Chapt 2 (2nd half) pages 52 - 69 (of UNDERSTAND EXPOSURE)

[mom to 4]

Ok!!!! this thread should have been posted on Monday and today is Wednesday. Sorry!!! I have been have sporadic (sp?) internet problems, but I think they self corrected! So, here we go with the 2nd half of chapter 2, BUT...... since I am posting this late, I am making an EXECUTIVE DECISION :D, and say we will have a week and a half to complete Chapter 2. How does that sound??? So, we have through November 4th to finish Chapter 2.

Edit: Oct. 25, 2007

I am adding the links for the prior chapters here. Someone suggested that might be a good idea for someone new to the book club who wants to start from the beginning.

Here is the link for chapter 1

http://www.photoshopelementsuser.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29371

Here is the link for Chapter 2 (first half)

http://www.photoshopelementsuser.com...ad.php?t=30025

[kimmer]

Colleen,

What is this thread? I clicked on the link and found your photographs, but nothing about a "exposure"

Have I looked at a subscriber's post that I shouldn't be in?

Also, we are near neighbor's. I am in Delaware County, have family in Lanc and York.

Kimmer

[Chuck S.]

Kimmer, it's about the book "Understanding Exposure", by Bryan Peterson - homework for those of us who've acquired that volume and are trying to improve our photographic knowledge and skills......:)

[mom to 4]

Thanks Chuck!!!!

Kimmer, I just sent you a PM.... just a little about me:o

Oh, and Kimmer if you have the book, feel free to join, some of us, (who won't be named....:o;).... are a little behind!!!!!

[JulieM]

Oh, and Kimmer if you have the book, feel free to join, some of us, (who won't be named....:o;).... are a little behind!!!!!

and some of us are a lot behind!!!!!! :o:o (Maybe next week I can get started...)

[Chuck S.]

Old Pennsylvania Dutch saying:

"The hurrieder I go, the behinder I get...."

:)

[mom to 4]

Well, Chuck, I am old now (thankfully:o), and I live in PA Dutch land!!! Yep, that phrase fits me perfectly!!!!!! ;):D

[kimmer]

Thanks everyone for the reply, I have a ton of Photography books, but they all date back to the "good ole days" of 35mm!

I know, exposure is exposure, but that is one that I do not have.

I might just "listen" in, tho, thanks for the invite.

Kimmer

[nkeevers]

I'm wondering how in the heck I'll remember all this when I go out to take pictures. I caught on to the "correct exposure" chapter but this DOF is taking me back a bit. There are so many variables it seems. Sure large f-stops give a greater amount of sharpness and small ones less in the background; but then we have to worry about distance-settings, etc. It'll take me forever to set up a shot trying to remember, f-stops, shutter speeds, ISO, etc. Wow!

[mom to 4]

Norma:

At least you don't have a brain injury!!!!! :eek::D;)

[lowbone]

Peterson recently released a new version of this book. I think the chapters are essentially the samebut I'm not sure. If you could give the name of the chapter etc I think those of us with the older version could participate without blowing money on a new book that says essentially the same thing. Your links don't work for me. Is it my computer?

[mom to 4]

My book is copywrite 2004. Great sunset picture of a house on the front with lights on in the house.....

chapters:

1. Defining Exposure
2. aperture
3. Shutter speed
4. Light
5. Special techniques and filters
6. film vs. digital

The book has a total of 160 pages.

Helpful????

[Chuck S.]

My book is copywrite 2004. Great sunset picture of a house on the front with lights on in the house.....

chapters:

1. Defining Exposure
2. aperture
3. Shutter speed
4. Light
5. Special techniques and filters
6. film vs. digital

The book has a total of 160 pages.

Helpful????

It's also subtitled "REVISED EDITION".

[mom to 4]

I stand corrected!!! Yep, revised edition! I think I completely forgot to put the title too!!! (BI:D!!!)

[nkeevers]

Okay, thought I would go out on my steps and try to figure this DOF thing out. I took 2 of the following focusing on one leaf stem.

This one is at f/6.3
http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1jlhJU0qmNUWf7vh0BrKsYk3sH51_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1jlhJU0qmNUWf7vh0BrKsYk3sH51)

This one at f/16.0

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/17TzXJD1lD5XmxrZA7kbzpqVvx1jbQ_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=17TzXJD1lD5XmxrZA7kbzpqVvx1jbQ)

I don't see the foreground blurred so I guess I was maybe too close to the subject. I wanted to see how my DOF button worked and it takes a little getting used to since it's so dark.

[Chuck S.]

Norma, I've had depth of field preview buttons on my 35 mm cameras dating back 30 years. Couldn't get them to work then, still can't get them to work....:o

So don't feel bad!!:)

[nkeevers]

Chuck, I can breathe a sign of relief now! Now I know it's not only me!:eek::D Guess I should just do my own thing and not use it...I just don't see much of a difference when I look thru it.

[bayhli]

Lots of cloud-cover yesterday so I slipped out into the yard for a macro image. Inspired by Bryan I used a garden rock my grandkids painted and one remaining tiny sunflower that bloomed too late in the fall. Concentrated on Aperture, checking out the DOF button along the way - I could see it better with an extreme difference in sharpness (higher AV number) but not enough to rely on yet. Afterwards I wished I'd gotten a little more creative with my materials but I got cold!

Both with Macro 100mm lens + tripod - Manual Mode

f/2.8, 1/100 sec, ISO 100
Usually I can totally blur the background completely out but the rock in this case must be too close to the flower.
http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1DAgYZvWsakxWxAAY4VpYRjW7447BN_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1DAgYZvWsakxWxAAY4VpYRjW7447BN)


f/22, 1/1/2 sec, ISO 400
http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1HmA3prSJfEp10BVHcaaZkDFZ00Lzs0_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1HmA3prSJfEp10BVHcaaZkDFZ00Lzs0)

The sun is shining today - bonus for this time of year. So I'm packing up and going out with my camera for the day. Going to try presetting the DOF for an actual picture and use the DOF Master to get the distance. Should be interesting...

Edit: I'm getting sold on Manual Mode. Not sure if it's all in my head but I seem to be getting better exposure in Manual than with my usual AV Mode. I feel like it gives me a better starting point using the guide in the viewer? It should be the same, AV or Manual? What are others finding?

[NickLewis]

Edit: I'm getting sold on Manual Mode. Not sure if it's all in my head but I seem to be getting better exposure in Manual than with my usual AV Mode. I feel like it gives me a better starting point using the guide in the viewer? It should be the same, AV or Manual? What are others finding?Check you don't have any Exposure Compensation set. That is active in the Av, Tv, etc modes, but has no effect on the indicated manual metering. Other than that, you should be getting the same results.

Nick

[Elemobe]

Check you don't have any Exposure Compensation set. That is active in the Av, Tv, etc modes, but has no effect on the indicated manual metering. Other than that, you should be getting the same results.

Nick

Hmmm, so why do we both with manual at all:confused:

[Elemobe]

Normal, Pat, thanks for posting your pictures, both look good to me!

Is the foreground supposed to be blurred? that was "one" of the bits I was confused about. The pictures posted here is what I thought should be the outcome. There was a photo in the book showing a blurred foregroundm sharp middle and blurred background - but is that incorrect? Sorry no page numbers or other info, just got back from work and stuck in traffic for a long (very long) time, so too lazy (tired) to go and get book.

[bayhli]

Hi Linda.... well, since the whole idea of this book is about "creative exposure" - the foreground should be blurred if YOU WANT IT to be blurred!:D

I think I know the picture you are referring to (pg 38?) . I understood that he is showing you what the scene might look like thru the viewfinder, and then on pg 39 what actually records when you hit the shutter button. Has to do with presetting the DOF. With Story-Telling Apertures, you want the whole picture sharp.

Blurred foregrounds come in with Singular Theme Apertures, pg 48.

In my case I dabbled with Macro and was intentionally blurring the background and then in the other was aiming for it to be totally sharp.

I'm just back from my afternoon wandering around in the bush - it clouded over and I'm waiting to see what the sunset is going to look like; my husband has offered to come back in there with me to get some evening pics by the little lake I found - too dark in there for me alone at night! Not looking good however, the clouds are getting thicker instead of thinner.

I don't think my afternoon was all that successful but we'll see when I download the results.

As for Manual Mode, Lee answered that question in one of the earlier chapter threads. Manual comes into play when the picture-taking environment isn't straight forward or difficult so that you can initiate your own settings.

Nick: Good thought, but I do watch for compensation. I just think that the Manual Guide they have on the view screen is helping me by giving me a better starting point (centering the marker) from which I can adjust after viewing.

BTW... as you say, there is no exposure compensation in Manual Mode. Without thinking, I've been just adding an additional stop of shutter speed or aperture. But after noticing myself doing it this afternoon, I don't think I should be doing this should I? If I'm in Manual and notice that the histogram is too far to the left for example (too dark) - what do I do to compensate? I'm sure there must be lots in my reference materials, I'll do some further reading. Thank heavens I resorted to bracketing or I'd likely have no pictures for my efforts.

I'm tired now too, Linda..... :D

[Elemobe]

Firstly, apologies Norma for the typo on your name!

Pat, thanks for the clarification re. pages 38 & 39. I had completely misunderstood those 2 photos, which now makes perfect sense.

I will go back and find Nick's bit about when to use Manual. I am actually enjoying using manual now, but probably overuse it - if that's possible.

[Chuck S.]

Firstly, apologies Norma for the typo on your name!

Pat, thanks for the clarification re. pages 38 & 39. I had completely misunderstood those 2 photos, which now makes perfect sense.

I will go back and find Nick's bit about when to use Manual. I am actually enjoying using manual now, but probably overuse it - if that's possible.

If you have time to compose your shot, why not use manual? If you're shooting action in variable lighting conditions, then some type of exposure control will probably give you a higher percentage of successful shots.

[NickLewis]

I shouldn't really have jumped into a thread about a book I don't possess, but I only intended to offer a suggestion as to why Pat seems to be getting different results with Manual as compared to auto modes.

My take on this issue is that the only times you actually need to use Manual is when using a lens that isn't compatible with the camera autoexposure system (in my case an old mirror lens or a telescope), or when you want to use something other than the camera's internal metering (e.g. a handheld exposure meter).

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't use Manual if you're happy doing so, want to explore the camera modes, or want to be able to set aperture and shutter speed independently of the camera exposure control. Personally, I prefer to do that by using Exposure Compensation along with the auto modes, because it means I immediately get shutter and aperture settings that are an broadly acceptable combination. If I want to add a stop or so of over/under exposure, I then dial that in directly, instead of doing mental gymnastics. But that's just a personal choice.

To answer Pat's last question - if you're in Manual and have a histogram that's too far left/too dark, then either choose a slower shutter speed, or a wider aperture. Either one will result in more light hitting the sensor, so the histogram will move to the right. Vice versa if it's too far right.

Nick

[bayhli]

Thanks for adding your comments Nick, I appreciate it. Looks like I'm adjusting properly.

I'll be one happy camper when I'm finally more confident with all the features and more consistent with my results. :)

[genevh]

since the whole idea of this book is about "creative exposure" - the foreground should be blurred if YOU WANT IT to be blurred!

I agree wholeheartedly. The only way your going to get total creative control of your exposures is by shooting in manual mode. This can also save a ton of time in PSE/CS if you can blur those backgrounds/foregrounds in the camera in the time it takes to set up a shot, a few seconds, rather than spending the time it takes selecting, feathering, blurring, etc. on the PC.


Without thinking, I've been just adding an additional stop of shutter speed or aperture. But after noticing myself doing it this afternoon, I don't think I should be doing this should I?

In addition to what Nick said earlier, I just want to add that the exposure meter, whether in the camera or an expensive hand-held model, is just a dumb piece of machinery designed to find that point where the exposure and light combination will produce an 18% gray overall. This is why if you rely on what the meter tells you when exposing a scene with little or no color variation (such as a snow scene) it ends up something other than what you saw when you were standing there. In other words, white snow turns gray, and those rich blacks you thought you were getting end up looking gray also. Two opposites that get the same result, but the meter gave you a reading it thought would produce that 18% gray look overall. This generally isn't a problem in a well lit scene with lots of contrast and color variations. But it does become a problem in scenes with more difficult lighting and color situations. Understanding how the meter is measuring a scene and where to meter from will produce the best results and what you are looking for when you shoot. Unfortunately, this does take some practice and can be quite challenging until you figure out what the camera is doing. Thank goodness digital exposures are free once the memory card is paid for, or we'd all go broke doing this hobby of ours. And I'll be the first to admit I haven't totally figured all this out either and I shoot manual 98% of the time. With my eyes, focusing is a bigger problem so auto-focus makes this process more enjoyable. :)

I shoot with a Nikon D70s and have found that my meter tends to underexpose more often than not, so I find myself bumping up the exposure almost automatically when I am shooting. It drives me nuts to look at the shot in the camera viewer and see it looks fine only to import it into LR and find it rather underexposed. :( And bracketing has become a good friend of mine!

And in those instances where it all comes together, and I am getting better at it, the results are well worth the effort involved.

[bayhli]

Well, I'm about done with taking pictures for this chapter.

1. This is as close as I'm going to get to "story-telling"... and the story is that I avoided the bright sky but couldn't get away from that bright patch of water in the lower right corner!

f/22, 1/3 sec, 93mm, ISO 200
http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1gevb7TRAWJlPvr9mbPjVDFvcQSEl_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1gevb7TRAWJlPvr9mbPjVDFvcQSEl)

2. Best of my experiments with using the DOFMaster and preseting the depth of field. (I shoot RAW so some sharpening has also been added in LR). Not even close to the sharpness Bryan achieved throughout his image - but it's in focus so that's a good thing! (Baaad exposure I know - can't concentrate on more than one thing at a time. )

Preset DOF (f/22, 85mm) 1/10 sec, ISO 200
http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1KOdp6CpDYMww6v8Kh63bwWmYJrlI1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1KOdp6CpDYMww6v8Kh63bwWmYJrlI1)


3. This is what I was contending with and why my pics are so dull - all 200 of them over 3 days! Had one blue sky day and had better exposure that day than on the cloudy ones, go figure. Sun in and out of clouds and always to the side / front of me, polarizer filter was useless. Arrrgh!

3. But... very pleasant afternoons off the beaten track, with only a squirrel to listen to me reason out my practice, out loud. :D Definitely learned some things with this chapter.
http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1sYxhgRac5CnUtlcukFj9aHbrejq8E_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1sYxhgRac5CnUtlcukFj9aHbrejq8E)

[bayhli]

What a difference a day makes....

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/19j2TZ7GJD4fJuImVbJLV3wAJy1J91_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=19j2TZ7GJD4fJuImVbJLV3wAJy1J91)

Same location on the sunny day last week... incredible difference in colour! There was a wind as well so it made the reeds a little more interesting. This was such a wonderful warm afternoon.

The polarizer was working for the sky this day. f/22, 1/50 sec, 56mm, ISO 800 (I forgot to change the ISO from a previous day - duh!)

[Chuck S.]

Pat, what an amazing difference good lighting makes!

There's a really good podcast on Radiant Vista about lighting. Remarkably, it's an audio-only podcast, but you can still visualize what the narrator is describing. Made me much more sensitive to the advantages of the dawn and dusk lighting periods...

[NickLewis]

I'm constantly amazed by how much difference the sky condition makes to bodies of water. I shouldn't be - I live by the sea and always have, but I still find it remarkable how much difference the same stretch of shoreline exhibits between a cloudy and a sunny day. The lighting noticeably affects my mood as well - blue sea and sky and I'm cheerful. A dull slate-grey day and I feel dull and slate-grey as well.... It's not the temperature, it's the light - a cold clear winter's day is as effective as a summer scorcher.

The best exposure metering I've ever had was in a Canon T90 which had really nice multi-spot metering. Then you could easily meter precisely for the result you wanted. I used to meter on a mid-grey and flesh tones. I wish it was on my 20D. But I'm not upgrading to a 1D just to get it!!:eek:

Nowadays, I usually have about 2/3rd stop underexposure set, to avoid blowing highlights on an unrepeatable grab shots, but basically meter with the histogram when there's time to consider carefully what I'm doing.

I have a love-hate relationship with ISO settings. In terms of getting the shot, it's so much better than film days, where ordinary mortals were stuck with whatever they happened to have loaded, but I've lost count of the number of shots I've taken at a silly ISO because I forgot to reset it. I suppose it comes of being brought up with a situation where you only set the ISO once when you loaded the film. And in latter, DX coding days, didn't have to set it at all.

Nick

[bayhli]

I'll have a listen to that podcast Chuck, thanks.

The other thing is that the pictures on the cloudy days looked fine according to the histogram and the viewing screen on the camera. I was very disappointed with what I actually had when I viewed them on the computer. I'm sure someone more experienced with reading the histogram would have known they were lacking.

Gene,
I really enjoyed reading your commentary. This last day I made myself slow down and think specifically about each shot in terms of what I wanted and which settings would get me there. I did try a few different things for metering and recorded it but haven't looked at those yet to see if any of the spot metering I did would have helped.


Nick... just realized that last note is from you.
I was in the UK many years ago and fell in love with the sea there; first time I had seen any sea. I was using film on auto in those days, gave up on trying to learn it.

I really didn't know what to do with the light yesterday. I expected it to be easier with the clouds but there must have been too much "white/bright" in the sky and reflected in the lake as it looked to me like the images were being underexposed and I was constantly adding compensation. (I switched to AV as well to give that a try). I also think the sun is just in the wrong place for the direction I have to take the pictures in - I'd wait for it to reach different sides of the lake or duck behind a thick cloud but in retrospect I likely should have just went home! Tricky business this metering but it sure gave me some things to think about.

The other thing is trying to meter and focus with your camera on a tripod - I took my time getting things set up for the composition I wanted and then had to move things to spot meter and hang onto buttons while trying to get my composition back. I tried a few manual things I've read about to make that easier but what are the procedures and steps to metering and focusing with a tripod - not so easy to focus and recompose on a tripod! I'm sure Lee would have shook his head at some of the stuff I was trying. :eek::D

[Chuck S.]

Nowadays, I usually have about 2/3rd stop underexposure set, to avoid blowing highlights on an unrepeatable grab shots, but basically meter with the histogram when there's time to consider carefully what I'm doing.

I have a love-hate relationship with ISO settings. In terms of getting the shot, it's so much better than film days, where ordinary mortals were stuck with whatever they happened to have loaded, but I've lost count of the number of shots I've taken at a silly ISO because I forgot to reset it. I suppose it comes of being brought up with a situation where you only set the ISO once when you loaded the film. And in latter, DX coding days, didn't have to set it at all.

Nick

Nick, I usually go the underexposure route myself, although usually only 1/3 stop. I've learned the hard way that underexposure, even with the shadows/highlights controls in PSE and ACR, has its downside: noisy shadow areas after they're pumped up. Just gotta keep trying to get that perfect exposure.

With respect to ISO errors, still happens to me all the time. In their review published last week, dpreview's comments about the new Canon 40D pointed out that the ISO is prominently displayed in the optical viewfinder of that camera. That's a big step forward!

[bayhli]

If the pics are important to me I quite often bracket my shots. The downside of that is that I get home with triple the shots and spend hours going through them. :) And of course, bring lots of memory cards with you.

[NickLewis]

With respect to ISO errors, still happens to me all the time. In their review published last week, dpreview's comments about the new Canon 40D pointed out that the ISO is prominently displayed in the optical viewfinder of that camera. That's a big step forward!Ohhh - do I detect the first rumblings of the "new camera justification routine" starting up??? :):) You've only just got your G9!

Pat - I don't think there's anything wrong with the exposure of the cloud shots. The histograms look just fine to me. I can imagine that the camera wanted to underexpose though - it'd be trying to treat the sky and lake as the 18% grey that Gene referred to.

The problem with shots like that though is that a camera records flat grey clouds as, well, flat grey! There is detail in them, but you can't bring it out in camera - that's a Photoshop task. Try Darkening Highlights - there's a wonderful dark brooding sky in there to be had, if that's the sort of thing you like.

I'm not much of a tripod man myself. I haven't the patience. I think perhaps that is something that Manual is better for. Meter and focus either handheld or on the tripod, take a note of the settings you want, then recompose on the tripod, and transfer the settings in. Slightly awkward if your lens doesn't have a focus distance scale, admittedly.

Nick

[bayhli]

Very useful information Nick - thank you!

I do have a distance scale and I think this technique from Chapter 2 will help matters when I get better at it. I stuck around for sunset yesterday and finally managed to accomplish manual metering off the sky - tada! I've tried that one before and failed so that was a great feeling. (Ran home and got my husband to come protect me in the bush for an hour - not one animal even bothered to come out afterall)

The other thing I do is use the bottom AF point thru the viewer, as the focusing point for "1/3 into the scene" - you have the same one Chuck - good idea or not? Here's one - I'm not past tipping my tripod if the focus point I want is near the AF point in the viewer, rather than move my camera - then I have a better chance of getting the scene recomposed back where I had it. :eek:

This is the stuff you come up with when you don't have classes available! :D

I tried to darken that broody sky actually but wasn't satisfied; I'm going to try darkening one copy and seeing if I can blend it with the lighter one using a mask, so that the land and sky can have different levels.

Not going to be a good Halloween here tonight - the snow is swirling out there today. Poor tykes... exactly why I spent so much time out picture taking this past week.

[Edmund]

Going back to the old film days I developed a mental check list that's some thing like this which I now use for my digital images: (Nikon D-80)
1.Camera mode ie manual,aperature/shutter preferred etc
2.ISO setting
3.Metering mode (matrix, center,spot)
4.Shooting mode (Single or continous)
5.White Balance
6.Image Quality (RAW or JPEG)
7.Polarizing filter or not
Now this seems like a lot to remember and it is so I typed out a cheat sheat (3 1/2" X 2 1/2") and laminated it for weather proofing. It really is not that difficult as 95% + of the time I use the same settings. Like Manual mode, spot metering, Raw file, Auto focus area and Mode, etc. On a clear sunny day I'll use sunny W/B , matrix meter and aperature preferred at the sweet spots of my lense's F/11 or f/16, and ISO set to at least 200 or higher.
When I take that shot I always check the histogram and adjust accordingly.
I think it's like we develop a work flow for post processing so why not one for picture taking. It is like Lee said that we must see like the camera, check the corners, main subject, quality of light, etc. And we must learn how to manipulate all the controls on our camera so as not to be intimidated by them. The beauty of digital is we can practice and it costs us nothing but some time and effort.
Eddie

[bayhli]

Before we leave this chapter I thought I'd comment on how inspiring Bryan Peterson's work is. Another I admire is John Shaw, his nature and landscape work is awe-inspiring.

I found Bryan's road image interesting (pg 43)... my first impression was that it looked unreal and I prefer natural images. Looking at it again I noticed how flat the tree trunks are at the beginning of the left side of the road; if I had taken this picture I probably would have discarded it, thinking it was a badly taken photo. I assume that is the effect of the zoom lens? He only took it at 130mm.

And the dewdrops with the reflection on page 67 - just incredible. My favorite.

[nkeevers]

Well, I went to the zoo this weekend to practice and, though I'm starting to get the hang of it, it's still stumps me sometimes. There are so many variables to consider.

This first one I tried to concentrate on the flower behind the buds and the second on the bud toward the front of the picture. The only differences were the focal length and shutter speed. I guess it depends on your focal length and where I was trying to focus my viewfinder. No fixes, just out of the camera.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1NAbeSHrZlbBVThEOpAtvzrd0oQNC_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1NAbeSHrZlbBVThEOpAtvzrd0oQNC)


http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1xE7m2sQ42QNXEYhUfEnjVCmrmz0_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1xE7m2sQ42QNXEYhUfEnjVCmrmz0)

[bayhli]

Thanks for posting your pictures Norma, enjoyed them. It's especially nice to see that lovely blue sky in the background, haven't seen that for over a week now. Tis the season.

Looks like you got it, it's easy to see where you focused. Like you I want to work to control that now and it will come for us with practice.

[nkeevers]

Yeah, I definitely think it comes with practice! Glad you enjoyed the blue sky...it was a lovely day!

[Elemobe]

Pictures look great, certainly looks like you have DOF nailed!

[Elemobe]

OK, I know I haven't actually done anything on this Chapter yet, but are we moving on to the next now? I like following what everyone else is doing - I am learning through this thread.

I am now back from my trip, and bought my son back with me for a few days before he departed for France. Therefore no time to concentrate on the book. However, I will tonight - there, I have made the commitment so will have to do it now.

[Elemobe]

I have taken a few photos but this is the best IMO. Although not great as I don't have a tripod and the light is not ideal.

Taken in my kitchen either with my monopod stuck down the side of the AGA for extra support or balanced on top of 3 cookery books with a piece of kitchen towel to straightened and support the lens (I did both and can't remember which for this particular shot). OK, I think it is time invest in a tripod now;)

However, I did take this with a great lens - a Canon EF70-200 F4L, the photos taken with this lens are head and shoulders above my kit lens (of course).

Anyway, the main point of this shot was DOF, again really pleased as there was a lot of stuff behind these flowers. I even understand the DOF button now - really don't know why it all seemed so difficult. So I'm now off to read the next chapter.

Metadata: 1/8 sec, F4, ISO400, Focal length 180

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1OSSjJtE1ffUATKtBFQR5vQtPXYRg1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1OSSjJtE1ffUATKtBFQR5vQtPXYRg1)

[JulieM]

Linda: What a beautiful shot! What kind of lighting did you have and did you use manual settings? I have been following along on this (well, just barely) and will jump straight in to Ch. 3 with you guys...

[Elemobe]

Julie, thank you, I am flattered. I had to work at this shot because I planned to just take a few "snaps" and move on. They were really not good, I just thought if I keep playing I must be able to get something better, hence the monopod, books and AGA! Hubby was having a pre-dinner dose (yes, I was cooking dinner whilst doing this:)) so he missed the antics - dogs seemed amused though.

Anyway to answer your questions, there was no lighting as such, just the kitchen spotlights and yes, I am proud to say, fully manual. The fact I can now use manual with reasonable confidence, if not always success, is down to this book and the comments on this thread.

Look forward to seeing what your photos.

[bayhli]

Julie took the words right out of my mouth - beautiful job and I too am curious about what lighting you had available to you.

You do have aperture nailed - your flowers, including the leaves in the foreground are all well within the depth of field. And the background is gone! Love the colours you chose for the flowers.

Could you see that the background would be mostly black; I've often wondered how exactly to accomplish that.

Well done; thanks so much for posting it.

[Elemobe]

Actually, now you come to mention it I remember now that looking at the first pictures I took I was not happy with the background, it was too light and lacked contrast. Our kitchen has a set of lights at each end, so I switched the lights off at the bottom end. I was using the camera at the other end with the downlighters on full (they are on a dimmer switch). I had both sets on initially to get as much light as possible.

Funny the things one forgets. I will remember that myself in future.

[genevh]

Good picture! Not only are you getting DOF down, but also controlling lighting!

Just wondering if a little crop might might help here:

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/15x8LqbnIahWtyisvvxVDFrJCQDUqr1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=15x8LqbnIahWtyisvvxVDFrJCQDUqr1)

What do you think?

[Elemobe]

Wow, Gene, what a difference that makes. I had already cropped the top, but clearly had not gone far enough. Thanks for that

[genevh]

Your welcome! Glad you like it.