{"id":4971,"date":"2010-10-18T06:12:02","date_gmt":"2010-10-18T10:12:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/neilvn.com\/tangents\/?p=4971"},"modified":"2018-02-05T12:51:49","modified_gmt":"2018-02-05T16:51:49","slug":"shutter-speed-aperture-iso","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/neilvn.com\/tangents\/shutter-speed-aperture-iso\/","title":{"rendered":"Shutter speed, Aperture and ISO"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

Camera settings: Shutter speed, Aperture & ISO<\/h1>\n

A presentation that I’ve given on several occasions, is called ‘Just Give Me The F-Stop<\/strong>‘. The presentation is based on the perception that many photographers, in trying to get to grips with flash photography, try to break it down into what they think are the understandable elements \u2013 the numerical values of the settings used. They want numbers, believing that in knowing a certain image was taken at 1\/125th @ f4.5 @ 400 ISO, that they might get closer to understanding lighting. They want the f-stop.<\/p>\n

However, the scenarios we encounter as photographers vary so much, that it becomes meaningless for anyone to \u201cgive you the f-stop\u201d.<\/p>\n

Far more important are the\u00a0methods<\/strong> we use with\u00a0on-location lighting<\/a>, such as how to get to correct exposure, and how to get beautiful light, and how to enhance the existing light with controlled use of flash. It is in this intersection between available light and flash that we get great results in seamlessly blending flash with available light. Of course, this is also true for other additional light, such as video light, or even the use of reflectors.<\/p>\n

Regular readers of the Tangents blog will be familiar with this topic, but I’d like to expand on this idea a little more …<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The photographs of Anelisa was taken as part of a sequence to show the difference, if any, between using an umbrella and a softbox. But the ambient light changed too much between setting up the different light modifiers for us to make any observation from this.<\/p>\n

But I really like these images – her pose; the light on her; the background; the way her hair moved in the slight wind; the composition and framing; the final choice in the balance between available light and flash.<\/p>\n

From the actual photograph, a few elementary things can be deduced already.
\n– This is a wide-ish aperture, but doesn’t look like f1.4 or such a wide aperture. Most likely in the region of f2.8 to f4 somewhere.
\n– The separation between her and the background, as well as the perspective and the compression of the image, indicates this was a longer focal length. Most likely a 70-200 range zoom used at the longer end.
\n– There appears to be a fair amount of available light in the background, so this wasn’t a slow shutter speed, nor a high ISO. Since flash was used, we’re probably in the region of being close to maximum flash sync speed. As for ISO, going by the brightness of the background, we’re most likely in the region of 100-200 ISO.<\/p>\n

This isn’t so much reverse engineering, as a common sense analysis of a simple portrait. These are things nearly any photographer should be able to deduce, especially since the photograph isn’t a complex one.<\/p>\n

That the specifics of the EXIF tell us that our camera settings were 1\/250 @ f3.5 @ 200 ISO isn’t then of particular use. The ball-park ideas about our settings were enough, and could be gleaned from the image at a glance anyway.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What is more important than the EXIF data<\/h2>\n

The more interesting aspects of this, and nearly any other portrait photograph you’d ever see would be:<\/p>\n