----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
> Your assumption is maximum depth of field is what is > Always needed when its not. With tilts and swings > You can entire offset planes in focus with selective (minimal) > DOF if needed. You cant do that with photoshop > After the fact. Umm, no. That is what you are presuming I mean when I say sufficient depth of field is easier to secure. The original post is intact below so you can refamiliarize yourself if you need to. I did say in my first post on the subject (this is my third, and last) that a view camera was better if the person is serious about architectural photography. I expect you just overlooked this. "> If you are serious about architectural photography, a view camera is > better." Anyway, for a more casual approach, an APS DSLR and the tools available in Photoshop are sufficient for many people. I realize that you are not one of these people, and that as far as you are concerned, anything less than a view camera is unsuitable for architectural photography, so we can drop this one now. William Robb > > With the smaller format, depth of field is generally easy enough to > secure in architectural work. After that it becomes a question of > compromise: > Is the output from the smaller format camera good enough for the > intended purpose? > That is something that neither you, nor I, can answer for someone > else. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
