hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Derby Chang
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 5:43 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Jos from Holland wrote:
Exactly! Thats why
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool myself.
Wow, Flickr really does have a pool for everything.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
David Savage wrote:
2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool myself.
Wow, Flickr really does have a pool for everything.
LOL
Here's my
...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Jos from Holland
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 2:50 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Not correct, if bad eyesight leads to a percieved COC
...only the pink... but we were discussing rocks, not abstracts - er,
heavy rather than progressive. :-)
LF
Joseph McAllister escreveu:
Floyd
On Apr 7, 2009, at 13:48 , Luiz Felipe wrote:
Well, I don't like them that much - all those masks, fireworks... Make
mine Led Zep.
Godfrey
2009/4/8 Mark Roberts msrobert...@ysu.edu
David Savage wrote:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3650/3406984942_4162539cb9_b.jpg
I'm the one in red on the left with the radio shutter release in hand :-)
Casual Friday in Australia, huh?
Every day is casual in .au.
(Too hot most of the time
2009/4/8 Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com:
On Apr 7, 2009, at 06:32 , David Savage wrote:
2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool
Hehehe She's going to get such a kick out of that when I tell her.
DS
2009/4/8 Luiz Felipe luiz.fel...@techmit.com.br:
You may say that, but there are at least 4 using said picture as desktop
background so far... permission granted and everything else.
Did I say lately how I love this
-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 in this thread, I'll try. :-)
Magnification
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 09:32:47AM -0300, Luiz Felipe wrote:
You're actually saying if one zoom out (reduce the magnification of the
subject) and crop back to the desired composition the DOF will be
increased, right? So the pic taken with the zoom at 35mm will present
greater DOF than the
...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Larry Colen
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:51 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 02:41:08PM -0400, JC OConnell wrote:
The COC thing is simply how you MEASURE perceived
On 7/4/09, Luiz Felipe, discombobulated, unleashed:
...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that photo
of yours as desktop background for a while? I tried to laugh quietly but
my co-workers perceived the tears in my eyes and I had to show them the
thread.
They also would
Exactly! Thats why people with poor eyesight are lucky: they have a
larger COC and get more DOF for free!
Matthew Hunt wrote:
And that's what determines depth of field: The appearance of
sharpness. Every derivation of DOF begins with that criterion.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
: 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
Jos from Holland wrote:
Exactly! Thats why people with poor eyesight are lucky: they have a
larger COC
MARK!
--
der...@iinet.net.au
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the
resolution for depth of field
Jos from Holland wrote:
Exactly! Thats why people with poor eyesight are lucky: they have a
larger COC
MARK!
--
der...@iinet.net.au
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Problems
On Apr 7, 2009, at 06:17 , JC OConnell wrote:
I don't agree with that terminology, it's his not mine.
Primary non-scientific statement indicating prejudicial thought.
DOF is relative sharpness
Another indication of slurred thought from one who espouses
pointillist
...still without words...
hehehehehehehehehehehehehe
David Savage escreveu:
2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool myself.
Wow, Flickr
of an image after you
shoot it.
JC O'Connell
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
: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:03 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
Instead of making an unsupported assertion why don't you provide a
formula for calculating depth of field? Then we will all be able to test
your assertion.
I have provided a formula
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
You can't argue with the numbers.
OR A BRICK WALL.
--
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
You're actually saying if one zoom out (reduce the magnification of the
subject) and crop back to the desired composition the DOF will be
increased, right? So the pic taken with the zoom at 35mm will present
greater DOF than the one taken at 70mm, after you enlarge both to the
same subject
of an image after you
shoot it.
JC O'Connell
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
No point in hurling insults. JCO is right in respect to the ability of
a lens to resolve. Bob is correct in regard to viewing a print that's
hanging on a wall.
On Apr 7, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Matthew Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
You can't
YES - right.
JC O'Connell
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 8:33 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
You're actually
: 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), or do I get the same benefit by just combining
pixels
-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:36 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
No point in hurling insults. JCO is right in respect to the ability of
a lens to resolve. Bob is correct
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Paul Stenquist wrote:
This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on a
viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect to the
ability of a given lens to resolve detail. Both are correct, but each is
discussing an entirely
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:35 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking
List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Paul Stenquist wrote:
This is a simple issue. Bob is speaking of perceived depth of filed on
a
viewed print. JCO is speaking of critical depth of field in respect to
the
ability of a given lens to resolve detail
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
No point in hurling insults. JCO is right in respect to the ability of a
lens to resolve. Bob is correct in regard to viewing a print that's hanging
on a wall.
What criterion do you use to define the ability of a
NOT.
JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf
Of Paul Stenquist
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:35 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
This is a simple
...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Matthew Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:12 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net
wrote:
No point in hurling insults. JCO
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
THEORETICAL CRAP? Screw you, this is REAL WORLD BASIC
photograhpy techniques. I would think that any photographer
needs to know how to control DOF. You cant just go
take pictures without some basic knowledge of what
controls
Whatever floats your boat sweetie.
2009/4/7 JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net:
Screw you
--
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 Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:17 AM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
I dont agree with that terminology, it's his not mine.
DOF is relative sharpness of foreground and background
objects in an image compared to the objects in the plane
of focus. ( just my working terminology FWIW).
So, if a
2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com:
But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some
people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too. But we
can't forget what the underlying theory is
...there IS a light at the end...
LF
Doug Brewer escreveu:
David Savage wrote:
2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool myself.
Wow,
O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
frank theriault
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:21 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, JC
2009/4/7 Doug Brewer d...@alphoto.com:
David Savage wrote:
2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool myself.
Wow, Flickr really does have
...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Matthew Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:27 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:17 AM, JC OConnell hifis
...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:28 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com:
But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
until I go do it over
Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:28 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com:
But you can bang my head
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:49 AM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
you are trying to define some sort of absolute DOF
which really doesnt exist unless you consider a certain
COC as perfect.
Actually, I'm claiming the opposite. That any definition depends on
assumptions of the acceptable
JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Matthew Hunt
The entire thread and original post was all about
the relative DOF ( how to increase or decrease
DOF in an image relative to ANY reference DOF ).
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:47 AM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
Im NOT the guy who was demanding formulae. As far
as fstop goes, yes most people know that stopping
down increases DOF and opening up decreases it, but
the only other factor that affects DOF, in-camera
image magnification,
For the sake of clarity, I neglected to post
the definition of in-camera image magnification (M).
in-camera image magnification is the ratio
of object size to image size. Longer lenses
and shorter object distances increase magnification,
shorter lenses and longer distances decrease magnification.
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:28 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com:
But you can
resolution for depth of field
2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com:
But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some
people like the theory behind things, and that's fine, too. But we
can't forget
Oh I informed the model of your request this was her reply:
OH MAN I take that as a f*king compliment!!
You've helped brighten someone's day.
:-)
Cheers,
Dave
2009/4/7 Luiz Felipe luiz.fel...@techmit.com.br:
...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that photo of
David Savage wrote:
I remotly controlled it too.
The Jedi mind trick is an amazing thing.
DS
yes, it often helps you see the light at the end of the tunnel...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please
...it is... (with all respect, please...)
David, you can't possibly imagine the kind of laughter around here on
the account of select excerpts the thread AND the photo. Thanks for your
(and her) kind permission. :-)
LF
David Savage escreveu:
Oh I informed the model of your request this
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 09:28:28PM +0800, David Savage wrote:
2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com:
But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some
people like the theory behind things, and
2009/4/7 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 09:28:28PM +0800, David Savage wrote:
2009/4/7 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com:
But you can bang my head with all the numbers and theories you want,
until I go do it over and over, I'm not going to get it. Some
people
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 09:32:48PM +0800, David Savage wrote:
2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool myself.
Wow, Flickr really does
Can we watch the language on list, SOMETIMES?
Thanks.
-
Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored.
**Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a
recession.
David Savage wrote:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3650/3406984942_4162539cb9_b.jpg
I'm the one in red on the left with the radio shutter release in hand :-)
Casual Friday in Australia, huh?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool myself.
Wow, Flickr really does have a pool for everything.
LOL
Here's my latest boring photo:
-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Bob W
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:00 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Trading resolution for depth of field
The entire thread and original post was all about
the relative DOF ( how to increase
At least it's not Godders and I this time ;-)
-Adam
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Cotty cotty...@mac.com
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On 7/4/09, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
Let it go.
Mark
Mark !
Just 'Mark', Mark.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
. Print size doesnt
affect that.
JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Matthew Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:19 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
On Apr 7, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 7/4/09, Luiz Felipe, discombobulated, unleashed:
...glad to read
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 is no better than mine.
You haven't supplied us with anything that is falsifiable. All you've given
us is unsupported assertions.
I dont need
any
I think Joe's asleep. I know I am.
G
On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
At least it's not Godders and I this time ;-)
-Adam
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com wrote:
B
How do you calculate your depth of sleep?
I think Joe's asleep. I know I am.
G
On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
At least it's not Godders and I this time ;-)
-Adam
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com wrote:
It's entirely dependent on how many weeks into the semester I am.
-Adam
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
How do you calculate your depth of sleep?
I think Joe's asleep. I know I am.
G
On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
At least it's not
, 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 is no better than mine.
You haven't supplied us
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Luiz Felipe luiz.fel...@techmit.com.br
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
...there IS a light at the end...
...its the headlight of the oncoming locomotive.
LF
Doug Brewer escreveu
...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Joseph McAllister
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:19 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
Problems
On Apr 7, 2009, at 06:17 , JC
List
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
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
Circle of drool in the morning
On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:49 , Bob W wrote:
How do you calculate your depth of sleep?
I think Joe's asleep. I know I am.
G
On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
At least it's not Godders and I this time ;-)
-Adam
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM,
The capitalization percentage is rising, folks.
You may wish to step back a bit
On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:53 , JC OConnell wrote:
I already stated you can choose ANY reference you
want ( a particular COC for example) it doesnt matter,
if you want to increase or decrease DOF, regardless
of
I think I've got it!
The Depth of Field is anything in an image that is not Bokeh!
On Apr 7, 2009, at 13:05 , Joseph McAllister wrote:
The capitalization percentage is rising, folks.
You may wish to step back a bit
On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:53 , JC OConnell wrote:
I already stated you
On Apr 7, 2009, at 06:32 , David Savage wrote:
2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com
wrote:
I know, I have added quite a few to the technically competent, but
mediocre, pool myself.
Wow, Flickr really does have a pool for
A true flasher !
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
2009/4/7 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:14 PM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote:
Smaller prints dont have more DOF, they're
just harder to see clearly!
And that's what determines depth of field: The appearance of
sharpness. Every derivation of DOF begins with that criterion.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
It is very simple.
Want more? use big opening.
Want less? use little opening.
Done.
KISS rocks. ]'-)
G
On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Bob W wrote:
How do you calculate your depth of sleep?
I think Joe's asleep. I know I am.
G
On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
At least it's
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 11:25:04AM -0700, Joseph McAllister wrote:
Here's my latest boring photo:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3319/3420399349_fc22fbab94_o.jpg
:-)
Wow! Nice photo Dave.
Good composition, color. I like the way you've balanced the small
orange rock in the upper
On Apr 7, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 7/4/09, Luiz Felipe, discombobulated, unleashed:
...glad to read the two of you agreeing. Now David, may I use that
photo
of yours as desktop background for a while? I tried to laugh
quietly but
my co-workers perceived the tears in my eyes and I
My apologies to the young lady. I had not seen enough points of
interest to make a determination.
On Apr 7, 2009, at 11:31 , Larry Colen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 11:25:04AM -0700, Joseph McAllister wrote:
Here's my latest boring photo:
On 7/4/09, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
Let it go.
Mark
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
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
Bzzz
The entire thread and original post was all about
the relative DOF ( how to increase or decrease
DOF in an image relative to ANY reference DOF ).
But your claims regarding relative DOF are only valid if the image
format (film size, crop factor, whatever you want to call it) is
constant.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
The Depth of Field is anything in an image that is not Bokeh!
But the question is, how much is there? Not much, or bokehtloads?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
...now you broke my heart...
Ken Waller escreveu:
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message - From: Luiz Felipe
luiz.fel...@techmit.com.br
Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field
...there IS a light at the end...
...its the headlight
On 7/4/09, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
Want more? use big opening.
Want less? use little opening.
Done.
Godfrey, please. A little more decorum.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
You may say that, but there are at least 4 using said picture as desktop
background so far... permission granted and everything else.
Did I say lately how I love this list???
LF
Joseph McAllister escreveu:
My apologies to the young lady. I had not seen enough points of
interest to make a
Well, I don't like them that much - all those masks, fireworks... Make
mine Led Zep.
Godfrey DiGiorgi escreveu:
It is very simple.
snip
KISS rocks. ]'-)
G
--
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
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
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:07:35PM -0700, Joseph McAllister wrote:
I think I've got it!
The Depth of Field is anything in an image that is not Bokeh!
Now *this* is a Speckable quote.
--
The fastest way to get your question answered on the net is to post
the wrong answer.
Larry Colen
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:11:02PM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
It is very simple.
Want more? use big opening.
Want less? use little opening.
Done.
KISS rocks. ]'-)
Yeah, but you seem to be KISSing the wrong end. A smaller opening
gives more depth of field, that's why a pinhole camera
On Apr 7, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 7/4/09, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
Want more? use big opening.
Want less? use little opening.
Done.
Godfrey, please. A little more decorum.
What have you done with Cotty?
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:11:02PM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
It is very simple.
Want more? use big opening.
Want less? use little opening.
Done.
KISS rocks. ]'-)
Yeah, but you seem to be KISSing the wrong end. A smaller opening
gives
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
We were speaking of depth of sleep. Depth of field is the reverse.
I don't really have anything to say, I just wanted to be the 100th
poster on this thread. I don't think I've ever done that before on
this list or anywhere
If there's a lot, then not much...
It's a formula.
On Apr 7, 2009, at 13:33 , Matthew Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com wrote:
The Depth of Field is anything in an image that is not Bokeh!
But the question is, how much is there? Not much,
Floyd
On Apr 7, 2009, at 13:48 , Luiz Felipe wrote:
Well, I don't like them that much - all those masks, fireworks...
Make mine Led Zep.
Godfrey DiGiorgi escreveu:
It is very simple.
snip
KISS rocks. ]'-)
G
--
Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com
http://gallery.me.com/jomac
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.
MARK.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places,
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Cotty cotty...@mac.com 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.
MARK.
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
