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.
|
|
P3D aperture when shooting stereo
- From: "nathan kreuter" <nathankreuter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: P3D aperture when shooting stereo
- Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 09:51:25 PDT
Thanks for the feedback on shooting wide open vs. not. Sometimes I guess I
take too much on faith. But I was thinking about the situation more after I
read everyone's reactions and came to several conclusions as to why my own
photography had not been too adversely affected. 1) as far as the shooting
in daylight- I almost always shoot with a circular polarizer which eats up
2-2.5 stops of light. I also tend to shoot ASA 50 or slower and only
occasional 100. 2) I don't trust the aged light cells in the meter of the
camera I use for stereo and so I usually bracket a lot. 3) I'm very bad
about not writing down exposures and so unless the subject is one in which
depth of field is very obvious I don't pay attention to which one I keep
after editing. I'm lazy that way.
I think that George is slightly mistaken in saying that lenses are generally
sharpest at the smallest apertures. Optically, lenses manufactured today are
made to be sharpest 1-2 stops down from their widest opening. There was an
article published on this by the North American Nature Photographer's
Association (NANPA) which I will try to dig up.
Another reason I haven't been too hurt by shooting wide open is that I
haven't done do much "typical" photography in stereo yet. I shot my first
few roles that way, but the bulk of my endeavors have been in macro stereo
photography of insects. When sooting at 4:1 magnification even at f/22 my
depth of field is less than 1/8 of an inch. It can provide for some very
surreal effects when only a dragonfly's eyes are in focus and the rest of
his body looks more like children's fingerpaintings.
As far as the Ansel Adams disscussion of shooting at f/64. I once heard
that he did that also in an effort to reduce grain in his negatives. I
believe he even printed at ridiculously small apertures in this same effort.
Unfortunately, as we all know, he was barking up the wrong tree on that
one.
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
------------------------------
|