HILARIOUS!

[Dom6663]

This thread is like my highschool lunchroom

 

[MTVision]

Meg, to be honest I was surprised that those settings did affect it because when in manual, I would think the ISO is overrided. The pictures on the other site that I was referring to weren't with my speedlight because I didn't have it yet. (the ones with the rollerskates)

The ones with the roller skates were shot at ISO 400. Now if your default ISO was set at ISO 6400 and the picture taken was at ISO 6400 then that's different. But that's not the case - you set your ISO to 400, the picture was taken at ISO 400, therefore the default ISO setting you are talking about has absolutely no effect at all.

 

[unpopular]

This is riduculous at this point.

This whole thing reminds me of elementary school, how there is that one girl who everyone picks on just because everyone picks on her. I had no problem with her, but I made fun of her all the same. She grew up to be a total babe.

IIRC her settings were high ISO and low sharpness. High ISO certainly will produce more noise - especially if not metered properly. For a newbie, it makes sense that the "sharpness" setting would produce sharper images - even if this is a bit of a misnomer.

So I don't see where people get off saying that these settings have nothing to do with noise. They do. Of course if the image is well under exposed at ISO 50, you'll still get noise, and the bigger problem certainly is exposure, if that is the case.

 

[gsgary]

OMG! ok if she is in a dark room at night, if she puts her camera on 1/40 f4 iso 400 and takes a picture, I'd love to see how much ambient light comes in?

I'm just having her do an exercise to see how bouncing the flash can diffuse the light vs pointing it straight at the kids face.

Again, let her do it and look at the images. I could not understand how 1/40 would not get blur in the photo with my kid moving around everywhere UNTIL I tried it.

I honestly think OP should put up the flash until she understands shutter speed, ap, iso and how they affect the image before adding flash, but I do think this is a pretty neat exercise to understand that flash freezes motion IF it is used as the only exposure, I'm not talking about going outside and shooting 1/40 with the flash I'm talking about sitting on the couch at night inside....

I don't know why people shoot their kid inside without good lighting equipment, get them outside where there is light but then you get "But it's cold outside" put a bloody coat on a bit of cold never hurt anyone

 

[fjrabon]

This is riduculous at this point.

This whole thing reminds me of elementary school, how there is that one girl who everyone picks on just because everyone picks on her. I had no problem with her, but I made fun of her all the same. She grew up to be a total babe.

IIRC her settings were high ISO and low sharpness. High ISO certainly will produce more noise - especially if not metered properly. For a newbie, it makes sense that the "sharpness" setting would produce sharper images - even if this is a bit of a misnomer.

So I don't see where people get off saying that these settings have nothing to do with noise. They do. Of course if the image is well under exposed at ISO 50, you'll still get noise, and the bigger problem certainly is exposure, if that is the case.

well, there's a little more to it than that, I think. I think the biggest issue is that over the last two months about once per week she posts "C&C did I get my focus right?" and they're essentially all the same photos, with the same issues. Then finally most recently she posts "C&C did I get my focus right?" and low and behold she has added a speedlight cranked to the maximum and is nuking those poor kids heads off. I think a lot of people just hit their limit at that point. People had been, I think for an internet web forum, very patient with her for a long time. Then she kind of flipped out at everybody, including a lot of people who were genuinely trying to help her. It didn't help that she started drinking wine and seeming even crazier at one point.

She seems like a genuinely nice woman who has just taken this website a little too personally, and is getting frustrated that it's not 'just happening' and she gets confused by stuff we talk about, because she doesn't know the basics well enough to really understand what a lot of people are saying to her clearly.

She keeps talking about contradictory advice, and I'd say here, very little of what was given has been contradictory. Sure, she was told different things for different situations, but that was because they were different situations with different issues.

I think OP just needs to order up a few books and learn that way. Internet forums aren't really helping her, I don't think. It just leads to her getting defensive and missing the points, then others ridiculing her even more, then more defensiveness, then a massive "lol at all of you, you don't know what you're talking about, you think you're god's gift to photography, but you all contradict yourselves, I"m a great student and a great teacher and I'll be a great photographer."

 

[MTVision]

This whole thing reminds me of elementary school, how there is that one girl who everyone picks on just because everyone picks on her. I had no problem with her, but I made fun of her all the same. She grew up to be a total babe.

IIRC her settings were high ISO and low sharpness. High ISO certainly will produce more noise - especially if not metered properly. For a newbie, it makes sense that the "sharpness" setting would produce sharper images - even if this is a bit of a misnomer.

So I don't see where people get off saying that these settings have nothing to do with noise. They do. Of course if the image is well under exposed at ISO 50, you'll still get noise, and the bigger problem certainly is exposure, if that is the case.

If her default ISO was set at 3200 but she changed the ISO to 400 and took the picture her default setting of 3200 was the reason her pictures were noisy (even though the exif data says ISO 400). That doesn't really make sense to me - maybe I'm wrong. And as far as I knew the sharpness setting in-camera doesn't affect the RAW file.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

This thread is like my highschool lunchroom

I think I smell the lunchlady too. Oh wait no.... that was me. Sorry guys.

 

[unpopular]

And as far as I knew the sharpness setting in-camera doesn't affect the RAW file.

Oh. She's shooting RAW then? I assumed that the comment was indicating JPEG. But you're right. At ISO 400 noise shouldn't be an issue until after PP.

Either way. I think people are being a little harsh here, for no other reason than everyone else is being harsh.

 

[MTVision]

Oh. She's shooting RAW then? I assumed that the comment was indicating JPEG.

Either way. I think people are being a little harsh here, for no other reason than everyone else is being harsh.

I wasn't trying to be harsh or mean to her. I was just trying to explain that those settings aren't the issues. I don't think I was being bitchy to her, but if I was that wasn't my intention at all.....

 

[cgipson1]

I just got tired of the BS!

 

[Dom6663]

I think I smell the lunchlady too. Oh wait no.... that was me. Sorry guys.

Take that back! My lunch ladies are very kind individuals!

Edit: I don't know what im asking you to take back, that lunch ladies have a distinct smell I suppose.

Anyway back to thread! Really, this thread is like a who can pee the furthest competition between a few individuals.

 

[unpopular]

I remember in like 5th grade we had this super sexy lunch lady who would clean the tables. My friends (never me of course!) used to throw bits of shredded cheese on the table so that we could look down her blouse.

She'd seem annoyed, though I doubt she ever knew our true prepubescent intentions.

 

[zcar21]

12 pages of more drama?

 

[LightSpeed]

The problem I see here more than any damn thing else is, she has a camera.
She can sit back and test and practice with it all day long and see what it's doing and how different settings effect different situations.
Secondly: I wrote her a letter suggesting she USE APERTURE PRIORITY and make note of what the camera does.
This way she doesn't have to worry with metering her light and can control it with a PLUS or MINUS - 3, or whatever.
I felt this would be a good first step for a beginner, in order to understand the balancing act that is photography.
Rather than jumping right into more complicated matters of photography, such as speed lights, high speed sync, bouncing light and all that other good stuff.
That can come later.

Anyway, never mind. Looks like she chose to flush that advice down the toilet too. But really , I was only trying to help.

Soooo, she's taken her beating in this thread. She hasn't run away, which I LIKE. Maybe it's time to lay off her a bit?
I mean, I'm not demanding anything here. And those of you who chose not to, that's up to you.
She's just a girl with a camera trying to learn to use it. Yes she went over board a bit which has been pointed out by many, including myself.
I do that too in the event no one noticed. But I think I already explained what an arrogant SOB I can be.
And I enjoy going round and round with some of you. Especially Gipson and Gary. As much as I hate to admit it, I enjoy bickering with Tyler too.
Christmas is coming, and I think in that spirit, I'll show her a bit of good will. She's just a girl.

After Christmas, I'll probably have to blast her again for being Ms. Smarty Pants.

 

[thereyougo!]

The problem I see here more than any damn thing else is, she has a camera.
She can sit back and test and practice with it all day long and see what it's doing and how different settings effect different situations.
Secondly: I wrote her a letter suggesting she USE APERTURE PRIORITY and make note of what the camera does.
This way she doesn't have to worry with metering her light and can control it with a PLUS or MINUS - 3, or whatever.
I felt this would be a good first step for a beginner, in order to understand the balancing act that is photography.
Rather than jumping right into more complicated matters of photography, such as speed lights, high speed sync, bouncing light and all that other good stuff.
That can come later.

Anyway, never mind. Looks like she chose to flush that advice down the toilet too. But really , I was only trying to help.

Soooo, she's taken her beating in this thread. She hasn't run away, which I LIKE. Maybe it's time to lay off her a bit?
I mean, I'm not demanding anything here. And those of you who chose not to, that's up to you.
She's just a girl with a camera trying to learn to use it. Yes she went over board a bit which has been pointed out by many, including myself.
I do that too in the event no one noticed. But I think I already explained what an arrogant SOB I can be.
And I enjoy going round and round with some of you. Especially Gipson and Gary. As much as I hate to admit it, I enjoy bickering with Tyler too.
Christmas is coming, and I think in that spirit, I'll show her a bit of good will. She's just a girl.

After Christmas, I'll probably have to blast her again for being Ms. Smarty Pants.

I agree with much of this. Shooting in manual is tough, and I'll often shoot in Av before shooting manual to see what settings my camera gives me and see if I like the results. I then adapt it to something I like more. Unless the shot I took in Av is well wide of the mark, I keep the shot so I can see it before I convert it from RAW as the preview on the LCD is just a guide.