So, what I did was to take two very similar pictures, three times. For each pair, I took one with a large aperture (and therefore a lower f-stop number, and theoretically a more shallow depth of field… if your eyes glazed over while reading that, don’t worry; just check out the pictures, and you’ll likely see a difference), and I also took one with a smaller aperture (which would reverse all that crap in the previous parentheses).
In any case, just compare the two pictures. The smaller the f-stop number, the more limited the focus should be (which would lead to hopefully pleasantly blurry background, for example… I think):
Actually, if you really do want to figure those out, you can click on the picture and find that information in flickr.
Thanks for reading, and I’ll hope to see you here again next week!
Sitzman
Latest posts by Sitzman (see all)
- Septemblog Out! - September 30, 2018
- The DIA Conspiracies Continue! - September 28, 2018
- Chewbacca - September 27, 2018
- Sitzbook Review: “Star Wars – A New Hope” by George Lucas - September 27, 2018
- Camping in a Van Down by the River - September 24, 2018
ooooh!
very nice, and very nice explanation. that is something i always seem to be trying to learn, and find out about and then forget/scramble in my tiny brain….
but this was a nice visual explanation. most excellent
in every case I here I wildly prefer the blurry background – large aperture? low f-stop number? – version.
I agree, and I think that usually that’s probably a lot more desirable, unless you’re shooting a larger scene, or other scenarios that make me confused once again.
I think I’ve learned about f-stops, shutters, and ISO about 50 times, but it’s never really stuck… It MAY have this time, but the jury’s still out…