Question about using a DSLR outdoors.

H

harmonica44

I have peoples comments on how DSLRs should set around certain areas, to have the best looking picture. Such as the shutter at 50, the ISO at 800, etc. Those work well for indoors, but provide too much light for outside, in the sun. If it's a bright day, what settings would be best to shoot with, while having the best picture, with no possible grain, or anything that can result from certain settings? It seems that having the shutter at 3200 works good, but not sure what's best. Thanks.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
harmonica44 said:
Okay thanks. I bought a Cameron fader and filter, it's called. For a 58mm lense. If this is what I need for making pro looking picture with my canon T2i outdoors then I won't take it back, but if I bought the wrong thing in any way, let me know. Thanks.

What does it do besides make your picture look darker in the sunlight? Wouldn't you want brighter picture if it's sunny? Some movies look unusual dark with the sun out and I've always thought they looked fake.
Click to expand...

If your image is overexposed it's not going to look good. Too much sunlight can overexpose images depending on your settings, and lens.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok, picture this:

You're doing a video portrait of a beautiful girl outdoors. Its sunny and happy looking which is what you want. Now, you have to maintain ur shutter speed at 1/50 or 1/60 and can NOT change. You're ISO is at its lowest possible. And you want a shallow depth of field, say ur stopped at F2.8.

What's going to happen? Everything will be blown out, overexposed.

What can you do about it? Use your ND filter to cut the light going into ur lens. You'll get your nice bright happy well exposed image.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ernest Worthing said:
Then type "variable nd filter" into google and read abt it. Either that or you'll have to get several.
Click to expand...

Well the guy at the camera store explained to me that if I use that one, I won't need to buy different shades of filters. But he could have been just saying that, so I wanted to be sure. I read that it's to create blurred motion as well, but do audiences really need blurred motion, just because they are use to it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well I don't know if I want then if the quality is not good enough. I wanted one where you get what you paid for, so therefore you don't have to buy a more expensive item of the same thing later, when you can just buy one where you get what you paid for now. Saves money, if I get the better one now. So this will not meet film festival standards because of the color drawback in that article or what?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
For sure, thanks people for all the info. By reading those I still have not much of an idea if a filter will help me for shooting movie or not with the pros and cons of the ones I bought. I just hope the ones I bought for $65 turn out to not be a rip off, or not what I need.

Okay so I'm shooting again outdoors in the sun tomorrow. I'll shoot at 50 for the shutter, since I'm shooting at 24fps. I'll set the ISO to 100, and the Aperture to 1.4, if that's a good one. Sound good? Thanks for all the input guys.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Ah, yes, Phil brought up a good point, with ND filters. Essentially, what they do is darken the image, allowing you to open up your aperture farther (lower f-stop). It's possible that you might be working with primes, which tend to have low apertures, and so then you would be required to slap on an ND filter, or two.

But if memory serves me correctly, you're working with the stock lens? If so, that one has an adjustable aperture, and it doesn't go very low. On the stock lens, I can't imagine you'd need an ND filter.
Click to expand...

Primes have variable apertures too - although the speed of prime lenses is a big advantage, they're also used because they produce sharper images in general. For example, the image from a 50mm f/1.4 used at f/5.6 will be of much higher quality than an image from the kit lens set at 50mm and f/5.6.

Also, just my opinion, but since you're just starting out, it might be a good idea to keep as wide a depth of field as possible (f8 - f12 will be relatively deep). Everyone has gone crazy over the shallow depths of field that DSLR allows. But you know what? As a camera operator, it's rather difficult to control, and since you're learning so much, I think it's best to save the super shallow depth of field for later (or, maybe just for specific shots).
Click to expand...

(What follows is a lens geekout - feel free to skip this.) Stop down past f/8 or so on an APS-C sized sensor and the effects of diffraction start to appear. I won't go into the physics of it (which I don't understand well enough to explain clearly), but essentially it makes your image less sharp (even though depth of field increases) and introduces more chromatic aberration to the image. f/5.6 - f/8 is generally the sweet spot for maximising depth of field and minimising diffraction.

harmonica44 said:
For sure, thanks people for all the info. By reading those I still have not much of an idea if a filter will help me for shooting movie or not with the pros and cons of the ones I bought. I just hope the ones I bought for $65 turn out to not be a rip off, or not what I need.

Okay so I'm shooting again outdoors in the sun tomorrow. I'll shoot at 50 for the shutter, since I'm shooting at 24fps. I'll set the ISO to 100, and the Aperture to 1.4, if that's a good one. Sound good? Thanks for all the input guys.
Click to expand...

That depends entirely on how you want the image to look. Jeff Cronenworth ASC shot all of The Social Network at T1.3; Roger Deakins ASC BSC tends to shoot day interiors at T2.8 and day exteriors at T5.6 (if I may make a gross generalisation). It's a question of aesthetics, budget and practicality, and as much as you'd like there to be there's no right or wrong answer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top