dumb camera stuff
there is a myth that having a "fast lens" means taht you can take great shots of most things in low light
i'm going to go ahead and say this is not true
it's a bold statement for sure
but these days bolder is better
it creates more talk than if i said a middle of the road statement everybody could agree with
so why do i think that?
one reason, three words
Depth of Field
depth of field is basically how much is in focus before it gets blur tastic
shot at 1/30 f1.8
It's not too obvious here unless it's blown up
but my cousin (in the back) is blurry compare to my aunt (in the front)
this is b/c of depth of field
when you use a fast lens and shoot at a wide aperture like this
that depth of field is very narrow, so stuff can get blurry quickly
hell sometimes if you focus on the nose, the eyes can get blurry
(it all depends on distance away from the camera but whatever)
what this means is:
only a portion is in focus, and if you want more than a little bit in focus, you're SOL
so what's the actual answer?
there might not be an easy one
flash is definitley an option, but can be very annoying depending on your venue
another option is to bump up the iso to something pretty damn high so you can get the aperture down to something where more stuff is in focus
but then you're dealing with noise and graininess, and possibly slow shutter speeds
these days with people only putting stuff on facebook, noise is not as big of a problem as it used to be, but it's still worth mentioning
the muddiness in this image?
b/c of noise
(some possible image shake, but i don't think so, since i remember resting the camera on something)
the end takeaway
is that the idea that using a "fast lens" will help you shoot in low light conditions is sort of a fallacy
sure you'll be able to shoot b/c of that fast lens at safe shutter speeds
but your results might not be what you desired
i know nobody cares about my photo ramblings, but i wanted to write this out anyways.
BLAH
i'm going to go ahead and say this is not true
it's a bold statement for sure
but these days bolder is better
it creates more talk than if i said a middle of the road statement everybody could agree with
so why do i think that?
one reason, three words
Depth of Field
depth of field is basically how much is in focus before it gets blur tastic
shot at 1/30 f1.8
It's not too obvious here unless it's blown up
but my cousin (in the back) is blurry compare to my aunt (in the front)
this is b/c of depth of field
when you use a fast lens and shoot at a wide aperture like this
that depth of field is very narrow, so stuff can get blurry quickly
hell sometimes if you focus on the nose, the eyes can get blurry
(it all depends on distance away from the camera but whatever)
what this means is:
only a portion is in focus, and if you want more than a little bit in focus, you're SOL
so what's the actual answer?
there might not be an easy one
flash is definitley an option, but can be very annoying depending on your venue
another option is to bump up the iso to something pretty damn high so you can get the aperture down to something where more stuff is in focus
but then you're dealing with noise and graininess, and possibly slow shutter speeds
these days with people only putting stuff on facebook, noise is not as big of a problem as it used to be, but it's still worth mentioning
the muddiness in this image?
b/c of noise
(some possible image shake, but i don't think so, since i remember resting the camera on something)
the end takeaway
is that the idea that using a "fast lens" will help you shoot in low light conditions is sort of a fallacy
sure you'll be able to shoot b/c of that fast lens at safe shutter speeds
but your results might not be what you desired
i know nobody cares about my photo ramblings, but i wanted to write this out anyways.
BLAH