my youth, in the 1970s, I only in the last few years ever heard the term [I]“exposure triangle”[/I]; though I've long understood the concepts associated with this term. They are the three parameters that must be balanced, in accordance to how much light there is, to get a properly-exposed picture—Shutter speed, aperture size, and sensor ISO setting (or, back in the stone-aged days, film speed). The more light there is, the easier it is to get everything in the shot sharp and clear. As you get to lower light levels, you have to make sacrifices. A larger aperture lets in more light, but you lose depth of field. A slower shutter speed lets in more light, but you're more vulnerable to motion blur. Faster film, or a more sensitive sensor setting, requires less light, but you get a grainier or noisier image. If there is any motion at all in the pictures you intend to take on this occasion, then your apparent desire to have everything in the shot in sharp focus is probably just not realistically achievable. If there's no motion at all, then you can put the camera on a tripod, use the smallest aperture setting available on whatever lens you use, use the lowest ISO setting,and take as long an exposure as it takes, probably on the order of several seconds. Let me suggest that as a matter of artistic value, it is not always good to have everything sharp. Usually, there's one subject in the picture; you want that subject to be sharp, and you want everything in the background to [B]not[/B] distract from the subject. Often, it is good for the background, foreground, and anything else that is not the subject, to be out of focus. Start thinking in those terms, and I think you'll be much closer, in this case, to being able to get pictures that you'll be pleased with. This post turned out to be much more than I intended to write,and I've barely scratched the surface. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Recommend me settings for indoor photos please
Top