"John H" wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar 2005 09:01:59 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 30 Mar 2005 05:50:58 -0800, wrote:

The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is.

**********************

Did you know what you were talking about when you said that?
--
John H

Absolutely! And a clue for you, don't get distance vs. depth of field
confused with depth of field for different focal lengths.

Here, go learn something:

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/

Extract:
************************************************** *******
Basic facts

The extent of the depth of field depends on what we understand as
"acceptably
sharp" in the definition above. If we are willing to accept more
unsharpness,
the depth of field will extend more. For sharpness-critical applications,
it
will be very shallow.

Depth of field increases as the lens is closed down (i.e., the F-number
increases).

Depth of field is greater for short focal lengths than for long ones. This
difference is quite dramatic.

Depth of field increases with the subject distance.
************************************************** ************

You weren't discussing focal lengths or aperture.


That is a typical asslicker debate technique...........he tries to
generalize a specific, and or narrows a generalization to try to prove his
point and discredit yours.............

and then he wonders why he hold the title of "King of the NG idiots"


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."