MarkP Posted December 25, 2011 Share #41 Posted December 25, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The old man from the Gutenberg Age Such a young man you are. I thought it you were from the Rosetta Stone-age:D The younger man from... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 25, 2011 Posted December 25, 2011 Hi MarkP, Take a look here Hyperfocal distance. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted December 25, 2011 Share #42 Posted December 25, 2011 Thus intangibles like image contrast, structure, content and artistic appreciation play an important role, imo the major role. On top of that the sharpness falloff in a digital photograph is more pronounced than on film. These two considerations lead me to dismiss DOF and hyperfocal distance as too unreliable to use. As far as I'm concerned the only sharp part in a photograph is the plane of focus, and, though it may be (nearly) imperceptible, everything else is out of focus. I've found this to be one of the more fascinating threads on the forum for quite a while. I too have been experimenting with woodland scenes and have taken an approach which has 'fixed' the output size of my images - on an M8 I am printing at 300ppi so the final printed image is something around 13" x 9". So the aperture that I use is very dependent on how I want to final print to appear (accepting that at the end of the day I have no control over the way viewers will view and examine a print - few look at a photo in the theoretical, 'prescribed' manner in my experience) and I have found that I can shoot at all apertures, including wide open at f/1.4, providing I consider the precise point of focus very carefully indeed. The few final prints that I have made have so far been viewed by just a few non-photographers and there has been no comment on lack of sharpness. At my print size aperture does have a substantial effect but I'm far from certain that I would consider using anything other than marginal adjustments from my point of focus to produce a depth of field that would enhance an image. Upon reflection I would say that I choose my point of focus and aperture to ensure that I have the appropriate combination of acceptably sharp elements within the image together with an appropriate and enhancing lack of focus and smoothness within this as appropriate (I suppose I might say bokeh although its a less apt description within the context that I am discussing). So what I am saying is, I suppose, that I do not rely on using a preset-on-the-lens hyperfocal setting but rather on determining where I want the maximum sharpness together with an appropriate interaction of aperture and other elements within the image, when I focus the camera. There is, I think, a subtle difference as my method requires more precise consideration of the point of focus as there is as jaapv points out, only a plane of focus. So I would say that in the digital age it is the point of focus (and final usage) which should determine the aperture and consequent 'depth of field' rather than utilising the somewhat archaic convention of depth of field scales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted December 25, 2011 Share #43 Posted December 25, 2011 Such a young man you are. I thought it you were from the Rosetta Stone-age:D The younger man from... No, no you got that all wrong. On the Rosetta stone, a picture is a word. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.