|
"John H" wrote in message ... 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... Yeah..... the 'tell' is the "I explained it, if you can't understand it..........." -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote: 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 I NEVER, EVER said that "camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field". Apparently you can't comprehend well, because I've said exactly the opposite. BUT, let's stay in context, shall we. We are discussing a specific PRINTED OR DIGITAL image. But, I never thought you'd understand. |
P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... 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... Yeah..... the 'tell' is the "I explained it, if you can't understand it..........." -- John H That's odd, anyone who knew about film photography would understand what I've said completely. Do you and John need to study up on DOF vs. distance, with respect to COC? |
On 31 Mar 2005 09:43:26 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
John H wrote: 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 I NEVER, EVER said that "camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field". Apparently you can't comprehend well, because I've said exactly the opposite. BUT, let's stay in context, shall we. We are discussing a specific PRINTED OR DIGITAL image. But, I never thought you'd understand. You said, ""The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Do you deny that? You said nothing about printed images or digital images. Quit bloviating. You made a boo-boo. You're making everyone laugh at you. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On 31 Mar 2005 09:45:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... 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... Yeah..... the 'tell' is the "I explained it, if you can't understand it..........." -- John H That's odd, anyone who knew about film photography would understand what I've said completely. Do you and John need to study up on DOF vs. distance, with respect to COC? This particular discussion, basskisser, has nothing to do with COC. It has to do with your statement, to wit: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 31 Mar 2005 09:43:26 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: 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 I NEVER, EVER said that "camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field". Apparently you can't comprehend well, because I've said exactly the opposite. BUT, let's stay in context, shall we. We are discussing a specific PRINTED OR DIGITAL image. But, I never thought you'd understand. You said, ""The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Do you deny that? You said nothing about printed images or digital images. Quit bloviating. You made a boo-boo. You're making everyone laugh at you. You forgot "AGAIN" -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 31 Mar 2005 09:45:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... 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... Yeah..... the 'tell' is the "I explained it, if you can't understand it..........." -- John H That's odd, anyone who knew about film photography would understand what I've said completely. Do you and John need to study up on DOF vs. distance, with respect to COC? This particular discussion, basskisser, has nothing to do with COC. It has to do with your statement, to wit: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Poor asslciker......getting soiled by his own **** once again. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 09:45:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... 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... Yeah..... the 'tell' is the "I explained it, if you can't understand it..........." -- John H That's odd, anyone who knew about film photography would understand what I've said completely. Do you and John need to study up on DOF vs. distance, with respect to COC? This particular discussion, basskisser, has nothing to do with COC. It has to do with your statement, to wit: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." -- John H Horse****!!! ANY conversation involving photography, and depth of field has a LOT to do with COC. You are forgetting a very fundamental part of your argument. But, I'll let you go awhile longer flailing and acting like you know what you're talking about, then I'll spell it out for you! |
P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 31 Mar 2005 09:45:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... 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... Yeah..... the 'tell' is the "I explained it, if you can't understand it..........." -- John H That's odd, anyone who knew about film photography would understand what I've said completely. Do you and John need to study up on DOF vs. distance, with respect to COC? This particular discussion, basskisser, has nothing to do with COC. It has to do with your statement, to wit: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Poor asslciker......getting soiled by his own **** once again. -- Poor Fritz. He doesn't have a CLUE what we are talking about, but, because of his lack of self esteem, needs to get noticed anyway. Remember your diatribe about me allegedly stalking you? This is the perfect example of you, proving YOURSELF wrong!!!!! |
On 1 Apr 2005 07:42:52 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
This particular discussion, basskisser, has nothing to do with COC. It has to do with your statement, to wit: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." -- John H Horse****!!! ANY conversation involving photography, and depth of field has a LOT to do with COC. You are forgetting a very fundamental part of your argument. But, I'll let you go awhile longer flailing and acting like you know what you're talking about, then I'll spell it out for you! Do you deny the statement, "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." That's the subject at hand. Nothing else. All your misdirection means zilch. You said it. You were wrong. All the tangents in the world won't make it right. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com