Basically: yes, it’s cumbersome enough that I have to make the commitment to take it. Though I should note that the Canon body is pretty light and (as of recent years) really as small as it can be. It’s the lens that’s heavy & bulky.

Before I got my semi-permanent loaner of the glam 17-40mm wide angle zoom lens, I had a fixed length 24mm one left over from my analog camera. That was nice and small, and so the whole rig was easier to lug. But still I wish I had something I could genuinely keep in my pocket. I’d probably try hard never to be without it.

Before you read any of this, you may just go directly to someone who knows a whole lot more and can explain it better.

When you expose a picture, the shutter opens and shuts. The two variables here are: (1) how wide open the shutter opens, when it’s open at its widest (at its widest aperture, tecnhically, and (2) how long it stays open (referred to at its speed). If we were in person, I’d be miming it with my hand, with the thumb and first finger opening and tightening back in a tight circle.

So! What makes it all so fun, is that the size the shutter opens to has an impact on one dimension of the image, and the speed it opens and shuts influences another.

Quite simply put, the size the shutter opens to (its aperture, also called the f-stop for reasons I totally forget, though you could find out) influences depth of field: the bigger the opening, the narrower the depth of field. So only the one thing focussed on in the image is clear; the whole foreground and the whole background are blurry. On the other hand, the tinier the opening, the sharper the image is, throughout the whole range. Hyper clear depth of field.

An easy way to remember this is that Ansel Adams and that whole crowd (Imogen Cunningham and Edward Weston were other famous members) were in a group of photographers who called themselves Group f/64, since they all revered a hyper-sharp, throughout the range of depth of field- type of image. The f-stop 64 is a teeny teeny pin-hole. Conventional cameras w/ manual adjustments (single lens reflexes, or SLRs) only go to f-22. So maybe remembering Group f/64 and Ansel Adams and the obsessively über-sharp picture might help you remember that the bigger the f/stop or aperture #, the sharper the picture will be through its range of depth of field.

The camera speed makes more sense. In the old days, the “standard” default speed at which a shutter would open-and-shut would be 1/60th of a second. Which seems quick enough. With old timey analog film cameras, most folks could be expected not to shake their hands so bad that your hand movement would blur an image at that speed. Slower, and it would be dicier. Though with digital film, for reasons some techie would know but I’m blessedly ignorant of, I seem to get away with no camera shake effect down to like 1/20th of a second. Don’t ask me why.

Now if you are “capturing” a split second, I mean a split-split-split-split-micro second, you are more likely to get an object utterly frozen: no blur, no how. So sports photography that’s trying to “stop” action will be shot at hyper hyper micro fractions of a second. Imagine a race car image all utterly frozen amidst what you know to be mad fast movement, or some athlete.

A third variable comes in to influence where you can start and stop with all this: the “speed” or sensitivity at which the “film” is picking up the images. (Used to be called ASA, now ISO, again for reasons I’m blessedly ignorant of.) In olden days, this was the actual, physical film in the camera, and the sensitivity of its chemicals, with higher numbers denoting more sensitive, low-light appropriate “speeds” (e.g. 400, 800, 1200) and low numbers used for bright outdoor situations (e.g. 100 or 64 or even 25).

Nowadays, again for technical reasons I’m blessedly ignorant of, it’s variable and can be set by the photographer. Digital cameras range typically from film “speeds” that go from the kinds in old-school, analog film days, would have been used only in dark bars or something, where you want to pick up detail with very little light, but don’t want a flash. With analog film, this usually (unless the film was really fancy) would generate a grainy effect. In my high school analog film developing/ printing days, even 400 speed would make things grainy. In digital film, I think the impact of one of these “slow” speeds is the digital equivalent of graininess, which is kind of “pixel-ey.” What I’ve found, though, is that at least with my camera, even a speed as slow as 1600 ain’t too shabby. Which is what I love about it, and why it enables me to do so much natural light photography.

Now to put all this together: this morning I was with the girlie at her ballet class at the YMCA (no joking! no joking! we love her; she asked for it; what are we gonna do. at least she wears black and generally disregards what the teacher says). I wanted to get the gals to be blurry, mostly, to both indicate their movement and to obscure their likenesses. There was nice light coming in a series of north-facing windows, plus overhead light. I had to fiddle with the three variables — camera “speed,” shutter speed, and f/stop — until I could get it so that it’d be sure to blur everyone. What this meant is that I had to set the camera speed to something more appropriate for outdoors on a sunny day — an ISO of 100 — and then set the f/stop to something high. Like f/14 or something. Then this obligated a super-slow camera speed, like way slower even than 1/4 of a second. From here on out, I could toggle back and forth between various f/stops ’til I got the amount of blur that seemed right. To ensure the camera didn’t shake while the picture was exposing, I set it on a folded up towel (it’s the YMCA, they’re everywhere) set on a ledge. Then hooked up the self-timer so at least my hand wasn’t jiggling the camera.

This one was at a film “speed” of ISO 100; aperture (or shutter opening) of f/20; and shutter speed of .6 seconds. The last detail, how wide or telephoto the lens is, if you have a telephoto or a choice of lens sizes, had an impact here. Wider the lens, more light comes in, and because I wanted to get the whole room, I had the lens at 22mm, which is on the wider end of the spectrum. Which is probably why I had to force the slow shutter speed so much w/ the fast film speed or ISO setting of 100, and had to tighten up the aperture all the way to f/20.

Okay! Did you ask for a tome? Not really! But there you go! I hope it at least didn’t confound what you do know. Cheers!

Unfortunately I still don’t understand exposure rate and shutter speed, no matter how many times I read about it, I can’t wrap my brain around it!

Do you find it cumbersome to carry your camera around so often, especially considering it seems on the heavy side?

A friend who does a lot of work online — designs online tracking stuff, actually — makes the point, as so many have, that the real threats to our kids, where they exist, are in real life. At the supermarket, in the crosswalk, etc. I hate to be paranoid, but if I’m going to be paranoid, I’m trying to direct it where it’s most useful. And so far, this place feels okay. We’ll see.

In addition to your technical tips, special thanks for sharing the recognition that at some point our kids will weigh in on all this blogging business, and we will have to concede to their wishes (whatever they may be) on how we use their images and words.