That should be "...hoped...", damned spell checker.
P. J. Alling wrote:
On this one I pre focused and hopped that DOF would cover the
difference, the little dog-kept jumping on and off of the bike. I was
hoping to capture her in a leap. My timing was off partly because I
had to keep track of my own dog...
I may post another shot in the series where the dog is in perfect
focus unfortunately...
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Yes, I agree. It appears that the focus point is a bit shy of the
dog. Perhaps he's using autofocus without adjusting the sensor
position. I've found that the only halfway decent way to use
autofocus on the *istD (the only autofocus camera I've ever owned) is
to keep the focus method dial in the select mode and then choose the
sensor position with the little joystick. It's almost more trouble
than it's worth unless you're shooting a range of subjects that have
a similar focus point. Sometimes I do it on walkarounds just for
practice, anticipating the day when I can no longer focus adequately
with my tired old eyes. For important work I always focus manually,
which thanks to diopter correction, I can still manage. But then, I'm
a Luddite :-).
Paul
On May 18, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi Paul,
Look at the Biker Chick pic. It seems to me, both with and without my
glasses, that the focus point is on the seat in front of the dog.
So many
of Peter's pics appear to me as being misfocused I can't help but
wonder if
there's a problem with Peter's gear or his eyes.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist
The focus point on this one appears to be the far side of the boat,
which may cause the foreground section to appear soft. However, I'm
not
wearing my glasses :-).
On May 18, 2005, at 1:58 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Peter,
All of your photos, regardless of lens or focal length, look soft to
me, and this one's no exception.
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx
