Irix has launched its new line of EDGE Light Pollution lens filters.
The filters are designed to help photographers obtain better results
when shooting photos of the night sky.
Irix says the new filters provide more accurate colors, improved
contrast, and better overall sharpness and clarity. They do this by
removing the yellowish haze emitted by sodium lamps that are commonly
used in urban street lights. Photo by photographer Kuba Witos
The filters are part of Irix’s Super Endurance (SE) line, which means
the optical glass in each filter has undergone a special thermal
treatment to increase its durability and both sides have received
special coatings that further increase the strength.
Other features of the new Light Pollution filters include
high-quality optical glass, anti-reflective coatings, NANO coatings that
repel water/oil/dirt, a lightweight and durable aluminum filter frame,
and a black coating on the frame that reduces flare.
The Irix Edge Light Pollution (SE) filter is now available through
select retailers as a 67mm filter for €95 (~$109), 72mm for €107, 77mm
for €125 (~$123), 82mm for €135 (~$155), and 95mm for €149 (~$171). You
can find a dealer of Irix equipment near you here.
Gorgeous
nature landscapes by Glenn Lee Robinson, a talented outdoor lifestyle
and travel photographer currently based in Northern California. Glenn
focuses mainly on landscaping and traveling. He shoots also spectacular
nature, hiking adventures, and lifestyle photography.
Most
scientists are in agreement that the Earth has entered it’s sixth mass
extinction event. Occasionally, approximately every 100 million year or
so, a large percentage of existing species die off in a short period of
time. The causes of these mass extinctions are varied, collisions with
extraterrestrial debris and super volcanos are just a couple of
possibilities. For primitive bacteria, it was their own waste product,
oxygen, that was almost the end of life on this planet. What makes the
current extinction event so unusual is that humans are entirely to
blame. And not only are we the cause of this extinction event, we are
apparently setting a speed record. Up until now, mass extinctions
occurred over thousands of years. In an effort to show we are the equal
of any natural process, we are on pace to eliminate 50% of the world’s
species within a few hundred years, the blink of an eye in the geologic
time scale.
I
use the words “natural process” as if our actions were unnatural, and
that is not accurate. Our actions are as natural as those of any other
creature that crawls, swims or flies, and it is quite possible that
humans are merely the next vector for an event whose time has come
again. People automatically assume that mass extinctions are terrible
occurrences, and they definitely are for species existing at the time of
the extinction event. However, for the species that arise after the
event, they are a blessing. If not for Chixulub, the comet or asteroid
whose collision hastened the end of the dinosaurs, humans would still be
nocturnal insectivores, gnawing roaches in the dark. Mammals had their
chance to compete directly with dinosaurs, and it did not go well.
Between the Cambrian and Mesozoic Periods 95% of the world’s species
died off. It was the largest extinction event this planet has known, and
it cleared the slate for an evolutionary free-for-all. The ancestors of
mammals and dinosaurs competed for dominance on a relatively even
playing field, and dinosaurs became the undisputed rulers of the world
while mammals never amounted to more than a hairy prey item…until the
dinosaurs were removed.
One
of the interesting things about mass extinction events is that dominant
animal groups are removed or severely diminished, and something totally
new arises from the rubble to take their place. Fish, amphibians,
reptiles, dinosaurs and mammals have all had their day. Birds missed out
somehow, but maybe their day is still coming. Since there have only
been five events so far, we can’t say with certainty that the dominant
animal group is always eliminated, but that’s the way it has always
happened in the past. If the trend continues, it will be interesting to
see which group inherits the mantle of superiority when humans are no
more.
The
thing that has me preoccupied with endings and beginnings are recent
findings involving a couple of very photogenic species, polar bears and
monarch butterflies. It’s no secret that our planet is warming and the
polar ice caps are receding drastically. Polar bears are dependent upon
ice for their survival. The less ice there is, the fewer polar bears
we’ll have. It’s quite possible that refuges will remain in the very far
north where polar bears can bide their time till the next Ice Age (the
ice will come again), but even places as far north as Svalbard are now
reporting ice-free summers. Humans are more directly responsible for the
decline in the monarch butterfly population. We have logged the groves
where they winter, and we’ve gone to great lengths to elminate the
milkweed they depend on. Most recently, the adoption of genetically
modified corn, corn that can tolerate huge amounts of pesticide and/or
have poisonous pollen, may be the final nail in their coffin. In a
matter of decades, the Eastern population has declined by more than 80%.
The Pacific population appeared to be slowly recovering or at least
remaining stable, but between the winter of 2018 and 2019 80% of the
butterflies disppeared. There are non-migratory populations of monarchs
that are not affected, but the days of huge, hanging clusters comprised
of thousands of monarchs may nearly be gone.
I
know that life will carry on, that someday, perhaps after humans are
long gone, new species will arise to take the place of the ones the
planet has lost. However, regardless of how or why the extinction takes
place, a world without polar bears and masses of monarchs covering
branches and entire trees will seem diminished, a less magical place
than the one we now live in.
Gorgeous
portraits of ballet dancers by Vikki Sloviter, a talented photographer,
and artist currently based in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, USA. Vikki
focuses on portraiture and ballet photography. She has over 25.900
followers on Instagram and counting.
Broad-Winged Hawk, Captive, The Raptor Trust Center, New Jersey, Melissa Groo
This is a thrilling time to be a nature photographer. The digital age
has brought advancements in camera capabilities that only a couple
decades ago were beyond our imagination. Shared GPS coordinates, drones,
thermal imaging, camera traps, photo metadata, online forums, and other
tools inform us on the location of elusive, charismatic wildlife,
allowing us to close in on them quickly and in numbers. Photography
workshops promise to take us to every corner of the earth for bucket
list adventures. Social media gives us platforms to instantly share our
adventures with families, friends, and followers.
Though this might well be the greatest time in history to be a nature
photographer, it’s possibly the worst time to be a wild animal. Habitat
loss, wildlife trade, pollution, and climate change are all profoundly
affecting wildlife. Global wildlife populations have fallen by 58% in
the last 50 years, according to the 2018 Living Planet assessment
released by the Zoological Society of London and the World Wildlife
Fund. If the trend continues, that decline could reach two-thirds of all
vertebrates by 2020.
Meanwhile, the power of visual imagery appears to be at an all-time
high. Photos can seize attention and quickly go “viral,” having impact
that the written word often fails to attain in this increasingly
fast-paced world. This can be a profound force for positive change and
course correction. At the same time, such an environment is fertile for
artifice and manipulation (human nature being what it is). In addition,
everything is taking place against a backdrop of increasing skepticism
for once-trusted news sources, some of whom even falsify stories,
doctoring still images and even videos to tell more convenient or
self-serving “truths.” The juggernaut of social media has also spawned a
culture of mistrust, stoked by intense competition and one-upmanship.
In order to be seen, visual boundaries are pushed, whether in the arena
of extreme adventuring, lavish lifestyles, or stunningly close
encounters with charging wildlife. The race to garner the most likes and
the most followers invites shortcuts in ethics and honesty.
Although in some genres of photography, such shortcuts leave no
victims save for the duped viewers, in other genres there are serious
issues of human rights, animal welfare, and habitat destruction. In
nature photography, the need for ethical standards has never been
greater, particularly in regards to how we both approach and represent
wildlife.
Shortcuts in nature photography may sometimes be taken at a wild
animal’s expense, such as invading its space to spur a look of ferocity,
cutting branches away from a nest or den to get an uncluttered, more
aesthetically-pleasing view, or throwing out pet-store mice to compel an
owl to strike a stunning in-flight shot aimed at the photographer.
Artistic visions and goals may supersede any consideration for the
immediate or lasting effects of a photographer’s field practices. The
naturally-occurring, authentic behavior or habitat of an animal may be
perceived as too boring, too static, too messy. Photographers’
motivations of course vary widely, and each of us are entitled to pursue
our own artistic objectives. However, undeniably, as nature
photographers, when we are in the field, by nature of our very presence,
we are having a direct effect on the land and our living subjects. To
be true stewards, to be purveyors of the truth, and to be cognizant and
respectful of our fellow creatures, requires ethical considerations and
standards. Fortunately, many nature photography and conservation
organizations are adopting ethical guidelines for nature photography,
such as the National Audubon Society. These guidelines can be a helpful starting point for all of us.
Bobcat, West Yellowstone, Montana, Melissa Groo.
Responsibilities to our wild subjects don’t end when we return to the
comforts of home. We still impact the natural world, whether we realize
it or not, when we represent an animal to an audience, even long after
we have taken it. The implicit or explicit message we convey, and how we
discuss–or omit–the truth of its life, affect a viewer’s perception of
that animal and of how we photographed it. We live in an era where the
sophistication of post-processing techniques can obscure or disguise the
truth of an image, to even the most seasoned eye. The
indistinguishability of what is real and what is not in nature
photography begs the need for authenticity and truth. Trust between a
photographer and his/her viewers is critically important. This bond of
trust can be fragile, easily broken in an instant when deception is
uncovered. Honest captioning has become a critical ingredient for
wildlife photographers who value that trust.
Why is it more important than ever to be honest with viewers? In
large part because our growing disconnect from nature and the natural
world is real. Our relationship to the world around us is in large part
mediated by our handheld devices, our impressions of the natural part of
that world often derived entirely from what we see on those devices.
The sum of our experience with the wild world may come straight from
Instagram. What do we come to believe about how the natural world works?
Is there any understanding conveyed about the needs and challenges of a
particular species, or the way in which it interacts with its
environment? Do we ever learn anything about how it’s connected to that
environment, about what the components of that environment are that it
can’t exist without, or that can’t exist without it, living and
breathing, alive on the landscape? In a world of disconnection, getting
across the idea that everything is connected is more urgent than ever.
As a counter to this disconnect, “conservation photography,” has
sprung up in the last couple of decades. Its primary goals are
environmental activism and change. Essentially photojournalistic in
style, it tells a visual story that brings to light meaningful
ecological truths. The point of view of the photographer may range from
dispassionate and objective, to deeply personal and emotional. The International League of Conservation Photographers (ILCP)
was founded in 2005 to help formalize conservation photography as a
distinct genre; to recognize, link, and promote photographers who were
devoted to conservation through their photography; and to articulate the
ethical standards that underpin conservation photography. ILCP’s stated
mission is to “further environmental and cultural conservation through
ethical photography.”
The highest ethical standards help guide ILCP Fellows.
But a photographer doesn’t have to be a Fellow with this organization
to actively adhere to the basic ethical principles it has set forth.
These principles rest on the values at the heart of ethical photography:
placing paramount importance on the safety and welfare of a subject,
and on the accuracy and honesty of the story told or implied.
In truth, ethics are not always black and white. There are many
shades of gray, and just about every situation when we are out there is
unique, requiring different approaches. What we can do is build ethical
considerations into our fieldcraft as surely as we can build in
knowledge of our camera’s settings. Considerations like taking the time
to learn about the natural history of our subjects and their landscapes,
minimizing disturbance on wildlife during critical nesting cycles, or
keeping predators wild and unhabituated to humans.
Lion Cub, Tanzania, Melissa Groo
Photography of captive wildlife is increasingly popular in nature
photography, providing a convenient, affordable option to tracking
animals in the wild. Such photography has different ethical
considerations which are no less urgent. Captive animals are in the care
of facilities whose motives range widely, from pure altruism to sheer
profit-seeking, and there are many gradations among these extremes. It
is a poorly regulated industry, and it’s up us to do the necessary
research to determine what kind of facility we are visiting. The dollars
we spend can perpetuate cruel, unethical practices, such as the ongoing
breeding of exotic wildlife expressly for our photo sessions, or can
support legitimate sanctuaries providing critical forever homes for
animals that may have been abused, abandoned, injured, or orphaned, and
cannot be returned or released to the wild.
Online resources make useful information available to all of us, and
well-respected, accrediting bodies have done a lot of the work so we
don’t have to. If interested in visiting a place that calls itself a
“sanctuary” or a “rescue,” it’s essential to know that these labels mean
nothing and can be claimed by anyone. A good starting point is to check
with the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries to see if it’s listed there. If interested in visiting a zoo, we can check to make sure that it’s accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). Note that the AZA is distinct from the Zoological Association of America
(ZAA), a recently-formed, somewhat controversial coalition with a
decidedly confusing name/acronym. Although some debate may occur whether
every AZA-accredited facility provides the quality of life to a captive
animal that some of us would wish, these facilities are certainly held
to high standards of care.
One of the alluring traps for amateur photographers are photography
game farms, where exotic, charismatic carnivores, kept in cages most of
their lives, are trotted out to perform for paying photographers. For
years, there was a thriving market for these images, as, when the need
arose for shots of certain rare or elusive species, magazines claimed
there were no other options, that no “good photos” existed of these
creatures in the wild. This is certainly no longer the case, as, given
our advanced technology, transportation, and information systems, just
about every animal has now been photographed in the wild, sometimes
exhaustively. Non-invasive tools like camera traps are also increasingly
providing images of furtive animals.
Though these places continue to attract customers, most photographers
now shun them, well aware that the photos derived from the use of these
“photo slaves” are no longer allowed in most magazines or photo
contests. Yet these images continue to permeate social media,
particularly Instagram, where perfectly coiffed snow leopards and
mountain lions leap between boulders or surge fiercely at the camera.
The photographers, almost always omitting the fact that a handler is
standing by with treats or prods, and that this animal will soon return
to pacing in its cage, lead viewers to believe this was a
once-in-a-lifetime, even risky encounter in the wild.
Mountain Lion, Triple D Game Farm, Montana, Andrew Geiger for Audubon.
Most viewers have no way of distinguishing these photos from photos
of truly wild animals. If they knew the truth—that these are captive
animals bred simply for profit and performance–they might feel very
differently about condoning these images in any way. Viewers would be
disgusted if they came to realize that these facilities are the exotic
version of puppy mills, churning out new batches of bobcats, lynxes, and
cougars every spring to pose cutely on stumps or among wildflowers for
photographers. Once they outgrow their cute stage, the fate of these
hapless animals is largely unknown, although some reports find them
ending up at facilities that are little more than roadside zoos.
ILCP feels strongly that photography game farms are unethical and
that the concept is outdated. To be specific, “photography game farms”
as cited here are principally in the business of making money from
genetically wild, captive animals that perform for paying photographers,
filmmakers, and artists. We believe that the images that originate from
these businesses dupe viewers, dishonor and pollute the field of
wildlife photography, and cruelly consign exotic animals to lives of
cages and commands. This position is explicit in our code of ethics, and
we stand with the other organizations, magazines, and competitions that
have rules forbidding photography game farm images, and statements on
the unethical nature of game farms. These include the National Audubon
Society, National Geographic magazine, National Wildlife magazine,
Nature’s Best, and Natural History Museum’s Wildlife Photographer of the
Year. We urge local, regional, and national nature photography groups
to similarly take a strong position.
Cheetah Cub, Tanzania, Melissa Groo
The truth is that the mantle of responsibility for veracity,
integrity, and ethics in nature photography includes not only
photographers, but all consumers of photographers’ images. It’s time for
organizations, publications, stock agencies, and photo contests to take
a stand for ethical photography across all platforms from web sites to
social media, condemning images from photo game farms and
pseudo-sanctuaries, as well as the baiting of predatory birds and
mammals for photography, a practice which habituates and endangers these
animals.
Finally, truth in captioning is more critical than ever. We do a
disservice to animals when we deny the truth of their lives in an image.
The life—even soul—of a captive animal, especially a genetically wild
one—is very different from that of a truly wild one. As nature
photographers, whether we are interested in conservation, in accuracy,
or simply in building a loyal and trusting audience, the honesty and
clarity of our captioning serves three parties best: the animal, our
viewers, and our own reputation. Labeling images of captive animals as captive
ensures we keep a covenant of trust with the end users of our images.
Truth in captioning is also critical when creative manipulation in
post-processing has altered the reality of a scene.
We all share this planet together. We all share a responsibility to
respect and preserve life for future generations. As nature
photographers, may we honor and celebrate the natural world, seeking to
educate rather than mislead, to shine a light on the truth rather than
obscure it, and above all, to dignify and honor the lives of creatures
who cannot speak or advocate for themselves, and yet grace us with the
gift of their beings.
Melissa is a wildlife photographer, writer, speaker, and
educator. She’s an Associate Fellow with the International League of
Conservation Photographers, a contributing editor to Audubon magazine,
and writes a bimonthly column on wildlife photography for Outdoor
Photographer magazine. She speaks and writes extensively on issues of
ethics and conservation in wildlife photography, and was Chair of the
Ethics Committee for the North American Nature Photography Association
(NANPA) from 2014-2018. She remains on the committee as a member, and
also serves on the Conservation Committee. In 2018 she received NANPA’s
Vision Award. Her work has been published in numerous books and
magazines, such as Smithsonian, Audubon, National Wildlife, and Natural
History. Melissa is represented by National Geographic Image Collection
and has a long-term gallery at Audubon Greenwich in Connecticut.
20 Natural Candid and Totally Romantic Engagement Photos That Say “We Are in Love”!
A
beautiful picture is a great way to start a marvelous journey, and to
announce your engagement to family and friends! Your engagement photos
give you a chance to show your unique style, and most importantly, they
tell your love story and who you are as a couple. Photographers often
hear couples ask for natural candid shots, but sometimes that’s easier
said than done, for most of us are not professional models and have no
idea how to pose without actually looking like you are posing. So to
ensure your photo session is relaxed, personal, and totally romantic,
find a professional photographer
you can trust, and just interact with your loved one naturally as if
the camera doesn’t exist. Some of the most romantic shots are captured
during real interaction. Before you jump in, get inspired by some of our
favorite candid engagement shots below!
It’s an undisputed fact; there are fewer women in the arena of nature
photography than there are men. But why? Do men bring something special
to the arena? Or is it simply a stereotype that this is a man’s
profession? There doesn’t appear to be a clear reason for the disparity
between the numbers of men and women in this profession.
Let’s dig a little deeper. What are the necessary traits and skills that
are actually required of a nature photographer? Imagine the following
advertisement:
WANTED: Nature Photographer
Must have:
A love of nature and adventure
Skill with a camera and computers
A creative and artistic eye
Story telling and writing skills
Willingness to persist through difficult challenges
Tolerance and enjoyment of outdoor conditions and all sorts of weather
Business savvy and marketing abilities
Patience and a collaborative personality
None of these qualifications are gender based. They are a diverse set
of skills that encompass the profession of nature photography. Who says
that men possess these talents in greater numbers than women do? Why
has this imbalance occurred?
Let’s Learn the Facts and Bust These Myths
Women aren’t delicate flowers.
We give birth.
Women are in the military, right alongside male colleagues, carrying
heavy combat gear and enduring challenging weather, long hours, and
physical battle.
Women are 50% of our astronaut force.
Women work on oil rigs and fight fires.
Women captain ships on every sea.
Women climb Mt. Everest. In fact, 536 women have reached the summit.
Clearly, women are as capable as men of being successful professional
nature photographers. So, if the profession is so gender neutral, then
why are there fewer women? We believe that there are multiple, complex
factors at play, but there are a few components that seem to matter
most.
Safety
As the “Me too” movement has shown us, most women have been sexually
harassed, pursued, or simply pestered. This can also happen to women
nature photographers. It’s not always safe to be a woman alone,
especially in an isolated location.
Women are raised to look over their shoulders for potential dangers.
Although those dangers could be physical, like extreme cold or having an
unintended interaction with a large predator, more often than not, they
are related to people (or more specifically to men).
Traveling
alone in foreign countries can present even more security risks.
Possible solutions include preparation, which is the best way to avoid
bad situations. Research and carefully laying the groundwork for a safe
trip is paramount to personal security. Traveling with a trusted guide,
or going with a savvy partner or friend can be fun, in addition to being
safer.
Misconceptions
There are also some common misconceptions about nature photography.
You don’t have to travel far away or to dangerous places to capture
beautiful images or tell a story. Many successful nature photographers
make their living locally. The profession goes beyond the “Big 5” or
documenting predators in action. Some photographers specialize in
insects, flowers, and even fungi. The field of nature photography can be
sculpted into what works for your personal interests, aspirations, time
frame and budget.
Parental Responsibilities
Women are often mothers or primary caregivers. While it can be taxing
to juggle parenting and career, solutions such as sharing
responsibilities with a partner or hiring a nanny can provide emotional
and logistical relief. Some women enjoy bringing their children into the
field with them, depending on their chosen subject. It teaches kids
about developing an appreciation for nature and conservation. It’s all
about balance and finding what works for each specific family.
Competition
Nature photography is a very competitive field. There are a plethora
of photographers who throw their hat into the ring and hope to get their
work published. Unfortunately, there are limited opportunities
available, regardless of talent, drive, and motivation.
While there is no difference in the quality of photographs taken by
men and women, men tend to be more overtly competitive than women.
Don’t get us wrong. Women, once in a professional setting, are just
as successful as men are. But studies, such as one by Stanford, have
shown that women often “choose not to compete because of an age-old
barrier – lack of confidence.”
In
many ways, the lack of women in nature photography is similar to the
underrepresentation of women in science and other STEM careers. Harvard
studies have shown that women are 38% less likely to choose to
participate in competitive arenas than men. Societal norms, and in some
cases parental expectations, may also steer women away from careers in
science and nature photography.
Marketing
It may not be very appealing for women to enter a field that is
largely marketed to men. For many years, nature photography has been
geared towards males. Camera gear is frequently marketed to and designed
for men. The majority of photographers sponsored by camera companies
are male. Even some technical gear, such as outdoor clothing for
sub-zero temperatures, isn’t made in available women’s sizes. Photo by Amber Hockeborne.
Role Models
When looking for career inspiration, there is a gender imbalance in
the number of female role models in nature photography. With so few
women in the career for aspiring female photographers to look up to,
it’s hard for some to see the job as a realistic, suitable fit for
women. The cycle of nature photography being a male-dominated profession
is then perpetuated.
There is no absolute single reason to explain why women are so
underrepresented in the field of nature photography. It’s a complex
issue, complicated by human psychology, logistics and culture and there
are no simple solutions. We can make a dent in the disparity between the
numbers of men and women in this profession by encouraging girls to
pursue an interest in the field of nature photography.
Inspiring Change
Girls Who Click (GWC) is a new nonprofit organization that aims to inspire a new generation of female nature photographers.
Through a network of the US’ most esteemed female nature photographers,
GWC will offer FREE workshops for teen girls across the country.
Participating students will engage with a role model who helps them to
gather the confidence and skills to pursue their passion and apply it as
adult photographers.
Please support the launch of Girls Who Click and change the lives of
the next generation of female nature photographers by making a donation
to our crowd funding campaign. About the authors: Suzi Eszterhas, Michelle
Stern and Susan McElhinney are photographers who are seeking to
inspiring a new generation of female nature photographers. The opinions
expressed in this article are solely those of the authors. Eszterhas is
the founder of Girls Who Click. This article was also published here. Courtesy of: Pitapixel
If you told me you didn’t like background blur, I would call you a
liar. Everyone loves background blur! The reason is that it resembles
exactly how our own eyes see the world.
Put your hand 6 inches in front of your face and focus on it. While
focusing on your hand, everything else in view will be slightly blurry.
When you learn how to use your aperture settings, you will be able to
produce pictures that mimic what your eye is actually seeing. Aperture
is secretly my favorite part of photography. Because honestly who
doesn’t love he blurry background photos with a sharp focal point. It
really gives you control over what you want the photo to look like to
other people.
Aperture is the opening of a lens used to control the amount of light needed to expose the sensor/film; in addition, the aperture is used to control the depth of field (or background blur).
Let me make it less technical. Think of aperture as a pupil of the
eye. In a dark room, your pupil dilates. It gets bigger to let is more
light. In a bright room, your pupil constricts. It gets smaller and will
let in less light. This mimics the aperture function on your camera. It
is measured by the “f stop”. You may be thinking “what the heck is F?”.
Well, the larger the ‘f’ is, the smaller the camera opening, and visa
versa. In a darker room, you will want to use the smaller “f”, because
it is a larger opening- which will let in more light.
Additionally, the smaller the ‘f”, the blurrier the background. Or a
‘narrower’ depth of field. You want to use the setting that works best
for the picture you want to take.
f/ 2.8
f/11
In the image on the left, I used a f/2.8 aperture setting to focus on the flower and make my daughter blurry. On the right, I used a f/11 aperture setting to focus on both my daughter and the flower. So to me aperture serves two purposes.
It allows me to take pictures in low light
Adds the blurriness to the background
I owe all of my favorite photos to my aperture setting. It allows me
to focus in on what I want the viewer to see. It captures the memories
exactly as my eye remembers them. Such as on this particular day when I
thought these were the cutest square baby hobbit feet I had ever seen
and I never wanted to forget them.
I personally LOVE to use a low aperture, around f/3, whenever
possible. However, if I am photographing multiple people I take a
different approach. If you take a photograph of 2 subjects using f/2.5
and one person is even SLIGHTLY behind or in front of
the other (which will happen), one subject will be a little out of
focus. I made this mistake a lot in the beginning. I would always take
pictures of my 2 kids at that time in f/2.5, and one kid always was out
of focus. If I am photographing more than one person I use at least an f/4 if they are all generally the same distance from the camera. This ensures that no subject is sharper than the other. Get the Moments Collection as Photoshop Actions or Lightroom Presets
Here are some examples where I used the aperture setting to get the picture I wanted:
Considering the eye analogy again- when you step out into the sun,
your eyes do not stay dialated- they constrict. If you try to use a
small “f” number on a sunny day, your pictures will be OVER-exposed
(white). This is because the camera is open wide and letting in all of
the light it can. On a super sunny day, I use f/16. The background is
as clear as the focal point, but the exposure and color is spot on and
not washed out.
Keep in mind that some lenses will allow for “lower” F (more blur)
than others. You may want to consider a lens such as my 50 mm lens below
if you would like the option of a lower ‘f’. I used my Nikor 50 mm lens
for every single picture in this post, and I love it! Here it is:
Camera Settings
Now that you understand what aperture is, it is time to practice to
really get the hang of the different options. There are two good ways to
do this.
Read more and jump into manual mode
Try “aperture
priority” mode. With this mode, YOU adjust the aperture and the camera
automatically adjusts other settings to optimize exposure.
To try Aperture Priority Mode set your camera to this setting. Note: based on your camera brand and edition it may look different. Consult with your manual.
Practice time. Choose an item to photograph. For starters, find one
that will not be moving a lot so that you can practice focusing. Zoom in
on whatever you are photographing and make sure at the background is 20
feet or so behind the subject. If the subject is right up against a
background it does not give that back on the opportunity that get that
blurry effect.
Photograph images that are different distances from each other –
and with different aperture settings. Focus on something close up to
understand how the background changes when you adjust this setting.
Also, you will start to get a feel for how changing this setting affects
the exposure/lighting on your photos.
Hi!
My name is Renee, a working mother of 3, with a photography love (or
obsession). I am passionate about two things- parenting and photography.
I wanted to share what took me years to learn as I am simply snapping
along! If I can learn all of these while being a full time pharmacist,
anyone can!
Courtesy of: Simply Snapping Mom
Join Our Newsletter 