Selfies -.- Post Yours!

[Levina de Ruijter]

I shoot everything in auto, but otoh I don't call myself a photographer. I don't care what other people think of this - I tried not shooting in auto and decided it was too much trouble for what I wanted to do.

I didn't shoot in auto originally of course because there was no such thing. Mostly my selfies were done with mirrors. It has taken some time to figure out how to shoot a reasonable selfie with my cell phone.
View attachment 18594

I think it makes a big difference if you are shooting just for yourself, or if you are trying to be a pro photographer, trying to make money with your work.

Besides, you shot with film for most of your life, you know how the exposure triangle works. Nothing wrong with shooting in AUTO mode if that is more convenient!

 

[PhotoNut]

I shoot everything in auto, but otoh I don't call myself a photographer. I don't care what other people think of this - I tried not shooting in auto and decided it was too much trouble for what I wanted to do.

I didn't shoot in auto originally of course because there was no such thing. Mostly my selfies were done with mirrors. It has taken some time to figure out how to shoot a reasonable selfie with my cell phone.
View attachment 18594

I should have added "'professional' photographer" because that I was I meant. I agree with what Levina said. I apologise if I gave the wrong impression. And for what it's worth, I enjoy your images very much. I read your blogs too.

 

[greatgrandma]

I should have added "'professional' photographer" because that I was I meant. I agree with what Levina said. I apologise if I gave the wrong impression. And for what it's worth, I enjoy your images very much. I read your blogs too.

I was on a FB photography group where the same opinion was expressed - that anyone who wanted to take good photos should not be shooting in auto. So I tried that for a little bit.

But basically I am moving too fast and I guess my brain is too slow to figure out exposure etc. fast enough between the time I see something I want to take a picture of and when it is too late to take a photo of it.

I have figured out how to focus using the little red dot rather than doing it manually like I did with film. But numbers are not comfortable in my brain. I still count on my fingers. So when Levina said I know how the exposure triangle works, I am not sure that is correct. I know that if it is dark, I have to allow more time for the film to expose to get a photo and that if it is bright I have to close the hole that the light goes through so not too much gets in, and that in film, "faster" film will take photos quicker in low light. But I am not really sure what the equivalent of fast film is in the digital world.

I really have no idea what the various f stop numbers mean as my camera in 1958 had a tiny exposure meter on the top and if I set the film speed on it, it would tell me what aperture and speed I needed, and if I set that (and stayed in basically the same location) all I had to do was focus.

 

[Jack Dawe]

I know that if it is dark, I have to allow more time for the film to expose to get a photo and that if it is bright I have to close the hole that the light goes through so not too much gets in, and that in film, "faster" film will take photos quicker in low light. But I am not really sure what the equivalent of fast film is in the digital world.

That's ISO. I never shot film much, but I inherited my Dad's camera and used it for a few years. The standard film that people like me used was ISO 100. If you wanted to shoot in low light you bought a 'faster' roll at ISO 200, but I never liked the 'grainy' noise it produced. I think I saw a roll of ISO 400 once. A digital camera works in exactly the same way. In lower light you can increase the ISO to get a faster shutter speed. Instead of 'grain' you get digital noise in the form of speckles of unwanted colour that get worse as the ISO gets higher.

Other ways of coping with low light are 1) to increase the size of the lens aperture by lowering the f number, or 2) to use a slower shutter speed. Both allow more light to hit the sensor.

This is the exposure triangle: 1) ISO; 2) aperture; 3) shutter speed. Each of these elements has advantages and disadvantages. Higher ISO means more 'noise'. Wider apertures = shallower depth of field;. The lower the shutter speed the more risk there is of motion blur from an unsteady hand. The art is in knowing how to juggle the three to get the best results in a given situation.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I was on a FB photography group where the same opinion was expressed - that anyone who wanted to take good photos should not be shooting in auto. So I tried that for a little bit.

But basically I am moving too fast and I guess my brain is too slow to figure out exposure etc. fast enough between the time I see something I want to take a picture of and when it is too late to take a photo of it.

I have figured out how to focus using the little red dot rather than doing it manually like I did with film. But numbers are not comfortable in my brain. I still count on my fingers. So when Levina said I know how the exposure triangle works, I am not sure that is correct. I know that if it is dark, I have to allow more time for the film to expose to get a photo and that if it is bright I have to close the hole that the light goes through so not too much gets in, and that in film, "faster" film will take photos quicker in low light. But I am not really sure what the equivalent of fast film is in the digital world.

I really have no idea what the various f stop numbers mean as my camera in 1958 had a tiny exposure meter on the top and if I set the film speed on it, it would tell me what aperture and speed I needed, and if I set that (and stayed in basically the same location) all I had to do was focus.

Rosalie, you have taken photos for most of your life, documenting everything, and you have done it well. You have absolutely zero to prove to anyone. Your photos are great so you must be doing something right. I wouldn't change a thing!

 

[greatgrandma]

That's ISO. I never shot film much, but I inherited my Dad's camera and used it for a few years. The standard film that people like me used was ISO 100. If you wanted to shoot in low light you bought a 'faster' roll at ISO 200, but I never liked the 'grainy' noise it produced. I think I saw a roll of ISO 400 once. A digital camera works in exactly the same way. In lower light you can increase the ISO to get a faster shutter speed. Instead of 'grain' you get digital noise in the form of speckles of unwanted colour that get worse as the ISO gets higher.

Other ways of coping with low light are 1) to incrase the size of the lens aperture by lowering the f number, or 2) to use a slower shutter speed. Both allow more light to hit the sensor.

This is the exposure triangle: 1) ISO; 2) aperture; 3) shutter speed. Each of these elements has advantages and disadvantages. Higher ISO means more 'noise'. Wider apertures = shallower depth of field;. The lower the shutter speed the more risk there is of motion blur from an unsteady hand. The art is in knowing how to juggle the three to get the best results in a given situation.

OK that answers my question as to what the third thing was. When I went to Costa Rica to take photos in the rain forest I think I had very fast film for that. I knew it would be grainy (although I didn't quite understand why) but getting the image was more important (to me) than the quality of the photo. If I had to take a photo in sunlight with that film it was always a little bit overexposed. My main concern was that I didn't want the X-ray in the airport to fog the film. I carried it in lead pouches.

poison arrow frog

When I started out I think the ISO (or ASA) was 64. 100 didn't come until later. I did use 400 film and I think in Costa Rica I used 800

 

[greatgrandma]

Rosalie, you have taken photos for most of your life, documenting everything, and you have done it well. You have absolutely zero to prove to anyone. Your photos are great so you must be doing something right. I wouldn't change a thing!

I'm not going to change anything, but I think sometimes there is a prejudice against people who are starting out. I tend not to care whether I am going to screw up (at least not anymore) but in the beginning I would be embarrassed. Not that it kept me from doing anything but it might affect other people more than it does me.

 

[Ltdave]

OK that answers my question as to what the third thing was. When I went to Costa Rica to take photos in the rain forest I think I had very fast film for that. I knew it would be grainy (although I didn't quite understand why) but getting the image was more important (to me) than the quality of the photo. If I had to take a photo in sunlight with that film it was always a little bit overexposed. My main concern was that I didn't want the X-ray in the airport to fog the film. I carried it in lead pouches.

poison arrow frog
View attachment 19243
When I started out I think the ISO (or ASA) was 64. 100 didn't come until later. I did use 400 film and I think in Costa Rica I used 800

the 'graininess' or less sharp an image from 'faster' film is because the silver halide crystals in the film, that gives it its light sensitivity are larger so theyre more noticeable in photos.

lots of perfectly fine photos have been shot on high ASA/ISO films. if they capture the moment, so be it. you have the moment and ive loved looking at your pictures