how to explain what aperture is...

rosselliot

okay, I know this may have been mentioned before or someone maybe has thought about it this way before, but I just thought I'd post here so those who haven't thought about it can do so!

okay, so you can think of your camera lens as your eye. the glass is the clear gel, the iris is the red ring around the lens, and the pupil is the aperature. the smaller the aperature number the more like you can get in it. just like your eye, when your pupil grows you can get more light in, so the wider your aperature, the more light is allowed towards the sensor. however, when you look right into the sun (not recommended in real life or photography), the pupil shrinks to a TINY size because there's so much light you don't need a huge opening.

so when you're trying to explain that the lens you're using isn't the best for low light situations, you can say, imagine if your eyes could only let in so much light and your pupil couldn't expand more than a certain amount, you wouldn't be able to see anything when it's dark because your pupils couldn't get big enough - the aperature of this lens is the same thing, it can't quite open wide enough for a crisp, clear picture in this light.

well, hope that made sense....

haha

- RE

TylerW

rosselliot wrote:

okay, I know this may have been mentioned before or someone maybe has thought about it this way before, but I just thought I'd post here so those who haven't thought about it can do so!

okay, so you can think of your camera lens as your eye. the glass is the clear gel, the iris is the red ring around the lens, and the pupil is the aperature. the smaller the aperature number the more like you can get in it. just like your eye, when your pupil grows you can get more light in, so the wider your aperature, the more light is allowed towards the sensor. however, when you look right into the sun (not recommended in real life or photography), the pupil shrinks to a TINY size because there's so much light you don't need a huge opening.

so when you're trying to explain that the lens you're using isn't the best for low light situations, you can say, imagine if your eyes could only let in so much light and your pupil couldn't expand more than a certain amount, you wouldn't be able to see anything when it's dark because your pupils couldn't get big enough - the aperature of this lens is the same thing, it can't quite open wide enough for a crisp, clear picture in this light.

well, hope that made sense....

haha

- RE

Mostly on point, but it makes sense to say that the iris is actually the aperture blades. This analogy will start t break down pretty quickly when you get to the developing surface (retina vs. imaging sensor) though.

rosselliot

TylerW wrote:

Mostly on point, but it makes sense to say that the iris is actually the aperture blades. This analogy will start t break down pretty quickly when you get to the developing surface (retina vs. imaging sensor) though.

very true! haha. but for the plebians of society who are bereft of knowledge of photography....that keeps it on their level.

- RE

DoctorIt

psssst, it's aperture.

rosselliot

DoctorIt wrote:

psssst, it's aperture.

woops :S hahahaha. I didn't even notice, and I probably did it more than once knowing me! I love adding extra letters, it's a hobby...next to photography, of course.

- RE

rosselliot

yep 3 times. well, at least I'm consistent.

Angelo

rosselliot wrote:

very true! haha. but for the plebians of society who are bereft of knowledge of photography....that keeps it on their level.

- RE

gee, that almost sounds condescending!



oh and even though you've used the word incorrectly it's spelled: plebeians
you probably meant to use the word philistine, which would be equally condescending.

.

SloYerRoll

Wow, this whole time I thought aperture was only a mac program for photogs.
So I can take my lens to get LASIK if the lens gets fungus on them?

thebigsky

DoctorIt wrote:

psssst, it's aperture.

Nicely done, I'd been agonising about how to get this message across without being accused of being pedantic and patronising

Charlie

Malte

thebigsky wrote:

Nicely done, I'd been agonising about how to get this message across without being accused of being pedantic and patronising

Charlie

I'll still accuse you of being pedantic and patronising, both of you.

You knew what he was referring to, right?

Malte

rosselliot

thebigsky wrote:

Nicely done, I'd been agonising about how to get this message across without being accused of being pedantic and patronising

Charlie

wow, what great vocabulary we have on this thread! and what great spellers as well! (not me included, OBVIOUSLY!)

by the way, why hasn't the mod changed the title? if I looked at this part of the forum and mispelling in the title would bother me a lot too...

but hey, I bet when one of your friends asks why the pictures inside are blurry the next time you hand them your camera with a f/4 lens on it, you'll think of this way of explaining it - it's on the average person's level who doesn't spend their time reading photography magazines and forums

ah well.

if you have any other good vocabulary to throw in this mess, come on in! spelling is not a requirement!

- RE