P3D Re: Foolish comment In My Opinion

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> >>> Even today, f16 on a Realist doesn't get you much
> > but exposure convenience.  f8 has all the depth of field you can handle
> for
> > projectable slides, so you won't see a sharpness difference at f16 vs.
> f11.
> 
> 
> The subject line of this reply says: "Foolish Comment In My
> Opinion"...heck, It should just say, FOOLISH COMMENT, PERIOD.  I use F16
> quite a bit, and before you make the broad statement that F8 has all the
> depth you can handle for projectable slides, you need to know what one is
> taking a photograph of and the type of scene. I'm sorry, but it is rather
> silly to say that F16 leads to unprojectable slides; decades of
> photographers will show this to be an absolutely ridiculous statement.

Calm down, calm down......

He didn's say that f/16's are unprojectable, only that it wasn't 
necessary given certain assumptions which aren't true in the
general case.  I sense this in his linking of 3D-depth and 
depth of focus.

If one takes a photo where the nearest subject is at 10-ft and the
furthest at 13', f/16 will work just dandy and be perfectly 
projectable, as will other f/stops.  It'd be wrong to say 
otherwise, but not foolish.

I think the other statement was more along the lines of photos
where the f/16 is being used in hyperfocal configuration with
infinity in photo is just at the far end of the DOF and the
nearest subject is right at the close-end of the f/16's DOF.
This situation's image might provide problems in projection.
Not due to DOF reasons, however.

In other words, the assumption being made (IMO) is that the near/far
"range" was being "set" by the f/stop rather than the photographer's
composition.  In practice I don't think the two are tightly interlinked
bidirectionally so if speaking in general, I think what you say is 
quite true, but I don't think the other comments were at all foolish given
that someone is using the suggested rule of using f/stop dial
limits for setting one's composition.  You just show a weakness
(as all general rules have) in that "rule".

Or so I interpret things.

Mike K.


P.S. - C'mon folks, try to be civil.  I appologize if any of my
       postings (which have been too numerous of late... I'm under
       heavy pressure lately at work which makes me write more
       and think less) have been taken to be offensive. 


P.P.S. - My examples were at the extremes, to make a point, not to
           be  inclusive of all typical situations, so
           be nice when tearing me apart for using atypical examples.


P.P.P.S. - What would be nice is a hyperfocal chart with an added
           C.O.C. dimension to it.  Was this done already?  My
           memory is fuzzy (large C.O.C.) if this was done in 
           previous DOF threads.
> 
> 
> RM
> 
> 
> 


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