Beginner needs advice

[b.j.o.]

Hi. My name's Brendan. I'm pretty much a beginner. Many a moon ago, when I was very young, I often used my father's equipment as he taught me a few things about photography. Unfortunately I didn't go through with it as I pursued other fields, and had forgotten all about photography. Well, now I'm fascinated by it and want to know everything. I realize it will take some time to achieve a reasonably acceptable level at photo-shooting, but I am very motivated.

I've recently bought a Canon 450D with the cheap Canon 18-55mm iS, and have been experimenting a bit. I've only had the stuff for a few days and am trying to get used to it when I have the time. I've read through the forums, have read about aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, and am more or less understanding it, but not so much in a practical intuitive sense (to call it that), as it's pretty much technical and somewhat vague.

For some reason, I've been mainly making closeups of random objects, like this nail cutter:

http://i721.photobucket.com/albums/ww215/Brenjov/th_PracticePictures01023.jpg (http://s721.photobucket.com/albums/ww215/Brenjov/?action=view&current=PracticePictures01023.jpg)

Could an experienced photographer criticize it for me?

I've also been trying to get the depth of field in such a way that the subject is totally focused and the rest is not. As I understand it, it mostly has to with the aperture value. So I played with it, and I noticed that with a large aperture value there is more focus in the depth, but I still haven't had any pleasing results as I'm so noobish :)

Thanks for the help. I could use it.

[l0gden]

I am a bad photographer :) so I don't qualify for critiquing your image. I will say that when I got my rebel xt kit, about a year ago, I was trying to get shallow depth of field photography and was quite frustrated. The depth of field is impacted by three different variables: Focal Length, Aperture and distance to the subject. It is hard to get the 18-55 kit to give you a nice shallow DOF based on the minimum aperture at the maximum focal length (or at least I never got it to do it well). The best gift you can give yourself to learn how to make shallow dof photos is to get a 50mm 1.8 lens, they are cheap and the aperture opens way up. You should have a lot of fun being creative with that lens.

[b.j.o.]

Actually (if I understood you correctly), I meant -- if it's at all possible -- to focus an object entirely while blurring the rest. So with the nail cutter, I'd for instance want those little iron balls focused as well, so the whole object is focused, with the background (and foreground) blurred.

[l0gden]

I'm sorry I should have looked closer. It looks like you managed to get the DOF pretty shallow with what you got. Making the aperture smaller will give you a larger depth of field and thus allow you to have more in focus from front to back. But it looks like you are pretty close to the subject here so that is contributing to the shallow depth of field you are getting right now. Increase the aperture number (make the aperture smaller) until you get results you like or move back a little from the object.

[number six]

Welcome to POTN, Brendan!

Your 450D with the 18-55 IS is a very good choice to begin with. That lens is amazingly good for such a low price. It's an almost-macro lens, too - you can focus close enough to get 1:3 magnification.

Your nail clippers were shot at 55 mm and f/5.6 (wide open), which is why you can't get it all in focus. Try f/11 to f/16 for greater depth of field - in fact, try f/22 or higher also.

The smaller apertures will require a much slower shutter speed, so you'll need a tripod or more light. IS will work down to about 1/8 or 1/6 second if you're careful while shooting, though.

Smaller apertures than f/16 will have some loss of sharpness from diffraction, a phenomenon in all lenses. But often with macros it's more important to get the depth of field.

Exposure is good in that shot, although I think I'd bump it up 1/3 or 2/3 stop and see if I liked it better. You can do that with exposure compensation in camera or in post processing.

Have fun!

-js

[WaltA]

Welcome to POTN, Brendan!

Your nail clippers were shot at 55 mm and f/5.6 (wide open), which is why you can't get it all in focus. Try f/11 to f/16 for greater depth of field - in fact, try f/22 or higher also.


-js

I think what hes trying to do is get a narrow DOF so the background is out of focus.

Quote from the OP---
I've also been trying to get the depth of field in such a way that the subject is totally focused and the rest is not. As I understand it, it mostly has to with the aperture value.
-------------------------

[b.j.o.]

Great advice, guys :) I've been forced to fully go into M mode, and am now experimenting. Since it's already getting dark in here, I played with higher ISO and smaller aperture. I also put the shutter speed lower, and practised steady hands. Played with the lights in the house. Hah, great! Experimenting and practising all these things simultaneously!

[b.j.o.]

I think what hes trying to do is get a narrow DOF so the background is out of focus.

Quote from the OP---
I've also been trying to get the depth of field in such a way that the subject is totally focused and the rest is not. As I understand it, it mostly has to with the aperture value.
-------------------------
Maybe it's my fault for being unclear. What I wanted was to have the nail clipper fully focused and emphasized, while all the rest is out of focus. The little string of iron balls -- part of the nail clipper -- is a bit further away than the cutting part, but I want both in focus, as they are at different ranges, AND all the rest out of focus.

I think I just achieved it (or at least what I find acceptable for the moment).

[number six]

Maybe it's my fault for being unclear. What I wanted was to have the nail clipper fully focused and emphasized, while all the rest is out of focus. The little string of iron balls -- part of the nail clipper -- is a bit further away than the cutting part, but I want both in focus, as they are at different ranges, AND all the rest out of focus.

I think I just achieved it (or at least what I find acceptable for the moment).

Generally, the only way to do that is to have some physical separation between the subject and the background/foreground.

BTW - you've probably already figured this out - manual focusing is often necessary for macros...

-js

[xoldboy]

as far as exposures go, you might want to read "understanding exposure" by Bryan peterson. His book is easy to read, retaining and will help you better understand the exposure triangle (as stated in the book). Its fairly cheap (15-25 bucks depending where you get it) and will help you in a great deal. Before reading that though, try reading the camera manual. its like 60 pages i think and will better familiarize you in the world of photography.

as for only manual mode... eh its a great option at first but it might take a while to get used to playing with the settings. i would recommend Av (aperture priority) or Tv (shutter priority) mode first. in Av, you control aperture, which controls the DoF (depth of field). You'll be able to tell at what aperture you want for a clear or blurry background. Bokeh is a common term used to refer the blurriness in the background, so may see that a lot. Tv mode will allow you to adjust how sharp and crisp you want the shot. Ever see those pictures of cars in the city, all you see is the break light streak across the image? thats shutter speed set to like, 15-30 seconds. aperture, shutter speed, ISO all effect the image (there are more factors, but thats stuff you should learn after the basic functions of the camera). Once you get a good understanding of how they work, you will be able to shoot manual quite easily.

Understanding Exposure, you definitely have to read it, it refers to both film and digital but the ISO, Av, and Tv are similar on both style cameras.

[b.j.o.]

I will accept your advices.

js, I activated the center AF point and just used that. I did try manual focusing a few days ago, but didn't like it. I will surely try to use it. I don't think it should be too problematic. It's just that it doesn't feel so good to turn it on this lens, as the thing feels so fragile and physically uncomfortable. Would you be so kind to post an example picture regarding that physical separation between subject and foreground/background?

xoldboy, when I read what you say, am I correct in thinking I could make running water look very much "soft" as if it moves by lowering the shutter speed, and I could pretty much make it look more still by increasing it? I'm starting to imagine this can be creatively used in certain situations to emphasize speedy movement of something while all the rest does not move. Suppose you wanted to make it look like an insect just took off from a leaf, give it the expression of movement. Would this work if you set the time to a second or two and shot right after it takes off?

[[Hyuni]]

Set the aperture to the lowest possible number, zoom as much as you can on the subject you want to shoot or get as close to the subject you can to 'seperate' the subject from the background as much as you can.
You'll be actually playing around with Depth of Field. If you want to make your subject sharp, but the background blury, you want a 'shallow' (little) DoF. The depends on 3 major factors, aperture should be wide open (smallest aperture number available), the distance from the lens on your camera to your sensor (that's why *optical* zooming gives you the most bokeh) and the distance from your lens to the subject you want to shoot. (the closer you are, the more seperation from the background you get)

Working a camera is almost exactly how your eyes work.
If you're having a problem with the background being focused and your subject being out of focus, I bet it's because your camera is TOO close to the subject. All lenses, or as a matter of fact, all optics, have a maximum focal point. The focal point is where you'll get maximum clarity. For example, take your hand and put it one inch from your face. You can see that it's impossible to see your hand clearly and if you look through your fingers, the background is in focus. I think that's what your camera is doing. The subject is too close, so the camera's computer is telling it to focus on the background. If you slowly bring your hand away from your face, you can see that your hand starts to get in focus. That's because your hand is at it's focal point.

Hold your hand close to your face. You can see that your hand is in focus and the 'background' is quite blurry. I'm not going to get really technical, but it's because the focal point intersects very close to your eye. That means, after it intersects, the line of sight gets a LOT wider (like a sideways V) and everything behind gets blurry. Now go outside and look at a sign or post about 100 ft away with something less than 10 ft away fromt he sign or post. No matthew HOW hard you try, your eye won't be able to blur that 'something else' from that sign or post, because your focal point is longer and makes a lot more things sharper.

Adjusting aperture is like how our pupils dialate in dark rooms and get smaller in the sunshine. It regulates how much light enters our eyes, or in the camera's case, the sensor. If you've ever tried reading small print, you'll see that you squint your eyes. It's the same with the camera and aperture. The smaller the hole is, the more in focus things will be.

--

All this is probably too much information and I don't know if it even made any sense.
It's a difficult concept to wrap your head around, but here's a website that really helped me understand aperture a lot better:
http://digital-photography-school.com/aperture-101 (http://digital-photography-school.com/aperture-101)

good luck!

[number six]

js, I activated the center AF point and just used that. I did try manual focusing a few days ago, but didn't like it. I will surely try to use it. I don't think it should be too problematic. It's just that it doesn't feel so good to turn it on this lens, as the thing feels so fragile and physically uncomfortable.

Yeah, nobody likes the focus ring on this lens. But it does work. A useful technique shooting macros is to focus the lens manually to some point on the subject and rock back and forth slightly to adjust your actual focus point. Just a little bit of movement makes a difference with macros.


Would you be so kind to post an example picture regarding that physical separation between subject and foreground/background?

This isn't a macro (or a very good picture) but it shows the separation I'm talking about. The blade of grass in the foreground is far enough away from her head that it's very OOF. Same for the background.

362648

[[Hyuni]]

I will accept your advices.
Would you be so kind to post an example picture regarding that physical separation between subject and foreground/background?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/ChangHyun84/IMG_2783.jpg
like I mentioned earlier, set your aperture wide open (lowest number, Should be 5.6 fully zoomed on your lens), zoom all the way out (55mm on your lens), and get close to your subject. You'll be able to get a sharp image of your subject, wth a diffused background, like my example.

Btw, go take photos outside where there's lots of light and take pictures of things more interesting :)

[b.j.o.]

Thank you for all the help, all of you. I really appreciate it.

If time permits it, I think I'll take a long walk through the city and a park on a saturday or sunday morning/afternoon and see if I can make some nice pictures. In the meanwhile, I'll try to learn as much as possible and keep bothering you with questions :P