P3D Re: Realist a P&S?

[jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gabriel Jacob)]

I wrote:
>>Of course hyperfocal distance is used in "flat" photography, but it
>>is standard practice for stereographers to maximize depth of field,
>>unlike in "flat" photography where this is not the norm.

Andrea replies:
>Says who? Why do you feel 2-D photographers do not practice maximizing 
>the depth of field?

Says alot of people. Countless 2-D pictures, books, and photographers
support this convention unlike in 3-D. This is quite unlike in 3-D for
alot of reasons, which Eric Goldstein very well expanded upon in
another post. 
  
>I can understand the first part of your statement on stereo (I try
>to maximize depth myself in stereo, but I also do it in 2-D, as do
>many other people I know), but not the reference to 2-D photographers.
>I know selective focus is used in 2-D, but I assume this is also
>used in stereo sometimes?

For sure, it is used in stereo sometimes.

>I think we are starting to discuss several types of images at once, 
>again. Perhaps in a scenic, depth should *always* be maximized, but when 
>you want to isolate a flower, selective focus is much better (3-D or 
>2-D). Each situation should be considered on it's own. I don't think we 
>can make a *rule* of DOF.

We can't make a rule but we can make a general rule. Then again this
general rule is already in place! As for close-ups it also depends
on the context and subject material. In alot of 3-D macros subjects
I personally prefer to maximize DOF. It's the nature of the 3-D beast!
Granted it's much harder to get decent DOF in macros.
 
P.S. Having said all this, I have to say that 3-D photography seems to 
     adhere a bit to much to maximizing the DOF, IMO.

Gabriel



------------------------------