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."