Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dan C wrote: > > Yeah, but thats not all of the difference. Think about the loss of DOF! > > dan c. > A good one! How many feet do I loose?! (or meters) How much more space can i grab? I'm sure that's a consideration on which film people are picking. I'm sure it has been for me. Not grain. But space. Front to back. For me I miss my focus a lot with my 50 as much as i love the focal length so i end up using the 35 and knowing I'm gong to get the shot. (I kind of like my shots in focus some feel there are more important things in life) Now with my use of the 1600 film (Fuji) I feel like i know now feel more secure about getting the shot with the 50. By the way i do not worship focus. The sharp picture. Sometimes you miss your focus but you haven't missed your shot. Its a shame to edit out your shot of the century just because the eyelashes aren't all there. Maybe you're getting afeeling of motion that is nice to have. The big example for me in my work and i bet i could come up with others is this shot of Naomi shot with a Zeiss 50 Planar on a Contarex bull's-eye on Panatomic x and run in Beutlers. http://www.rabinergroup.com/ImagePages/Naomipage.html I've studied the shot blown up 11x14 or 16x20 with a Loupe and she's standing a few inches just behind the plane of focus. The cracked tar she is standing on is a dead giveaway. This adds to the disturbingneess of the image i think in kind of an interesting way that i would have not anticipated. I honest to god think if she was sharp in focus the shot would suffer. I should have scanned this bigger I wonder why i didn't'? Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabinergroup.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html