Jman13 wrote:
So, you\'re complaining because you\'re looking at images the equivalent size of a 50\" print and seeing different depth of field? Depth of field has ALWAYS been an estimate based on a roughly 8x10 print. Even with today\'s lenses and such, make an 8x10 print and the scales will be pretty accurate. You blow up larger, apparent blur becomes bigger, so you need more DOF. This has always been the case. DOF is an appearance thing....no matter how far you stop down, the focus point is still the only thing that is really truly in focus...everything else is making the blur as small as possible.
To a landscape photographer its extremely important not to lose infinity focus whilst maximising depth of field. Why on earth would I be interested in sharpness of an 8x10 print? Ok, I know this isnt calculating hyperfocal distances, but the problem is the accuracy of the scales that these lenses are manufactured with are very poor. The variables that occur with focus mean they can never be that accurate. Thats what my gripe is, we live in a digital world of precision, but this seems so unprecise.
We spend all our time on this forum criricising image detail and lens sharpness at 100% to the n\'th degree, but its ok to just use some stupid calulator thats based on some archaic principle to maximise focusing accuracy? If I told agencies I work for \"oh ok, its out of focus on your screen but the client wont notice it unless is a 50\" print\" I would have my contracts terminated.
Jman13 wrote:
So, you\'re complaining because you\'re looking at images the equivalent size of a 50\" print and seeing different depth of field? Depth of field has ALWAYS been an estimate based on a roughly 8x10 print. Even with today\'s lenses and such, make an 8x10 print and the scales will be pretty accurate. You blow up larger, apparent blur becomes bigger, so you need more DOF. This has always been the case. DOF is an appearance thing....no matter how far you stop down, the focus point is still the only thing that is really truly in focus...everything else is making the blur as small as possible.
To a landscape photographer its extremely important not to lose infinity focus whilst maximising depth of field. Why on earth would I be interested in sharpness of an 8x10 print? Ok, I know this isnt calculating hyperfocal distances, but the problem is the accuracy of the scales that these cameras are manufactured with and the variables that occur, they can never be accurate. Thats what my gripe is.
We spend all our time on this forum criricising image detail and lens sharpness at 100% to the n\'th degree, but its ok to just use some stupid calulator thats based on some archaic principle to maximise focusing accuracy? If I told agencies I work for \"oh ok, its out of focus on your screen but the client wont notice it unless is a 50\" print\" I would have my contracts terminated.
Jman13 wrote:
So, you\'re complaining because you\'re looking at images the equivalent size of a 50\" print and seeing different depth of field? Depth of field has ALWAYS been an estimate based on a roughly 8x10 print. Even with today\'s lenses and such, make an 8x10 print and the scales will be pretty accurate. You blow up larger, apparent blur becomes bigger, so you need more DOF. This has always been the case. DOF is an appearance thing....no matter how far you stop down, the focus point is still the only thing that is really truly in focus...everything else is making the blur as small as possible.
To a landscape photographer its extremely important not to lose infinity focus whilst maximising depth of field. Why on earth would I be interested in sharpness of an 8x10 print?
We spend all our time on this forum criricising image detail and lens sharpness at 100% to the n\'th degree, but its ok to just use some stupid calulator thats based on some archaic principle to maximise focusing accuracy? If I told agencies I work for \"oh ok, its out of focus on your screen but the client wont notice it unless is a 50\" print\" I would have my contracts terminated.
Jul 31, 2009 at 06:19 AM
Previous versions of David Clapp's message #7364975 « More DOF Calculator b*llsh#t »
