Widening the aperture or making the aperture larger would mean stepping the f.stop down which would shorten the depth of field or the amount of the picture which is in focus from forground to background.
Paul gets my point. Then again, Paul, you say "stepping the f.stop down which would shorten the depth of field" . Stepping down to me means making the aperture smaller - the opposite to what I think you mean and what I definitely mean.
"I know you believe you understand what you think it was that I wrote, but I am not sure you realize that what you read is not what I meant."
What do you call "widening the aperture" then, Monk.
When snappers say 'stopping down' they mean making the aperture smaller, which increases the number, eg, f11 stopped down to f16.
The higher the number, the greater the depth of field, and the lower the focal length, the greater the depth of field. The latter so much so that sports smudgers using massive f2.8 300mm 'long toms' rarely, if ever stop these lenses down at all - it gains only a few inches more depth of field on a long lens.
The point I was trying to make to Christian in my earlier post is that it's vitally important to know your f stops off by heart, because each of the standard stops cuts precisely half the light as you stop down. Thus to maintain correct exposure you must double the exposure time, eg, 1/250 to 1/125th.
Of course, that isn't true once you hit reciprocity failure...
When I did photography on slide film long exposures caused reciprocity failure ie you had to compensate on the exposure by increasing it. With digital it seems the problem is more likely to be 'noise'. I've often done 20 second and more exposures with slide film but the results can be worth it. That's with the lens stopped down to F22 (maximum) and a polariser.
The other day, I picked up my old F90, stuck a lens on it, and looked out on the world - it was a much, much brighter place. I realised just how dim and useless my D200 viewfinder is. And then I pressed the shutter, which fired with a deeply-satisfying, smooth, complex mechanical sound. Music.
We;ve taken twio steps forward with digital and one step backwards. Yep, it's convenient in some ways, but in others it's letting us down, as any of us old film fans can tell you. I met an old Brummie press smudger at a launch a couple of years ago. I was early, so I sat down and talked with him.
"I don't enjoy this job like I used to,@ he said. "In the old days, I'd shoot the City game then head off to the 1-hour lab, while my film was in, I'd cross the road and meet my mates in the pub for a pint and find out how Villa had done. Two hours later, I'd run the prints to the paper.
"Now, we all go to the press room in silence to upload our pictures by modem, then I go home."
Last year's photo competition at the Peterborough Photographic Society was won, as it usually is, by my mate Tony Lovell. This year as last and, I think, the year before, the winning prints were shot on film. There's life in Kodachrome yet, I tell you...
widening the appature was what you said jeff, I thought you mean`t making it bigger, IE increasing the light intake from say F8 to F2.0, surely this will decrease the depth of field because you are using more of the lense? basically if you close the lense down you are closing the apearture from say F2 to F16, this increases ythe depth of field.
Yes, we are in agreement Monk, Mark, Mark and Paul.
Except. Paul uses the term "stepping down", but I've alwasy known it as "Stopping down", ie. going down another F stop from say F8 to F11.
It is one of the fundamental rules of photography though to know what the effect of F stops are the depth of field and value of light. How the speeds of the shutter change a photograph and even using flash how if it is the sole light source can STOP any action dead, ie. 1/10,000th of a second maybe. How film speeds can also affect this and as Paul says, how you can "push" film in the developing stage.
PS, anyone want to buy an old b/w enlarger with Minolta Rokkor lens?
even after all these years I`m still interested in photography, who though could have predicted the way it would have gone with digital. I still have a brand new F5, and about 4 other Nikon FSLRs, the F5 is a lovely camera which i`ll probably never use again, amazingly Nikon brought out an F6 for the anoracks. Wish i had the money for a D3, I really cant imagine what the future holds, but things have certainly got easier, quality professional cameras however appear to have gone relatively more expensive?
I'm keeping both my Minoltas and would rather use them as door stops before getting rid. I've also got a Nikon 70W film compact to, brilliant camera with a 28 - 70 mm lens. I still use it occasionally.
Have a Ricoh ME as well which was one of the muts nuts of cameras in its day. A compact that could take multiple exposures?
I also have a Minolta disc camera with wavy blue stripes on it that we got for my mum. It must be 25 years old now, but the battery is still active! Sh!t format though.
Behave yerself, Trev. I think we've started rambling, haven almost completely forgotten how the thread started.
Ricoh R1, Paul? I had one until some little toerag entered my house through the front door in broad daylight and stol;e that and an iPod off the stairs. They weren't even in view - he had the brass neck to just walk in, while my missus was at home, and rob whatever he could see.
Cracking little camera, still works in perfect condition. It was our Daniels really, but I would often take it out fishing as it was much lighter than the Minolta 303 with accompanying lens. I have a picture of me somewhere taken on it by Daniel, I'd caught a fish and he thought it would be a good idea to capture the moment.
Funnily enough, I looked just as miserable on it then as I do now. Strange how some things never change.
I think we are all now singing off the same hymn sheet v.v F stops etc., agreed?