Confusion about Aperture Settings

[LouBedor]

Photography hobbyist here. I have the basic Canon XS with a few low-end lenses and a 580EX II Speedflash (my wife went a little overboard for my birthday!). I like to take photographs of interiors, but I've run across a confusing issue concerning Aperture. I've seen a lot of "advice" or "tips" telling me to use a larger aperture(f/2 -f/4) with a longer shutter speed to capture more color and detail inside. Is this correct? I thought using a larger aperture would blur the background? To be perfectly clear: not trying to photograph people or movement, just static interior elements. Can someone help me with the question so I can straighten out this bag of snakes? Thanks is advance.

[littlebro]

f2/f4 is a very shallow DOF, personally I would use f11/16 on a tripod.

[chris-p]

That doesn't really make much sense - if you use a wider aperture you'd have to use a faster (shorter) shutter speed, not a longer one.

It really depends on your other settings. A wider aperture can blur the background but that depends on your focal length and how you focus. Whether or not you use the flash will make a difference as well.

You also haven't said what lenses you actually have. If you're "wide open" is f/4.5 you're not going to suffer with shallow DoF too much. If you're talking f/2 (for example) it might be more of a problem.

Personally, I'd try shooting at something like f/8 - f/11. Unless the rooms you're shooting are massive, the DoF you get from f/8-11 should be more than enough and you won't start to suffer with softening through diffraction which is more likely to be an issue at f/16.

If you use a tripod (if you've got one) or can support the camera in another way, that will help as it will allow you to alter the aperture to get the sharpness just right and not have to worry if the shutter speed is too long to hand hold.

With regards to the colours - longer shutter speeds do often lead to more saturated colour but that's easily adjusted in post.

[rbarry]

chris-p wrote
"That doesn't really make much sense - if you use a wider aperture you'd have to use a faster (shorter) shutter speed, not a longer one."

Not if you want to enhance the light levels available to you. If you increase the shutter speed, less light will fall on the sensor.

I imagine that the advice LouBedor received was how to allow more light to fall on the sensor when the ambient light levels are low. Both a wide aperture and a long shutter speed used together would accomplish this, and so allow for a brighter exposure. If he were to increase the aperture and the shutter speed proportionately, he will maintain the same exposure.

For interiors without any movement and limited light levels, and of course tripod mounted, longer shutter speeds would allow him to use narrower apertures and consequently increase the depth of field. Of course increasing the sensitivity by upping the ISO would help, but may introduce graining.

Great advice from chris-p all the same.

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by rbarry

Not if you want to enhance the light levels available to you. If you increase the shutter speed, less light will fall on the sensor.

I imagine that the advice LouBedor received was how to allow more light to fall on the sensor when the ambient light levels are low. Both a wide aperture and a long shutter speed used together would accomplish this, and so allow for a brighter exposure. If he were to increase the aperture and the shutter speed proportionately, he will maintain the same exposure.

That's absolutley correct. I assumed that the OP was shooting in a semi-manual or auto mode, rather than in manual.

[rbarry]

Good point Chris, I would imagine you are spot on with your assumption.

It's hard to guage the level of understanding from the OP, perhaps he would like to respond to the replies he's had so far if any of this advice is unclear to him.

[ehammock]

Just throwing my two penneth in. I entirely agree with the posts of f11/f16 and a tripod. I have started keeping a scrap book of good and bad images. I print off the image (doesn't have to be briliant quality) at around 6x4 and circle the bits I do and don't like, with lines drawn out to notes around hte edges. It doesn't work for everyone but it has made a difference to me. I can then build up a base of personal improvements. For example, yesterday I took a photo of my wife and child in a dimly lit wood. I took it at 50mm, f2.8 from about 2ft away. When I got back, my child was sharp and my wife was soft (shallow DoF). It would have been a keeper if they were both sharp. Last night I found (via google) a chart which told me that my DoF at this setting was negligible. I then worked out that by stepping back to about 5ft, and later cropping the shot will allow for the difference in each persons distance from the lens.

Sorry, this has been a long winded post, but just the way I am learning to use my camera equipment.

Could the OP also consider HDR to improve colours? I'm not meaning gawdy stuff, it can still look natural (eg Joe Cornish landscapes, often HDR)

Edward.

[StephenBatey]

I'd read the advice differently.

I assume that the alternative to a wide aperture etc is to increase the ISO and therefore lose detail and colour due to noise. Or to use a long shutter speed and increase the noise.

On that basis, a wide aperture would fit the bill.

Depth of field will be limited, and other lens aberrations may become more obvious, but the colour and detail (dues to less noise) should be better.