File :-(, x, )
How was this picture taken? Anonymous
Slow shutter speed, about 2.8ish and flash?

How is the flash directed because there are no black eye sockets.

Pointed 45 degrees front with a bounce card? Pointed backwards directly on a wall?
>> Anonymous
card, likely
>> Anonymous
It's unlikely that it's a f2.8 because the depth of field would be much shallower.
>> Anonymous
>>177816

Slow shutter speed would take care of that.
>> Anonymous
>>177825
wut
>> Anonymous
>>177816
>>177825
>>177836
zomg perfect squares 16/25/36
>> Anonymous
>>177839
Wow, you're awesome
>> Jeremo
shutter at about 1/15 or 1/20

either a diffuser (omni bounce or Lightsphere II) but most likely to be a bounce card an at angle as you said. The slight harshness of the flash on the skin tones seems to confirm that.

Could very well be a f/2.8 mainly because at 17mm the dof isn't going to be as shallow as you'd like.

but the main combo to pay attention to is slow shutter plus flash
>> Anonymous
Slow shutter plus DIRECT flash, this is onboard shit, look at the shadow under their chins. This is some harsh ass direct flash firing.
No bounce cards here, just a bright background (relatively, for the type of scene it is) and pretty wide open on a wide angle lens with a small sensor and a somewhat slow shutter speed, I'd say its not below 1/30th because you'd at least start to get ghosting around the subjects from the ambient bleed.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Looks the the standard nightclub with flash portrait settings.

1/10
f3.5 or f4
ISO 800
ETTL Pointing straight in the air or bounce card

/thread

see www.eventvibe.com for ample evidence.....

Also....

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiPhotographerunknownImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:02:20 02:56:49Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
You guys are totally missing the point in here. Can't you see how hot (well, could be hotter, this is 4chan after all), the rightmost of the three girls is?

Oh shi-, this is /p/. How silly of me. -_-
>> Anonymous
>>177825
ITT, morons who don't know that shutter speed doesn't affect DOF
>> Anonymous
>>178165
Are you trolling or is this true?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>178167

uh, super true. shutter speed has no effect on depth of field.
>> Anonymous
>>178167
DOF is affected by two principal factors: aperture size (the lower the number, the shallower the DOF) and the focal distance of the lens. e.g. a 28mm F/2.8 will have a significantly greater DOF at F/2.8 than say a 50mm or 85mm @ F/2.8
>> Anonymous
>>178170
Not true. If you frame the shot at 28mm exactly the same as you did on 50mm, you will have the exact same DoF. Same goes for every focal length.
The format size of the sensor / film however does affect the DoF too.

Unless you're trolling, 10/10.
>> Anonymous
>>178171
Format will not affect the DOF - DOF is entirely an optical characteristic. The length of a lens DOES effect the DOF with regards to point-to-point relativity. The only reason that DOF is approximately the same when an image is framed similarly is that the closer you are focused to infinity, the deeper your DOF (until you get to the hyperfocal point), something that>>178170did miss out.
>> Anonymous
>>178187Format will not affect the DOF

full frame has narrower dof than crop, crop has narrower dof than point-and-shoot sensors, etc
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>178278

yeah, format has a huge influence on dof

that's why you don't need f/2.8s on LF
>> Anonymous
>>178187
And once you get into MF and larger DoF drops off right quick in very beautiful ways. With 11x14, f22 is a matter of about 4 inches front to back in focus of the subject.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>178288With 11x14, f22 is a matter of about 4 inches front to back in focus of the subject.

At how close a focusing distance? That matters too.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
f5
0.3s exposure
iso400
direct flash
final destination

Its so easy to do.
>> Anonymous
>>178290
Indeed it does, sorry, that's at portrait distance.
Cut's it down a bit.
>> Anonymous
>>178187
No, the focal length DOES NOT change the DoF. The only reason why DoF will be slightly different, is because the distance between your camera and the subject is different, as you said. Also, format IS important. Now stop being a wise-ass without knowing anything, lol.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>178306

wait... are you sure?

with my 17-55mmm if i shoot a shot similar to the OP @ 2.8 @ 17mm i don't really get bokeh but if i take a few steps back and zoom into 55mm but keep a similar composition or FOV i get more bokeh wouldn't i?

i thought it due to the compression of space effect or whatever it's called that's related to focal length

sorry, can't really articulate it beyond this
>> Anonymous
>>178308don't really get bokeh but if i take a few steps back
>> if i take a few steps back

>> because the distance between your camera and the subject is different

lulz
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>178312

oh yeah, i didn't read that part properly. The explanations went over my head obviously.

Cheers for the clarification
>> Anonymous
>>178308
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml
This will help.
>> Anonymous
copy pasta from ac

>a. What's perspective/compression?
How close things in the foreground look to things in the background
>b. Is it dependent on focal length?
Not exactly. It's dependent on camera to subject distance.
>c. I've heard it's dependent on focal length
It's not. Focal length changes apparent subject size, but not perspective
>d. Then why does the perspective on a wide angle look different from a telephoto?
Because when you shoot with a telephoto, you move away from the subject, and when you shoot with a wide, you move closer to the subject
>e. I don't believe you
You don't have to! If you have a zoom lens, you can test it yourself! Using the 18-55 kit lens standard on most DSLRs, for instance, emulating a 2x sensor crop factor is easy:
1. Put the camera on a tripod
2. Take a picture at 18mm
3. Without moving anything but the zoom knob, take the picture at 36mm
4. Open up the shot taken at 18mm and take a 2x crop (i.e., half size. Any good image editor should be able to do this)
5. Compare perspective to the 36mm-shot. It'll look the same (although the 18mm will be lower resolution, because you cropped it)
>f. I still don't believe you. I've always been told that smaller focal lengths give weird perspective
That's a useful rule of thumb, yes, but it's not actually true. As another example, Point & shoot digital cameras have very large crop factors and very short actual focal lengths. By this logic, a Canon PowerShot G9 (with 7.4-44.4mm zoom lens) would only be capable of super-mega-ultrawide to slightly-wide perspectives.
>g. But how could a 50mm lens have different perspective when it's on a crop camera as it does on a full-frame camera? It's still the same lens!
Because focal length doesn't affect perspective. When you put the 50 on the crop sensor, to get the same picture, you take a few steps backwards to accomodate the crop factor.
>h. I still don't get it
Then you're hopeless.
>> Anonymous
>>178317

that just fucking blew my mind WHAT HTE FUCIK
>> Anonymous
>>178152
My question is how you get shot so steady at only 1/10? IS?
>> Anonymous
>>178329
That's how they achieve that crazy compression effect in movies where it looks like the person is staying the same size but the world is shrinking around them, adding to suspense or panic or excitement. They increase the distance from the subject to the lens while proportionally doing the same to the lens' focal length, as to keep the subject at the same size in the frame, but make the background change in appearance.
>> Anonymous
>>178620
I always wondered how the hell they did that.
Perhaps you know the name of the effect?
>> Anonymous
>>177813
drunk
/thread
>> Anonymous
>>178622

oh wow, you're so funny

PARTY HARD AM I RITE
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>178619

Because of the flash. Flash was fast enough to freeze the subjects and overcome the ambient light.

Think it like this. You have a camera in a dark room. No light, anywhere. You can have shutter speed longer than 30 seconds, and you still get only dark frame.

Now, take that 30 second photo, and use flash, just one time. It would look the very same as if you would take it at 1/60 shutter speed.
>> Anonymous
/p/ - Fucking Sherlock Holmes

Seriously, this thread was pretty awe-inspiring.
>> Anonymous
This thread is a great example of why /p/ is a fucking TERRIBLE place to come for information.

Totally conflicting comments from wise-asses with no way to distinguish who's correct and who's full of shit.
>> Anonymous
>>178328

Horribly written.
You faggots need a copy editor.
>> Anonymous
>>178317
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml
>This will help.

From his own examples, this is CLEARLY WRONG.
Some of his example photos aren't even in focus (28mm) and LOOK AT THE FUCKING TREES. Additionally, using that fucking tower as his background reference is totally misleading. How often are you in a situation where the background behind your model is ABOUT 400 FEET TO A MILE AWAY?

Insanely flawed test that has almost no application in the real world is insanely flawed and has almost no application in the real world.
>> Anonymous
>>178889

you're new around here aren't you
>> Anonymous
>>178889
That's old news, anyone who comes to /p/ for serious information is pretty damned stupid anyhow.