Re: [photo-3d] 35mm versus MF

["don lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As I have said before depth of focus is not a function of focal length .
Depth of focus is a function of F stop and the degree of change of size
which is redily apparent when comparing  the depth of focus at same size
 one to one] of different focal length lenses other wise macro photography
would be a breeze ?? Selective focus does work well in macro shots when well
done but there is little choice, every thing considered, in my opinion. Don.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Reynolds" <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 4:28 AM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] 35mm versus MF


> WKarb77953@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > A sharp stereo image is typically what's desired, from foreground to
> > infinity.  There is a better chance in obtaining this with 35mm
> > format than MF.  Even better with a veiwmaster format with its
> > subsequent increases in depth of feild.
> >
>
> I think that overall sharpness is over valued in stereo images.  I
> think that selective focus can be used to create very nice stereo
> views.
>
> Jim and John have been bringing various macro stereos to the Third
> Friday Stereo Dinners.  It is very difficult to get lots of depth of
> field in a macro shot.  Some of their images are sharp through out,
> but some are not.  In particular there was a very nice flower shot
> (Jim's I think) where the central bloom was in focus and the
> surrounding areas were not.  By the way, there were 35mm images.
>
> --
> Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
> reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
> http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
> NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"
>
>
>
>