According to my Inbox, Matthew was the 100th poster
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:18 -0400, frank theriault
knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really have
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Brian Walters supera1...@fastmail.fm wrote:
According to my Inbox, Matthew was the 100th poster
According to my Gmail account, frank was the 100th, as he intended.
(Gmail split off a few posts, due to changes to the subject line.) I
am willing to cede the
- Original Message -
From: David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com
Me the camera were set up on the roof, the on camera flash was in
wireless master mode and the flashes that the models were holding were
in wireless slave mode (ie the on camera flash triggered the flashes
below) Because we
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote:
According to my Gmail account, frank was the 100th, as he intended.
(Gmail split off a few posts, due to changes to the subject line.) I
am willing to cede the honor to frank.
Thanks, Matthew.
I'm not sure that honor (or
Hard as it is to remain serious in this thread, I'll try. :-)
Magnification is one of the keys, and very important. For a while, let's
keep the aperture and circle of confusion effects out of the equation
(make them constant to all the scenarios below). So for this moment,
magnification is
On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Cotty wrote:
Well slap my ass and call me Sally.
Mark!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Luiz Felipe wrote:
Hard as it is to remain serious in this thread, I'll try.
Mark!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the
...@pdml.net] On Behalf
Of
Bob W
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:41 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
Sir,
MY burden of proof is no greater than yours.
If you cant provide any reliable proof
that my contention is not true, then
your word
: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:55 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Hard as it is to remain serious in this thread, I'll try. :-)
Magnification is one of the keys, and very important. For a while, let's
keep the aperture and circle of confusion effects
, 2009 5:59 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
H, now lets see...
Yes, if you look at the picture from the same distance, you will sense
that the DOF is larger if the magnification is less. But, if the
picture is the same then you reduce the size
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 02:56:15PM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Cotty wrote:
Well slap my ass and call me Sally.
Mark!
Not Mark, Sally.
--
The fastest way to get your question answered on the net is to post
the wrong answer.
Larry Colen
That is fun. How did it end up in this awful thred! :-)
Paul
- Christine Aguila cagu...@earthlink.net wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com
Me the camera were set up on the roof, the on camera flash was in
wireless master mode and the flashes that
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Luiz Felipe
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:55 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Hard as it is to remain serious
at time of exposure dude.
JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf
Of
DagT
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:59 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
H, now lets
to film plane, or both.
JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Larry Colen
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 6:39 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Apr 7, 2009, at 14:35 , Cotty wrote:
Well slap my ass and call me Sally. I want this on a T shirt if it
skills me.
This should be on a T-shirt as well, perhaps after one letter removed...
Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com
http://gallery.me.com/jomac
On Apr 7, 2009, at 15:26 , JC OConnell wrote:
Its the in-camera maginification that
makes the difference, a REAL difference.
Please define in-camera.
'Cause the lens is ex-camera.
:-)
If it doesn’t excite you,
This thing that you see,
Why in the world,
Would it excite me?
—Jay Maisel
resolution for depth of field
On Apr 7, 2009, at 15:26 , JC OConnell wrote:
Its the in-camera maginification that
makes the difference, a REAL difference.
Please define in-camera.
'Cause the lens is ex-camera.
:-)
If it doesn't excite you,
This thing that you see,
Why in the world
On Apr 7, 2009, at 15:28 , JC OConnell wrote:
print size does not change DOF, never does and never will.
DOF is locked into the image at time of exposure dude.
When I was making BW 40 x 60 prints from 35mm Tri-X in the late
1960s, the DoF of the print was the grain. If the grain was sharp
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 10:35:03PM +0100, Cotty wrote:
On 7/4/09, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
I don't really have anything to say, I just wanted to be the 100th
poster on this thread.
Well slap my ass and call me Sally. I want this on a T shirt if it skills me.
Be
Others, wiser than we, have already discussed this to conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_Field
Unless the changes made yesterday evening to the DoF listing were
mischievous PDMLrs.
:-)
On Apr 7, 2009, at 05:57 , Cory
I figured to mood needed lightening.
What better way then with goofy photos
:-)
DS
On 08/04/2009, pnstenqu...@comcast.net pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
That is fun. How did it end up in this awful thred! :-)
Paul
- Christine Aguila cagu...@earthlink.net wrote:
- Original Message
Larry Colen wrote:
Perhaps someone has already done the math, or the experimentation, and
can just give me the answers.
Scott's pictures of his Nishiki inspired me to shoot some of my
mongrel legnano. I rode it to lunch today, and on the way back to the
office was getting some shots of it with
depth of field is determined solely by in camera magnification
and working fstop. So cropping/format is not a factor but changing
lenses from a given distance will affect DOF, likewise moving further
away with the same lens and stopping down more will also both increase
DOF.
JC O'Connell
Perhaps someone has already done the math, or the experimentation, and
can just give me the answers.
Scott's pictures of his Nishiki inspired me to shoot some of my
mongrel legnano. I rode it to lunch today, and on the way back to the
office was getting some shots of it with some lupin by
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I better
off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition says yes), or
do I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which would also
reduce noise) for a
On 6/4/09, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in focus use the
following formulae:
dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)]
df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)]
where
c = circle of confusion
U = subject distance
F = focal length
f = f-number
To
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of
field, am I better
off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition
says yes), or
do I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which
would also
reduce noise)
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Larry Colen
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:47 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W
5:47 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
So, if I'm willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I
better off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my
intuition says
yes
- Original Message -
From: Doug Brewer
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Larry Colen wrote:
Perhaps someone has already done the math, or the experimentation, and
can just give me the answers.
Scott's pictures of his Nishiki inspired me to shoot some of my
mongrel
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe (I'm still laughing)
Cotty escreveu:
On 6/4/09, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
To calculate the nearest (dn) and furthest (df) points in focus use the
following formulae:
dn = U * F^2 / [F^2 + (U * c * f)]
df = U * F^2 / [F^2 - (U * c * f)]
where
c = circle
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:51:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle of confusion
is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than
CoC (pixel size).
Circle of confusion is not pixel size.
I misunderstood it then. I always
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:51:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle
of confusion
is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on DOF, than
CoC (pixel size).
Circle of confusion is not pixel size.
I misunderstood it then. I
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:51:37PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
Ah. Thanks. Focal length is second order factor, circle
of confusion
is first order, so focal length has a greater effect on
DOF, than
CoC (pixel size).
Circle of confusion is not pixel size.
I misunderstood
On Apr 6, 2009, at 13:40 , Doug Brewer wrote:
Larry Colen wrote:
Perhaps someone has already done the math, or the experimentation,
and
can just give me the answers.
Scott's pictures of his Nishiki inspired me to shoot some of my
mongrel legnano. I rode it to lunch today, and on the way back
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
I misunderstood it then. I always thought that the circle of confusion
represented the smallest area that could be resolved. That anything
between a mathematical point
] On Behalf Of
Bob W
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:36 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
Coc is always a factor.
You can change the viewing distance or the print size, and the depth of
field changes.
Bob
The question was regarding relative DOF
101 - 138 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
