Smaller prints dont have more DOF, they're just harder to see clearly! JC O'Connell [email protected]
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joseph McAllister Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:00 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Apr 7, 2009, at 11:51 , Larry Colen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 02:41:08PM -0400, JC OConnell wrote: > >> The COC thing is simply how you MEASURE "perceived" depth >> of field, no matter what COC or print size you choose, it > > I see. So if I don't care whether something is out of focus as long as > it looks like it is in focus, then I can use the aforementioned math? Of course! We all have many more 4 x 6 prints that are sharp vs the 11 x 14 version. That's my theory behind the thousands of dog photos in my gallery. 95% of them are not critically sharp (though it's getting better now that the sun is out) but I count on the dog owners to have smaller screens than I, and to only print 4 x 6 from the images they download. Besides, it's their dog, it's free, so it must be good. (does away with all the wedding photo terrors) Joseph McAllister [email protected] http://gallery.me.com/jomac http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
