Small Aperture?

[JerryPH]

I thought the camera was supposed to choose the correct shutterspeed when I'm in Av mode and I choose the Aperture. So, I'm not getting why it was 2.5 seconds. 4:30pm is still bright.....

What your eyes see as "bright" may be quite dark at F/22. To let it expose enough, 2.5 seconds was what the camera calculated that it needed.

The solution is to understand how much DOF you really needed to get the picture effectively. At F/22, it needed a lot of time to expose correctly. Perhaps at F/8, you could have made it... let's see some numbers:

Since you shot at F/22 and that = 2.5 seconds in that same light if you went lower, here are the results:

at F/16 that would have been 1.25 seconds
at F/11 that would have been .75th of a second
at F/8 that would have been .45th of a second
at F/5.6 that would have been .23rd of a second
at F/4 that would have been .13th of a second

At F/8, I bet you could have easily captured a SLOW moving object nicely without blur, but to get kids, often you need a numerically lower (wider) aperture in the amount of light that you were acually experiencing.

F/5.6 or F/4 would have reduced motion blur a good amount, but again you start to reduce the DOF.

I think that this time of the year, in North America, the days are still pretty short, and at 4:30PM, the sun was pretty low in the horizon and starting to fade. In this scenario, the light was a LOT less than if it was around, lets say noon or 1 or 2 PM.

One of the things that is an eye opener for many new photographers (it was for me!), was the amount of light that we need for a picture to expose properly.

Example, in an arena, things look clear and bright... heaven help you if you try to get a blur free picture with a lens that cannot cut down to F/2.8 and high ISO (ISO 1600 or higher) at the same time! We see it as bright as our iris compensates, but the camera sees it otherwise.

If you had understood DOF and apertures, this would easily have told you that you cold have "cheated" and increased shutter speed in any of a few ways:

- raise ISO
- increase the aperture
- use a flash
- increase the distance between you and the subject (DOF is a result of several things: distance from you to subject, aperture, depth of distance that remains in focus as a ratio between your camera and what is outside/inside that DOF... in other words, your DOF increases if the distance or magnification between your camera and your subject increases)

- or of course a combination of any of the above suggestions.

Let me show you what you could have done... if you increased ISO to 400 (2 stop increase) and lowered your aperture to F/5.6 (a 4 stop increase), your shutter speed would have dropped from 2.5 seconds to around 1/6th of a second and you could take a pic with a fair amount of "stop motion".

Increase the distance between you and your subject (by taking a few steps back), and if things focus properly, you have likely a lot of room for motion blur reduction and a surprising DOF.

Heck, just turn on that flash and go for whatever your sync speed is (1/200th or 1/250th of a second) and a F/8 aperture... and do the ultimate cheating... lol

Voila, a picture thats motion free and has reasonable DOF!

 

[julie32]

Marry me Jerry.

thank you so much. I'm printing this one out! I need to read it a bunch of times....

 

[MarcusM]

Let me show you what you could have done... if you increased ISO to 400 (2 stop increase) and lowered your aperture to F/5.6 (a 4 stop increase), your shutter speed would have dropped from 2.5 seconds to around 1/6th of a second and you could take a pic with a fair amount of "stop motion".

I don't see how anyone can hand-hold a camera at around 1/6 and not get at least a slightly blurry image, not to mention trying to capture a moving subject.

 

[lifeafter2am]

I don't see how anyone can hand-hold a camera at around 1/6 and not get at least a slightly blurry image, not to mention trying to capture a moving subject.

I agree. I would say, at a minimum you would need to shoot at 1/60th or 1/90th... and that is probably pushing it.

 

[Digital Matt]

I don't see how anyone can hand-hold a camera at around 1/6 and not get at least a slightly blurry image, not to mention trying to capture a moving subject.

Subject movement is unavoidable yes, but in terms of camera shake t all depends on what your focal length is. Hand hold a 200mm at 1/6? Probably not, but a 17mm? I have.