Bradgate park - hooray! First weekend that we’ve really taken Arthur outdoors and let him see how the world works. Normally he just looks at it from his pram. He was happy as larry.
Apologies for the slew of baby photos. Life is so busy with the nipper I have little chance for “Proper” photography, so most of my best pictures are baby centric at the mo. I realise it’s a bit dull, but it’s nice for me to have a record of them on here!
Techical details: iso 400, f/11, handheld, graduated neutral density filter used to darken sky
6 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Hi Dan,
Love this shot, very natural, nice colours and slightly off centre. Nice..
Was this taken with the standard kit lens??
Howdy - ta.
Nope - I gave my kit lens to a friend ages ago. I think it was with the sigma 18-200.
Hi Dan, Wow you’re not just a monster parent anymore! Hey is Scarycarye popping in for a bit. Nice all around!
Bradgate Park is an excellent place to cut loose with photography! Over the last two years I’ve trekked around a few times with this or that improvised assistant(s) and a tripod with both manual SLR’s and DSLR’s. It’s got to be one my favorite places to photograph year round. I’m going to give you HDR tutorials a go with my Sony a200x on New Walk in Leicester and see how it turns out.
About the photo, why didn’t you use ISO 200? Isn’t that the common ISO for outdoor shots in daylight unless it’s very gray/dark that day? I’ve used 400 outside on bright days before and seen little difference, but changed after photography class in college instructed me that 400 is ideal for indoor photography and moving people -does this sound about right? Thanks for the help and great tutorials!
Howdy Jessica
Aye - it’s a great park. I’ve moved now, and it’s about 15 mins further away, so I’ve not been getting there as much. Bah!
It was a while ago now, but I suspect I used 400 because I wanted f/11 (which is a nice mid-range aperture size and can give you sharper results), and that I needed to go up to ISO 400 to get a fast enough shutter speed.
I like to go for the lowest ISO I can in a given situation, but unless the picture calls for top quality, I’ll use a higher one if it’s the only way to keep the aperture I want and have a decent shutter speed.
Thanks!
Dan
One thing worth bearing in mind is that I haven’t had any formal photography training - I’m self taught from books and experimentation.
The way I think of ISO is just a sliding scale of:
low end (50/100) = slow shutter speed, great quality image. You need either good light or a wide aperture to take handheld shots.
to
high end (6400 etc) = fast shutter speed, grainy image quality - you can take handheld shots with much smaller apertures / lower light