Comments on: sparklers .. http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/09/30/sparklers/ photography by Neil van Niekerk Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:23:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Neil http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/09/30/sparklers/#comment-1916 Neil Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:18:11 +0000 http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=198#comment-1916 <blockquote>Jerry .. I didn't know the exact exposure beforehand because I didn't know how bright it would be, but settings such as <strong>1600 ISO</strong> at a <strong>wide aperture </strong>at a <strong>decent shutter speed</strong> are things I can preset ... and then I adjusted them very quickly to correct exposure when the sparklers were actually lit. It's a matter of pre-judging what might be needed, and then being familiar enough with the controls to adjust them instantly as needed. Neil vN</blockquote>

Jerry ..

I didn’t know the exact exposure beforehand because I didn’t know how bright it would be, but settings such as 1600 ISO at a wide aperture at a decent shutter speed are things I can preset … and then I adjusted them very quickly to correct exposure when the sparklers were actually lit.

It’s a matter of pre-judging what might be needed, and then being familiar enough with the controls to adjust them instantly as needed.

Neil vN

]]> By: Jerry http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/09/30/sparklers/#comment-1904 Jerry Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:32:45 +0000 http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=198#comment-1904 Thanks for the info on the shot. But how did you calculate your exposure before the shot? I see what you used, but how did you know what to use for the exposure? Thanks for the info on the shot. But how did you calculate your exposure before the shot? I see what you used, but how did you know what to use for the exposure?

]]> By: Neil http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/09/30/sparklers/#comment-1905 Neil Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:27:53 +0000 http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=198#comment-1905 <blockquote>Hi there everyone ... Interesting where this conversation has gone wrt depth-of-field. Depth-of-field isn't something I specifically consider except for portraits, and especially family portraits. In this image I was more concerned with getting the bride sharp. The others in the bridal party could be out of focus to some extent, as long as the bride is sharply in focus. And there is also minimal camera shake. In judging the overall sharpness of this image, do keep in mind that it has been reduced considerably in size for display on the website, and that will make the image appear more in focus than if you viewed it at a larger size. Neil vN</blockquote>

Hi there everyone …

Interesting where this conversation has gone wrt depth-of-field. Depth-of-field isn’t something I specifically consider except for portraits, and especially family portraits.

In this image I was more concerned with getting the bride sharp. The others in the bridal party could be out of focus to some extent, as long as the bride is sharply in focus. And there is also minimal camera shake.

In judging the overall sharpness of this image, do keep in mind that it has been reduced considerably in size for display on the website, and that will make the image appear more in focus than if you viewed it at a larger size.

Neil vN

]]> By: Stephen Elliott http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/09/30/sparklers/#comment-1906 Stephen Elliott Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:34:08 +0000 http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=198#comment-1906 I tend to use flash when groups are involved as the DOF is so narrow. But good use of the wide angle prime here. According to dofmaster.com the 1D gives 4 foot of DOF at 9.44 feet from the subject. How far were you exactly from the group? And you focused on the girl at the left of the photograph? I tend to use flash when groups are involved as the DOF is so narrow. But good use of the wide angle prime here. According to dofmaster.com the 1D gives 4 foot of DOF at 9.44 feet from the subject. How far were you exactly from the group? And you focused on the girl at the left of the photograph?

]]> By: Scott Roeben http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/09/30/sparklers/#comment-1907 Scott Roeben Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:12:42 +0000 http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=198#comment-1907 Phew. Dude, I owe you bigtime. I was having buyer's remorse about getting the Canon 24mm f/1.4, and boom, I hit the blog and you used it in a wonderful shot. For a non-professional, that kind of investment can give one a smallish heart attack, especially when other lenses sit unused in one's photo bag. But maybe my months of agonizing will be validated when I get this lens on the camera. I've long been frustrated by the results with flash (though your tutorials have helped), but with a faster lens, maybe some of those frustrations will be rendered moot. Thanks for the great timing, and for the ongoing insights into this often confounding realm. Phew. Dude, I owe you bigtime. I was having buyer’s remorse about getting the Canon 24mm f/1.4, and boom, I hit the blog and you used it in a wonderful shot. For a non-professional, that kind of investment can give one a smallish heart attack, especially when other lenses sit unused in one’s photo bag. But maybe my months of agonizing will be validated when I get this lens on the camera. I’ve long been frustrated by the results with flash (though your tutorials have helped), but with a faster lens, maybe some of those frustrations will be rendered moot. Thanks for the great timing, and for the ongoing insights into this often confounding realm.

]]> By: Raymond http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/09/30/sparklers/#comment-1910 Raymond Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:34:13 +0000 http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=198#comment-1910 I never knew that -- my fastest lens is my Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and while it is great it really is shallow when fully open. I really have to find something wider that is fast. I tried a Sigma 30mm 1.4 but it just didn't work for me, focus and sharpness never satisfactory. I never knew that — my fastest lens is my Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and while it is great it really is shallow when fully open. I really have to find something wider that is fast. I tried a Sigma 30mm 1.4 but it just didn’t work for me, focus and sharpness never satisfactory.

]]> By: geoff http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/09/30/sparklers/#comment-1911 geoff Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:01:58 +0000 http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=198#comment-1911 wat would the DOF be wth the 50mm 1.8 lens (canon) on a 1.6 crop sensor body? Hmm, Neil, your idea of affordable primes (the 1.4 canon) and mine are somewhat different :) wat would the DOF be wth the 50mm 1.8 lens (canon) on a 1.6 crop sensor body?

Hmm, Neil, your idea of affordable primes (the 1.4 canon) and mine are somewhat different :)

]]> By: Stephen http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/09/30/sparklers/#comment-1914 Stephen Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:04:56 +0000 http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=198#comment-1914 I always understood the rule that wider apertures means shallower depth of fields. I didn't realize that the depth of field could actually vary by the lens' focal length and distance to the subject. I just found that link to the DOF calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/). I always understood the rule that wider apertures means shallower depth of fields. I didn’t realize that the depth of field could actually vary by the lens’ focal length and distance to the subject. I just found that link to the DOF calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/).

]]> By: Alireza http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/09/30/sparklers/#comment-1913 Alireza Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:55:40 +0000 http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=198#comment-1913 I always enjoy reading your posts! Thanks for sharing this tip with us. I always enjoy reading your posts! Thanks for sharing this tip with us.

]]> By: deciacco http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/09/30/sparklers/#comment-1912 deciacco Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:53:15 +0000 http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=198#comment-1912 This is a great image! I was at a wedding recently, and those things really don't last very long. Did you know they were going to use the sparklers before you changed lenses or was it on the spot...(Assistant...get my prime lens (body with prime lens), now!) This is a great image! I was at a wedding recently, and those things really don’t last very long. Did you know they were going to use the sparklers before you changed lenses or was it on the spot…(Assistant…get my prime lens (body with prime lens), now!)

]]>