Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well Ted, My old Univex Mercury has a "depth of focus" scale on it that is really depthe of field. Perhaps your student should find one of these! Doesn't depth of focus refer to the plane of focus at the film? Ken Wilcox At 10:16 AM 9/11/99 -0700, Ted Grant wrote: >Hi gang, > >I had a young photo student ask me, "Why do they call it depth of field >when it's really a kind of "depth of focus?" > >In technical terms it's "depth of field". But when you think about calling >it, the "shallow depth of field" to a newby, then you have to go into a >whole story about what the depth of field is. Wouldn't it be easier or at >least more visually understanding if "shallow depth of focus" were used? > >Isn't that what it's really all about..the "depth of in and out of focus?" > >So if we were to say "this subject requires a great depth of focus for >sharpness front to back." Or to "really get the subject to pop off the >print, you need a shallow depth of focus." Then you explain how the >effects are created through the size of aperture. > >And we all know how shallow the "depth of focus" is with a Noctilux at f 1.0!:) > >What think you folks? The student is waiting, because I told him I'd >present his question to the worlds "great photo minds for an answer!" :) > >ted > >Ted Grant >This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler. >http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant > > > > - ------------------ Ken Wilcox Carolyn's Personal Touch Portraits LAW LHSA MEA <wilcox@tir.com>