Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>To say DOF is not real is absurd (not my first choice of words mind you). >DOF is real. There may be no 'recognized standard' criteria for measuring >DOF, but it is measurable and is real. Right Austin, I said it! Go put your hand on DOF and tell me about it. Tell me how it feels. You can't !! The term DOF is something that was generally agreed upon before either one of us was born. But it only describes a phenomenon. That being human perception of something being in focus when it is not. DOF is an acceptable variation from the plane of focus. It is not a property of a print. "Print" DOF is your new term and it is INACCURATE in that you are apparently using it to measure resolution of a printing system and the subsequent degradation of the image so that the appearence is altered. >One can always find some resource on the web to help reinforce ones >misunderstanding of almost any subject. Just because it's referenced on the >web (or in a book for that matter) doesn't make it correct. Nope, I sent that for all to review. Did you or have you read it? What part of it is wrong? Dude !!!!!!!!!!! Are you going to make up a whole new terminology of photography? Be sure to write a book about it. Redefine gravity while you're at it. :) I will give you that what you are calling "print DOF" can be an issue in the look of a print but its not about DOF. Henry