Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D

Notice
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

Re: hyperfocal

  • From: Richard Rylander <rlrylander@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: hyperfocal
  • Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 06:57:12 -0600
 

Eric Goldstein wrote:

...
This then leads to an essential point about DOF... it is not based upon
mathematics, it is expressed by mathematics. It is based upon perception,
viewing conditions and context. We have all had the experience of taking a
photograph which upon careful inspection has focus or DOF problems, but when
viewed normally "works." Conversely, there are some shots where even the
slightest out of focus areas are blaringly apparent and render the shot
unviewable given any viewing conditions.
...
There have been several interesting articles written by Harold Merklinger regarding depth of field (and a book: The INs and OUTs of FOCUS).  A list of many of his articles in PDF format can be found at  http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/HMArtls.html

While I don't agree with all of  Mr. Merklinger's opinions, many of his observations about mathematics vs. perception are very helpful in deciding the best point of focus/aperture combination to use (ignoring the depth-of-field scales engraved on lenses).  The first article in the list mentioned earlier, "Depth of Field Revisited", is fairly short (about 4 pages), but worth looking at.
Richard Rylander