>>4147369thanks for the explanation. Kinda getting a better idea.
This is me trying to make sense of it:
The Olympus XA has these stops: 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, right? And Moving up a "full stop" ie. from 2.8 to 4, or 11 to 16, is a doubling of the light allowed in, or to say doubling the aperture, in order to "increase" the exposure right?
But doubling the aperture alone isn't going to "double" the exposure right? Exposure is a relation between aperture AND shutter speed, right (in fact, is there a metric for exposure or is a qualitive fact, like I can tell when a photo has been overexposed, but how is a metric assigned to that)?
The Olympus XA is an aperture priority camera, so from what I understand, I need only adjust the aperture and the shutter speed adjust will be handled by the camera.
Two cases: family picture on holiday and someone racing on a track.
With the family picture, if I have the camera on tripod at dinner with dim lighting, I would want for a well exposed photo to have the aperture on the lower end (5.6, 4, 2.8) so as to allow more light in and the shutter would automatically adjust. If the shutter speed is slower (like 1/30 or slower) there is the chance getting motion blur where as if it was higher like 1/250 or 1/500 I would risk underexposing because the while the aperture is wider the exposure time is less and thus the film is exposed to the light for a shorter amount of time. In addition, with shutter speeds slower (like 1/30) without a tripod my shaking hands could introduce motion blur even if my subjects were perfectly still?
But with the track runner maybe motion blur is something that I want stylistically so having a slower shutter speed might be preferential, right? But since the XA is aperture priority I don't get as much control as I would when both can be adjusted separately.
I understand stylistically these can be adjusted for desired effect, but is there a rule of thumb for a generally well exposed photo? Sunny 16
