Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Aperture settings
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Feb 28, 2013 08:32:33   #
RCBlank Loc: Ohio
 
Just wanted to throw some thoughts out there that I have had for years,even when I had a film camera.I have always wandered why when the aperture is set at it's lowest number you get more light and at it's higher numbers you get less light.With this pea brain of mine I have always thought when things are smaller You get less and when it is bigger You get more.Why didn't they do the same when it comes to aperture settings as to say the smaller the aperture the less light you get not more and the larger the aperture the more light you get.It seems like My brain would except that easier instead of saying the smaller the number the more you get,just a thought ,seems backward to Me.What do You think.Like if You have a hole that is 1.5 feet across you will get less water to go through it then You would say a hole that is 6ft across.

Reply
Feb 28, 2013 08:46:12   #
Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
The numbers are fractions. Example f16 vs. f8, 1/16 is smaller than 1/8.

Reply
Feb 28, 2013 08:55:38   #
RCBlank Loc: Ohio
 
Well now that makes more sense,glad to see that.I probably have seen it some time or another and it just didn't register.Thanks for the reply to My post.Now if I can get it in My head it is fractions mabe I can knock the cobb webs out LOL.

Reply
 
 
Feb 28, 2013 16:52:49   #
wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska
 
For year f/stops were written f/16 not f16 guess people just got lazy. - Dave

Reply
Feb 28, 2013 16:57:11   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
wilsondl2 wrote:
For year f/stops were written f/16 not f16 guess people just got lazy. - Dave


I think the internet used a lot of the "/" (forward slash) driving the price up. Someone is hoarding them out there.

Reply
Feb 28, 2013 18:11:00   #
ioptfm Loc: Isle of Palms, SC
 
Well, this just made my brain finally comprehend f/stops! (to a certain degree)

Reply
Feb 28, 2013 18:45:38   #
corryhully Loc: liverpool uk
 
looks a nice guitar rc. martin ?

Reply
 
 
Feb 28, 2013 18:56:09   #
RCBlank Loc: Ohio
 
Hi Terry,ya it is one of the cheaper martins but still sounds good .I think it is a D3R it is suppose to be the same as a D28 just cheaper.I think it has laminate back and sides.Easy on the fingers and really good sound

Reply
Mar 1, 2013 03:02:37   #
corryhully Loc: liverpool uk
 
RCBlank wrote:
Hi Terry,ya it is one of the cheaper martins but still sounds good .I think it is a D3R it is suppose to be the same as a D28 just cheaper.I think it has laminate back and sides.Easy on the fingers and really good sound


hi rc
ive never owned a martin but i have played quite a few. they really are excellent. maybe one of these days i will take the plunge.
all the best
terry

Reply
Mar 1, 2013 06:54:55   #
GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden
 
RCBlank wrote:
Just wanted to throw some thoughts out there that I have had for years,even when I had a film camera.I have always wandered why when the aperture is set at it's lowest number you get more light and at it's higher numbers you get less light.With this pea brain of mine I have always thought when things are smaller You get less and when it is bigger You get more.Why didn't they do the same when it comes to aperture settings as to say the smaller the aperture the less light you get not more and the larger the aperture the more light you get.It seems like My brain would except that easier instead of saying the smaller the number the more you get,just a thought ,seems backward to Me.What do You think.Like if You have a hole that is 1.5 feet across you will get less water to go through it then You would say a hole that is 6ft across.
Just wanted to throw some thoughts out there that ... (show quote)


An aperture of f/8 (yes:you should use the dash because it is used here in a maths sense) means that the diameter of the iris diaphragm is equal to the focal length of the lens divided by 8. Clearly, the higher the number, the smaller the hole.
The reason for expressing things in this way is in line with the standard method of quoting overall exposure in terms of the time the shutter is open and the size of the hole through which the light passes. The method itself was chosen to accord with the fact that the response of film to light is exponential (logarithmic) in nature.
GHK

Reply
Mar 1, 2013 07:03:42   #
GrahamS Loc: Hertfordshire, U.K
 
GHK wrote:
The method itself was chosen to accord with the fact that the response of film to light is exponential (logarithmic) in nature.
GHK


No it wasn't. Suggest you do some reading. Look up: 1)Inverse square law and
2) Sensitometric curve.

Reply
 
 
Mar 1, 2013 07:33:16   #
Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL
 
GHK wrote:
RCBlank wrote:
Just wanted to throw some thoughts out there that I have had for years,even when I had a film camera.I have always wandered why when the aperture is set at it's lowest number you get more light and at it's higher numbers you get less light.With this pea brain of mine I have always thought when things are smaller You get less and when it is bigger You get more.Why didn't they do the same when it comes to aperture settings as to say the smaller the aperture the less light you get not more and the larger the aperture the more light you get.It seems like My brain would except that easier instead of saying the smaller the number the more you get,just a thought ,seems backward to Me.What do You think.Like if You have a hole that is 1.5 feet across you will get less water to go through it then You would say a hole that is 6ft across.
Just wanted to throw some thoughts out there that ... (show quote)


An aperture of f/8 (yes:you should use the dash because it is used here in a maths sense) means that the diameter of the iris diaphragm is equal to the focal length of the lens divided by 8. Clearly, the higher the number, the smaller the hole.
The reason for expressing things in this way is in line with the standard method of quoting overall exposure in terms of the time the shutter is open and the size of the hole through which the light passes. The method itself was chosen to accord with the fact that the response of film to light is exponential (logarithmic) in nature.

GHK
quote=RCBlank Just wanted to throw some thoughts ... (show quote)

Reply
Mar 1, 2013 07:45:38   #
Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL
 
Make up your mind GHK: logarithmic or exponential? A logarithm reverses exponentiation; it can't be both!

Reply
Mar 1, 2013 08:52:17   #
GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden
 
Julian wrote:
Make up your mind GHK: logarithmic or exponential? A logarithm reverses exponentiation; it can't be both!


Logarithmic is, by definition, exponential.

Y = X to power N

N = log(base X) Y

(sorry, my keyborard lacks the immediate facility to express everything in the correct way)

Reply
Mar 1, 2013 08:54:34   #
Boots
 
GoofyNewfie wrote:
wilsondl2 wrote:
For year f/stops were written f/16 not f16 guess people just got lazy. - Dave


I think the internet used a lot of the "/" (forward slash) driving the price up. Someone is hoarding them out there.


Is "virgule" doomed to extinction?

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.