DSLRUsers.com

Here is my favourite pic from the forum Sydney Christmas Dinner. Fittingly it's of our Outstanding Member Of The Year, Mr Matt Kaarma, holding his trophy.

It's also a fantastic example of WHY Matt is OMOTY. He suggested the shot to me, he assisted me get the exposure and flash right and he even patiently schooled me in what was right and wrong through 4 clumsy attempts at getting the right image. Thanks for everything Matt.

Unreal!
Fantastic shot Peter!
Decent subject matter too, although it is a Nikon camera

Great shot Peter and Matt

Super Peter although the byline suggests Member of the Year is Peter Stubbs

now thats a great picture
concept and execution

Awesome photo Peter, love the concept and executed brilliantly. Congrats again to Matt as well, and what a sweet little trophy / award.

Well deserved award....Thanks for showing me how to clean the sensor and also all the hints/feedback on my images posted here...Also great shot Peter

A new camera gadget:

"trophypod"

Holds your trophy steady at any Camera Club awards function.

See Glen for details.

great shot

congrats, well done

christian

This is a very engaging photo - love it...

Great shot Stubbsy.

I have to bite: how did you go about getting the exposure and (particularly) the flash output so right? Care to pass on some of Matt's sagely wisdom?

Terrific shot Peter - a classic 'master at work' image, despite the inoperable nature of his tool - and I mean that in the nicest possible way!

I'd be keen to hear it was achieved as well.

What this inside or outside?!

I saw this and at first didn't pay much attention to it. Now the more I look at it, the more I'm wondering what the?!

Fantastic exposure and DOF Stubbsy, I would much have preferred it without the trophy, but I understand why it was taken.

Matt is a much deserved OMOTY IMHO (?!:)), thanks Matt for taking the time to show me how to clean the sensor in my D70!

Max

Thanks for your comments. It's interesting to read Max's comment on the "excellent DOF" given what I'm about to say.

For those who asked, the image was taken outside the restaurant on the footpath. There was normal streetlighting so not terribly bright, but not pitch black either. The lights in the background behind Matt are traffic lights and the coloured lights of a pub. The "trick" was to do something I'm averse to doing in low light and that was to shoot at a very small aperture (f2.8 in this case) which would be expected to give a very shallow DOF and (because of the longer exposure) a softer Matt. Normally this setup would be a bad thing with low light, but the flash made up for that by providing sufficient illumination on Matt to for him to be nice & sharp, but the f2.8 gave shallow DOF on the (darker) background.

Full EXIF is:

Code: Select all

                     Lens : AF_S Zooom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED
             ExposureTime : 1/60Sec
                  FNumber : F2.8
          ExposureProgram : Aperture Priority
          ISOSpeedRatings : 200
        ExposureBiasValue : EV0.0
                    Flash : Strobe return light detected
              FocalLength : 45.00 mm
             ExposureMode : Auto
             MeteringMode : Multi-Segment
             WhiteBalance : Auto

I might also mention that compositionally it was Matt's idea to compose the shot so the base of the trophy lined up with the building behind him.

Edit: My poor (and in one spot, incorrect) explanation corrected thanks to Steffen

Hi Stubbsy,
I agree with the others that this is an excellent shot.

I cannot quite follow your explanation, though. Why is shallow DOF a bad thing in low light? And how would the use of flash alter the DOF (once the shooting distance, focal length and aperture has been chosen)?

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:I cannot quite follow your explanation, though. Why is shallow DOF a bad thing in low light?

I'm great at these technical explanations aren't I

When it comes to that kind of thing I KNOW you have better knowledge than me so there's every chance I've got this wrong, but here is my thinking. Three things affect DOF:

- aperture size
- focal length of the lens
- distance from the camera to the subject

Shooting at f/2.8 = a wider aperture and (in general) reduces DOF
Being reasonably close to my subject and at 45mm focal length I'm also reducing DOF a little (not as much as if I was using a 200mm zoom from further back though)

Normally I'd shoot at smaller apertures and slower shutter speeds under these conditions and I've always assumed that the only time you'd get away with a wider aperture than that (and a fast shutter speed) would be in very bright daylight.

What Matt pointed out to me is I could have both a small aperture and a faster shutter speed if I had enough light (the flash). This in turn would give me a nice sharp subject (the less the shutter is open the more stable the camera), but that I'd also reap the benefits of the shallow DOF in making for a more blurry background. The best of both worlds. This is where I know I got it wrong - I said greater DOF on Matt, but in fact it's greater sharpness. a very different thing. I hadn't realised that until I pondered your question.

Steffen wrote:And how would the use of flash alter the DOF (once the shooting distance, focal length and aperture has been chosen)?

It can't - once all three are set, DOF is cast in stone. mea culpa - it really allows for a faster shutter speed and so a sharper image at the SAME depth of field.

Does that make sense. Or have I got something else wrong?

And if I have got it wrong I have no problems being told so since I know I have lots to learn.

stubbsy wrote:And if I have got it wrong I have no problems being told so since I know I have lots to learn.

No worries, I think we're in agreement now

However, on the topic of 45mm vs 200mm, if you move far enough back with the 200mm to make the subject (Matt ) appear the same size in the image, then the DOF would be the same, since the subject distance dependancy of DOF is almost fully described by its dependancy on the reproduction ratio (almost, unless we're talking extremely short focal lenghts and extremely tiny apertures).

Cheers
Steffen.

Peter
That's an excellent shot. You must have a very good camera!

very well shot, i shall experiment sometime soon
(flash in TTL, not TTL BL, right?)

-julz

Peter and Matt,
Great shot.
Very impressed and unusua.
Can not find FM3a any more.
regards
Poon

Poon wrote:Can not find FM3a any more.

I think it's actually an FG.



And there would even less of those around.

It is an FG, from the days when air conditioning wasn't available on most cars and mobile phones didn't exist

I'd put a joke about how old you must be, Glen... but I remember when mobile phones weren't around.

Nnnnsic wrote:I'd put a joke about how old you must be, Glen... but I remember when mobile phones weren't around.

As much of a broken pencil this comment is, I used to sell the first "mobile" phones back in 1989, for a couple of thousand dollars each. When they said mobile, they assumed you had some sort of trolley to carry the battery pack around.

P

Patrick, I had two friends who had the very early car versions, only available from Telecom Australia, had the 007 area code and cost $8,000 each! Remember commenting how cheap the new car phones were at $3k each, on the cheapest plan you had to pay per minute when someone called you!

I remember the models you are talking about, they had a shoulder strap for good reason

Glen wrote:Patrick, I had two friends who had the very early car versions, only available from Telecom Australia, had the 007 area code and cost $8,000 each! Remember commenting how cheap the new car phones were at $3k each, on the cheapest plan you had to pay per minute when someone called you!

I remember the models you are talking about, they had a shoulder strap for good reason

The joys of reminiscing! I remember when you had to put film in cameras and had to wait a week to get them developed (actually, I may follow through on Gary's suggestion the other night and get a developing tent or some such thing to develop fillum at home).

Reschsmooth wrote:The joys of reminiscing! I remember when you had to put film in cameras and had to wait a week to get them developed

A week? Lazy.