Photography Principles

Composition: overblown gimmick. literally the least important part of the aesthetics of your image, yet ironically the most talked about by beginners.
Depth of Field: How much of your image is in focus, from front to back.
Rule of Thirds: A hacky approach to an overblown gimmick.

Anything else you'd like to know?

>>2976959
Actually yeah...

How does ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture change my image?

>>2976957
Composition: the things in your frame
Depth of field: how we view the things
Rule of thirds: a meme, talked about more by those against it and rarely by beginners that use it.

>>2976965
I'll bite since im bored. All three work to either over or under expose your picture.
ISO
Higher number - over
Lower number - under
Shutter
Faster speed - under
Slower speed - over
Aperture
Higher stop (smaller hole) - under
Lower stop (bigger hole) over

Aside from this, each of the three components have side effects.
ISO
Higher number - lessen quality
Lower number - can't take night shots
Shutter
Faster speed - less light in
Slower speed - motion blur
Aperture
Higher stop (smaller hole) - more things in focus
Lower stop (bigger hole) over - less things in focus

Photography is all about controlling these three things, so that you get the right exposure and balance out the drawbacks in each setting to create the best possible picture. Congrats on being spoon fed on p.

We need some short /p/ FAQ.

-Simple technical stuff
-Gearfag guide
-meme guide (vsco, how to aesthetics, film is superior etc)

File: posterRepro-01.png (445KB, 3526x2550px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 3526x2550px

>>2976965
pic should make it clear to a non-retard, also this guy made a little game which also makes it clear how shutter-priority (Tv dial on canon) and aperture-priority (Av dial on canon) work by adjusting the other two non-selected parts of the triangle.
http://www.exposuretool.com/

>>2976969
Thanks for explaining this.

So, it sounds as if I have to juggle all of those things in order to get a nice/decent looking picture.

One more thing, does the build of the camera also affect the quality?
What about the lenses?

Geometry & Rhythm

Forget "composition".

Think in terms of geometry first. To simplify, how do the elements break down into their simplest forms and relate to one another to create harmony or disharmony?

Rhythm is more esoteric, but think about whether the form and structure of the image creates a sense of energy and effortlessness or not.

There is no ideal geometry and thinking in these terms can help you break out of the box where you are just trying to "rule of thirds" everything.

>>2976974
That would be fantastic.

>>2976975
Thanks for this.
Retarded question but... why are Apertures labeled with "f"? Just wondering

>>2976978
I see. So instead of trying to create a "focal point", you're saying it's best to get "shapes" to relate to each other? Like, a square against a triangle or something.

>>2976974
all that shit is available on 30,000 different websites already if they spend 2 seconds on google. There's absolutely none of "the basics" that needs one more guide to be made or posted Anywhere on earth, it's fucking Everywhere and someone too stupid to just ask google that question is someone who will be making trash snapshits anyway.

>>2976982
F-stops are f/D
f is the focal length, and D is the diameter of the entrance pupil (effective aperture).

For example, if a lens's focal length is 10 mm and its entrance pupil diameter is 5 mm, the f-number is 2, expressed by writing "f/2"

F-stop ratios are used rather than just saying how big an opening it is because a 50mm opening on a 100mm lens acts more like a 25mm opening on a 50mm lens than you'd think if you only saw the opening size.

File: u-mad-1.jpg (32KB, 500x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x480px

>>2976986
While true...

>>2976994
I see. So the aperture is dictated by the lens length correct?

>>2976986
this. thats how i taught myself photography. just google 'beginners guide to photography' or some shit like that. then just google everything and get a more in depth article about every concept that you dont know.
then just keep doing that until you can remember it. and try to put it into practice so its not just words on a page but has a real world application which will help you remember the concepts.

>>2976999
Point taken. Learning as I go in fact.

>>2976984
More like being able to reduce the image to its simplest elements (like squiggles, lines and shapes) to see if they are arranged in a pleasing or effective way.

This in some ways seperates the emotional and intellectual connections you have with the subject from how you "see" the composition. (Of course, in the best case these are intertwined)

Rather than thinking "this is a picture of a dog, and it needs to be near the middle" you can start to sense the bigger picture and consider more of the elements in the frame.

I feel that if you can intuitively master the form and rhythm, even with boring or shitty subjects... It puts you way ahead of the game and makes you far more likely to get a great image when the great subject appears

>>2977003
i totally get that sometimes its just easier to ask people who already know, but in the future, maybe try a QTDDTOT thread or something.

>>2977009
Sure. Honestly, it does feel like photography can be overwhelming.
Seems like lots of technical things come into play and knowing each one of them is just as confusing as it is to apply them.

Not saying those things don't count, but it sure feels different from the "frame and shoot" approach.

>>2977008
I hear you there. Will definitely have to pat this down.
We are so used to seeing things for what they are, rather than for their elementary shapes.
Totally worth mastering this.

>>2976977

the camera body does not determine the image quality, the main factors are the image sensor and the lens.

The lens is the factor that makes the biggest difference, it determines if the image will be sharp or soft, or if it will be distorted (lines that should be straight bends slightly in bad lenses), or not.

"nice decent looking picture" is also dependent on the quality of the light, if its soft, with weak shadows or harsh, with sharply defined shadows. this is determined by the size of the lightsource. f ex a window will produce softer shadows than a small light bulb. usually soft shadows is more desirable for portraits, but used right, hard shadows can be more interesting

i might be getting way ahead of you, but:
I think the most important thing you should start thinking about after the basics is the light. start trying to notice how the light looks like in different situations. how sharp is the shadows, what colour is it, where does it come from etc.

if you do that your images will start looking better wayy faster than if you learn the rule of thirds.

>>2977012
photography is one of things that once youve learned this stuff its pretty easy and it becomes second nature after youve got a little bit of practice. its not like a sport where you cant let your skills fade for a second or youll fuck up. youll usually have plenty of chances and plenty of time to make your decisions.
when you start, shoot only in full manual so you know how every setting will affect the outcome.

>>2977020
Interesting.
Bought a Nikon D3400 as a Kit.
Wonder if those lenses are of OK quality or not.

As for the light, will definitely look into it.
So how do people take pictures at night or of dark places?

>>2977022
In all honesty, I feel a bit intimidated in manual mode. Feel that I need to get better at taking pictures before jumping into full manual.

Auto does give you a piece of mind tho.

>>2976969
Where were you when I started?

>>2977028
it might be a bit intimidating but it will make you put more thought into your photos and it will force you into a deeper understanding of the principles at work.
i never liked using any auto settings because, to me, it always felt like why even bother then. if the cameras going to do all the work for me then why am i even a part of the process.

>>2977031
Agreed 100%

With that said. Could you explain the different manual modes? (M, A, S, P)

>>2977024
kit lenses is seldom good, but definitely usable. You should not buy a new one at least before you can point at your own pictures and, without repeating from some blog or yt video, formulate for yourself why that picture wouldve been better with another lens.

the main disadvantage with kit lenses is they have a smaller aperture opening, so they let through less light, so youll either need to use a higher iso or slower shutter speed.

night pictures is done with a tripod, a long shutter speed and a relatively low iso.

>>2977028
when shooting manual you can easily see what works and dont works. who cares if some of the first images you take turn out blurry, too bright or dark.
just take a picture, look at the preview in camera, is it too bright or dark?, zoom in to see if its blurry, if youre not happy with the result, take the same pic with different settings.

for practice you can find a scene and shoot several versions with different settings and see how they affect the images.

>>2977036
i have a film camera so nope.
got myself an OMD for christmas on black friday but it hasnt come in yet.
if i had to guess, is that M is full manual, A is aperture priority, S is shutter speed priority and p is photography? its photography mode.

>>2977042
>>2977036

M is manual, in
A you set the aperture and the camera determines the rest,
in S you set the shutterspeed and the camera does the rest,
P is program mode, here camera determines Shutter and Aperture, and ISO if your camera is set to auto-ISO

>>2977016
Maybe when the kids are in highschool ;)

>>2977045
Thanks anon.
So M is all me basically.
A is Aperture and the camera pitches in.
S for shutter and same as above.
P feels like Auto but in Manual somehow.

>>2977051
in auto the camera does everything, even iso, if the flash should fire or not. the only thing the camera leaves up to you is the pointing and clicking.
in p you can still change the exposure settings if youre not happy with how the camera interpreted the light.

>>2977056
Oh! Before I go, had one more thing to ask.

The camera (Nikon 3400) has a couple of function buttons. I gather you can program those to whatever needs (ISO, etc).

How should I set them up?
Or how do you guys set those functions to fit your liking?

>>2977061
thats entirely dependent on you, which settings you find you need to access often.

i think its pretty common to use one fn for ISO
and one for White balance..

File: ak.jpg (73KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 600x600px

>>2977063
Fair enough.

Thanks for all the help guys!
In return, I'll leave you with a nice ass pic :P

>don't know who she is tho but she fine af

>>2977029
Probably on the same page you were at. Interested in photography, but no idea how to actually use my dslr. I just learned everything very recently and have been enjoying taking photos since.

>>2977074
https://www.instagram.com/anastasiya_kvitko/?hl=en
congrats on being spoon fed again, this time not even in photography.

>>2976978
>>2977008
thanks for this!

>>2976957
OK. Rough composition:
1) Never put horizon in the middle of the frame, unless you really mean to.
2) Never put a symmetrical vertical object in the middle of the frame, unless you really really mean to.
3) If you are photographing an object, make sure it either does not touch (or come very close to) the edge of the frame, or it proceeds well behind it.
4) Be careful about lines bisecting and avoid them if you can.

>>2976969
Thanks. You've helped more than one anon

>>2976975
This picture is retarded, it misses the core principle. Each of these steps is equivalent to one stop, a stop is a doubling/halving of light being taken in by the sensor, changing your shutter speed from 1/8000 to 1/4000 gives the same difference in exposure as going from a 30 sec to 1 min exposure

Going from iso 100 to iso 200, gives same change in brightness as going from 30 second to 1 minute exposure, or the same as going from iso 3200 to iso 6400

And again with aperture, each "stop" is equal to a halving/doubling of light hitting your sensor Going from f8 to f5.6 will change the brightness the same as going from iso 400 to 800, or shutter speed from 1/250 to 1/125

To remember the aperture stops, just keep doubling 1.4 and 2 (1.4, 2, 2.8,4, 5.6, 8)

Once you know stops there is little else to learn on the technical side.

Aperture effects depth of field, the larger the aperture, the smaller the f number, the smaller the dof.

Shutter speed effects motion blur, shorter shutter speed, less motion blur.

Iso effects noise, greater the iso, lesser the image quality. The reason to increase iso is to get a faster shutter speed.

>>2976996
Ignore him, you don't need to know why apertures are what they are, just that they are consistent, a 10mm f2 will need the same shutter speed and iso as a 300mm f2 if you were shooting a blank wall and wanted equal exposures.

>>2977024
>night shots.
A fast lens (f1.8 or greater) will help the most, a kit lens isn't ideal.
A 50mm f1.8 is cheap, especially an old mf one
A rule of shutter speeds is 1/2*fl shooting handheld, down to 1/fl if you can brace yourself and you have practiced shooting blur free shots ( harder than you probably currently realise).
So, we're shooting wide open (f1.8) to let in the most light, we're at 1/100 on shutter speed as that's as slow as you can go with a 50mm handheld. Now up the iso until the exposure looks like you want, pop your camera into liveview to get an instant preview.

>>2977215
Thanks, i had never really understood stops before.

>>2977245
kek

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_(visual_arts)

What is ISO? I know how to use it, but what is it? Why does it make it noisy? Why hasn't it improved as much as other things have?

>>2977261
>what is it
Gain applied to the sensor
>Why does it make it noisy
increasing gain reduces the signal to noise ratio
>Why hasn't it improved as much as other things have
It has, in the ccd days going over 400 you got barely usable images, in film days you had to stick with 100 on full frame for crisp, clean images. With CMOS you can get to 1600 on ff before noise begins to be an issue.

The difference between iso 100 and iso 1600 is 16 times more light.

iso is an arbitrary measurement, however every manufacturer sticks with values that give very similar results from the film days. Everyone apart from Fuji... who underexpose by nearly a full stop so when it gets compared to other cameras people think the fuji image is cleaner, it's not, it's just using a different iso scale from everyone else.

File: CyrN4-eUoAEBAlD.jpg (67KB, 645x911px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 645x911px

>>2977264
>The difference between iso 100 and iso 1600 is 16 times more light.

>>2977215
You're wrong about f-stops being consistent.

t-stops are consistent. That's why cinematographers use lenses with t-stops, even the smallest change in exposure would be noticeable after switching focal lengths in a film.

What you suggested would take literally 10 seconds to test at home before you spewed your garbage on here promoting it as fact.
If by consistent you mean that the switch from f/16 to f/11 will ALWAYS double the light that hits the film/sensor then that'd be correct but that's not what you said because
you're just a
stupid fucking
loser

Wow there is a lot of bullshit in this thread.
Composition is THE most important skill a photographer MUST be good at

>>2977453

That's wrong though

>>2977333

Yeah, that's pretty bad.

File: derp_fgfds.jpg (24KB, 335x352px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 335x352px

>>2977376

>>2977376
>being this pedantic over the difference between calculated and actual light transmission.

>faggytwatfeatures.jpeg

>>2977453
You surely meant choosing the right digital camera is the most important skill a photographer must have.

>>2977333
>>2977473
What are you taking issue with, it's correct.

>>2977729

It's wrong. ;)

>>2977376
>>2977477
>>2977720
Completely not pedantic. Particularly with fast lenses at wide apertures or with macro distances, f-stops and transmission don't have a linear relationship. It's a practical issue if you're in any modestly critical application.

You can call it "pedantic" because you personally don't care about the difference - but really the guy is right and it's important in some situations.

>>2977893

I can't really think of a situation where it actually matters in photography to be fair.

Cinematography sure, but photography? Nah.

>>2977896
When you're doing tons of photos or product photography, or matching from two cameras simultaneously. Sure, you can do batch exposure compensation afterward, but really, just adjusting the exposure to account for transmission differences right while shooting saves you some time.

It's not everyday - but understanding the distinction matters.

Actually - it matters more when shelling out a lot of money for "fast" glass and realizing that extra stop you're paying for is really more like half that.

>>2977891
Base ISO 100
ISO 200 twice that
ISO 400 twice that again
ISO 800 twice that again
ISO 1600 twice that again.
1*2ˆ4 = 16

4/10, I took the bait.

>>2977891
What do you think the answer is dear?

>>2977918
>>2977938

It's 256, retards. Exposure is logarithmic, not multiplicative.

Iso 200 = 2x more
400 = 4x light
800 = 16x
1600 = 256x

File: tumblr_nxsol1zlGg1sp8ng5o1_250.gif (2MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x250px

Point the camera at the thing you want a picture of. Think about what is inside the picture, and what is not. Change this by pointing the camera in slightly different directions.

When what you want in the picture is in the frame and what you don't want in it isn't, press the shutter button to take the picture.

Don't worry about settings, set it to Auto, or better yet, "P" (Program) mode. This lets the camera figure out the boring stuff for you, so you can relax and think about taking pictures.

>>2977953
Are you sure a stop isn't a doubling or halving of light ;)

(pro tip, it is.)

>>2977959

but you're wrong. ;)

>>2977953
At this point I honestly don't understand if you are trolling. Yes, every step is doubling of light. That is why the ISO goes 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, and not 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600. If it did the latter, then 500 wouldn't be 5 times as much light, but 2^4 times as much light...

>>2976975
dat noise at iso 200

>>2978012
Nah, she's just that dumb and stubborn.

Do you have any references sugartits?

>>2978317

>he still shoots film

File: IMG_0107gottagofast.jpg (129KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1200x800px

I'm just starting out too, so it's interesting to have these basic principles explained in different ways and with the varying degrees of faggotry presented in this thread.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:06 01:37:13
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	33.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2978320
>wait since Sunday to post this message
>finally post it
>this digipleb little cuck bitchboi comes along and posts this pleb ass post
>>he shoots film
I'm fucking triggered right now. Yes this is the same time I'd have waited to post this had I been following reciprocity on a shit emulsion but f-fuck you there's more to recriprocity and reciprocal than just film photography. I-I also meant the reciprocal shutter speed rule, b-but okay. I don't expect to see recriprocity mentioned outside of the /fgt/ and I never see it there either.

Excuse me now, I need to cool off. I'm getting this hot head outta here.

one compositional idea I've never heard a satisfactory explanation for is balance. generally speaking, you can tell if an image is well-balanced. but what principles govern this gestalt? are there color theory/geometric explanations? and how do we resolve the apparent contradiction between the concept of balance and our strong aversion to highly symmetric compositions?

>>2978342

Composition is 100% subjective and "balanced" basically means you have a reason to look at both sides of the picture.

>>2978342
On BALANCE.
A. Let's not conflate "balance" with "harmony". A well balanced photo can have disharmony and vice-versa.

B. There are a number of ways to think of balance. One way is to break down all the different elements that might affect prominence or visual "weight" in an image and how we might put each on opposing ends of a continuum.

A. Color. Some colors attract far more attention than others. A bright red vs. a dull blue for example. In this case, balance can be achieved with only a little red and much of the blue

B. Visual weight. Certain elements are larger, brighter, closer, more in-focus, etc. vs being smaller, darker, more distant, blurred, etc. Visually (without consideration of content) these things create "weight"

C. Emotional weight. Eyes, for example, have a huge priority as we process a scene. Thank our hunter-gatherer days when locating prey or enemies in the grasslands was a big advantage. So, certain things have a high "weight" when it comes to the emotional equity they hold. In a photo of one baby standing in a sea of adults, more weight will land on the baby.

D. Think of others - diagonals vs. horizontal/verticals. Elements with leading lines. Pattern. Disruptive elements. unexpected elements. Spacial balance. Geometric, symmetry...

Thinking about these and playing with them is a lot of fun.

>>2978540
You use lots of words to disguise the fact that you're just a rich dude with a camera that never learned to appreciate photography from a non-gear perspective
It gets tiring to see you assume yourself credible

>>2978540
the thing is: I know about all of these soft concepts but I never actually see them applied in a halfway rigorous way, except in very simple abstract art. i.e. I have never seen a complex image broken down into its weights and tested against some ideal. balance obviously isn't a matter of spreading prominent objects around the center of a painting, we usually want our eyes to be drawn to a particular place. does the mona lisa lack balance? is the concept of balance more a matter of making the prominent zone relatively small relative to the rest? wouldn't the mona lisa have much worse "balance" if she had beady predator eyes? or is the concept of balance better applied to a classical painting with many figures?
here's a question, can you think of any images you consider extremely unbalanced? are there any unbalanced abstract paintings?

>>2978582
*I guess you would say that changing the eyes would change their prominence by making them unusual. a better question: does balance for a particular pose change by camera perspective? don't we just see a person as a person first, except in extreme cases of fisheye distortion?

>>2978582
I agree with you. Pointing out fairly subjective opposing ideas doesn't really explain the "rules."

Perhaps at the least, it can help us better explain what we see and how we feel about it.

I have seen, for example, pretty in depth and interesting analysis of some Bresson work, breaking everything down to the elements like this. Gursky as well.

I feel diffusely like the more you think about these things looking at other people's work or just the world around you, the more this is reflected in the photos you take.

>>2978542
Thanks for your insightful contribution, but we learn more from people who comment on content rather than their personal insecurities.

>>2978588
Oh, missed this. The eye thing just boils down to that even if eyes take up 1% of the frame, our attention tends to go there quickly. And it outshines larger elements. Think of how differently you look at a landscape with a person in it looking at the camera vs. looking away.

>>2978342
As an example of an unbalanced photo, imagine a scene where there is a symmetric object in the middle, and one more object on the left side.

One side of the photograph is "heavier" and the other is empty.

File: img3729s.jpg (275KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1000x1000px

>>2979096
For a less abstract example, this is a photograph that is not balanced.

There is a woman in the left top corner, girl in the left bottom corner, horseman with people on the left side of the center, but the right bottom is empty. It feels like if you'd put the photograph on a wall pinning it in the center, it would fall to the left.

>>2979097
but: the lower right hand corner is active space, and cropping it out would make the photo worse (even unbalanced?)
>>2979070
got any links for that kind of analysis? sounds intriguing
>>2979071
yeah I guess my point is that portraits are very unbalanced photos in terms of eye movement but they are the most popular form

>>2979350
There used to be a giant Dropbox of /p/ books - I no longer have it.

File: 1474738904998.jpg (420KB, 1680x1112px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1680x1112px

>>2977958
I like to take 6 month long hiatuses from this board. Every time I get back your humour blows me away with it's insane levels of complexity and wit.

How often do you guys readjust the composition by cropping in post? Do you shoot to get it right in the camera or do you're leave some space around what you think it's the ideal framing to give you flexibility for cropping later on

>>2984864
How often do I correct my mistakes in post?
Pretty much never. I'm not some amateur bitch boy who needs computers to hold his hand for online work.

>>2984864
I always consider it, I try to frame pretty tight though
and sometimes I regret it

>>2976959
yeah do you like the memes?

>>2984864
Always, it's a hangover from my film days.

And getting the horizon perfectly level every time in camera is an impossibility, even those fancy digital spirit levels cameras have these days only get you within about 2 degrees.

The other reason is I may see a scene and realise something about it works but not , so i will take enough photos to capture that moment then crop and play in post to find what exactly it was that made that scene interesting.

I may only come away with 30% of the original shot, this extremity of cropping can only really be done with a newish full frame body and decent glass.

File: yTkpdKexc.jpg (97KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1024x1024px

>Rule of Thirds, etc.
I stopped paying attention to any compositional rules, and instead looked for balance and harmony in the scene. This was easy to learn with a 4x5", since the image is upside-down on the groundglass.

A "trick" I use when using an SLR or rangefinder, is to squint with my eye, so that the scene in the viewfinder goes blurry. This way it is very easy to see if the image is in balance or not.

I also works, instead of squinting, to sort of focus in between you and the scene. Look at the scene as if you were looking at one of those Magic Eye 3D posters