> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:15:12 -0700 > From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: EOS Beating the dead horse and what I said, > not what you read into it !
>>>Nice comeback. The major newspapers and publications >>>are all digital now. >> >>That is one thing. Your total from that is >>not right, though. > What does this mean? The conclusions you draw from this seem dead wrong. Digital does not only mean point and shoot digitals with implied large DOF. It also means EOS D60 and EOS 1D amongst others, true system SLR cameras that can produce a shallow DOF. >>>I do not know. I just tried to explain what is >>>going on in the industry. >> >>No, what you thought is going on in the industry. >>This is not necessarily what is really going on. > > Really! So pray tell us what is going on then! See above, and see what many others before have tried to explain in this thread. > Are you involved in the development of digital cameras > or are you a integrated circuit designer? Or perhaps > you are a lead engineer in the CMOS imaging industry. There is no need for this. The effect of chip size versus DOF is a simple relation, open to anyone. But since you are asking: Yes, I am in contact with people involved in design and development of image sensors. I have some insight in the matter, although this is of no relevance for the discussed topic. >>Welcome to reality, then. I have shot commercial >>posters even at f=1.2 wide open. If the idea you >>want to express is supported by the technique you >>use, then anything goes. > > Michael, was it a portrait? Yes, a portrait used for a commercial poster. > Can you paste a link so we can all see this > portrait poster? It was shot on film, and I have not retained a printed copy of it, so I would have to dig into my archive for this. I'm sorry, but with two days back on my productions I have no time for this. I have more, but all on film. E.g. the portrait of theatre director Werner Schroeter, an impressive person with loads of large rings on his fingers. I have shot him out of focus with just the most prominent ring and his cigarette in focus. Striking shot that ran full page as an editorial starter about him, and went later on display together with a series of older directors portraits that of course were the regular Joey Sixpack style. > I never said MUST. Like I said, you worded it different. It does not matter if you say "must" or if you relate doing the contrary to amateurs, denying that professionals could do this for a good reason. To belittle people with an opinion diverging from yours is equally to saying "must". Maybe we just agree that there are different standards and different levels of taste. Your standard does not allow portraits to be shot wide open, mine sells these images for nice money. As easy as that. Michael Quack. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
