Aperture question (camera)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by wheelhot, Dec 21, 2008.

  1. wheelhot macrumors 68020

    Nov 23, 2007
    Well first let me clarify that Aperture here refers to the camera aperture and not Apple Aperture software.

    Okay, I have been wondering, a low aperture number (f/2.8) will be able to get faster shutter speed but then it will make the background become blur right? This is good for portraits and such, but I wonder, in low light, it is also recommended to use a low aperture number (especially those f/2 and smaller) but wont a lower aperture number make the image more blur (means that the only a small part of the subject will be sharp)?

    Cause I remember that it states to get the whole image to be sharp (for landscape esp.) you need to increase the aperture number but you cant do that in low light right?
  2. FX120 macrumors 65816


    May 18, 2007

    The further away your point of focus, the wider your depth of field, even at really wide aperatures.

    So for landscape photography where your subject is up to miles away, your aperature size becomes less important.

    When it becomes a problem is when you're trying to do group photography in dim light, any trying to get all the faces in focus, while also keeping the image well exposed.
  3. wheelhot thread starter macrumors 68020

    Nov 23, 2007
    Crap, I made a double topic post, mod please delete the latest one (stupid Malaysia internet connection), thanks.

    Anyway I understand that increasing my aperture will get sharper images but on the other hand it will reduce my shutter speed.

    Excellent example, so in this case, how do you solve the problem? I understand people will usually advise get a fast lens for low light, but what is the purpose of fast lens if you need to take a group photo and in order to get a decent shutter speed, you are required to keep the aperture number low (get the aperture number higher, and only the part in focus will be sharp whereas the rest of the pics become blurry).
  4. FX120 macrumors 65816


    May 18, 2007
    1. Bump up the sensitivity on the camera (ISO).

    2. Use a flash.

    3. Change the ambient lighting.

    Usually option 1 is the first step, but can only get you so far.

    Option 2 is usually the best if done correctly, such as bouncing the strobe off the celing or a near by wall or using a diffuser. However some times using a flash just isn't an option (concerts and churches spring to mind).

    Option 3 usually isn't an option, but sometimes it is depending on the venue. It never hurts to ask. Also moving the photo op location is also an option.
  5. Doylem macrumors 68040


    Dec 30, 2006
    Wherever I hang my hat...
  6. wheelhot thread starter macrumors 68020

    Nov 23, 2007
    Hmm, thanks for the suggestions.

    Too bad my Canon starter DSLR ISO max out at 1600 :(, but ISO 1600 is very usable though.
  7. Phrasikleia macrumors 601


    Feb 24, 2008
    Over there------->
  8. wheelhot thread starter macrumors 68020

    Nov 23, 2007
    That is an excellent idea! haha, too bad there is still a lot of Canon lenses that is no IS, now I know why some people state as no in-body stabilization as a con.
  9. termina3 macrumors 65816

    Jul 16, 2007
    Increasing the light and using a tripod are probably the two options that will produce a high-quality image. You'll get more for-sure stops from either than image stabilization. Upping the ISO is completely correct, but I can't stand noise so I hate raising the ISO.

    The only addition on the light bit I'd like to make is that the larger the group, the more light you'll need to produce (the specific example I'm thinking of is where you'd have a large group and one flashgun that only lights, say, the center third of the group).

    Apparently (I have neither a link nor first-hand experience) in-lens IS/VR is more effective than in-camera.
  10. wheelhot thread starter macrumors 68020

    Nov 23, 2007
    Yup, me too.

    hmm, so how do I solve this problem then?

Share This Page