Memory, improving, storing, retrieving
-
F numbers are easy. Start at 1.4 and 2 and then just double them till you get to 32, make a rounding correction at 45 and continue. Sure - it's not as efficient as a lookup table but is it worth putting in the work to remember the lookup table to avoid the inefficiency of doing a loop iteration? Paul Watson wrote: Telling me that yes there is a pattern to the list and I should rather remember the pattern and then do some calculations on the spot is not too helpful, but thanks for the thought Oops - too late. Why is a calculation bad? It's just doubling numbers. The 2,4,8 etc should be easy. The other option is just to take a glance at the lens on your camera. And if your response is 'what if I don't have my camera with me' then my response is 'and you call yourself a photographer? Bah!' ;) cheers, Chris Maunder
lol
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, a sore thumb you will have."
-
Does anybody have a good technique for memorising lists, numbers, that kind of thing? I have always been rather hopeless at memorising lists (especially series of numbers) and have up till now not needed to really rectify the problem. Now though with photography there are some lists which are useful to remember, and I grudingly want to. Here is one of the lists: F1.4 f2 f2.8 f4 f5.6 f8 f11 f16 f22 f32 f45 f64 f90 Also the technique needs to be fexible so that I can jump into the middle of the list. No good having a technique where I rely on rythmn and have to start at the begining of the list each time. e.g. Like the technique some people (me included) use for figuring out the order of months or the alphabet. p.s. Telling me that yes there is a pattern to the list and I should rather remember the pattern and then do some calculations on the spot is not too helpful, but thanks for the thought
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africaa poem:
Old forces Twisted Zelda Thoughts enraged. Fortuntely Zelda’s Fighting smashed Orion’s zephyr. Orion sent Thru trouble, Three travellers. For firey Stars finished Nasty Zelda.:cool:
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, a sore thumb you will have."
-
Paul, I used to just carry a small laminated list. Dosen't realy help toward memorization at first but after a while I found I had memorised most of the list. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
Yeah, that's how I used to study for tests way back. Spend my hours making really detailed cheat sheets, then comoe test day leave them behind. Making the crutch halped my study on concentrate on the real important information. I could just never getthis to work for calc :mad:
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
F numbers are easy. Start at 1.4 and 2 and then just double them till you get to 32, make a rounding correction at 45 and continue. Sure - it's not as efficient as a lookup table but is it worth putting in the work to remember the lookup table to avoid the inefficiency of doing a loop iteration? Paul Watson wrote: Telling me that yes there is a pattern to the list and I should rather remember the pattern and then do some calculations on the spot is not too helpful, but thanks for the thought Oops - too late. Why is a calculation bad? It's just doubling numbers. The 2,4,8 etc should be easy. The other option is just to take a glance at the lens on your camera. And if your response is 'what if I don't have my camera with me' then my response is 'and you call yourself a photographer? Bah!' ;) cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: And if your response is 'what if I don't have my camera with me' then my response is ... then my response is what the hell do you need to know f/stop for anyway :-D
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
Yeah, that's how I used to study for tests way back. Spend my hours making really detailed cheat sheets, then comoe test day leave them behind. Making the crutch halped my study on concentrate on the real important information. I could just never getthis to work for calc :mad:
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
Ray Cassick wrote: Yeah, that's how I used to study for tests way back Yep, I had a highschool chemistry instructor who pounded that into us. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
-
Does anybody have a good technique for memorising lists, numbers, that kind of thing? I have always been rather hopeless at memorising lists (especially series of numbers) and have up till now not needed to really rectify the problem. Now though with photography there are some lists which are useful to remember, and I grudingly want to. Here is one of the lists: F1.4 f2 f2.8 f4 f5.6 f8 f11 f16 f22 f32 f45 f64 f90 Also the technique needs to be fexible so that I can jump into the middle of the list. No good having a technique where I rely on rythmn and have to start at the begining of the list each time. e.g. Like the technique some people (me included) use for figuring out the order of months or the alphabet. p.s. Telling me that yes there is a pattern to the list and I should rather remember the pattern and then do some calculations on the spot is not too helpful, but thanks for the thought
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaChris's method makes the most sense to me. Also you can try each day learning just one fact. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Does anybody have a good technique for memorising lists, numbers, that kind of thing? I have always been rather hopeless at memorising lists (especially series of numbers) and have up till now not needed to really rectify the problem. Now though with photography there are some lists which are useful to remember, and I grudingly want to. Here is one of the lists: F1.4 f2 f2.8 f4 f5.6 f8 f11 f16 f22 f32 f45 f64 f90 Also the technique needs to be fexible so that I can jump into the middle of the list. No good having a technique where I rely on rythmn and have to start at the begining of the list each time. e.g. Like the technique some people (me included) use for figuring out the order of months or the alphabet. p.s. Telling me that yes there is a pattern to the list and I should rather remember the pattern and then do some calculations on the spot is not too helpful, but thanks for the thought
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: Telling me that yes there is a pattern to the list and I should rather remember the pattern and then do some calculations on the spot is not too helpful, but thanks for the thought It's not a terribly difficult calculation, Paul: f-stop definition[^]. :-D Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
Paul Watson wrote: Telling me that yes there is a pattern to the list and I should rather remember the pattern and then do some calculations on the spot is not too helpful, but thanks for the thought You're welcome ;) why do you need to remember that list?? I understand the tradeoff between aperture, exposure time, and focus depth - but why do you need the numbers??
Those who not hear the music think the dancers are mad. [sighist] [Agile Programming]
peterchen wrote: why do you need to remember that list?? I understand the tradeoff between aperture, exposure time, and focus depth - but why do you need the numbers?? For the Zone System. It is actually quite interesting and so far the theory is sound. To cut a long tutorial short the basic idea is this: You look at a scene and visualise it as you want it to appear on the film. You ligh-meter the important subjects in your scene and then assign the middle subject to Zone 5, the middle subject is the subject closest to 18% gray. The zone system has a range from Zone 0 to Zone X, 11 zones in total. Each zone represents a f/stop higher than the one before and lower than the one after. It is important not to say Zone 5 is always f/5.6 or Zone 8 is f/8. The zones "slide" up and down the f/stop scale depending on the scene, you just calibrate it to the middle zone, Zone 5. The zone system then also maps to film densities, which is very important. Zone 5 is mid density with full texture, Zone X is full density with no texture, Zone 0 is no density with no texture etc. etc. Now comes the cool bit. You can then say "I don't want my middle subject showing as 18% gray, I want it lighter, but still retain good texture." Lets say at Zone 5 in this particular scene the f/stop is 4. You would then say bump up the middle subject to Zone 6, that is one f/stop higher, which is f/5.6. That is what you set your camera to. Naturally then if there were other subjects you wanted in the shot then they also scale up or down the zones in relation to your middle subject. The whole point really is to give you control in saying "Can I get in all the detail of this scene, the shadows, the middle and the highlights?" or you can say "I want as much detail in the shadows as is possible, sacrificing the highlight details." The zone system then gives you the tool to do that, with the end result being an f/stop that you punch into your camera and use. And because light-meters return a shutter and aperture number you need to know the f/stop scale so that you can map it effectively to the zone system, and then back again. All very cool :-D
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
Paul Watson wrote: Telling me that yes there is a pattern to the list and I should rather remember the pattern and then do some calculations on the spot is not too helpful, but thanks for the thought It's not a terribly difficult calculation, Paul: f-stop definition[^]. :-D Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003Roger Wright wrote: It's not a terribly difficult calculation, Paul: f-stop definition[^]. "Basically, calculated from the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the bundle of light rays entering the lens and passing through the aperture in the iris diaphragm" Yeah, simple, can do it in my sleep... :rolleyes: Roger Wright wrote: Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them! Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 LOL! Now this is an honour indeed :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
F numbers are easy. Start at 1.4 and 2 and then just double them till you get to 32, make a rounding correction at 45 and continue. Sure - it's not as efficient as a lookup table but is it worth putting in the work to remember the lookup table to avoid the inefficiency of doing a loop iteration? Paul Watson wrote: Telling me that yes there is a pattern to the list and I should rather remember the pattern and then do some calculations on the spot is not too helpful, but thanks for the thought Oops - too late. Why is a calculation bad? It's just doubling numbers. The 2,4,8 etc should be easy. The other option is just to take a glance at the lens on your camera. And if your response is 'what if I don't have my camera with me' then my response is 'and you call yourself a photographer? Bah!' ;) cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: to avoid the inefficiency of doing a loop iteration? :laugh: :laugh: Do you talk to your lovers like that Chris? "Hey baby, lets cut the inefficiency and hook my USB to your FireWire port." :rolleyes: I recommend a good month of no programming, no servers, no web and no handhelds to cure you. Call me in two weeks. Chris Maunder wrote: The other option is just to take a glance at the lens on your camera This is actually quite annoying. So many tutorials and elder photographers say "Look on your lens for the f/stop, distance and hyperfocal numbers." I look and the only numbers on my lens are 28 to 90 and a daft picture of a flower with an infinity sign after it. I thought at first it was just my bundled kit lens that was lacking. Then I checked that Tamron out and it too only has the bare minimum of numbers on it. Seems as newer lenses are simply not printing these numbers on them anymore, rather relying on the camera body to figure it out or other tools. Tis a pity because looking at some older lenses those numbers are quite helpful. Chris Maunder wrote: And if your response is 'what if I don't have my camera with me' then my response is 'and you call yourself a photographer? Bah!' :-D Family and friends are begining to wonder if I am going to have my camera slung over my shoulder when I walk down the aisle one day. I take it absolutely everywhere, had to argue and then bribe the cinema lady to let me take it in, even had to show a bouncer that it was just a camera and not a concealed-weapon when I went out the other night. Hell, I was playing pool two weeks ago and had it clipped to my belt. I don't want to be like some photographers who whine "There was this perfect shot and I did not have my camera with me!"
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
a poem:
Old forces Twisted Zelda Thoughts enraged. Fortuntely Zelda’s Fighting smashed Orion’s zephyr. Orion sent Thru trouble, Three travellers. For firey Stars finished Nasty Zelda.:cool:
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, a sore thumb you will have."
Philip Fitzsimons wrote: Old forces Twisted Zelda Thoughts enraged. Fortuntely Zelda’s Fighting smashed Orion’s zephyr. Orion sent Thru trouble, Three travellers. For firey Stars finished Nasty Zelda. Wow, cool. At first I thought "WTF is he smoking?" but then realised how it works, thanks :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
Chris Maunder wrote: And if your response is 'what if I don't have my camera with me' then my response is ... then my response is what the hell do you need to know f/stop for anyway :-D
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
Ray Cassick wrote: then my response is what the hell do you need to know f/stop for anyway so that even without a camera handy you can impress the ladi... err interested-parties. Everyone knows we only do photography to be seen as arty, creative and interesting. It is simply another survival and procreation trick. ;) * Seriously though I need to know the f/stop scale so that I can put the Zone System to effective use
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
peterchen wrote: why do you need to remember that list?? I understand the tradeoff between aperture, exposure time, and focus depth - but why do you need the numbers?? For the Zone System. It is actually quite interesting and so far the theory is sound. To cut a long tutorial short the basic idea is this: You look at a scene and visualise it as you want it to appear on the film. You ligh-meter the important subjects in your scene and then assign the middle subject to Zone 5, the middle subject is the subject closest to 18% gray. The zone system has a range from Zone 0 to Zone X, 11 zones in total. Each zone represents a f/stop higher than the one before and lower than the one after. It is important not to say Zone 5 is always f/5.6 or Zone 8 is f/8. The zones "slide" up and down the f/stop scale depending on the scene, you just calibrate it to the middle zone, Zone 5. The zone system then also maps to film densities, which is very important. Zone 5 is mid density with full texture, Zone X is full density with no texture, Zone 0 is no density with no texture etc. etc. Now comes the cool bit. You can then say "I don't want my middle subject showing as 18% gray, I want it lighter, but still retain good texture." Lets say at Zone 5 in this particular scene the f/stop is 4. You would then say bump up the middle subject to Zone 6, that is one f/stop higher, which is f/5.6. That is what you set your camera to. Naturally then if there were other subjects you wanted in the shot then they also scale up or down the zones in relation to your middle subject. The whole point really is to give you control in saying "Can I get in all the detail of this scene, the shadows, the middle and the highlights?" or you can say "I want as much detail in the shadows as is possible, sacrificing the highlight details." The zone system then gives you the tool to do that, with the end result being an f/stop that you punch into your camera and use. And because light-meters return a shutter and aperture number you need to know the f/stop scale so that you can map it effectively to the zone system, and then back again. All very cool :-D
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaWow! :omg: I'm impressed. In my days, you adjusted the roll type and exposure time, and the light meter would tell you "too bright" or "too dark" (an f/stop, if it was an external device). You'd simply point it at the object to have average light (or +/- one stop manually) . Seems similar, only less concious/rationale. (I didn#t read the long tutorial, though)
Those who not hear the music think the dancers are mad. [sighist] [Agile Programming]
-
Wow! :omg: I'm impressed. In my days, you adjusted the roll type and exposure time, and the light meter would tell you "too bright" or "too dark" (an f/stop, if it was an external device). You'd simply point it at the object to have average light (or +/- one stop manually) . Seems similar, only less concious/rationale. (I didn#t read the long tutorial, though)
Those who not hear the music think the dancers are mad. [sighist] [Agile Programming]
peterchen wrote: In my days, you adjusted the roll type and exposure time, and the light meter would tell you "too bright" or "too dark" (an f/stop, if it was an external device). You'd simply point it at the object to have average light (or +/- one stop manually) . Seems similar, only less concious/rationale. (I didn#t read the long tutorial, though) Yes that is all used in the Zone System to setup the scene. The problem though with not thinking of zones and just intentionally over or under exposing is that you are only controlling the exposure of one of the subjects in your photo. With the ZS you can with some practice and thought control the exposure of 2 or 3 differently lighted subjects.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
Roger Wright wrote: It's not a terribly difficult calculation, Paul: f-stop definition[^]. "Basically, calculated from the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the bundle of light rays entering the lens and passing through the aperture in the iris diaphragm" Yeah, simple, can do it in my sleep... :rolleyes: Roger Wright wrote: Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them! Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 LOL! Now this is an honour indeed :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaI was referring to the formula - start with 1.0, multiply by 1.4, round. Repeat as necessary. You can even skip the rounding - sure, (1.4)^5 = 5.4, but that should be enough to jog your memory to remember 5.6 as the actual setting. Don't be frightened... it's called math, and it won't bite...:-D Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
benjymous wrote: Write it on a sticker and attach it to your camera LOL I have printed the list and stuck it inside my camera bag... plus the camera itself has the list handily enough. But the point is to be able to remember it as you are looking at a scene to judge it effectively, all quite quickly. Pulling out bits of paper or looking through viewfinders etc. will distract from the judging of the scene. I need a pair of those glasses with a built LCD screen, then I can touch my top left tooth whenever I need the list ;)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: But the point is to be able to remember it as you are looking at a scene to judge it effectively, all quite quickly. D'Oh. That's what the light meter is for. You have a light meter, yes? All you need to know is to follow the light meter and then adjust from there. ie. shooting into the sun, the light meter will tell you to have a really small aperture which in turn will make your shot intolerably dark - solution drop the aperture by a stop or two. You dig? J
May the bear never have cause to eat you.
-
peterchen wrote: why do you need to remember that list?? I understand the tradeoff between aperture, exposure time, and focus depth - but why do you need the numbers?? For the Zone System. It is actually quite interesting and so far the theory is sound. To cut a long tutorial short the basic idea is this: You look at a scene and visualise it as you want it to appear on the film. You ligh-meter the important subjects in your scene and then assign the middle subject to Zone 5, the middle subject is the subject closest to 18% gray. The zone system has a range from Zone 0 to Zone X, 11 zones in total. Each zone represents a f/stop higher than the one before and lower than the one after. It is important not to say Zone 5 is always f/5.6 or Zone 8 is f/8. The zones "slide" up and down the f/stop scale depending on the scene, you just calibrate it to the middle zone, Zone 5. The zone system then also maps to film densities, which is very important. Zone 5 is mid density with full texture, Zone X is full density with no texture, Zone 0 is no density with no texture etc. etc. Now comes the cool bit. You can then say "I don't want my middle subject showing as 18% gray, I want it lighter, but still retain good texture." Lets say at Zone 5 in this particular scene the f/stop is 4. You would then say bump up the middle subject to Zone 6, that is one f/stop higher, which is f/5.6. That is what you set your camera to. Naturally then if there were other subjects you wanted in the shot then they also scale up or down the zones in relation to your middle subject. The whole point really is to give you control in saying "Can I get in all the detail of this scene, the shadows, the middle and the highlights?" or you can say "I want as much detail in the shadows as is possible, sacrificing the highlight details." The zone system then gives you the tool to do that, with the end result being an f/stop that you punch into your camera and use. And because light-meters return a shutter and aperture number you need to know the f/stop scale so that you can map it effectively to the zone system, and then back again. All very cool :-D
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa:wtf: Alrighty... you can probably ignore my previous reply. Clearly I don't have enough "steps" to my technique. Sounds interesting though... J
May the bear never have cause to eat you.
-
:wtf: Alrighty... you can probably ignore my previous reply. Clearly I don't have enough "steps" to my technique. Sounds interesting though... J
May the bear never have cause to eat you.
Jamie Hale wrote: Clearly I don't have enough "steps" to my technique LOL well if you like your technique and it works well then a: Stick with it and b: Share! I stumbled across that Zone System and it was recommended enough to warrant looking into. Also my explanation is obviously very brief and flawed as I am still learning, so check out the tutorial itself to judge. Jamie Hale wrote: You have a light meter, yes? No, I wish. Managed to afford the camera and lens, now saving up for a good light meter, some filters and another lens. The in-camera light meter is pretty good, just lacks a spot meter option though :( So where is your portfolio? What lens, camera, film do you use? What are your secrets? :-D
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
Jamie Hale wrote: Clearly I don't have enough "steps" to my technique LOL well if you like your technique and it works well then a: Stick with it and b: Share! I stumbled across that Zone System and it was recommended enough to warrant looking into. Also my explanation is obviously very brief and flawed as I am still learning, so check out the tutorial itself to judge. Jamie Hale wrote: You have a light meter, yes? No, I wish. Managed to afford the camera and lens, now saving up for a good light meter, some filters and another lens. The in-camera light meter is pretty good, just lacks a spot meter option though :( So where is your portfolio? What lens, camera, film do you use? What are your secrets? :-D
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: So where is your portfolio? What lens, camera, film do you use? What are your secrets? Err, well, you see... the trouble is... Well ok. When I'm not using my digital (and since the birth of my daughter it's what I seem to have used exclusively), I use one of these[^]. The lens is a fixed 50mm I think - I'd have to look. The camera has removable backs so you can load up a black and white AND a colour roll each in their own back, and swap between them as you please. Mind you they're quite old and I don't trust them to keep out the light, so I don't use that feature. I shoot black and white mostly, and before my parents moved out of their house, I did a lot of my own developing in their darkroom. As for secrets? I guess for me it's mostly in the subject matter. I have a lot of pictures of peoples' backs because they were looking at something in particular, or in a certain way. And I have a lot of nature shots because it's so easy to capture something beautiful. Sure lighting is very important, but I find poorly lit pictures of something intriguing typically better than well-lit pictures of not-a-whole-lot. Know what I mean? J
May the bear never have cause to eat you.
-
Paul Watson wrote: So where is your portfolio? What lens, camera, film do you use? What are your secrets? Err, well, you see... the trouble is... Well ok. When I'm not using my digital (and since the birth of my daughter it's what I seem to have used exclusively), I use one of these[^]. The lens is a fixed 50mm I think - I'd have to look. The camera has removable backs so you can load up a black and white AND a colour roll each in their own back, and swap between them as you please. Mind you they're quite old and I don't trust them to keep out the light, so I don't use that feature. I shoot black and white mostly, and before my parents moved out of their house, I did a lot of my own developing in their darkroom. As for secrets? I guess for me it's mostly in the subject matter. I have a lot of pictures of peoples' backs because they were looking at something in particular, or in a certain way. And I have a lot of nature shots because it's so easy to capture something beautiful. Sure lighting is very important, but I find poorly lit pictures of something intriguing typically better than well-lit pictures of not-a-whole-lot. Know what I mean? J
May the bear never have cause to eat you.
Jamie Hale wrote: Know what I mean? Indeed. Even if I did not you could always just claim artistic license and say your shots are moody, that is what I do with all my underexposed shots... ;)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
