DSLRUsers.com

I have always thought it slightly ridiculous that when talking about aperture size, the smaller the number the larger the aperture.

I would like to start a revolution to clear up all confusion. Problem is it would probably cause more.

rofl i was actually speaking to a mate the other night and we were both commenting on how silly it was

im in!

Chris

I agree Oneputt - it’s like saying USM for sharpening

Of course it DOES make sense as it stands since the aperture size of say F8 is smaller than say F2 since F8 is 1/8 and F2 is 1/2. It's just photographers were/are a lazy bunch and dropped the 1/

It is however confusing.

Noooooooooooooo

I found this...

The reason f/4 is a larger aperture than f/22 is that f-stops are fractions. f/4 is larger than f/22 just as 1/4th is larger than 1/22nd. Another important thing to remember is that since f/22 is a smaller aperture, or smaller opening of the lens, less light makes it into the camera and that means that a setting of f/22 requires more time to let in enough light for a proper exposure - a longer shutter speed.

Chris you are right thats another one USM. I did read an explanation but hell it doesn't make sense.

Is it because you are masking out the unsharpness?

With USM you make a mask that is unsharp. Which is then overlaid.

Greg B got it right. Masking unsharpness. That figures in the same way that life masks out death. Only a computer nerd could construct terminology like that...or a Public Servant.

Oneputt wrote:I have always thought it slightly ridiculous that when talking about aperture size, the smaller the number the larger the aperture.

I would like to start a revolution to clear up all confusion. Problem is it would probably cause more.

absolutely !!

I almost always use the term "tighter" or "wider" when it comes to aperture. It cant be misconstrued.

ive found too many discrepencies with the way people explain ... like when someone says "i used a small aperture" half the time they mean F stop, half the time they mean physical size (complete reverse.) ...

USM goes back to the days of film - why it should be used in the same context with computers and photo programs is a mystery to me.

Absolutely Chris it goes back to film days using one image over another to create a halo and sharpen edges. No reason for that to be the case with digital.

I prefer the terms "stopped down" and "opened up" when referring to apertures, as it's clear which direction you're going in. I agree, many people get confused between 'physically' small aperture and small f/ number.

Oneputt wrote:I would like to start a revolution to clear up all confusion. Problem is it would probably cause more.

I won't recommend to start revolution - it leads to disorder. Actually, I know one country where revolution has happened almost 100 years ago and that country still in troubles. So, think at least ten times before starting any revolution

Greg B wrote:Noooooooooooooo

I found this...

The reason f/4 is a larger aperture than f/22 is that f-stops are fractions. f/4 is larger than f/22 just as 1/4th is larger than 1/22nd.

Hang on , it seems we missed the chance of turning the tide on this one.
When we got digital cameras, we shouldn't have had F2 we should have called it F0.5
F4 = F0.25
F8 = F0.125
F22 = 0.04545454545454545454545454545

Decimal for the Digital age!

End to the Fractions!

Problem solved - Bigger hole - Bigger number!

Then when the kids of today learn photography using Decimal Digital cameras, they won't know the foggiest thing about what all those settings are on that thing called a FILM camera!

Not only that, they'll be going for the dictionary to see what Fraction means...

Or they might be learning all they ever want to know from their Mobile Phone manual.....

Geez I crack myself up

yeah I use stopping down and opening up...

Makes sense to me... But I am a physicist... we are used to weird things

no no nooooo, photographers have it all wrong, just ask an astronomer. Aperture is the size of the opening that lets the light in, focal ratio is the ratio of focal length over aperture.
Simple!

My telescope for example:

focal length 2440mm
aperture 450mm
focal ratio f/5.4

Gordon

wide & narrow.

its impossible to confuse!

I don't know what all the fuss is about, they're just numbers, the trick is to visualise what that number represents to the end result. If you can do that before you press the shutter, you're well on your way to becoming a good photographer.
p.s. That's why I still bracket.

Oneputt wrote:I have always thought it slightly ridiculous that when talking about aperture size, the smaller the number the larger the aperture.

I would like to start a revolution to clear up all confusion. Problem is it would probably cause more.

And another thing - the bigger the shutter speed, the shorter it is! What's going on here? A 500th should be a lot more than a 60th!

Cheers

Anyone ever had a real good look at the EXIF info and seen your exposure time (shutter) shown as 0.003125 (or 1/320 - as we commonly think of it) ??

I guess the fraction is easier to remember....say....type....read....???

However, there is one advantage to thinking about f-stops as "bigger".........the bigger the number, the bigger the DOF.

i think the point of the discussion is not about what we personally refer to when we think of aperture, its when online communities discuss and "smaller, larger, stopped down" etc & confusion often occurs!

thats why i always say wider or narrow, some online counterparts otherwise think i mean "smaller F stop" others think "smaller aperture" and others thing "smaller F NUMBER" ... ie ive seen 3 interpretations of it!, ie some transpose smaller F stop to actually meaning a higher NUMBER< others take it as a smaller number (hence wider.) and it all ends in a mess when theres a bunch talking

Darb has it right. When I originally posed this question, it was because I see no value is sticking by outdated jargon.

We acept changes in technology readily so why not update the jargon as well?

I don't agree that the jargon (or some would say terminology) has become outdated - an F-number is the same thing it has always been. What has changed, however, seems to be people's willingness to learn the priciples and the terminology that describes it. Photography, after all, is but one area of optics where the concept of F-numbers is used, but it is the field with the greatest exposure (pun intended) to the masses.

I stand by my admittedly frivolous post above: if the shutter speed display shows 500, people seem to have no trouble accepting that is is less of an exposure than when the display reads 60, so why the problem with F stops?

Cheers