My question: Why does higher ISO on a camera mean less blur?
I wonder if the 3-4 readers of this blog know the answer. Not that I need to know the ins and outs of this stuff, but well, I am curious...
My digital camera manual says that a higher ISO will mean less blur. I usually keep mine on 400 or 800 in case I want to snap a shot of something fast-moving. Technically, a higher ISO increases the camera's sensitivity to light and images, so in a low-light area or in a situation where you want the shutter speed to be faster, you'd want to increase the ISO to let more light register. Fine with me, but I don’t understand why that would mean less blur. If a higher ISO lets in more light and is more sensitive to images ("noise"), wouldn’t it show MORE blur??
The camera also allows me to decrease the shutter speed to let in more light, but not to increase it. If I want to let in more light, I can decrease the shutter speed, but I better not shake the camera. If I decrease the speed, the camera automatically lowers the ISO to decrease the sensitivity to noise and graininess. But then, there will be lots of blur. Why won't my camera let me increase the speed, though?
It seems to me in action shots, you’d want a faster shutter speed. But again, they recommend increasing the ISO instead, to cut down on blur. And again I ask, why would more sensitivity to light and other images mean LESS blur and not more? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a faster shutter speed to cut down on blur, than a higher ISO?
Maybe I'll ask my photo-taking friend Sarah about this, or someone at work.
note to self. wikipedia says:
"halving the shutter speed doubles the exposure (1 EV more), while doubling the aperture (halving the number) increases the exposure by a factor of 4 (2 EV). For this reason, standard apertures differ by √2, or about 1.4. Thus an exposure with a shutter speed of 1/250 s and f/8 is the same as with 1/500 s and f/5.6, or 1/125 s and f/11.
In addition to its effect on exposure, the shutter speed changes the way movement appears in the picture. Very short shutter speeds can be used to freeze fast-moving subjects, for example at sporting events. Very long shutter speeds are used to intentionally blur a moving subject for artistic effect. Short exposure times are sometimes called "fast", and long exposure times "slow".
Adjustment to the aperture controls the depth of field, the distance range over which objects are acceptably sharp; such adjustments need to be compensated by changes in the shutter speed."
I got an answer to my questions on the net... here.
I am still a bit confused, though. Let's say I set my camera at a high shutter speed to capture a fast-moving image. I then set the ISO high to prevent blur and let in as much light as possible at that speed. Will setting it high cancel out the shutter speed to begin with? And will it not always make a diff anyway because there's only so much light that can be let in if the shutter speed is fast?
Simon Monjack, the husband of late actress Brittany Murphy, was found dead Sunday night in his Hollywood Hills home, according to the Los Angeles Police Department. He was 39. The screenwriter was reportedly found by his mother-in-law, Sharon, in the master bedroom of the house he once shared with Murphy."The preliminary cause of death is natural causes," Sgt. Louie Lozano told the Associated Press.
Not suicide? I just find this too much of a coincidence.
I found the French version of Carrie Pilby in the web! Harlequin Teen's French imprint chose it as one of the first four books they're releasing, which is so nice and exciting...I love the cover. Click the "here" link in the next paragraph and then scroll down on the page to see it. You can even click to read the first few pages in French, for all you who actually remember your high school French. (I don't - but I took Spanish.)
Does this mean that if she kisses anyone in the book, they change it to a French kiss? Anyway, check it out here.
Have I mentioned that you can order the new version (in English) by clicking on Amazon?
And that there's a Facebook group for the book, too? I'm also on Twitter under my name.
Well, since I'm not really keeping my pregnancy a secret anymore (if you've seen my tum-tum, you'll know it's not much of a secret), I might as well mention some significant things:
1. On Monday someone at work gave me the first baby gift I ever got! I wasn't expecting anything, but she is the sweetest person and it was such a sweet gesture. It's a book called "Guess How Much I Love You" and it's a place I can record things about the baby, before and after birth. It's ADORABLE.
2. My elementary school friend Kathy blogged last year about the first random acknolwedgement of her pregnancy by a stranger - someone who said something to her about it in public. I can't seem to find the entry now, but I think it happened when she went to a store. Anyway, this weekend I was making the rounds at the "citywide gate sale" and a woman asked if I was expecting. (I think people are afraid to take the risk of asking, because if I'm not, I could potentially be insulted...) Anyhoo, she asked because she had some maternity jeans to sell me. I didn't buy 'em, though. I'm sticking with the two pairs I have.
3. I think I am feeling the baby move, finally. It's hard to tell the difference between him kicking me, and all the weird feelings I get after I eat.
4. For a while I was sure I had a gallstone problem. I have had pain after eating right where the gall bladder is. But I got checked out and there was no evidence of stones or liver problems. I guess it's just really bad heartburn that occurs right where my gallbladder is. I even get the pain after I drink water! As a gastrointerologist said, if I'm going to have pain after I drink water, I might as well eat whatever I want, because it's all going to cause me pain. But the truth is, so far I found something that doesn't cause me pain: Hummus. I don't know why, but hummus on pita doesn't bother me. As a result, I'm eating fairly healthily. I'll have to see if I can find some other things that are ok. I'm probably going to eat grilled chicken tonight and I think that should sit well.
Anyway, as for other things...Hi hubby, if you're reading this. Thanks for being patient with what must be a very boring blog entry for you...
Also, I guess I should plug the new edition of Carrie Pilby again, since it's coming out this July 1 in time for summer reading. I sent a lot of emails to people over the weekend who had e-mailed me five or more years ago, after they read the original. I still have their emails, but a lot of them were on aol or hotmail and are no longer at those addresses. Not to mention, many people are not still at the same jobs they were at back in 2003-2005. Oh well! If half of those people get the emails, at least that's something. I'm checking my webpage to see who actually clicks on it. I've emailed people on Facebook who mentioned my book, too. I feel a bit icky wearing the hat of a publicist, but that's what we authors must do.
So far I got into something called Park Place, a publication of NJ Monthly, whom I sent a release to. The story isn't on the internet though.
So that's all the stuff I wish to share publicly on the internet. How's YOUR life goin'?!
So there's been an ongoing debate for several years over whether the chick lit genre of women's fiction is "dead." I find it a little silly - There will always be readers for a well-written, good book about a twentysomething/thirtysomething woman's attempts to find her place in the world, but the key is GOOD. What, then, separates a "chick lit" book from women's fiction? Some say humor, some say a focus on dating, some say just a first person voice in women's fiction alone makes it chick lit automatically. Well...
With any genre, a really good book will transcend a simple categorization by having more depth and shading. If you write a book about a woman dating, DON'T just make it about all her bad dates. The reason chick lit is being called "dead" is that there were a million books like this released in the first half of the decade, some very well nuanced and others not so much. Some were great, and some latter ones were copycats that sold to take advantage of the trend. After all, if Bridget Jones did well, publishers had to have their OWN Bridget Jones knockoffs. The glut of those books is what led agents and publishers to suddenly say they weren't going to publish them anymore.
So the marketing term of "chick lit" is not widely used anymore. However, books about confused women post-college can still be written and published. I just read a novel called "Falling is Like This" by Kate Rockland, who lives in my town, that St. Martin's just published. It's a really good book, and it's still in first person and about a woman in her early twenties navigating her romantic relationships.
Here is a point/counterpoint on the whole "chick lit is dead" issue.
Jenny Bent, an agent who has handled a lot of the genre, has heard many times from publishers and book buyers that it is 'dead'.
But the women at a blog called chicklitisnotdead.com, feel that it's not...well, that's obvious from the title!
Anyway, have I mentioned that my book (published by a chick lit imprint in 2003) is coming out again this summer for teens, this July, in fact? By Harlequin Teen. Read more about it and see the new teen cover by clicking HERE!