Do you shoot?

[Tarheel316]

I don't use any flash with the D700. Can go to ISO 6400 with no noise.

 

[ADodgen]

I don't use any flash with the D700. Can go to ISO 6400 with no noise.

Love to see an example.

 

[Rhody31]

Stupid question No. 2:
What is aperture? I hear the phrase a lot, but have no clue what it is. There's actually a chance I know what it is, but I use a sixth-grade word for it because I never knew what it was.
Stupid question No. 3:
What settings are what. I'm doing to do my best to explain this, but there are three numbers I constantly check on the right side of the top of the camera : my ISO (I know how to use that one) is on the bottom of the display; then there's a number on the upper right part that reads 4.0, or 5.5, or whatever the heck I make it (shutter speed? No clue; just know how to adjust it); and the one next to it on the left, which I don't really get but have kind of figured out how to screw with it to make it work for me.

I know these questions are ridiculous. Here's the thing: I'm a reporter. I got forced into photography and I love it. I never had anyone teach me how to use the camera; just kind of figured it out as I went along and asked the pros questions to help me. In fact, when we were checking our equipment today, schieza and I couldn't figure out why the cameras weren't rapid firing. I noticed one of the bodies was on S; I changed it to C and it worked. I'm guessing those letters stand for "Single shot" and "Continuous shot?"

Anything anyone can tell me, I'm listening. I want to learn as much as I can so when I talk my wife into buying us the D7000 (for our baby, certainly not for work) I have some idea of how to optimize it.

And any Photoshop adjustment advice would also be great.

 

[ADodgen]

Aperture refers to the size of the hole in your lens. The values for aperture read out in funny numbers: 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 3.5, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11, 16, 22, 32. Your particular lens may have more values (or other values) than these, or fewer.

Shutter speeds, which refer to the length of time the shutter is open, are actually fractions, though they are not expressed that way. For example, 250 is 1/250th of a second.

These two things -- aperture and shutter speed -- function in a very specific relationship to each other. That is, when one increases, the other must decrease. The opposite is also true.

Imagine, if you will, a five-gallon bucket. You have to fill it with exactly five gallons of water. Can't go over, can't leave it short. Now, if there were a one-inch pipe feeding water into the bucket, maybe it will take 5 minutes to fill the bucket. Swap that pipe out for a five-inch pipe, and now it only takes one minute to fill the bucket.

This is exactly like the relationship between aperture and shutter speed. You have to get the appropriate amount of light to your sensor. Too much and your image is over-exposed, too little and it's underexposed. So, the wider the opening you have inside of your camera, the less time it takes to get the right amount of light to the sensor. The narrower the opening (paradoxically, like the shutter speed, the smaller value is expressed by a larger number), the longer your shutter has to be open to get the proper exposure.

Aperture and shutter speed also control some secondary elements of photographs. As noted before, the smaller the aperture (higher number), the greater the depth of field. This can work for you, in cases where focus might be tricky, for example. It can hinder your ability to isolate your tack-sharp subject against a blurred background. Shorter shutter speeds are necessary to stop action, and those super short shutter speeds (like 1000, 2500, 4000 or 8000 -- remember that these are fractions of a second), require the widest possible apertures. For example: if you camera tells you that the proper shutter speed for your lighting situation is 1/100th of a second for your selected aperture of 5.6, at 2.8 you'd get 1/200th of a second. The math is always directly proportional. Make your hole twice as big, the shutter speed gets half as long. Always. This is called the rule of reciprocity. Google it if you'd like more info.

ISO figures into the equation by determining how much light you need to properly expose a scene. An ISO of 400 requires twice as much light for the same settings as ISO 800. So, bumping your ISO by one stop (doubling the number), means you can keep the aperture the same and cut the shutter speed in half.

I know these questions are ridiculous. Here's the thing: I'm a reporter. I got forced into photography and I love it.

I want to address this, because it's important. My undergraduate degree is in general journalism, and I've done my fair share of writing. I've written some features I'm proud of (and I can churn out an excessively long message board post with the best of them), but find a gamer I've written and I promise you will find some of the most boring prose ever penned. Why am I telling you this? Because I respect anyone who has talents in one area and works to expand their talents in another. This industry (which I love, even though I'm not in it anymore) is changing, more quickly than I know what to do with sometimes, and if you guys are going to work to broaden your skills, you have nothing but my warmest regards for your efforts.

Your questions aren't ridiculous. They demonstrate a desire to learn and willingness to listen. I live and breathe photography, and I've spent a very long time (I've been shooting since middle school -- nearly half my life) learning this stuff. I want to share it with anyone who wants to learn about it.

Some fundamental Photoshop best practices in the next day or so.

 

[UPChip]

I don't use any flash with the D700. Can go to ISO 6400 with no noise.

Does that vary by camera? I was taught that any ISO too far over 1000 makes an image unprintably grainy.

 

[Rhody31]

Adodgen,
I have an understanding of ISO and where it needs to be depending on my light; the aperture and shutter speed thing I'm still trying to learn. I fiddle and fiddle and fiddle and for me, it's the best way; I'm more of a hands-on learner than a read and learn type person.
I've taken to photoshop because our cameras are old and kind of shoddy.
My basic steps are as follows:
1) auto-level: If it doesn't help, I undo it.
2) color correct: Basically, I look at the photo and screw with the colors until it looks good.
3) Brightness/contrast: Fiddle with it until it looks good.
4) Saturation: use it to bring some color out.
5) Curves: if necessary.
Mind you, I haven't had any teaching with photoshop. I've messed around with it enough to figure things out.
Here's a link to some of the shots I took today. Rip away.

http://www.ricentral.com/content/chariho-east-providence-softball

 

[Tarheel316]

Does that vary by camera? I was taught that any ISO too far over 1000 makes an image unprintably grainy.

Not with my D700. I shoot all high school hoops at 6400 and anything outside at night at 6400. But having a 70-200 F2.8 VR (one of the greatest lenses ever made) doesn't hurt.

ADodgen, PM me your email address.

 

[Pilot]

I don't use any flash with the D700. Can go to ISO 6400 with no noise.

Does that vary by camera? I was taught that any ISO too far over 1000 makes an image unprintably grainy.

It does vary by camera model. ISO is one of those things that keeps getting better with technology. My D700 can shoot printable (not ideal, but printable) photos at ISO 6400. My D70s couldn't even go above ISO 1600, and at 1600 it wasn't near the quality my D700 is at 1600. It was similar in grain to what the D700 is at 6400.

 

[wicked]

I also want to make sure I understand this: The technological improvements have generally been happening in the bodies, not the lenses, right?

Last thing I want to do is buy a lens that will be outdated in a couple years, but that never seems to be an issue.

 

[Pilot]

I also want to make sure I understand this: The technological improvements have generally been happening in the bodies, not the lenses, right?

Last thing I want to do is buy a lens that will be outdated in a couple years, but that never seems to be an issue.

Lenses are constantly getting better too, but not nearly as dramatically. The newer Nikon lenses, for instance, have Vibration Reduction technology. The newest ones (I think) focus a little faster and stuff like that.

But, the great thing about lenses is you have anything but the very, very, very bottom rung Nikon camera, you can use pretty much every lens every built for Nikon. The D70 and D90 line or whatever can use them all, I'm pretty sure. Versions from 10 or 20 years ago might not have all the perks of a brand new one, but they're usually dramatically cheaper, and the upgrades are generally modest, especially when compared to the great leaps bodies have taken.

Basically, you won't buy a lens that's going to get outdated in any meaningful way any time soon.

 

[murphyc]

I don't use any flash with the D700. Can go to ISO 6400 with no noise.

Does that vary by camera? I was taught that any ISO too far over 1000 makes an image unprintably grainy.

It does vary by camera model. ISO is one of those things that keeps getting better with technology. My D700 can shoot printable (not ideal, but printable) photos at ISO 6400. My D70s couldn't even go above ISO 1600, and at 1600 it wasn't near the quality my D700 is at 1600. It was similar in grain to what the D700 is at 6400.

My D1H (2001 update of 1999 technology) can shoot usable images at 1600 ISO. It actually does better at 1600 than my D70 (2003 technology). The D1H can shoot 3200 but I've yet to be that brave because it's so grainy. One of the knocks on the Nikon D2H (replaced the D1H, I believe in 2003) was high noise levels at high ISO like 1600. The D2Hs supposedly fixed that, but by then a lot of Nikon shooters had switched to Canon (not just for that issue).
Now, both Nikon and Canon make cameras that can supposedly shoot at much higher ISO levels without the grainy issues. When Nikon's D3 came out in 2007, I read it could shoot Friday night football at 12,800 ISO and still look great. That's why I would love to have a D3, but I'm still with a D1H.

 

[murphyc]

I also want to make sure I understand this: The technological improvements have generally been happening in the bodies, not the lenses, right?

Last thing I want to do is buy a lens that will be outdated in a couple years, but that never seems to be an issue.

Lenses are constantly getting better too, but not nearly as dramatically. The newer Nikon lenses, for instance, have Vibration Reduction technology. The newest ones (I think) focus a little faster and stuff like that.

But, the great thing about lenses is you have anything but the very, very, very bottom rung Nikon camera, you can use pretty much every lens every built for Nikon. The D70 and D90 line or whatever can use them all, I'm pretty sure. Versions from 10 or 20 years ago might not have all the perks of a brand new one, but they're usually dramatically cheaper, and the upgrades are generally modest, especially when compared to the great leaps bodies have taken.

Basically, you won't buy a lens that's going to get outdated in any meaningful way any time soon.

To add to this excellent response: on some lower level Nikon bodies like the D40 I inherited from my dad, auto focusing is dependent upon the lens. In other words, the camera body itself doesn't have a focusing motor and thus requires lenses that are AF-S models (like the 18-55) instead of regular AF lenses like the 50/1.8. You can still take pictures with something like a 50/1.8 on a D40, but you only have manual focus. I'm not sure which of the newer Nikons require AF-S lenses to have auto focus. I know for sure the D40 and I believe the D50 fall into that category, but I'm not sure with the newer ones.