Incidentally, when I say "f/8 and be there" is a carryover from the film days, that's because with today's sophisticated auto exposure/autofocus modes the game has changed.
R.
Sounds like the saying is more from the days before cameras had built-in lightmeters, the fact that they were film cameras was incidental.
Not really, even with built-in light meters, it takes valuable seconds to dial in correct exposure. f/8 would get you the shot.
Correct; the saying derives from the days when there was NO autoexposure and NO autofocus. Even though the cameras began to have on-board metering, you still wanted to be set to the approximate correct exposure and focus at all times for from-the-hip shots.
It also works well as a good, general purpose, don't care aperture.
At F8 most stuff that you care about will be in focus, without too much depth of field concerns. It is towards the sharpest part of focus for any given lens (a couple of stops from wide open) and the best choice if you don't care about the depth of field in the scene.
Wide open makes sense if you want or need shallow depth of field for a shot. Stopped way down makes sense if you want or need lots of depth of field. F8 is great if you don't care but want a sharp picture.
Bear's seen it done many ways; the most common seem to be f/8 and f:8. Bear uses f/8 unless he's starting a sentence, in which case he use F/8 even though it doesn't quite look right to him. Bear is weird that way; starting a sentence with a lower-case letter looks even worse to his literary sensibilities.
One thing you learn early on in photojournalism on breaking events is "lift the camera to your eye, shoot, then start focusing", basically. Don't waste any time trying to "get it perfect" until you have first recorded it.
R.
Wow, something I am going to keep in mind, thanks!
One thing you learn early on in photojournalism on breaking events is "lift the camera to your eye, shoot, then start focusing", basically. Don't waste any time trying to "get it perfect" until you have first recorded it.
R.
Wow, something I am going to keep in mind, thanks!
Megatherian wonders why they don't make lenses with a fixed aperture of f/:.8 and label them as specialty journalism lenses and charge a fortune for them.
Megatherian wonders why they don't make lenses with a fixed aperture of f/:.8 and label them as specialty journalism lenses and charge a fortune for them.
And I wonder why you put the idea out in the public domain instead of rushing down to the US Patent and Trademark Office ... : )
Megatherian wonders why they don't make lenses with a fixed aperture of f/:.8 and label them as specialty journalism lenses and charge a fortune for them.
I'd love a f/.8 lens. Kubrik used a f/0.7 lens for 2001. Now that's some shallow DoF
but on overcast or not-so-sunny days, f8 and 1/125 ISO100 would result in blurry photos, no? People walking in the street will have blurry hands or legs due to subject motion?
but on overcast or not-so-sunny days, f8 and 1/125 ISO100 would result in blurry photos, no? People walking in the street will have blurry hands or legs due to subject motion?
Art thinks a little motion blur in photojournalism can be a good thing. Art also wonders if the Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera even has an f/8 / F8 / f/8 / f8.0 / F/8.0 setting. Art is also not my real name, nor a reflection of my images.
Bear mentioned leaving the focus set to hyperfocal - is that the same as infinity? (Or hang on, is it that spot just before infinity, so that everything from x feet to infinity is in focus...?)
