Big Problem =(

That is not how ALL of the pictures turned out. A lot of them turned out fantastic. I was simply putting the pictures up that showed a problem that I wanted to know how to fix. I am so frustrated right now...I just wanted to know what the problem was with those few pictures. Period. They did not all turn out that way. Jeeze.

If they didn't all turn out that way, why not put up the ones that turned out correct? If you're asking for assistance, people giving advice can ONLY go off the information you provide. And that information is in the form of pictures.

And no I don't suspect the all turned out that way, but from your original post, it seems the only way for you to get in "control" of the lighting, was for you to be able to use the flash on camera (which isn't bad). However, that shouldn't be your only option; in fact using your on camera flash while you had a lot of ambient light is an option as well. Using your flash you could have lit your subject, and STILL had a fast enough shutter speed so as not to allow the ambient (natural/artificial) light to overpower your subject (lit by the flash), as well as the environment (light by the natural light). However the biggest problem IS that they are blurry - and its not the shutterspeeds fault on that one.

This I think - in BD's special little way - was the point he was trying to make: that even though you have read the manual, exhaustively, and are reading Understanding Exposure, the information hasn't totally synthesized as to what it all MEANS.

Getting frustrated is fine, everyone gets frustrated. But you can't get frustrated at someone who is trying (again in their special aholish way) to give some advice. All of it may not all be constructive (the napkin bit was a bit uneccessary) but the majority of it is spot on. The rest of the advice in the thread is fine - but it really hasn't addressed the major problem here.
 
Your taking my response completly the wrong way.
You asked what you could do to improve them, and I gave a step by step method of doing so. I did NOT just say "go read the manual". And I meant no cruelty in my response.

There is limited space on this forum, so I cant write a photography primer that includes every little trick in the book. I wouldnt even know where to begin and besides that, I dont know all the tricks. Im still learning too. That's where manuals and the books like Mr. T mentioned come in handy. It goes back to the old saying "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime".

Sure we could all probably sit down and go item by item throughout your entire camera, checking off which settings to use for that perticular shot..but that doesnt help you learn WHY those should be that way.

Learning the WHY will help you avoid those problems in the future.

The manual is a huge benefit for those that take the time to study it carefully. It explaines not only what the feature and its settings are, but also how they affect the photo. Now I understand that some manuals are not exactly user-friendly, or easy to understand....but sometimes the hardest things we do in life, produce the best results.

Its kinda like trying to take a test without reading the textbook.
 
Nice try, but thats exactly what you said. Here is your exact quote.

Note: max ISO is 1600. Her Exif data shows an aperture of f/3.5, the fastest for her lens, and a shutter speed of 1/20 to 1/60. All of which produced blurry pictures.

Hmmmm....
 
Nice try, but thats exactly what you said. Here is your exact quote.

Hmmmm....
Funny how if you read the next sentence it would have been more clear.

All of the manual reading in the world won't change the fact she had her camera maxed out and the shutter speed still wasn't there.

That's the point I was trying to make, and if you hadn't purposely left this sentence out to play your games, we wouldn't be wasting bandwidth, would we?
 
Do yourself a favor and pick up a 50mm f/1.8 lens from Amazon for less than $100. This will give you plenty of shutter speed at reasonable ISO's to get the shots you missed here.

Neither of your lenses are what is considered "fast" glass. This means your aperture is too small and isn't allowing enough light in to stop motion by keeping your shutter speed high. The 28-135 and 18-55 lenses are at best f/3.5 at their widest setting (28mm or 18mm). If you zoomed in much, your aperture got even smaller, or f/5.6. You really need f/2.8 or faster and the $100 50mm lens will give you f/1.8 which is MUCH faster and more suitable for low light photography without a flash.

Of course, listen to Big Mike too. :)

You are completely right, but even with that you might still need to use a flash to bounce, and although it's more difficult to get a nice shot with the given lens, it's absolutely possible. You don't NEED a new lens, although it would make a huge difference.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top