Beginner - Looking for advise

[jpitera]

Thought this sign was nice and tried to capture it in an interesting way. Any advise would be appreciated.

[Bruce A]

First, you need to read the "Critique" rules about suppling EXIF data in order for the critics to establish how you took the shot
.
Second, you had a great idea and the shot is well framed.

Third, imo, you wanted to capture the sign, you almost did if you opened the lens another stop I'd say you would have got it. The DOF is just a tad narrow to me.

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by Bruce A

First, you need to read the "Critique" rules about suppling EXIF data in order for the critics to establish how you took the shot
.
Second, you had a great idea and the shot is well framed.

Third, imo, you wanted to capture the sign, you almost did if you opened the lens another stop I'd say you would have got it. The DOF is just a tad narrow to me.

I think you meant to say "closed" rather than "opened", Bruce. One would have needed to stop down, now open up another stop. Opening the aperture would further reduce depth of field, and as you say, although the text is legible, it is marginally so. Therefore, the aperture should be reduced, restricted, stopped down (f/number increased) to increase DoF a little.

As to the composition, I like it a lot. As Bruce asked, what can you say about the following:
f/number
shutter speed
ISO level
lens and focal length
camera body
distance to subject
lighting

That would be helpful in us giving you some detailed and specific alternatives to consider.

[jpitera]

Below are the settings I used.

F-Number - F/2.2
Lens/Focal Length - Nikon 1.8D - 50mm
Camera Nikon D3000
Distance - about 6 feet on tripod
Lighting - Low Lighting
ISO - 1250

[Bruce A]

Originally Posted by chicagojohn

I think you meant to say "closed" rather than "opened", Bruce. One would have needed to stop down, now open up another stop. Opening the aperture would further reduce depth of field, and as you say, although the text is legible, it is marginally so. Therefore, the aperture should be reduced, restricted, stopped down (f/number increased) to increase DoF a little.

Duh! You are quite right Chicargojohn. I'll have to blame my brain and not my glasses this time.

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by Bruce A

Duh! You are quite right Chicargojohn. I'll have to blame my brain and not my glasses this time.

This happens all the time. Even my teacher in the Introduction to Digital Photography course I just finished this past week had to stop and think when he was talking to the class, and he sometimes misspoke, as I very often do myself.

The root cause of our problem, Bruce, isn't our brains, it's the needlessly confusing system of f/numbers; they go up when the size of the hole goes down. Of course the reason for this is to equalize the meaning of any f/number; e.g., f/2; for any focal length -- an f/2 for a 50 mm lens delivers the same amount of light to the sensor/film plane as does an f/2 at 100 mm -- though the hole diameters are 1:2. Consequently, as we both know, the hold diameter is the lens focal length divided by the f/number, hence the expression f/2, so that a 50 mm lens at f/2 has a 25 mm aperture diameter, roughly 1 inch, and a 100 mm lens at f/2 has a 50 mm aperture diameter, aboout 2 inches, but because the 100 mm one at infinity focuses 100 mm away from the lens and the 50 mm one at infinity focuses at 50 mm, amount of light that gets through is the same.

So if I were in charge, I would set it up based upon decimal fractions X 100, aperture diameter as a percentage of focal length. In my system, your f-stops would run like this: 100, 71, 50, 36, 25, 18, 12.5, 9, 6, 4.5, 3, 2, and 1.5, respectively running from f/1 to f/64. An f50 would mean that the aperture diamer is 50% of the focal length.

I'm not in charge, yet, but that system would have retained the meaning and utility of the f/number system and yet made it a lot easier to think about aperture since a higher f-number means a bigger hole as opposed to an f/number. (I see people using decimal fractions for shutter speed, and that, again, minimizes confusion there too.)

I imagine someone saying, "What about the lens equation?" where 1/f = 1/Do + 1/Ds with f being focal length of the lens, Do the distance from the lens to the object, and Ds the distance from the lens to the sensor plane.

I also prefer the rearranged version were the focal length equals the product of the Do X Ds divided by the sum of Do and Ds: f = (DoxDs)/(Do+Ds). To me, this makes it much less confusing to consider what happens to the distance to the sensor as we move the object closer or further from the lens as focal length remains constant.

Bottom line, our brains cannot easily think in reciprocals; yours, mine, and my photgraphy teacher who has been a professional photographer for over 30 years. Maybe someday I'll be in charge, and these will be two of the first things I'll fix.: If there is even an election, remember to vote for me, Bruce.

.

[franky]

Hi jpitera,
By looking at your exif, maybe you set your lens wide open because of low lighting... but... you used a tripod! The beauty with tripod is that you can lower your ISO at 100, set your aperture at what you want (like Chicagojohn and Bruce said, one stop closer) and set your speed accordingly. Even if it is reallllllyyyyy slow, the shot will be sharp!
By the way, really nice shot!!
Hope this help,
Have a nice day!

[Bruce A]

Frankly, I'm not sure the D3000 has a 100 ISO, the D90 starts at 200. They may have a Lo setting but I'm not sure of quality at this setting.

Chicagojohn, thanks for that math, but gee I don't if I need to retrain my brain - I ain't getting any younger. But heck, I'll vote for you anyway.

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by Bruce A

Frankly, I'm not sure the D3000 has a 100 ISO, the D90 starts at 200. They may have a Lo setting but I'm not sure of quality at this setting.

Chicagojohn, thanks for that math, but gee I don't if I need to retrain my brain - I ain't getting any younger. But heck, I'll vote for you anyway.

Thanks, man! That's a start; two votes, yours and mine.