Hi, > I don't know why it's hard to understand. Small number, big ap. Big > number, small ap. Big ap, minimal depth of field. Small ap, maximum > depth of field. It all follows along quite nicely.
that's precisely the problem. In most of the rest of everyday experience we use bigger numbers to express bigger things. If I saw a hole in the ground and said "that's a size 10 hole" then saw another, larger hole, the overwhelming majority of people would expect me to say that it was a size 15 hole, not a size 7 hole. If I had a house with a small window and I wanted more light to get into the room, I'd fit a bigger window, and all the numbers relating to the size of the new window would be bigger than those relating to the old window. Bigger thing, bigger number. > and to say that > understanding it does nothing to improve your photography is a rather > broad statement. I know that once I understood exposure and f-stops,as > well as how the stops relate to DOF, I became a better photographer. I > know I frequently agonize over the stop when I'm trying to decide how > much DOF I need. I consult You may well understand the relation between the size of the hole and depth of field, but it doesn't mean the hole has to be labelled in f-stops. Labelling it in a simpler way wouldn't change the physics at all, but it might make it all easier for beginners to understand instead of having to do that weird brain switch because bigger holes have smaller numbers. --- Bob
