Foo - Photographers: My new project

I may be jumping the gun at releasing this to ya'll (as there is much to do) but check it out :)

http://thephotodictionary.com/index.html

Cool idea. I really like it and I know it'll help a lot of people out.

Perhaps you should cross-link "bokeh" and "depth of field."

Cool! :thumb:

Cool idea. I really like it and I know it'll help a lot of people out.

Perhaps you should cross-link "bokeh" and "depth of field."

That is the plan, to cross link between everything i can. It's a work in progress.

Cool idea.

Turn your spell check on. "dedicated to the beginer photographer" - beginner/beginning Or use novice.

Cool idea.

Turn your spell check on. "dedicated to the beginer photographer" - beginner/beginning Or use novice.

Thanks.

When referring to yourself, i is capitalized. Or at least that is how I do it.;)

When referring to yourself, i is capitalized. Or at least that is how I do it.;)

Me too :)

I'm writing this in Dreamweaver and they don't have MS's fancy auto correct. I'm giving too much attention to getting the code right and not the content it seems :)

When I work on a task with lots of detail, I like to get many pairs of eyes to review my work. I tend to miss many of my innumerable mistakes, no matter how many times I fact check a document.

Great project... and one that fills a niche I think needs to be filled.

A place I will visit!

Excellent stuff.

Great project... and one that fills a niche I think needs to be filled.


I couldn't agree more (obviously). I see places like Fredmiranda.com inundated with some very basic questions and people berate them for their "stupidity" (i must admit there are times when i am vocal about some of the questions myself). I think this is an excellent opportunity for some n00bs to come and read without being belittled. I hope it pans out :)

Very cool

Excellent idea.

When I work on a task with lots of detail, I like to get many pairs of eyes to review my work. I tend to miss many of my innumerable mistakes, no matter how many times I fact check a document.

I don't mkae mistakes.

Uploaded my first article last night. That took a while to get done...
www.thephotodictionary.com

Posted another article, for those interested

Cool idea, and a good easy to remember URL too. Need any suggestions on articles?

Took a quick read through and noticed a technical error.



As I mentioned, aperture (http://thephotodictionary.com/dictionary.html#aperture) is measured in f/stop (http://thephotodictionary.com/dictionary.html#fstop)’s. You will see this expressed as f/(number). Some common examples are f/1.4 f/2 f/2.8 f/4 f/5.6 f/8 f/11 f/16 f/22. If you are especially gifted in math you may have noticed a pattern to these numbers. In case you didn’t, each number is about 1.4x as much as the previous number and every other number is doubled.
What I have demonstrated here are aperture settings that increase half a stop (http://thephotodictionary.com/dictionary.html#stop) from f/1.4 to f/22. That is to say that one stop (http://thephotodictionary.com/dictionary.html#stop) from f/1.4 is f/2.8 and two stops from f/1.4 is f/5.6. As I have mentioned before, the larger the f/number, the less light your lens lets in. How much? One stop of aperture equates to double (or half) the light. That is to say that f/1.4 lets in twice as much light as f/2.8. How does that relate to shutter speed and ISO? Read on…


Actually from f/1.4 to f/2 is one whole stop. Something important to point out is, that though it may seem logical that doubling the number represents halfing the amount of light as in shutter speed, with apertures it is actuall quartering the light when you double the numerical value.

I think it would be helpful to inform people that the way the value of aperture is determined is that focal length divided by the diameter of the iris equals the f value. The f/ in aperture stands for focal length.

So on a 50mm lens f/1 would be an iris diameter of 50mm and f/1.4 would be approximately 35.71mm and f/2 would be 25mm
the amount of light that can be let in is relative to the area of the opening in the iris. If you do the math you fill find (with some rounding to simplify things) that f/1.4 represents an opening of about 1000mm^2 and f/2 represents and opening of about 500mm^2 hence f/2 lets in half as much light as f/1.4.

You're right about the error (sheet!! that's what i get for writing articles at 12am). I'm getting to the rest of it, look for that info in the article about depth of field...


Took a quick read through and noticed a technical error.



Actually from f/1.4 to f/2 is one whole stop. Something important to point out is, that though it may seem logical that doubling the number represents halfing the amount of light as in shutter speed, with apertures it is actuall quartering the light when you double the numerical value.

I think it would be helpful to inform people that the way the value of aperture is determined is that focal length divided by the diameter of the iris equals the f value. The f/ in aperture stands for focal length.

So on a 50mm lens f/1 would be an iris diameter of 50mm and f/1.4 would be approximately 35.71mm and f/2 would be 25mm
the amount of light that can be let in is relative to the area of the opening in the iris. If you do the math you fill find (with some rounding to simplify things) that f/1.4 represents an opening of about 1000mm^2 and f/2 represents and opening of about 500mm^2 hence f/2 lets in half as much light as f/1.4.

The photo dictionary got it's first hit from a google search yesterday. Way cool.