Support NeoGAF

[CrudeDiatribe]

I'll read this, thanks!

Start with lighting 101. There are other good guides as well for on-camera flash, such as this one by wedding photographer Neil van Neikerk: flash photography techniques. It might be more accessible.

A few questions for the group from me:
- What are general opinions of Ken Rockwell and his advice? It seems very intuitive to me as a beginner (keep the camera in Programmable mode 98% of the time, set your config once and you're pretty much set besides exceptional circumstances, the process of shooting being shoot -> adjust exposure compensation if required -> adjust colour if required, etc). Am surprised he hasn't been raised in this thread before.

While I too don't like his photos, I find his writing/reviews much funnier and useful now that I more about what I'm doing. I think he's got a lot of dead-end advice for new photographers: he's right about a lot of things you shouldn't worry about or that you couldn't afford a more pro camera, but you have to abandon some of it when you're ready to get better.

The biggest thing I disagree with is "RAW is a waste of time". Assuming you have a good workflow, you should be shooting RAW, end of story. Shooting JPEGs are like taking your film to Walmart for development.

Just remember that Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of non-photographers.

Composition seems to be the hardest thing to learn... any great composition guides would be very much appreciated

Find some photos you like online and overlay the rule-of-thirds-grid and the golden-spiral and see what lines up.

 

[mrkgoo]

Also look at lots of photos and describe what you think you like about them or dislike compositionally.

 

[FunnyBunny]

For composition techniques and theory, The Photographer's Eye is very detailed.

Purchased.

I look forward to reading it and getting some ideas.

 

[tino]

Holy shit

Photographer Takes A Bash Using Waterproof Housing While In Rapids

 

[TronLight]

A question about focus... I think.
I have an old Olympus OM30, with the standard 50mm lens that came with it.
Now, on the lense there is a "depth of field preview" (if I remember the name correctly), if I press it, the image in the viewfinder turns darker, I suppose it's giving me a preview of how exposed the picture will be at a given f/stop number? Or what?

And, at the center of the viewfinder I have a circle, which is cut in half. Now I know that when the two halves of the image in the circle are aligned, the subject is supposedly in focus. But when I use the preview button, the lower half usually turns completely black, but if I move the camera (or my eye, I don't really understand what it's based on), it might get less black, and maybe the upper half will start to darken.
What does it mean? :lol

Sorry if the questions are stupid, but I'm a real beginner here.

 

[Anton Sugar]

I've been mostly shooting video with my T2i/T3i cams, but I've also been using them to practice photography every chance I get, with the goal being on a daily basis.

However, I am decidedly more interested in video and will likely be selling one or both cameras to help put money towards video equipment.

At the same time, I DO want to have a good stills camera around, so I can keep learning. Is it worth keeping one of the cameras (T2i and T3i) or should I sell em and invest in a better stills cam?

 

[FunnyBunny]

A question about focus... I think.
I have an old Olympus OM30, with the standard 50mm lens that came with it.
Now, on the lense there is a "depth of field preview" (if I remember the name correctly), if I press it, the image in the viewfinder turns darker, I suppose it's giving me a preview of how exposed the picture will be at a given f/stop number? Or what?

And, at the center of the viewfinder I have a circle, which is cut in half. Now I know that when the two halves of the image in the circle are aligned, the subject is supposedly in focus. But when I use the preview button, the lower half usually turns completely black, but if I move the camera (or my eye, I don't really understand what it's based on), it might get less black, and maybe the upper half will start to darken.
What does it mean? :lol

Sorry if the questions are stupid, but I'm a real beginner here.

The darker the viewfinder, the more the image surrounding the focal point will be out of focus. That's my experience.

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

A question about focus... I think.
I have an old Olympus OM30, with the standard 50mm lens that came with it.
Now, on the lense there is a "depth of field preview" (if I remember the name correctly), if I press it, the image in the viewfinder turns darker, I suppose it's giving me a preview of how exposed the picture will be at a given f/stop number? Or what?

'Or what', indeed. Depth of field, roughly, is how much is in focus in front of and behind the focal distance. Your camera, when composing a picture, has the aperture as open as it can be to let the most light in, as your eyes are seeing moment to moment; an instantaneous exposure, if you will, as opposed to the light that will progressively hit the film or sensor while the shutter is open.

The depth-of-field button closes the aperture to its set value, so that you can see what will be in focus, but in so doing makes everything darker since less light is passing through the lens and hitting your eye.

And, at the center of the viewfinder I have a circle, which is cut in half. Now I know that when the two halves of the image in the circle are aligned, the subject is supposedly in focus. But when I use the preview button, the lower half usually turns completely black, but if I move the camera (or my eye, I don't really understand what it's based on), it might get less black, and maybe the upper half will start to darken.

I wouldn't worry about it. It's been so long since I've used a camera with a focusing screen that I can't answer you better.

The darker the viewfinder, the more the image surrounding the focal point will be out of focus. That's my experience.

Other way around.

 

[partime]

Luckily I, a beginner photographer, purchased a D7100. That pretty much catapults me to a professional.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong or if I've just stumbled across the hardware limitations of the camera I'm using (600D/T3i).

What I want

Sharp images at large apertures (f2.0 or under) of full-body shots.

What I'm using

600D/T3i and Sigma 30mm 1.4

The problem

Relying on the sensor to lock onto its favoured AF often results in soft areas of the face of my subjects. I will try to experiment more with manual focus points, but my question is this: if I'm trying to take a photograph of say 2 or 3 people, then how am I meant to manually focus on their faces? At what point is this a limitation of the camera or a mistake on my part?

This is an example of what an image I took earlier today

ISO 1000
f2.8
1/50s

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong or if I've just stumbled across the hardware limitations of the camera I'm using (600D/T3i).

The bigger the aperture, the less that's in focus before and after the focal distance. If the guy on the left is in focus at f/2, the guy on the right won't be.

If you were 2m from those guys, at f/2.8, you have 48cm front-to-back in focus.

This may help: Depth of Field Calculator

 

[DarkJediKnight]

I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong or if I've just stumbled across the hardware limitations of the camera I'm using (600D/T3i).

What I want

Sharp images at large apertures (f2.0 or under) of full-body shots.

What I'm using

600D/T3i and Sigma 30mm 1.4

The problem

Relying on the sensor to lock onto its favoured AF often results in soft areas of the face of my subjects. I will try to experiment more with manual focus points, but my question is this: if I'm trying to take a photograph of say 2 or 3 people, then how am I meant to manually focus on their faces? At what point is this a limitation of the camera or a mistake on my part?

This is an example of what an image I took earlier today

ISO 1000
f2.8
1/50s

Stick to F4, as it will give you enough light to look, while getting everyone in focus. 2.8 is too wide for group shots unless you're far enough back.

 

[peteykirch]

I really wish I lived somewhere closer to where sunsets/rises gave me a better opportunity to take a nice picture.

Maybe I'll head up to Rutgers one morning and see what I can do.

I need to practice more so I can get some great shots while on vacation in October.

 

[Joel Was Right]

What aperture do you think he is using for the full body shots?

http://www.humansofnewyork.com/

FYI: He is using the 7D. I've never handled this camera before. Would a body with a 19 AF points resolve this conflict between wider aperture/focus?

 

[East Lake]

Any lens shot at a wide aperture can look "in-focus" it's just that the wider you go the less the margin for error is, particularly if the AF doesn't focus on the eyes.

The 7D's AF is more capable because it's a higher end body but if you take both camera and they both focus on the same area with the same lens type you won't see a difference. The sensor is more or less the same. For the aperture he's using maybe f/4, but it looks like it varies a little bit. Here's a full body shot from the 7D at f/3.2 http://www.flickr.com/photos/annagorin/9000615179/

You can look at the specs under "additional info".

I'd suggest using a slightly smaller aperture than you did and raising the ISO to get a faster shutter speed. You can get a clear shot at 1/50 but it's not optimal.

 

[mrkgoo]

Meus, everyone else has given good advice. Just wanted to chime in that the number of AF points is largely irrelevant for how 'much' is in focus - it's all about knowing your DOF and what is acceptably sharp/in focus.

Where the AF points MAY help, is knowing which ones have achieved focus, but it's really not THAT accurate if you have activated all of them, and it's a crap shoot to kind of use AF to do so. Maybe using manual focus and twisting until both faces light up, but again, you're kind of relying on an inherently inaccurate system if you don't know about how much DOF you have (ie at f/2 you might not ever be able to put both faces in focus if they're not in the same plane).

Can't remember if the 7D has a face detection mode or setting that will auto achieve focus for all faces...

 

[Joel Was Right]

A few people have also mentioned that the lack of image stabilisation at 1/50s would be a factor. Thanks for the tips

 

[DBT85]

Started toying with the TTG plugins for Lightroom yesterday. Anyone else used them for a site?

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong or if I've just stumbled across the hardware limitations of the camera I'm using (600D/T3i).

What I want

Sharp images at large apertures (f2.0 or under) of full-body shots.

What I'm using

600D/T3i and Sigma 30mm 1.4

The problem

Relying on the sensor to lock onto its favoured AF often results in soft areas of the face of my subjects. I will try to experiment more with manual focus points, but my question is this: if I'm trying to take a photograph of say 2 or 3 people, then how am I meant to manually focus on their faces? At what point is this a limitation of the camera or a mistake on my part?

This is an example of what an image I took earlier today

ISO 1000
f2.8
1/50s

You can do a group shot at 1.4 and have everyone's eyes in focus. You just have to work hard to make sure that everyone's eyes are lined up in the focus plane, which is not easy since it's so thin.

To compensate for general non-sharpness: You'd set a narrower aperture, but that would defeat the point of the wide-aperture look that you're trying to get, so let's not do that for now.

To compensate for people's faces not all in focus: Set them up properly so that all their faces line up and are within the same plane of focus. A little setup beforehand goes a long way in making sure that the elements in your shot come together the way you want them to.

To use the best technique so that you are focusing correctly. When you are in portrait orientation, set your AF to a single point all the way on the right (If you rotate 90 gegrees counter clockwise to shoot in portrait), so that the active AF point is at the top of the viewfinder. Use single shot focus, not constant AF.

Use the focus and recompose technique. Use the single AF point, lock focus on one person's face, and then recompose your shot (you shouldn't have to recompose much, if at all).

Take your shot.

To eliminate motion blur due to camera shake, you would need to increase your shutter speed, so...

Widen your aperture more, or increase your ISO, or find a place with brighter light, or work on your handholding technique, or set your camera to rapid fire, and shoot off as many shots as you can so that at least a few will be adequately in focus.

 

[Rentahamster]

A few people have also mentioned that the lack of image stabilisation at 1/50s would be a factor. Thanks for the tips

You shouldn't need stabilization at 1/50s for 30mm. It helps, but you should be able to do so with the proper technique. If you still can't handhold it, get a tripod and use the timer release or a remote shutter release.

 

[RJT]

A few people have also mentioned that the lack of image stabilisation at 1/50s would be a factor. Thanks for the tips

Use the 2s timer. It can help a lot.

 

[de1irium]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDsx3-FWfwk

Some great info from Joe McNally (vetetan NatGeo photog) about best practices for holding/shooting.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Well, this is my photography blog with a difference.

www.facebook.com/facesoflondonuk

 

[Joel Was Right]

How is this for sharpness?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...5.311653325646771&type=1&theater&notif_t=like

 

[sneaky77]

Well, this is my photography blog with a difference.

www.facebook.com/facesoflondonuk

Cool idea Starfleets

 

[Flo_Evans]

How is this for sharpness?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...5.311653325646771&type=1&theater&notif_t=like

Not very sharp.

I haven't used this lens but from reviews it has AF problems and isn't the sharpest lens out there even when it is in focus.

 

[RayStorm]

Well, this is my photography blog with a difference.

www.facebook.com/facesoflondonuk

Am I mistaken, or is your banner picture one of Paris?

Besides that, how do you go about photographing strangers on the streets?

 

[Ember128]

Well, this is my photography blog with a difference.

www.facebook.com/facesoflondonuk

You can also change the autofocus to Single Shot, and change the autofocus point to a single point of your choosing. That way you can point the autofocus at their eye with that one point, half press/hold, wait for the beep, recompose, then take the photo. If the camera chooses between all points, what it actually is thinking is "I'm going to focus on whatever is closest and contrasts best to the background and is on an autofocus point."

 

[mrkgoo]

You can also change the autofocus to Single Shot, and change the autofocus point to a single point of your choosing. That way you can point the autofocus at their eye with that one point, half press/hold, wait for the beep, recompose, then take the photo. If the camera chooses between all points, what it actually is thinking is "I'm going to focus on whatever is closest and contrasts best to the background and is on an autofocus point."

I use this method, but you have to be aware that at very narrow DOF, there is the potential for the plane of focus shifting as you recompose.

Also, the default is to exposure lock when half pressing the shutter, so this may affect your exposure too, depending on your shooting mode.

Another way is to select a point that is over the face. It's one reason why I like the touchscreen operation of the eos m- quickly choose a focus point and it takes a picture automatically.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I use this method, but you have to be aware that at very narrow DOF, there is the potential for the plane of focus shifting as you recompose.

Also, the default is to exposure lock when half pressing the shutter, so this may affect your exposure too, depending on your shooting mode.

Another way is to select a point that is over the face. It's one reason why I like the touchscreen operation of the eos m- quickly choose a focus point and it takes a picture automatically.

You also have to consider that the focus plane is usually not entirely flat. On some lenses it can be curved quite a bit.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Cool idea Starfleets

Thanks

Not very sharp.

I haven't used this lens but from reviews it has AF problems and isn't the sharpest lens out there even when it is in focus.

That photo isn't a demonstration of the sharpness of the lens (this is a newer model released a few months ago by Sigma). As I mentioned earlier, I've been having problems trying to take a full body shot holding the camera portrait orientation. Of course, using the middle AF point would result in the sharpest focus but this would mean the body is not fully in frame. Next best thing is to use the top AF point, but that has given me inconsistent results. The best results have always been when shooting under landscape orientation; both the top and middle AF points produce sharp images.

The recompose method is unreliable for me. I've yet to master this. Aside from sharpness being inconsistent, I've also had exposure issues (as cited above by others). I'll manage to get the hang of it with more practice but fumbling around with the AF points whilst having a stranger stop for you can be stressful. So in this image, what I did was just use the Live View and and move the focus square (?) up to where the face is and it's produced relatively sharp images (by contrast to what I've shot before) consistently. I'm reasonably satisfied with the results.

If you want to see how sharp the lens is, I'll try shooting a portrait with a higher f-stop

Am I mistaken, or is your banner picture one of Paris?

Besides that, how do you go about photographing strangers on the streets?

Haha, the page is only a week old and I've yet to shoot something I can use for a Cover. Photographing them isn't easy. Most say no, but usually just approaching them with a smile, or waiting for them to pass you by, works pretty well. The hard part is trying to find something interesting to quote them on. Try it - its pretty satisfying when it comes off.

Check up on Humans of New York; I got the idea from that blog.

You can also change the autofocus to Single Shot, and change the autofocus point to a single point of your choosing. That way you can point the autofocus at their eye with that one point, half press/hold, wait for the beep, recompose, then take the photo. If the camera chooses between all points, what it actually is thinking is "I'm going to focus on whatever is closest and contrasts best to the background and is on an autofocus point."

This is what I don't get it. I've seen demonstrations of how this is done - I follow the instructions (just hold the shutter down once the viewfinder confirms focus) and I tilt the camera down by like 20 degrees. Ugh. I'll eventually figure it out

 

[Rentahamster]

How is this for sharpness?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...5.311653325646771&type=1&theater&notif_t=like

Sharp enough.

If you're still having trouble with your technique, practice more on some stationary object. If the AF point furthest to the right isn't focusing well enough, use one a little closer to the middle. Or, step back further so that the AF point you want to use is right on the person's face, and their whole body is in the frame already, so that you don't even have to recompose. You'll probably need to crop a bit later, though.

You can probably set your camera to do focus lock only and ignore exposure lock.

If you're using Lightroom, make use of the lens profiles, and especially the color fringing reduction tool. When shooting at wide apertures, there can be a lot of chromatic aberration. You can see a lot of it in that photo in areas of high contrast, like where the lamppost meets the clouds. Normal people don't notice it, though.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Sharp enough.

If you're still having trouble with your technique, practice more on some stationary object. If the AF point furthest to the right isn't focusing well enough, use one a little closer to the middle. Or, step back further so that the AF point you want to use is right on the person's face, and their whole body is in the frame already, so that you don't even have to recompose. You'll probably need to crop a bit later, though.

You can probably set your camera to do focus lock only and ignore exposure lock.

If you're using Lightroom, make use of the lens profiles, and especially the color fringing reduction tool. When shooting at wide apertures, there can be a lot of chromatic aberration. You can see a lot of it in that photo in areas of high contrast, like where the lamppost meets the clouds. Normal people don't notice it, though.

Can I just ask,

Is this AF point

inherently sharper than this (when in this orientation)?

It would make sense for it to be so considering the first AF point is closer to the middle AF point

 

[Rentahamster]

Oh, if that's the layout of your AF sensors, then I'm pretty sure that all the outside ones are semi-sensitive, while the middle one is the most sensitive (cross type).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/photography-tips/Canon-EOS-DSLR-Autofocus-Explained.aspx

 

[Flo_Evans]

Thanks



That photo isn't a demonstration of the sharpness of the lens (this is a newer model released a few months ago by Sigma). As I mentioned earlier, I've been having problems trying to take a full body shot holding the camera portrait orientation. Of course, using the middle AF point would result in the sharpest focus but this would mean the body is not fully in frame. Next best thing is to use the top AF point, but that has given me inconsistent results. The best results have always been when shooting under landscape orientation; both the top and middle AF points produce sharp images.

The recompose method is unreliable for me. I've yet to master this. Aside from sharpness being inconsistent, I've also had exposure issues (as cited above by others). I'll manage to get the hang of it with more practice but fumbling around with the AF points whilst having a stranger stop for you can be stressful. So in this image, what I did was just use the Live View and and move the focus square (?) up to where the face is and it's produced relatively sharp images (by contrast to what I've shot before) consistently. I'm reasonably satisfied with the results.

If you want to see how sharp the lens is, I'll try shooting a portrait with a higher f-stop



Haha, the page is only a week old and I've yet to shoot something I can use for a Cover. Photographing them isn't easy. Most say no, but usually just approaching them with a smile, or waiting for them to pass you by, works pretty well. The hard part is trying to find something interesting to quote them on. Try it - its pretty satisfying when it comes off.

Check up on Humans of New York; I got the idea from that blog.



This is what I don't get it. I've seen demonstrations of how this is done - I follow the instructions (just hold the shutter down once the viewfinder confirms focus) and I tilt the camera down by like 20 degrees. Ugh. I'll eventually figure it out

The problem is that the AF sensors on the edge are not cross type. They are most likely horizontal so they will work better sensing contrast on a perpendicular line. You also have to consider the AF sensor is not an exact fit to the viewfinder indicator.

My best advice is to set up an object at a similar distance to what you are shooting, practice lining up the sensor and take a bunch of shots, focus on something else in between shots. This will let you really get the hang of how the AF is working.

edit: beaten by a rental hamster.

 

[phisheep]

@Meus Renaissance

Looking at your blog, for all but three of the pictures I think you might consider getting in closer (or cropping) and paying a bit more attention to the background. Where the background is distracting, shoot closer, or lower, at a different angle maybe?

You can probably tell which three I am talking about.

 

[Joel Was Right]

@Meus Renaissance

Looking at your blog, for all but three of the pictures I think you might consider getting in closer (or cropping) and paying a bit more attention to the background. Where the background is distracting, shoot closer, or lower, at a different angle maybe?

You can probably tell which three I am talking about.

Yup

 

[Damaged]

Not so much to do with the technical part of Photography but this short documentary about Milton Rogovin shows the huge value in connecting with your subjects and what it can bring to your shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN5wm_Kxvi4

A fantastic Photographer and a great man

 

[FunnyBunny]

I snapped a picture of my niece on the beach this weekend. I'm really happy with how it turned out.

 

[mrkgoo]

Not so much to do with the technical part of Photography but this short documentary about Milton Rogovin shows the huge value in connecting with your subjects and what it can bring to your shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN5wm_Kxvi4

A fantastic Photographer and a great man

I saw that image and went damn, that's good. I thought you took it at first!

I snapped a picture of my niece on the beach this weekend. I'm really happy with how it turned out.

Beginner's tip: shooting at around an hour before dusk (or hour after dawn for that matter) produces really fantastic results. The light is golden, and off at an angle. Softer background and light means you get more even exposure. It's called the 'golden hour'.

 

[Damaged]

I saw that image and went damn, that's good. I thought you took it at first!



Beginner's tip: shooting at around an hour before dusk (or hour after dawn for that matter) produces really fantastic results. The light is golden, and off at an angle. Softer background and light means you get more even exposure. It's called the 'golden hour'.

God I wish I could take pictures like that, his work is just stunning

 

[Ether_Snake]

Question, how is someone taking pictures in contrasted night-time settings like this?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ce28nn/8938360324/

It seems the shutter speed is fast, because the smoke isn't blurry, aperture is large because the focus is near, and ISO speed I presume is high because shutter speed is high in dark lighting conditions?

Is there any flash involved in this? Also, is it likely that he had a tripod and hence lower ISO than I think?

 

[JORMBO]

The light source in that picture is the street lamp you can see in the top right part of the frame.

 

[Ether_Snake]

The light source in that picture is the street lamp you can see in the top right part of the frame.

But there is also nice even lighting from the front.

Either way, to get such a picture under such lighting conditions, it would be small aperture, fast shutter speed, high ISO?

It's especially the ISO I'm not sure of, because the scene is both dark and bright.

 

[Rentahamster]

But there is also nice even lighting from the front.

Either way, to get such a picture under such lighting conditions, it would be small aperture, fast shutter speed, high ISO?

It's especially the ISO I'm not sure of, because the scene is both dark and bright.

It was shot at 24mm wide open, since it's part of the 24mm 1.4L, wide open groups.

Shutter speed doesn't have to be fast. Depending on how dark it was, it could be 1/100 or less. ISO would depend on how much more you need to bump up the exposure.

There could be a flash or a reflector used in the front, really lightly, or it could just be like that naturally, and the photographer had a good enough presence of mind to place her there. You can see in the wide shot of the alley that there are glowing signs and stuff that could have provided enough light to cover her front.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ce28nn/8969520776/in/datetaken/

 

[Thug Waffle]

you guys are great. i'm in an image design class right now and this thread is helping a ton.

 

[Ether_Snake]

It was shot at 24mm wide open, since it's part of the 24mm 1.4L, wide open groups.

Shutter speed doesn't have to be fast. Depending on how dark it was, it could be 1/100 or less. ISO would depend on how much more you need to bump up the exposure.

There could be a flash or a reflector used in the front, really lightly, or it could just be like that naturally, and the photographer had a good enough presence of mind to place her there. You can see in the wide shot of the alley that there are glowing signs and stuff that could have provided enough light to cover her front.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ce28nn/8969520776/in/datetaken/

I mean wide aperture actually yes. When I say fast, to me 1/100 is fast (slow to me is long-exposure, 1sec +, but maybe that's not the usual consensus).

I need to practice with my cam, it has just been sitting there for months.

 

[JORMBO]

But there is also nice even lighting from the front.

It looks like whatever light is in the area. Notice the highlight along the top of her hair cast from the light at the top of the frame. Now notice how the rest of her hair has gone pure black. It does not look like there is any added frontal lighting.

The pic does have a bit of noise to it if you look closely. I would say it was just shot wide open at a decently high, but not super high ISO.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I'm getting a better understanding of this now, thanks. One thing I wonder when I look at flickr, when it says 1/160 ƒ/1.8 ISO 800 85 mm. It says the focal length is at 85mm in some photos but in other photos that are very similar it says 50mm.

So what I'm wondering is if the user is simply changing the focal length, why are the numbers always rounded like this? 50, 25, 85, etc. If you use a zoom lens for example, wouldn't you end up potentially with numbers like 82, 27, etc.? Or is the person just changing prime lens?

<---noob

 

[mrkgoo]

I'm getting a better understanding of this now, thanks. One thing I wonder when I look at flickr, when it says 1/160 ƒ/1.8 ISO 800 85 mm. It says the focal length is at 85mm in some photos but in other photos that are very similar it says 50mm.

So what I'm wondering is if the user is simply changing the focal length, why are the numbers always rounded like this? 50, 25, 85, etc. If you use a zoom lens for example, wouldn't you end up potentially with numbers like 82, 27, etc.? Or is the person just changing prime lens?

<---noob

Changing primes probably.

Yes, if you use a zoom it will have weird numbers.