- 1,445
- GDL, Mexico
- Insomniac_driver
Final Entry
Click for full Size
Click for full Size
CLOSED: 2.0 Advanced Competition: Week 12
- Thread starter SlipZtrEm
- 132 comments
- 9,557 views
- Status
- 336
- sixtoes
- sixtoes
First off, it's a nice shot - don't let the following technical jargon take away from that.
--- puts on photography instructor hat ---
The opening of the aperture (or 'iris', as you called it) has zero at all to do with the focal length of the lens. I can shoot at 16mm at f/4.0, or I can shoot at 400mm at f/4.0. Likewise, if I want more depth of field (and if there's enough light to do it), I can shoot at 16mm at f/32 or 400mm at f/32.
The point is that if the aperture is wide open (i.e., if it's a lower f-stop number like 2.8 or 4.0), then a lot of light would be hitting the sensor, allowing a faster - not slower - shutter speed. In fact, that's the only way to shoot moving race cars - if you did have a slower shutter speed, they'd be nothing but blurs! That's why you'll see guys with the big white Canon L lenses at race events - they're shooting with apertures of 2.8 whenever possible in order to give them the ability to shoot at fast shutter speeds.
Also, if you have a quality dSLR (e.g., Canon's 1D MkIII or IV, 5D Mark II, Nikon's D3S or D3X), grain is simply not noticeable at all until you get around an ISO of 800 or so.
--- takes off photography instructor hat ---
Like I said, nice photo.
- 3,990
- Area 10
- Valkyrize92
- 108
First off, it's a nice shot - don't let the following technical jargon take away from that.
--- puts on photography instructor hat ---
The opening of the aperture (or 'iris', as you called it) has zero at all to do with the focal length of the lens. I can shoot at 16mm at f/4.0, or I can shoot at 400mm at f/4.0. Likewise, if I want more depth of field (and if there's enough light to do it), I can shoot at 16mm at f/32 or 400mm at f/32.
The point is that if the aperture is wide open (i.e., if it's a lower f-stop number like 2.8 or 4.0), then a lot of light would be hitting the sensor, allowing a faster - not slower - shutter speed. In fact, that's the only way to shoot moving race cars - if you did have a slower shutter speed, they'd be nothing but blurs! That's why you'll see guys with the big white Canon L lenses at race events - they're shooting with apertures of 2.8 whenever possible in order to give them the ability to shoot at fast shutter speeds.
Also, if you have a quality dSLR (e.g., Canon's 1D MkIII or IV, 5D Mark II, Nikon's D3S or D3X), grain is simply not noticeable at all until you get around an ISO of 800 or so.
--- takes off photography instructor hat ---
Like I said, nice photo.
Very true, but im a bit confused how at lowest iso you still get noise. On 200 iso on my rebel its already not noticeable. And up to almost 1600 iso on my 5dmk2 I also notice nothing
- 116
- AMH_
Very true, but im a bit confused how at lowest iso you still get noise. On 200 iso on my rebel its already not noticeable. And up to almost 1600 iso on my 5dmk2 I also notice nothing
Lo. Settings on cameras are basically fake ND.
The average digital sensor is rated at iso 320, meaning, it is at its best/balanced sensitivity at that setting.
Therefore, you should be at minimal noise between 100 - 500 iso. Anything outside of that the sensor basically has to 'make up' by either making itself over or under sensitive. (although newer sensors seem to be better in higher iso's, the lower ones still seem to suffer)
its tough to explain, but digital sensors do have a 'too low' issue as much as they do with a 'too high' when it comes to ISO.
- 336
- sixtoes
- sixtoes
Very true, but im a bit confused how at lowest iso you still get noise. On 200 iso on my rebel its already not noticeable. And up to almost 1600 iso on my 5dmk2 I also notice nothing
You don't get noise at low ISOs; that was my point... as long as you stay under 800 or so (or even a touch higher for the best sensors on the market now, like the 1D MkIV or 5D MkII), noise is not an issue. Thus my attempted clarification of Gtuned's comment...
True, but they're getting better with each generation. I've shot "low" (which is ISO 50, as I recall), in conjunction with a ND filter in order to obtain long shutter speeds in bright daylight on my 5DMkII and haven't seen a problem. Couldn't do that on my old 20D, though.
Now - back to the contest!!
- 2,073
- Fezz_ST
- Fezz ST
- 4,771
- New York
- GO6DoRiFUt0
- gtun3d
First off, it's a nice shot - don't let the following technical jargon take away from that.
--- puts on photography instructor hat ---
The opening of the aperture (or 'iris', as you called it) has zero at all to do with the focal length of the lens. I can shoot at 16mm at f/4.0, or I can shoot at 400mm at f/4.0. Likewise, if I want more depth of field (and if there's enough light to do it), I can shoot at 16mm at f/32 or 400mm at f/32.
The point is that if the aperture is wide open (i.e., if it's a lower f-stop number like 2.8 or 4.0), then a lot of light would be hitting the sensor, allowing a faster - not slower - shutter speed. In fact, that's the only way to shoot moving race cars - if you did have a slower shutter speed, they'd be nothing but blurs! That's why you'll see guys with the big white Canon L lenses at race events - they're shooting with apertures of 2.8 whenever possible in order to give them the ability to shoot at fast shutter speeds.
Also, if you have a quality dSLR (e.g., Canon's 1D MkIII or IV, 5D Mark II, Nikon's D3S or D3X), grain is simply not noticeable at all until you get around an ISO of 800 or so.
--- takes off photography instructor hat ---
Like I said, nice photo.
See the thing is with my lenses, When i zoom in, the apeture gets bigger, letting less light in and giving a lower speed. So if i boost up the iso, i can get the quicker speed, or just increase the spped of the shutter and get a darker shot. Now that i think about it, a Properly exposed picture wouldn't have near any noise, as that is close to being, so i guess i did fall into the stupid hipster trend.
Damnit.
- 3,652
- PNW
- cowabungacorey
I think he might mean a real SuperGT circuit
- 571
- Chelmsford
- leexr2i
- 3,652
- PNW
- cowabungacorey
I would wait for the final say by SEJTUR
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
Hmmm How did you achieve that Look Zerox ?
- 3,990
- Area 10
- Valkyrize92
Well, it's hard to explain since i'm not an expert in PS...but i list the tool i used...
-Curve
-Exposure
-Colour Balance
-Noise
-Motion Blur
- a little photo filter.
Is it illegal?
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
Well, it's hard to explain since i'm not an expert in PS...but i list the tool i used...
-Curve
-Exposure
-Colour Balance
-Noise
-Motion Blur
- a little photo filter.
Is it illegal?
No nothing is illegal Just that I think you ditched the Realism concept and went for something More Artsy
Didn't like it at first but Now I do Thanks for your answer.Oh and Question guys Is Duping layers forbidden ?
- 3,652
- PNW
- cowabungacorey
Damn I have a picture real similar to that^ but I don't want to enter it now 
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
No nothing is illegal Just that I think you ditched the Realism concept and went for something More Artsy
Oh and Question guys Is Duping layers forbidden ?
Using layers to achieve what's mentioned in the first post is totally okay, yes 👍
First post is being updated to reflect the tracks allowed
- 115
- nMd_pRo
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Sticky
