>>4140682Clearly, you are not good at photography. You are exceptionally well studied in the act of being a photographer, except for the artistic output part. You wear the right shoes, you even have the right hat. You know exactly which eye thingy ansel adams would have chosen. But you don't have a clue what you should be pointing that eye thingy at. So it doesn't matter.
Regardless you get pretty nerdy over that eye thingy because it's damn near the peak of photography mountain for you. Right above the color of your camera, the brand name of your camera, and your knowledge of exposure lingo. Yes, even though you don't take pictures, you can rattle it all off without missing a beat
>Move the scrim back to increase the incident light on the dress by 10 lux so I can keep my speedlight at 1/125, if I open this aperture by even 1/3 of a stop the bokeh will be off. The precision equations built into this lens can only control the photons (aka light particles) throughout so much of the massive energy spectrum we're working with here. So I really think you would benefit from taking a few steps down camera mountain and going against your viewfinder preferences. Maybe after a week, you might find out if you're actually an artist, not a guy who knows cameras.
