DSLR noob needs C&C !!(Somewhat offbeat pic)

[kalni]

Found an old screwdriver set lying around and decided to capture it with my new d5000
Comments appreciated.

 

[DanFinePhotography]

its slightly overexposed. Interesting photo and use of DOF

 

[kalni]

Thanks Dan, I realize it is a bit overexposed, and even one I posted yesterday was slightly overexposed. I took this with AP and a low ISO of 200 with no flash, should I be going completely manual and adjusting the shutter speed as well ?

BTW this is the pic from yesterday I am talking about,

 

[misstwinklytoes]

What was your aperture when taking these?

 

[creisinger]

... should I be going completely manual and adjusting the shutter speed as well ?

Yes!

 

[kalni]

What was your aperture when taking these?

F/5 for the first one, and F/8 for the lamp

 

[misstwinklytoes]

The lower your F# the more light you let in (brighter pic) if I'm not mistaken.

 

[kalni]

The lower your F# the more light you let in (brighter pic) if I'm not mistaken.

You are right, but I wanted a low F for a shallow DOF, so in that case I guess
I will have to compensate with a higher shutter speed..

 

[misstwinklytoes]

Yeah. Might have tried TV mode to see if it gave you what you wanted or full manual.

 

[sarasphotos]

get Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. I got it yesterday and have learned so much already! By the way like the pics

 

[Polyphony]

Nothing interesting is in focus. The middle of the bits are. Focus should have at least been on the heads of the bits. It is a good DOF study though.

 

[KmH]

The lower your F# the more light you let in (brighter pic) if I'm not mistaken.

No, the lower the number the less light you let in.

F/2 is a bigger f-number than f/16. Because the f-number is a fraction of the lens focal length (f = 1)

1/2 is a much bigger number than 1/16.

The first photo has insufficient DOF for me, unless intended to be an abstract.

 

[kalni]

The lower your F# the more light you let in (brighter pic) if I'm not mistaken.

No, the lower the number the less light you let in.

F/2 is a bigger f-number than f/16. Because the f-number is a fraction of the lens focal length (f = 1)

1/2 is a much bigger number than 1/16.

The first photo has insufficient DOF for me, unless intended to be an abstract.

I am sure both are talking about the same thing
What twinklytoes is talking about is the number beneath the bar or the denominator, while you are talking about the reciprocal as a whole. It is quite ambiguous I guess in that some talk about "f/" and some talk about only "f".

 

[Polyphony]

The lower your F# the more light you let in (brighter pic) if I'm not mistaken.

No, the lower the number the less light you let in.

F/2 is a bigger f-number than f/16. Because the f-number is a fraction of the lens focal length (f = 1)

1/2 is a much bigger number than 1/16.

The first photo has insufficient DOF for me, unless intended to be an abstract.

I am sure both are talking about the same thing
What twinklytoes is talking about is the number beneath the bar or the denominator, while you are talking about the reciprocal as a whole. It is quite ambiguous I guess in that some talk about "f/" and some talk about only "f".

It is confusing because you never know what people are referring to, f/x or just f. It's much easier to just say "larger aperture" or "smaller aperture".

 

[Negative ISO]

I second what Polyphony said, I would like to see the tip of the bits in focus. Not sure if focusing on the first or second tier would look better.