Shallow depth of field is a meme perpetrated by the photo industry so they can sell expensive lenses. There are literally dozens of ways to isolate subjects.
It's the laziest thing in the world to just buy an expensive lens and blow everything out of focus that's not the subject. It can be done tastefully if the out of focus bits are thoughtfully composed as well, but genererally most people think it's just a wildcard and the background becomes "invisible" if they just bokeh the shit out of it.
Save money, learn composition. FUCK
>>2840954
this
look at someone like bresson,
f/8 be there.
>>2840954
Clients like bokeh as much as photogs do, and sometimes you're stuck in a location where there's no other good way to isolate a subject, like a packed event or a football field.
I make use of shallow DoF because I often shoot in places where even when I'm directing the subject, the choices are between a busy background or a bland wall, and taking that busy background and turning it into f/1.4 cream makes for a more attractive photo than somebody backed up to bare concrete block.
>>2840954
It's a tool. Some use it wisely, some don't.
People complaining about it are just as annoying as those overusing it.
>>2840963
sometimes it makes me wonder though about many photographers and their portrait work for example.
they open up and get a creamy background, it looks fucking nice I can't lie but, is it a compelling composition? sometimes I can't tell.
>>2840964
[everyone is a faggot] in conclusion
Generally I use those lenses for shooting film in low light conditions without getting lots of noise
>>2840965
The shallow DoF IS the composition, though.
Well, not in and of itself, but it's a conscious choice made by the photographer, as much as posing the subject or choosing a focal length or whatever else. What's "hidden" behind the bokeh doesn't matter, only what it looks like in the final image.
I'll be the first to admit that it's not the most compelling element on earth, too, but when you're working for other people pleasing the client is the biggest concern.
Also, it's worth pointing out that sometimes shallow DoF is incredibly useful for things other than just "hiding" backgrounds. It's excellent for creating negative space to overlay with ad copy or article text, for example. With magazine and newspaper work it's also really useful because sometimes you have to shoot a photo in a stupid format to fit the page or layout and you need something that fills the space but is pleasing and not distracting. (A good example is a full-page car magazine photo, which needs to be taken in a vertical orientation to fill the page and so the car only fills like 1/4 of the frame.)
>>2840973
didn't say nothing bout low light.
If you had the ability to shoot with a smaller aperture and greater DOF in those conditions (let's say in 10 years if sensor development continues) you would usually prefer that, right?
CITIZEN KANE RIGHT?? RIGHT???
>>2840974
Thank you for these valid points. As I said in the OP, it can be tastefully done and useful but the photo industry is luring people into thinking composition is not possible without an expensive lens.
>>2840973
>shooting film
>getting lots of noise
>>2840980
Hey, though, these companies are in business to make money, and fancy lenses are a great way to do it, especially since the cost is 90% labor and markup.
People definitely get too wrapped up in gear, but at the same time I think there's a big disconnect between the kind of photography that most amateurs online do and the stuff that pros or certain serious amateurs shoot. Most of the vocal people on /p/ have anti-gear attitudes because they can take pretty much any camera and lens out for a day, do some street or landscape photography, and come back with one really great photo to share. It's a different story when you're doing portrait work, shooting a sports game or event, or pretty much shooting anything for publication, because there's a specific thing that you have to capture and it's often under conditions that are less than optimal.
With most hobbyist photography, you can work around your gear, but with pro stuff it's usually you and your gear that have to work around a shitty situation, and you're already overloaded enough with the planning, logistics, and on the spot maneuvering that you have to do. You need your gear to make actually capturing the image as easy and convenient as possible, and that's where fast lenses, high-ISO sensors, fast AF and good AE, high burst rates, and all those other features that seem like fluff to most /p/hotogs come in.
>>2840985
Calling grain noise is nothing... a "photographer" I know at work called it sound.
Not even kidding.
>>2840993
>a "photographer" I know at work called it sound.
Oh man, that's a good one. How hard was it to figure out what the fuck he was trying to say?
>>2840958
>look at someone like bresson
>look at someone who was in the right place at the right time for all of his famous shots
Yea...okay...
While OP is right, when it comes to street photography, a lot of that shit is straight up chance and luck.
You have to learn how to interpret what your subject is going to do.
And yes, you definitely have to be in the right place at the right time.
>>2840993
kek, I've heard it called "snow" (in reference to televisions)
>>2840990
I completely agree that if you're a pro, the best gear can always be just quite good enough. I've seen a professional wedding photographer doing post production on his images (3500 images per wedding narrowed down to about 80) and if you're doing that kind of shit it's kinda understandable.
But the industry wants EVERYONE to aspire to that level and that's when you get that unbearable gearlust so many people have. Of course it's understandable from the industry's point of view, because they want to make money just like every other industry.
But when you're not a pro it's always better to be patient and learn how to work around your limitations.
Ironically this is also the most important thing to be good at when you're a pro. You have different kinds of limitations for sure and gear might not be one of them (Although a 1Dx with a typical portrait lens is bloody heavy, can be intimidating, etc. etc.) but you have to work around even more limitations in less time.
So it's better to get into this whole thing with less ideal gear and learn to work around the inevitable limitations to even have a chance at becoming a pro photographer.
Now, expensive gear in the hands of a non pro photographer can only corrupt. You have all that gear and no fun because people (sometimes subconciuosly) even expect great gear to take a great picture. It ends up with them being disappointed. A tragedy really. This is why I created the thread in the first place, shallow depth of field is the greatest so called "requirement" that people fall for.
>>2840997
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3LeN9xrF_o [Embed]
6:50
this has nothing to do with luck.
It's a) actively looking out for subjects
and b) finding nicely composed backgrounds and waiting for the right person to walk in.
Street photography is patience and skill in pre visualization, not luck.
>>2840995
Not hard... he had asked something about his phone pics being shitty about a year ago (noise related) and I showed him how to control his ISO. He must have forgotten because he decided to educate me about it recently, but remembered it as sound.
I tried to act cool, but I know my face looked exactly like this. I could feel it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Picasa Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 788 Image Height 440 Unique Image ID fe531b13d6972295f97e5ef57630192a
>>2840954
but what about in low light
>>2841080
You make sacrifices to get the shot, but it doesn't improve the image.
Also, don't pretend you get good looking photos in low light. Nobody does.
>>2841080
Low light shooting is a meme. 90% of photography is light, stop pretending that a majority of your work is done in pitch black.
>>2840954
>It can be done tastefully if the out of focus bits are thoughtfully composed as well
bingo champ
>>2841080
That is a valid point.
>>2840954
Dude it's easy to get shallow depth of field with cheap lenses. From the cheap ass 50/1.8 to the kit zooms that go to 200 or 300mm.
I think the effect is overplayed and is often a crutch like black and white, so I'm going to agree with you anyway.
>>2841108
Yes, you are, but we're trying to be patient with you anyways.
Post a photo that looks aesthetically pleasing that you took at ISO 3200 or above where the subject isn't' lit by a bright light.
>this thread
Bloody hell /p/ i love you
>>2840993
I quite like film grain, sometimes if I'm using a fast lens I'll add a little grain in post production so it doesn't look super different from the rest of the film
>>2841361
Many people do. And it's a great way to soften the harshness of a highly detailed digital image.
>>2841267
Not him, but how about this one where I'm shooting at 3200 to pull enough shutter speed inside a dark car interior?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D610 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 802 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 20 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:03:25 20:30:22 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/20.0 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 3200 Lens Aperture f/20.0 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 20.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2841470
>f/20
>>2841470
That's not a low light situation, is it? Looks a lot like day.
>>2841621
Shutter priority and we were going in and out of heavy shadow areas as I was shooting. I needed at least f/8 to get enough DoF so I had to crank the ISO for those bits.
>>2841625
It was actually pretty dim, heavy overcast and the sun was setting. High ISO and long shutter speed really lit things up, but you can get an idea of the actual lighting if you look at the light cast by our headlights on the S2000 ahead.
>>2841633
f/4 and 1/60 would have gotten you around ISO 400.
That's not low light.
>>2841640
Like I say though, it was pretty dark in the shadow areas of the road, and also the camera was exposing for the sky, which is like 4 stops brighter than the actual shit in the frame that matters. You're right back at 3200 at f/4 if the shot was properly exposed for the foreground.
>>2841470
Well, you may not understand basic concepts like light levels or exposure equivalency, but at least you also don't know how to process your photos.
The garage door opener is really a nice touch...
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D610 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 910 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 20 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1000 Image Height 668 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:17 19:29:32 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/20.0 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 3200 Lens Aperture f/20.0 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 20.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 668 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2841647
Oh whatever, they were fuckaround shots that I took with a friend, and you can see that it's pretty dim there when it's not overexposed. I honestly just grabbed the first ISO 3200 shot I saw in my library and wasn't paying that much attention to the specifics.
Here, is ISO 5000 at 2.8 in a shitty gym good enough for you? Yes, it's at 1/400 and the shot didn't need it, but the actual basketball shots under the same light did.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3S Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 200 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1000 Image Height 665 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:17 16:32:31 Exposure Time 1/400 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 5000 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 15.00 m Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 200.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 665 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2841651
I can see that it WASN'T pretty dim...
ISO 5000 - 1/400
ISO 2500 - 1/200
ISO 1250 - 1/100
ISO 650 - 1/50
Not very dim.
>>2841653
I don't even know what qualifies a low-light shot in your mind if 1/50 f/2.8 at ISO 650 isn't dim. That's like 9 stops below daylight. By your own math you'd need at least ISO 2500 to reliably handhold 200mm in that light, and that's pretty damn low light to me.
Also, if you're the one who edited my other photo, you need to turn down your monitor brightness. It's at least a stop underexposed the way you did it, probably closer to two, and it wouldn't print worth a damn like that.
>>2841633
>It was actually pretty dim, heavy overcast and the sun was setting
But the clock says 3:26, where do you live that the sun sets that early? Iceland?
>>2841651
And this is hilarious that you think it is a "low light" situation. I literally take photos at night sometimes and don't push past 400 ISO.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X10 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:17 17:06:19 Exposure Time 1/4 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness -2.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 28.40 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2841661
f/1.4
1/70
ISO 6400
This.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Color Space Information sRGB
>>2841662
Clock on the camera was set wrong or something, you can clearly see the sunset colors in the sky in the one where the exposure is turned down.
And I hope you don't think that's a good photo or that shooting at 1/4 was a good idea, because your subjects aren't sharp.
You know, it's funny, your posts are a complete example of >>2840990. You think that high ISOs aren't necessary because you can fuck around and end up with some semi-passable shot at 400 in low light. Try doing that when you have an editor to hand photos to at the end of the day and see how he takes it when you tell him you didn't get a sharp shot of the game-changing dunk because your camera can't pull 1/400 without falling apart.
>>2841669
It's much better than what you've posted. And obviously sharpness was not a big deal to me since I wasn't taking shot of a game changing dunk, you mongoloid.
>>2841673
You're fucking joking, right? How much of a delusional narcissist are you if you think THAT, of all things, is a good shot?
It's like the textbook definition of a snapshit and it's not even technically competent.
>>2841676
Post something better
>>2841003
you realize that "waiting for the right person to walk in" is what luck is, right?
>>2841653
It feels almost criminal that no-one has taken the bait yet, but clearly it's time to bite for the other eurofags in the world.
>ISO 2500 - 1/200
>ISO 1250 - 1/100
>ISO 650 - 1/50
Now, sure, these seem reasonable to you. There is another factor in play here and it's called focal length. Since the shot was taken with a 200mm lens on a full frame sensor, we can assume that 1/200 should be the minimum shutter speed to try shooting this scene at without VR. If you double the focal length, you'll see that it hits 1/400. Which is recommended for the 135 format. The anon exposed properly to eliminate as much motion blur as possible.
Then we hit this
>>2841662
>And this is hilarious that you think it is a "low light" situation. I literally take photos at night sometimes and don't push past 400 ISO.
As a fellow fujifag, I want to pat you on the back. But on the other hand I also read the exif data that reads 28.4mm, 1/4s. I see the motion blur in the shot on every surface. You should be aiming for 1/30 at least. 1/15 with a steady hand.
As much as people will tell you that the reciprocal shutter speed rule is a joke. You should really try and hold onto it on every format you shoot, especially if you shoot longer focal lengths in subpar lighting, or even medium format without a tripod or monopod.
Hey, what do I know though. I'm not a faggot throwing out images with "muh shutter speed" attached that break the reciprocal rule.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SEIKO EPSON CORP. Camera Model EPSON scanner Camera Software EPSON Scan Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 1600 dpi Vertical Resolution 1600 dpi Image Created 2016-05-14T01:14:39+01:00
>>2841772
rules are meant to be broken
Can't remember the deets exactly but I'm pretty sure this was ~3200iso and 1/15th of a second.
Claiming shallow DOF is a mean is like claiming slow shutter is a meme. Or hyperfocal focusing is a meme. It's a way to take a picture and a method of isolating subjects or giving depth to an image. Is it the only way? No, but that doesn't make it less worthwhile to use in the right situation.
>>2841690
you set everything up for the right things to fall into place. It's preperation. You're helping your "luck". You're going away from the thought that everything is completely random and you make your own fate.
>>2842793
*literally tips fedora*
>>2841772
>The anon exposed properly to eliminate as much motion blur as possible.
The point was not that he picked the wrong settings. The point was to illustrate that the light was not dim, and to express it by showing an equivalent exposure that feels less extreme while still collecting the same amount of light.
>>2842832
>The point was not that he picked the wrong settings.
Fair enough
>The point was to illustrate that the light was not dim, and to express it by showing an equivalent exposure that feels less extreme while still collecting the same amount of light.
Pants on head retarded.
>The point was to illustrate that the light was not dim
It was dim enough to warrant that ISO to capture the scene at that shutter speed.
>to express it by showing an equivalent exposure that feels less extreme
>less extreme
>completely different scene
Care to explain in detail?
>while still collecting the same amount of light
The light is completely different. One image is exposed properly and is sharp due to a high shutter speed. The other image is exposed somewhat accurately but adds in motion blur.
>>2842920
Again, you fucking retard, the point is not high ISO is bad all the time, the point is, DIM LIGHT is bad. So if the light isn't dim, then it doesn't apply. And we expressed that the light isn't dim, by showing that the only reason a high ISO was required was that he wanted an extreme shutter speed.
Dim light is like ISO 3200, f/1.4, 1/50.
The reason dim light is bad light is because it's low contrast, which means less perceived detail, poor "pop" in the image, and bad definition of shape in your scene. It's also usually coming from small hard distant light sources which throw ugly shadows in unpleasant directions.
ISO is not the issue. You can take a shot in the daylight at ISO 6400, and it can still look pleasant, because the light is good.
>>2842926
>will still collecting the same amount of light
Let's go full backpedal here and go to
>>2841653
>I can see that it WASN'T pretty dim...
>ISO 5000 - 1/400
>ISO 2500 - 1/200
>ISO 1250 - 1/100
>ISO 650 - 1/50
>Not very dim.
If the point was to illustrate that dim light is bad and not the exposure, then perhaps there should have been no mention of alternative exposures. Especially listed in a way such as this.
If your intent was to get that as your message across, you failed because of your own words.
>will still collecting the same amount of light
>will still collecting the same amount of light
>>2842939
Your post shows quotes of completely factual logical statements, with your own implication that they're incorrect.
You also don't go far enough up in the thread to see that that dude (most likely you) was posting those photos in response to statements that low light is not good light.
Here are those original posts, since you seem to be having trouble:
>>2841085
>>2841086
And for the record:
>ISO 5000 - 1/400
>ISO 2500 - 1/200
>ISO 1250 - 1/100
>ISO 650 - 1/50
all collect the exact same amount of light, and will therefore have the exact same exposure value.
>>2842926
That press photo of the year with the refugee and the barbed wire was dim as fuck. Please just shut the fuck up already.
>>2842963
And was it press photo of the year because the light was so good? or because the story captured in the shot was good enough that the image quality didn't matter?
>>2842943
I'm the one who posted those photos, and I'm not the one who was arguing with you in the last few posts.
I posted them to refute the claim that low light photography is a meme and that high ISOs are not necessary.
>>2841267
Said
>Post a photo that looks aesthetically pleasing that you took at ISO 3200 or above where the subject isn't' lit by a bright light.
So I posted several photos shot at ISO 3200 or higher in which the subject was not "lit by a bright light," but was instead in dim ambient light.
You seem to have a very different definition of "dim" or "low" light from pretty much every photographer I've ever encountered. When photographers talk about shooting in low light, they don't mean conditions that would be better served by a set of military-grade Gen 4 NVGs, they mean ones where a sharp handheld shot would be impractical without fast glass and the ISOs possible with modern sensors. Remember that ISO 800 was considered pretty high until a few years ago.
Here, this is a handheld shot at ISO 1600, f/2, and 1/8. That's two stops darker than the photo you posted. If I were shooting a person in this light, I'd need at least ISO 6400 to reliably keep their features sharp.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model FinePix X100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:07 23:48:44 Exposure Time 1/8 sec F-Number f/2.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/2.0 Brightness -0.4 EV Exposure Bias -0.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2842966
Because it was a really, really good picture.
The idea that dim light inherently makes it impossible to produce a good photo is fucking asinine and I think if you probably know that.
>>2842989
And for the record, the light was excellent for the shot, despite being the definition of dim (required ISO 6400, 1/5, and something like f/1.4).
>>2842989
>The idea that dim light inherently makes it impossible to produce a good photo
Where did anybody say that?
>So I posted several photos shot at ISO 3200 or higher in which the subject was not "lit by a bright light," but was instead in dim ambient light.
Lit by the afternoon sky, and lit by about 40 high powered lights on a gym ceiling sounds like "lit by a bright light" to me! But yeah, I guess shooting at 3 stops down from ISO 100 is "dim" to some people who have only shot with film.
>>2843000
All over this thread with your "low light is a meme" and "ISO 3600 shots don't exist unless illuminated with a bright light" autism that's all over this thread. Stop backtracking, your point is fucking stupid and you clearly are realizing that.
>>2843006
There is no backtracking, there is constant reference to the original point, and you misunderstanding.
Dimly lit scenes (yes, dimmer than ISO 800) are generally not nice to look at. Posting photos that are brighter than that, or photos where the subject is not lit by dim light, don't do anything to even address the point, let alone disprove it.
>>2843008
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/news/2016-02-18/world-press-photo-year-2015-goes-warren-richardson
Will you peel back all the layers of autism and admit your point is fucked or will you keep on with the backtracking?
High ISO is there to help us turn dim scenes into interesting photos, it makes different kinds of light far more workable than they otherwise would be. It also lets us record events we wouldn't otherwise be able to, and lets us practice and hone our craft more than otherwise possible.
Now just go away with your pointless and blatantly misguided shitposting.
>>2843011
You know how, back in the day, you could talk to a bot on AIM, and you would end up in a feedback loop sometimes, where it would say something, and you would correct it, but the correction wouldn't stick, so it would say its thing again? This is like that.
You're being full 4chan, and arguing with a point that nobody is making, and ignoring the point that is being made (in a very clear and consistent manner).
>>2841003
You're joking right? You understand that you have no control of the environment, and all those pieces that allow you to capture that one great shot is a matter of luck, among other things
>>2843017
Because you aren't making any points. First you're saying low light is a meme, then challenging someone to post a good dim photo as if it's impossible to take one when it clearly fucking isnt, then presenting the ever so weak "dim photos are *generally* not pleasing" (news flash: 99% of photos in any given light suck) and now who knows what your point is.
Stop doubling up on what was has been a garbage argument this whole time.
>have shitty MFT sensor
>with shitty f/5.3 setup
>probably months away from new lens and not even sure what to get next because priority is video
>still find ways to isolate objects
>Darktable has easily manageable mask-templates and GIMP exists for fucking free
If I want artsy effects I get them
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Panasonic Camera Model DMC-G70 Camera Software GIMP 2.8.16 Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.3 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 56 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2016:05:19 19:17:15 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/4.3 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 28.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1148 Image Height 862 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Image Quality Fine White Balance Auto Focus Mode Auto Spot Mode Unknown Image Stabilizer Mode 1 Macro Mode Normal Shooting Mode Aperture Priority Audio No Flash Bias 0.00 EV Color Effect Off Contrast Low Noise Reduction Standard
>>2843019
You may not have control over your environment, but you almost always have control over how you frame and position the environment in your photos, through your perspective, field of view, etc.
>>2843000
First of all, you've clearly never shot in a high school or community college gym, or you'd never call the lights "high powered."
Secondly, in what fucking world is that shot "3 stops down from ISO 100?" It's almost six stops under an ISO 100 exposure at the same aperture and shutter speed, and 11 stops under daylight.
Your entire argument is completely nonsensical. You call low light a meme, and then your definition of "low light" seems to be "conditions in which photography is impossible." That's absolutely ridiculous and nobody else ever sees it that way.
>>2843025
I am making one single point, which you have yet to address.
>Dim light usually looks bad.
>The reason dim light is bad light is because it's low contrast, which means less perceived detail, poor "pop" in the image, and bad definition of shape in your scene. It's also usually coming from small hard distant light sources which throw ugly shadows in unpleasant directions.
>ISO is not the issue. You can take a shot in the daylight at ISO 6400, and it can still look pleasant, because the light is good.
Saying the light is bad is not saying that the photo will be bad, or that you can't take an interesting image. It's saying that you can get an interesting image in which the light looks bad.
Nobody challenged you to post a good dim photo.
The challenge (that you clearly didn't understand) was
>Post a photo that looks aesthetically pleasing that you took at ISO 3200 or above where the subject isn't' lit by a bright light.
Which you haven't accomplished.
If it's such a garbage argument, then why are you having so much trouble addressing it directly?
>>2843030
"3 stops down from ISO 100" was in response to "Remember that ISO 800 was considered pretty high until a few years ago."
100 -> 200 -> 400 -> 800
Three stops.
Try to keep up dude.
>>2843031
Your entire argument is contingent on an extreme definition of "dim light" that no other photographer uses. It's impossible to argue with directly because you've set your goalposts so high that the only way we can approach it is to go after said goalposts.
Dim light does not equal a lack of contrast. Here's a photo shot well over an hour after sunset, in the mountains away from artificial lighting. I had to use a flashlight to focus, and ISO 1600 just to get a decent exposure at f/2 and 25 seconds. As you can see, there's plenty of contrast.
>>2843035
You said it in response to a direct quote about the photo I posted, not in response to my comment about ISO 800? How was I supposed to read your mind and figure out that you were talking about another thing I said and not the thing you quoted?
A lack of ability to comprehend that other people don't know what you're thinking is a common indication of autism.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model FinePix X100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:19 10:41:48 Exposure Time 25 sec F-Number f/2.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/2.0 Brightness -10.5 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2840954
ikr
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Width 888 Image Height 500
>>2842943
>shows quotes of completely factual logical statements
>with your own implication that they're incorrect
>all collect the exact same amount of light, and therefore will have the exact same exposure value
I don't even have to say anything at this point. >You also don't go far enough up in the thread to see that that dude (most likely you)
I'm also clearly a completely different anon, and I did.
For the record, not everyone is too DIM to understand the exposure triangle.
ITT : salty poorfags
>>2842943
>all collect the exact same amount of light
except increasing the ISO does not increase the amount of light
>>2843340
You are a complete fucking retard if you read that as "ISO increases the amount of light"; just stop posting and destroy all of your gear.
>>2843344
>ISO 5000 - 1/400
>ISO 2500 - 1/200
>ISO 1250 - 1/100
>ISO 650 - 1/50
>all collect the exact same amount of light
how else am i supposed to read it? If you are halving the shutter speed and increasing the ISO, how does it collect the same amount of light if ISO doesn't increase the amount of light?
It would seem the complete fucking retard is you.
>>2843347
Because ISO is the SENSITIVITY to light, no setting in your camera can increase the light of a scene you fucking mongoloid. I bet you don't even know how an f-stop works.
No wonder /p/ is such shit, nobody knows how their camera works so they just copy paste review scores and keep taking snapshits from inside their mom's house.
>>2843350
>claim ISO increases light
>got called out
>sperg
no wonder /p/ is shit
>>2843367
I think it's you who needs reading comprehension.
admittedly this thread is a bit confusing
>>2843398
im not arguing with the guy you think im arguing with thats why
>>2843408
Slow down dude, this guy can't try to win an internet fight against all of /p/
>>2843413
does it make more sense now?
>>2843429
No. But I think it's established that increasing ISO does not increase the amount of light so whatevs
>>2843029
You Dont have much time, if any, to make sure all of those things are in order. lol but how can you have composition if your subjects in the frame arent even there? They only appear once they enter the frame. Luck plays an enormous role. You can have a vision and wait until the right moment, but luck will be there to help
>>2843679
still better than anything that goes on in the sony threads
>>2841665
Holy crap is that Norwood Hall?
>>2840963
Most people aren't doing this professionally, they're doing it for personal satisfaction and/or art.
Undoubtedly being able to deal with a background you don't want with a flick of a finger is useful for some professional applications, I even do it sometimes for the reasons you state, although I think there's almost always a better solution.
For everyone else that isn't in it to get a check? It boggles my mind why people want to obliterate the world to mush instead of figuring out a way to make it resonate.
Honestly, I think a lot of the time it's because they haven't done the work of 1) figuring out what a good picture is, separate from "professional," or the kind of pictures they wanna make and 2) like OP is saying, actually learning what makes pictures work or not compositionally.
It doesn't help that most amateurs are in it for a shorter game than most pros, really - they upload it and then it's buried in the feed a week later, whereas a professional image is going to be in a campaign or edited album or something that'll be looked at for a long time. It doesn't have to be good, it just has to catch attention long enough for someone to tap like.
>>2840954
this picture is hardly an example of good composition, it's an example of good timing perhaps but the guy is too far away and the framing is kind of shit
And yeah I know who Bresson is
>>2841647
hahahahahahaha seriously stop posting here kid, your processing is ultra-shit
>at least you also don't know how to process your photos.
>look ma I lowered the gamma
seriously, I know /p/ is a nice polite place, but shut the fuck up, don't tell people they don't know processing when you're so shit at it
>>2844214
Oh yeah, I totally get that, I just get annoyed at how narrow /p/'s understanding of what photography is tends to be.
I think a lot of the needs of professionals can often apply to amateurs too, though, but it's just that /p/ tends to shoot certain amateur niches where things like fast glass and high ISOs don't apply as much. The dad taking family photos or the hockey mom shooting her kid's game in a poorly lit rink are very common amateur niches. For things that hit a little closer to /p/'s home, stuff like shooting cosplay or modelmayhem stuff, or doing travel photos can also take advantage of many of those advanced features. (Last time I went to Japan it was in '09, with a D2X and not much fast glass, and I ran into a ton of situations where I would have loved to be able to crank the ISO cleanly, like inside dark temples or on the streets of Kyoto's Gion district at night.)
>Bokeh was made up by the photo industry
>I'm going to fight that by shooting street shots with a super-expensive professional camera because what I'm spewing is the equivalent of tweeting "fuck capitalism" from an iphone
>>2844453
>Being that visually dumb.
>missing saturation, color shifting, local contrast, highlight contrast, shadow contrast, etc.
Glad you're here!
>>2840954
uh, you know there are also plenty of zoom lenses that are expensive as hell too, right?
Shallow DOF is just another option.
Our technology allow to build cheap and sharp 1.4 lenses why not to use it?
The either-or mentality of this fucking board I swear to god, if you mother fuckers put half as much time going outside and practicing your shit as you did trying to figure out all the rules and shortcuts and try to out snob each other you'd all be actual decent fucking artists by now. Sometimes a long depth of field looks nice, sometimes a shallow one looks nice. It's almost as if it's art and they're just fucking tools and you can do whatever the fuck you think looks nice and sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. Jesus fuck. You're a meme OP, perpetrate a dick down your throat.
>>2846505
Sick bump so you could reply seriously (really, blow hard from your soapbox) to an obvious troll thread bro
I feel like my 1.4 gives me bad habits, I feel like I use it as a crutch to make "meh" photos good.
But then I also have a 4.5 and I still take good pics with that so I'm not sure how much I really do use shallow DoF...
