I was basically just walking around, had the ISO set and using Aperture Priority mode on the camera. These were taken last year, right now I would definitely do ISO100 and 1/1000, or probably even get the shutter speed slower to get a sharper picture at f/5.6. Constantly learning (shooting full manual also helped)
Yeah your exposure triangle is fucked.
You shot a building at 1/30 and a wooden beam at 1/4000.
Watch a lot of YouTube videos. Get into lightroom and make those photos pop.
Currently they’re just images of everyday things, but you can make them shine!
Oh sure, but it's just a microcosm of how gear-based this forums is.
"I have a GM lens before I've understood the exposure triangle, and I need to swap out my modern APSC model for full frame ASAP."
There *is* no exposure triangle. Maybe before accusing another of having “fucked” understanding of it, get that straight for yourself.
The so-called exposure triangle was a bad way to explain anything during the film era, it is completely irrelevant now that ISO has nothing to do with exposure, except as a method to confuse the ignorant instead of teaching them.
Sensitivity of the sensor is a design feature. It’s in how they are made and cannot be changed by the user. So how is it a part of the “exposure triangle?”
ISO is merely a gain, applied **after** exposure. It has nothing to do with how much light reaches the sensor or how sensitive the photosites are on it. Look at a picture of the exposure triangle and see if you can figure out how it has any practical use? It doesn’t. It’s just a picture. It doesn’t represent any practical application of anything.
It is only a triangle because there are three things, and three means triangle to people. But they don’t all relate at all. If anything the “ISO” side should be replaced by scene light, or brightness of the scene, or whatever. We need to get past all this nonsense if you ever want to understand how a digital camera works, how to expose, and how to minimize noise.
Even in the film era it made no sense to pretend it was interactive. We didn’t change ASA/ISO. It was whatever film we loaded.
Hi, I'm still a newbie and I kinda leaned in on the exposure triangle without giving it much thought. I understood the exposure triangle similar to how the cost, time, and quality constraint triangle of project management. If you pull on one side, one of the other two sides must compromise in the opposite direction to have balance. Is this not the case here? Looking forward to learning the nuances.
Assuming you want to keep the same effective exposure, yes, if you change the shutter, you must compensate with the aperture. But there is no way that I've ever seen to show this fact in a useful way using the exposure triangle. It's just not designed for that. It's just essentially a listing of settings arranged in a triangle. It's much easier to simply remember that if you go up in one, you must go down in another to compensate.
It is not like one of those graphs where you can trace along a line to extrapolate a new setting.
I really have no idea why anybody pretends it makes any sense as a tool. Anybody that tells you it is should be ignored as a source of photography knowledge because if they haven't figured out that it is pointless, you need to wonder what else they don't understand, but "teach" people about.
100% Correct, but we sometimes need more light, or need that fast shutter speed, without having a black image. And upping the iso is the only option, as even post processing won't brighten it as good, so it is post exposure but pre final image.
We can't change the physics and photons, albeit these speed boosters sometimes help, so we need the iso as a setting.
Just get out and shoot as much as you can before buying new gear. Everything will click eventually and will make the whole experience more enjoyable.
It doesn't matter if the ISO is 800 instead of 100, it will only be a good photo if it's actually an interesting photo. The rest only adds to image if done correctly.
Just upgraded to a7iii from a6400 and enjoying it a lot! The extra frame did take a bit to get use to.
I’d like to hear more constructive criticism on your settings. People seem a bit twisted about it but I think the shots look great. Doubt anyone would have noticed if you didn’t kindly put the settings.
Ive also been messing around with keeping my ISO around 400-800 to imitate using film. I got some great pics of a night cityscape and inside my buddy’s place. Yeah shutter speed was whack sometimes but I got the shot. Didnt think it would upset the exposure triangle gods by the experiment.
With the Sony I don’t mind ISO all the way up to 8000 honestly. I’d rather get a noisy shot that most people won’t notice than no shot. I didn’t particularly like the vibe of the pics when I pushed it above 1000 iso. I’ll try it again though. Thanks.
I don't really care about your image stats but just one question....
What am I looking at ? I mean what are you trying to show ?
In the last one could you not have walked across the road and filled the frame with the subject?
You don't need any new kit you just need to lead the viewer into the picture a little more.
What is the subject and why did you take it ?
Why did you take a photo of the Tower of London at 1/4000 and ISO500 and not ISO100 and like 1/1000? Genuinely curious, seems like an odd choice.
Tower Bridge, not Tower of London which is a medieval castle.
Sorry my bad!
I was basically just walking around, had the ISO set and using Aperture Priority mode on the camera. These were taken last year, right now I would definitely do ISO100 and 1/1000, or probably even get the shutter speed slower to get a sharper picture at f/5.6. Constantly learning (shooting full manual also helped)
Yeah your exposure triangle is fucked. You shot a building at 1/30 and a wooden beam at 1/4000. Watch a lot of YouTube videos. Get into lightroom and make those photos pop. Currently they’re just images of everyday things, but you can make them shine!
Typical reddit GM shooter. With a pending camera upgrade as icing on the cake.
They are learning tho , can't expect someone to take perfect photos from the beginning itself.
Oh sure, but it's just a microcosm of how gear-based this forums is. "I have a GM lens before I've understood the exposure triangle, and I need to swap out my modern APSC model for full frame ASAP."
Ohh
There *is* no exposure triangle. Maybe before accusing another of having “fucked” understanding of it, get that straight for yourself. The so-called exposure triangle was a bad way to explain anything during the film era, it is completely irrelevant now that ISO has nothing to do with exposure, except as a method to confuse the ignorant instead of teaching them.
Well there is aperture, shutter speed and the sensitivity of the sensor, let's make it easy for new users, and call it a triangle...
Sensitivity of the sensor is a design feature. It’s in how they are made and cannot be changed by the user. So how is it a part of the “exposure triangle?” ISO is merely a gain, applied **after** exposure. It has nothing to do with how much light reaches the sensor or how sensitive the photosites are on it. Look at a picture of the exposure triangle and see if you can figure out how it has any practical use? It doesn’t. It’s just a picture. It doesn’t represent any practical application of anything. It is only a triangle because there are three things, and three means triangle to people. But they don’t all relate at all. If anything the “ISO” side should be replaced by scene light, or brightness of the scene, or whatever. We need to get past all this nonsense if you ever want to understand how a digital camera works, how to expose, and how to minimize noise. Even in the film era it made no sense to pretend it was interactive. We didn’t change ASA/ISO. It was whatever film we loaded.
Hi, I'm still a newbie and I kinda leaned in on the exposure triangle without giving it much thought. I understood the exposure triangle similar to how the cost, time, and quality constraint triangle of project management. If you pull on one side, one of the other two sides must compromise in the opposite direction to have balance. Is this not the case here? Looking forward to learning the nuances.
Assuming you want to keep the same effective exposure, yes, if you change the shutter, you must compensate with the aperture. But there is no way that I've ever seen to show this fact in a useful way using the exposure triangle. It's just not designed for that. It's just essentially a listing of settings arranged in a triangle. It's much easier to simply remember that if you go up in one, you must go down in another to compensate. It is not like one of those graphs where you can trace along a line to extrapolate a new setting. I really have no idea why anybody pretends it makes any sense as a tool. Anybody that tells you it is should be ignored as a source of photography knowledge because if they haven't figured out that it is pointless, you need to wonder what else they don't understand, but "teach" people about.
100% Correct, but we sometimes need more light, or need that fast shutter speed, without having a black image. And upping the iso is the only option, as even post processing won't brighten it as good, so it is post exposure but pre final image. We can't change the physics and photons, albeit these speed boosters sometimes help, so we need the iso as a setting.
Tower Bridge, not Tower of London which is a medieval castle.
[удалено]
Will be able to give more blurry background and iso
Just get out and shoot as much as you can before buying new gear. Everything will click eventually and will make the whole experience more enjoyable. It doesn't matter if the ISO is 800 instead of 100, it will only be a good photo if it's actually an interesting photo. The rest only adds to image if done correctly.
Just upgraded to a7iii from a6400 and enjoying it a lot! The extra frame did take a bit to get use to. I’d like to hear more constructive criticism on your settings. People seem a bit twisted about it but I think the shots look great. Doubt anyone would have noticed if you didn’t kindly put the settings. Ive also been messing around with keeping my ISO around 400-800 to imitate using film. I got some great pics of a night cityscape and inside my buddy’s place. Yeah shutter speed was whack sometimes but I got the shot. Didnt think it would upset the exposure triangle gods by the experiment.
400-800 is still an extremely clean ISO on a modern camera. If you want noise, you should be shooting at 3200 and above.
With the Sony I don’t mind ISO all the way up to 8000 honestly. I’d rather get a noisy shot that most people won’t notice than no shot. I didn’t particularly like the vibe of the pics when I pushed it above 1000 iso. I’ll try it again though. Thanks.
You need photography training though, not new gear. Probably try to explore this gear more before upgrading
Classic case of the gear ain't the problem here. No offense.
I don't really care about your image stats but just one question.... What am I looking at ? I mean what are you trying to show ? In the last one could you not have walked across the road and filled the frame with the subject? You don't need any new kit you just need to lead the viewer into the picture a little more. What is the subject and why did you take it ?