Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: From f/5.6 to f/22

  1. #1
    Abitconfused's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    624
    Real Name
    E. James

    From f/5.6 to f/22

    Check my math. If f/5.6 to f/22 is 4EV, shouldn't there be (2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2) or 16 time as much light at f/5.6 than at f/22?

  2. #2
    pnodrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nomadic but not homeless, ex N.Z. now Aust.
    Posts
    4,138
    Real Name
    Paul

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    x1 = f5.6
    x2 = f8
    x2 = f11
    x2 = f16
    x2 = f22

    = 4EV

    You should not x2 the starting point.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,604
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Yes 4EV is 16x as much light but your math is terrible. You have five sets of 2x in your math which equals 32x

    Edit: Posted parallel with Paul's comments.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,956
    Real Name
    Ted

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Quote Originally Posted by Abitconfused View Post
    Check my math. If f/5.6 to f/22 is 4EV, shouldn't there be (2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2) or 16 times as much light at f/5.6 than at f/22?
    But f/5.6 to f/22 is -4 EV, Ed.

    As has already been said, there are only 4 steps, not 5 and thinking in steps can make it a bit less confusing . . .

    So:

    Step 1: f/5.6 to f/8 = -1 EV.
    Step 2: f/8 to f/11 = -1 EV.
    Step 3: f/11 to f/16 = -1 EV.
    Step 4: f/16 to f/22 = -1 EV.

    Total: -4 EV.
    Last edited by xpatUSA; 19th December 2016 at 01:56 AM.

  5. #5
    pnodrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nomadic but not homeless, ex N.Z. now Aust.
    Posts
    4,138
    Real Name
    Paul

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Quote Originally Posted by xpatUSA View Post
    But f/5.6 to f/22 is -4 EV, Ed.

    As has already been said, there are only 4 steps, not 5 and thinking in steps can make it a bit less confusing . . .

    So:

    Step 1: f/5.6 to f/8 = -1 EV.
    Step 2: f/8 to f/11 = -1 EV.
    Step 3: f/11 to f/16 = -1 EV.
    Step 4: f/16 to f/22 = -1 EV.

    Total: -4 EV.

    Yep, BUT the statement was "16 times as much light at f5.6 than at f22" .... either way there is a 4 EV difference....we can all be right...

  6. #6
    Abitconfused's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    624
    Real Name
    E. James

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Oh! Yes, should have 4X. So 16 times the light is correct?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,604
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Quote Originally Posted by Abitconfused View Post
    Oh! Yes, should have 4X. So 16 times the light is correct?
    Yes.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,956
    Real Name
    Ted

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Quote Originally Posted by pnodrog View Post
    Yep, BUT the statement was "16 times as much light at f5.6 than at f22" .... either way there is a 4 EV difference....we can all be right...
    Oh, a 4 EV difference, now it is clear . .

    . . . BUT (in caps) the condition was "If f/5.6 to f/22 is 4EV" - if that's true, then I suppose f/22 to f.5.6 is -4 EV, eh?

  9. #9
    pnodrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nomadic but not homeless, ex N.Z. now Aust.
    Posts
    4,138
    Real Name
    Paul

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Ed has defined the question two ways on the same line - we just took different picks....

    I blame it all on Ed. Sorry Ed in this modern world we are all looking for someone else to blame. Still if this is the worst thing that happens to you today you are not doing too badly......

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Thornhill, a suburb of Toronto, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    970
    Real Name
    Robert

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Its all just nomenclature.
    I never bothered with the EV concept, but just learned it in terms of stops of aperture or shutter speed.
    One stop larger aperture, or one stop longer shutter speed represents an increase of twice as much light hitting the film or sensor, while a one stop smaller aperture or faster shutter speed represents a decrease of half as much light hitting the film or sensor. So a three stop decrease in aperture (5.6 to 8 to 11 to 16) means that 1/2 x1/2 x1/2=1/8th as much light will hit the film or sensor, and conversely going the other way (f16 to 5.6) will result in 2x2x2=8 times more light hitting the sensor.
    Robert
    Last edited by RBSinTo; 19th December 2016 at 05:18 PM.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,956
    Real Name
    Ted

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Quote Originally Posted by RBSinTo View Post
    Its all just nomenclature.<>

    So a four stop decrease in aperture (5.6 to 8 to 11 to 16) means that 1/2 x1/2 x1/2 x1/2=1/16th as much light will hit the film or sensor, and conversely going the other way (f16 to 5.6) will result in 2x2x2x2=8 times more light hitting the sensor.
    Robert
    Going from f/5.6 to f/16 is three steps, not four. (Think of it as one step for each "to" in 5.6 to 8 to 11 to 16).

    And "2x2x2x2=8" doesn't seem right somehow.

    HTH
    Last edited by xpatUSA; 19th December 2016 at 06:14 PM.

  12. #12
    bje07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lorient France
    Posts
    2,382
    Real Name
    Jean

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    I'm not able to explain that in English but you forget that it is only square root of 2 between 2 stops.

  13. #13
    Abitconfused's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    624
    Real Name
    E. James

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    I am good with it.

  14. #14
    DanK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    8,625
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    As Ted said, think in steps, not stops. Each step up from any given starting point--an increase of one stop--is a doubling, and each step down is a halving. The starting point doesn't matter.

    Why a doubling or halving, when the f/stop numbers aren't multiples of 2? It's because the f/stop number is defined as focal length divided by effective diameter of the aperture. Since the light striking the sensor is a function of the area, not the diameter, the f/stop difference corresponding to a halving or doubling is a function of the square root of two, roughly 1.4.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Thornhill, a suburb of Toronto, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    970
    Real Name
    Robert

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Quote Originally Posted by DanK View Post
    As Ted said, think in steps, not stops. Each step up from any given starting point--an increase of one stop--is a doubling, and each step down is a halving. The starting point doesn't matter.

    Why a doubling or halving, when the f/stop numbers aren't multiples of 2? It's because the f/stop number is defined as focal length divided by effective diameter of the aperture. Since the light striking the sensor is a function of the area, not the diameter, the f/stop difference corresponding to a halving or doubling is a function of the square root of two, roughly 1.4.
    Thus starting with an aperture value of 1 and multiplying by 1.4 to get each successive value gives a sequence of numbers that looks like this: 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45, 64... Look familiar?
    Robert

  16. #16
    darekk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    100
    Real Name
    Dariusz Kowalczyk

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Quote Originally Posted by DanK View Post
    function of the square root of two, roughly 1.4.
    1.4 or exact square root of 2 (1.4142135623730950488016887242097...) and results rounded down to 2 significant digits ?
    Code:
     1.4142135623730950488016887242097 →  1.4
     2
     2.8284271247461900976033774484194 →  2.8
     4
     5.6568542494923801952067548968388 →  5.6 instead of  5.7 !!
     8
    11.313708498984760390413509793678  → 11
    16
    22.627416997969520780827019587355  → 22   instead of 23 !!
    32
    45.25483399593904156165403917471   → 45
    64
    (the Calculator application in Windows returns so many digits)

    The shutter speed looks also like rounded according to some rules:
    HTML Code:
             not rounded:
    30       32
    15       16
    8
    4
    2
    1
    1/2
    1/4
    1/8
    1/15     1/16
    1/30     1/32
    1/60     1/64
    1/125    1/128
    1/250    1/256
    1/500    1/512
    1/1000   1/1024
    1/2000   1/2048
    1/4000   1/4096
    1/8000   1/8192
    It looks a little like number (or denominator when shutter speed < 1) was rounded down to 3 significant digits, but third digit can be 0 or 5 only. Or maybe rough values are used to calculate shutter speed ? But in in contrast to aperture several values: 1, (1/)15, (1/)125 ??
    In traditional, not digital photography the Schwarzschild law (effect) complicated things.
    Last edited by darekk; 21st December 2016 at 01:27 PM.

  17. #17
    DanK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    8,625
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    I suspect the shutter speeds are rounded so as to have all multidigit numbers end in 0 or 5, which does make them simpler to read. The same thing is done in expressing the size of computer memory.

    It's mysterious that 5.66 and 22.63 were rounded down, but it doesn't make any practical difference. These differences are too small to matter.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,956
    Real Name
    Ted

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Quote Originally Posted by DanK View Post
    I suspect the shutter speeds are rounded so as to have all multidigit numbers end in 0 or 5, which does make them simpler to read. The same thing is done in expressing the size of computer memory.

    It's mysterious that 5.66 and 22.63 were rounded down, but it doesn't make any practical difference. These differences are too small to matter.
    By coincidence, I found it necessary today to go into a raw file's meta-data to see the exact aperture and shutter speed used as opposed to what showed in the viewfinder i.e. the "reported" values.

    For f/2.8 and 1/20 sec, it said 2.82843 and 0.048194.

  19. #19
    Moderator Manfred M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    21,925
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Of course, no one has gotten into discussing the T-stop, which is used in cinematography. The "T" stands for "transmission".

    The f-stop is purely a mathematical ratio of the focal length to input aperture, so it is really an "ideal value". The T-stop (or T-number) goes further and actually measures the drop in light level that comes from some of the light being absorbed by the glass lens elements. This will of course vary from lens to lens. The T-stop / T-number will always be larger than the f-stop; i.e. a f/2.8 lens could be a t/3.5 lens.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    400
    Real Name
    Dem

    Re: From f/5.6 to f/22

    Quote Originally Posted by DanK View Post
    It's mysterious that 5.66 and 22.63 were rounded down, but it doesn't make any practical difference. These differences are too small to matter.
    Which series looks most "natural"?
    2.8 5.6 11 22
    2.8 5.7 11 22
    2.8 5.7 11 23
    2.8 5.6 11 23

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •