John H wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:18 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

P.Fritz wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:
"N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message
...
Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell
"BUT
DAD HE
STARTED IT FIRST".

Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here
play's
catch
and release with him.

Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists
in
Guantanamo!!!!
Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue
"Labatt's
Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!!
Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun,
because
it once was one?

basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you?

My God, you go on, and on, and on...

Because he is "King of the NG idiots"

But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his
education
and employemnt.

So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother
told
you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that
region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!!
YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why,
when
YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't
make
you either lie, or post in ignorance.


Is this the new fixation replacing the Labatt/Labatts one?


I liked the pictures of Labatt's Blue beer bottles. I hope he sticks
with that
one.
--
John H

You, and everyone else who still uses Labatt's are wrong. Look at a
bottle. It's not been Labatt's since 1973. Do you still call Nissan
cars Datsuns?

On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote:


So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother
told
you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that
region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!!
YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why,
when
YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't
make
you either lie, or post in ignorance.

basskisser, YOU said:

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

Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a
comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do
this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that
are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now.
Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the
distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was
using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed
to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of
field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!!
I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL
zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm,
use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will
notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of
Confusion.

Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to
the subject? You said it became less.

Go here for a less confusing explanation:

http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63

You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture,
focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth
of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of
field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics.

Extract:

3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance
For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more
limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can
extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject.

I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but
the fact remains that you made a boo-boo.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 31 Mar 2005 07:22:51 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:18 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

P.Fritz wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:
"N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message
...
Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell
"BUT
DAD HE
STARTED IT FIRST".

Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here
play's
catch
and release with him.

Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists
in
Guantanamo!!!!
Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue
"Labatt's
Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!!
Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun,
because
it once was one?

basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you?

My God, you go on, and on, and on...

Because he is "King of the NG idiots"

But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his
education
and employemnt.

So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother
told
you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that
region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!!
YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why,
when
YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't
make
you either lie, or post in ignorance.


Is this the new fixation replacing the Labatt/Labatts one?


I liked the pictures of Labatt's Blue beer bottles. I hope he sticks
with that
one.
--
John H

You, and everyone else who still uses Labatt's are wrong. Look at a
bottle. It's not been Labatt's since 1973. Do you still call Nissan
cars Datsuns?

You're wrong.

http://www.mylifeisbeer.com/beer/bot...tledetail/230/

But, speaking of being wrong, do you remember this post?

**************************************
On 2 Mar 2005 12:07:35 -0800, wrote:


And all of the conservatives here are lying ****ing pigs, just like
you, liar.
********************************

That was a jewel.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote:


So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother
told
you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that
region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!!
YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why,
when
YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't
make
you either lie, or post in ignorance.

basskisser, YOU said:

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

Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a
comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do
this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that
are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now.
Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the
distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was
using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed
to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of
field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!!
I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL
zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm,
use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will
notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of
Confusion.

Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with
distance to
the subject? You said it became less.

Go here for a less confusing explanation:

http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63

You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are
aperture,
focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the
depth
of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual
depth of
field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics.

Extract:

3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance
For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more
limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can
extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject.

I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue,
but
the fact remains that you made a boo-boo.

Again..........but what's new? LMAO

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 31 Mar 2005 07:22:51 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:18 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

P.Fritz wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:
"N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message
...
Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell
"BUT
DAD HE
STARTED IT FIRST".

Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here
play's
catch
and release with him.

Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists
in
Guantanamo!!!!
Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue
"Labatt's
Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!!
Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun,
because
it once was one?

basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you?

My God, you go on, and on, and on...

Because he is "King of the NG idiots"

But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his
education
and employemnt.

So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother
told
you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that
region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!!
YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why,
when
YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't
make
you either lie, or post in ignorance.


Is this the new fixation replacing the Labatt/Labatts one?


I liked the pictures of Labatt's Blue beer bottles. I hope he sticks
with that
one.
--
John H

You, and everyone else who still uses Labatt's are wrong. Look at a
bottle. It's not been Labatt's since 1973. Do you still call Nissan
cars Datsuns?

You're wrong.


The fact of the matter is that it is referenced as Labatt's all the time, in
advertising, on clothing etc..............and can be found all over the web
and in real life......unlike "cow down"

Asslicker seems to enjoy ****ing in the wind and soiling himself.


http://www.mylifeisbeer.com/beer/bot...tledetail/230/

But, speaking of being wrong, do you remember this post?

**************************************
On 2 Mar 2005 12:07:35 -0800, wrote:


And all of the conservatives here are lying ****ing pigs, just like
you, liar.
********************************

That was a jewel.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


John H wrote:
On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote:


So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother
told
you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that
region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!!
YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why,
when
YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I
didn't
make
you either lie, or post in ignorance.

basskisser, YOU said:

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

Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a
comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do
this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees
that
are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well?
Now.
Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the
distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was
using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as
opposed
to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of
field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!!
I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a
DIGITAL
zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a
35mm,
use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will
notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of
Confusion.

Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with
distance to
the subject? You said it became less.

Go here for a less confusing explanation:

http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63

You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field
are aperture,
focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter
increases, the depth
of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual
depth of
field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics.

Extract:

3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance
For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the
more
limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects
it can
extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject.

I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the
issue, but
the fact remains that you made a boo-boo.
--
John H

Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it,
too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are
dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you
even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive
to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly
alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal
length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a
digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed
camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference
right away. Or, at least you should........

On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


John H wrote:
On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote:


So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother
told
you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that
region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!!
YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why,
when
YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I
didn't
make
you either lie, or post in ignorance.

basskisser, YOU said:

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

Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a
comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do
this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees
that
are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well?
Now.
Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the
distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was
using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as
opposed
to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of
field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!!
I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a
DIGITAL
zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a
35mm,
use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will
notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of
Confusion.

Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with
distance to
the subject? You said it became less.

Go here for a less confusing explanation:

http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63

You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field
are aperture,
focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter
increases, the depth
of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual
depth of
field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics.

Extract:

3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance
For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the
more
limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects
it can
extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject.

I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the
issue, but
the fact remains that you made a boo-boo.
--
John H

Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it,
too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are
dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you
even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive
to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly
alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal
length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a
digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed
camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference
right away. Or, at least you should........

ROFLMAO!!

You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance
has no bearing on depth of field.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

P=2EFritz wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On 31 Mar 2005 07:22:51 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


John H wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:18 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

P.Fritz wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:
"N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message
...
Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they
yell
"BUT
DAD HE
STARTED IT FIRST".

Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody
here
play's
catch
and release with him.

Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any
tourists
in
Guantanamo!!!!
Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue
"Labatt's
Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!!
Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a
Datsun,
because
it once was one?

basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you?

My God, you go on, and on, and on...

Because he is "King of the NG idiots"

But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about
his
education
and employemnt.

So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your
brother
told
you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact,
that
region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!!
YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now,
why,
when
YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I
didn't
make
you either lie, or post in ignorance.


Is this the new fixation replacing the Labatt/Labatts one?


I liked the pictures of Labatt's Blue beer bottles. I hope he
sticks
with that
one.
--
John H

You, and everyone else who still uses Labatt's are wrong. Look at a
bottle. It's not been Labatt's since 1973. Do you still call Nissan
cars Datsuns?

You're wrong.


The fact of the matter is that it is referenced as Labatt's all the
time, in
advertising, on clothing etc..............and can be found all over
the web
and in real life......unlike "cow down"
Please show me ANYTHING, clothing, advertising, etc, from Labatt Ltd.
that says "Labatt's", and I'm not talking pre-1973. Again, go to
http://www.labatt.com, and have a look. And, again, do you think that
because an unknowing distributor or two still calls it Labatt's, that
they would know more than the company that MAKES it? As for "cow down",
want to hear a song that contains that exact phrase? If I give it to
you, will you admit that you were wrong about THAT also? Oh, yeah, no
tourists in Guantanamo, huh:
http://www.usacubatravel.com/guantanamo.html
http://www.worldsurface.com/browse/l...ationid=3D5175

Hmm, what's THIS:
Guantanamo - Guant=E1namo is the province of Cuba located at the eastern
end of the Island. This is a predominantly mountainous region of deep
contrasts, and the only place in the country where you can find
semidesert landscapes.There are between the Cuban capital and this
territory little more than 900 kilometers (part of which is illegally
occupied by an American aero naval base). The main door of this
province for international tourism is the Baracoa, Prime City of Cuba.
http://www.hicuba.com/eng/tourist-guide-east.htm

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


John H wrote:
On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote:


So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother
told
you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that
region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!!
YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why,
when
YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I
didn't
make
you either lie, or post in ignorance.

basskisser, YOU said:

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

Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a
comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do
this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees
that
are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well?
Now.
Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the
distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was
using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as
opposed
to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of
field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!!
I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a
DIGITAL
zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a
35mm,
use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will
notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of
Confusion.

Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with
distance to
the subject? You said it became less.

Go here for a less confusing explanation:

http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63

You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field
are aperture,
focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter
increases, the depth
of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual
depth of
field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics.

Extract:

3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance
For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the
more
limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects
it can
extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject.

I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the
issue, but
the fact remains that you made a boo-boo.
--
John H

Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it,
too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are
dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you
even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive
to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly
alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal
length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a
digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed
camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference
right away. Or, at least you should........

ROFLMAO!!

You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject
distance
has no bearing on depth of field.

That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:23:33 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


John H wrote:
On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote:


So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother
told
you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that
region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!!
YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why,
when
YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I
didn't
make
you either lie, or post in ignorance.

basskisser, YOU said:

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

Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a
comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do
this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees
that
are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well?
Now.
Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the
distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was
using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as
opposed
to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of
field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!!
I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a
DIGITAL
zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a
35mm,
use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will
notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of
Confusion.

Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with
distance to
the subject? You said it became less.

Go here for a less confusing explanation:

http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63

You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field
are aperture,
focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter
increases, the depth
of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual
depth of
field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics.

Extract:

3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance
For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the
more
limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects
it can
extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject.

I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the
issue, but
the fact remains that you made a boo-boo.
--
John H

Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it,
too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are
dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you
even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive
to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly
alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal
length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a
digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed
camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference
right away. Or, at least you should........

ROFLMAO!!

You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject
distance
has no bearing on depth of field.

That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


So friggin' predictable...
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."