Timeline for Does shooting landscape at lower f-stop produce reasonably sharp images?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2016 at 12:18 | vote | accept | sherlock | ||
| Aug 12, 2016 at 18:06 | history | edited | Michael C | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1309 characters in body
|
| Aug 12, 2016 at 17:31 | history | edited | Michael C | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 655 characters in body
|
| Aug 12, 2016 at 17:06 | comment | added | Michael C | On the other hand, if the image is presented using very high resolution printing processes then the gradual transition from razor sharp to blurry will be much more noticeable for the same source image. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 17:02 | comment | added | Michael C | The grossest misuse of computing depth of field occurs when one of the following two errors are made: 1) Assuming that everything within the DoF is equally in focus and everything beyond the DoF is equally out of focus or 2) Failing to alter the CoC to account for differences in display size, viewing distance, and other factors related to viewing. For instance, if an image is printed in a newspaper using half tone techniques, almost the entire image can be equally blurry and thus CoC and DoF is a moot point. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 16:58 | comment | added | Michael C | @AlanMarcus But still useful for comparison when only one of the variables is changed (i.e. different aperture with the same focal length, focus distance, and circle of confusion). Also very useful for demonstrating the theory of hyperfocal distance even if not always as accurate predicting it. Understanding the criteria for using a specific circle of confusion is critical, which leads directly to understanding the effect of display size, viewing distance, and even the visual acuity of the observer on the calculation of the CoC. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 16:52 | comment | added | Alan Marcus | @ kazanski -- DOF calculation are limited as to value. Few have the opportunity of consult in heat of image making. DOF tables are based on statistics that may not be correct. The math attempts to takes into account the degree of magnification needed to make the final image from film or sensor and the distance observer to this display. The outcomes are always subjective. What is acceptable as to sharpness? We are talking permissible size of the circle of confusion. Kodak used used1/1750 of the focal length at the image plane, Leica 1/1500. Most tables use 1/1000. All subjective stuff. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 15:43 | comment | added | Michael C | @BrandonDube The viewing conditions are specifically laid out in the answer. In the case of the photo in question, 3, 6, or 400 feet makes no difference: everything in the photo is a greater distance than that from the camera. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 15:25 | comment | added | Brandon Dube | @Caleb yes, but if a calculator tells you the near limit is 18ft, in your case it may be 3ft, 6ft, 400ft... it all depends on the optics and the final magnification of the image. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 15:20 | comment | added | Caleb | @BrandonDube They're certainly not so wildly inaccurate that they don't illustrate the point, which is that distance to subject is a significant factor in DoF, and that if the distance to subject is large enough, everything can be reasonably sharp even at f/2. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 15:06 | comment | added | Brandon Dube | @kazanaki blog.retrorefractions.com/?p=4 | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 14:39 | comment | added | kazanaki | @BrandonDube care to explain why they are inaccurate? | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 14:09 | history | answered | Michael C | CC BY-SA 3.0 |