Why Non-Correlating Print, Negative and CMOS Sizes?
thankyou
Why non-correlating “everything” in photography printing?
The popular analog P/S camera’s negative ratio 4:3 (1.33) never did
“FIT the old standard printed photo size of 3 x 5 (1.6).
Now, the popular 4 x 6 print (1.5) fits a 3:2 (1.5) Canon 350D, but
maybe not some of the other digital cameras (?)
But, anyway, the photo paper sized don’t hardly match “anything”
3 x 5 = 1.66
4 x 6 = 1.5
5 x 7 = 1.4
8 x 10 = 1.25
18 x 24 = 1.3
What’s up with all that?
John Navas
wrote in
<8657e7f9-f809-40dd...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>:
"Most print sizes [were] based on printing from film. Remember that film
comes in 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 sizes. It was pretty much
standardized to accommodate the differing sizes of film negatives."
<http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081204181921AATCeJD>
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
thankyou
all this at the photo shops, many looked at me like I was nuts.
Anyway… That guy was pretty angry.
Not sure this is the correct forum, but, since we are talking.
Could you take a look at this photo?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/traveltv/3641954486/
It's a depth of field thing, but the subject that is OUT of focus is
much larger and prominent than the subject that is IN focus. That sort
of bothers me.
Does this photo "work" for you? If not, why?
Thanks again, John
Handy Dandy
It's just one of many programs and projects that was started by the CPC.
("Creative Peoples' Consortium" A little known agency of a rare and select
few that have a hand in manipulating the direction of humanity for
millennia now. The term "social-engineering" is not just a phrase to them.)
They did this to see if your attempts to be a boring and mundane conformist
in a field of arts will eventually drive you insane. Or if it would finally
break you out of your shell and, at long last, cause you to creatively trim
your own paper to the compositions that you want and need all by yourself.
Other CPC projects (a CPCP as they are better known): Hot-dogs being sold
in packs of 10 and that hot-dog buns should be sold in packs of 12. Making
square slices of bread for large round slices of bologna and salami that
forever hang outside the edges of the bread. [Hint: For smaller circular
meat products, like braunschweiger for a good example. If you know geometry
and topology well ... just two simple diagonal slices across two slices of
meat can make the circular meats neatly fit within the square bread, when
placed on the bread offset by angle. No more clues than that allowed.
Sorry. However, the ingenuity of the solution has further little known
benefits. The internal spaces left between the curvatures of the meat
neatly contain the mayo and mustard so they do not squeeze outside of the
bread borders and onto parts unknown. It was a very craftily designed CPCP
with huge benefits to those that could finally figure it out.]
They also deduced the usefulness of putting large pickles in jars with
openings that are too small to retrieve the pickle successfully on the
first try. Thus getting you to exercise your pickle-retrieval creativity.
[Answer, no hint this time: Dig in your basement or attic for that fondue
set someone bought for you but you never used. There was a reason that they
made it a rather useless item, when used by itself. The fondue-forks were
specifically designed as pickle-retrieval instruments. They work well for
large jars of olives too, but this is only a coincidence, honest. Your task
was to be able to find out how these two unrelated items, pickle-jars and
fondue-sets, were originally designed to work together for the last 4
decades. Sadly, many have still not figured out this simple CPCP (the last
P standing for "puzzle" in this instance). The solution to this CPCP was
finally released into the public domain recently because, quite frankly,
the CPC got tired of the human race trying to figure out something so
simple for so long. It was really bringing down their hopes for humanity.
All is not lost though, you are still left with trying to figure out what
the fondue-pot and stand was supposed to be used for, and with.]
The CPC is a very creative and crafty group, reaching all people in all
walks of life. No group on earth has been left unaffected by their CPCPs. I
could tell you about the programs that have been controlling your elected
leaders, CEOs, and other officials, but ... the CPC is not too proud of how
those projects have worked out. I mean really. Look at the results. Would
you want anyone to know that you had a hand in directing their behaviors?
Care for a link to several good paper-trimmers? My most favorite one is
under $19 and uses standard single-edge utility razors, always a fresh
blade for just pennies.
Or you could Google for a link to valium and/or anti-psychotic medications
too, if you'd rather go that route.
John Navas
wrote in
<eafc43f1-b4c0-4ef2...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>:
I like the photo, and the crop, but I'd like it more if the near lion
was sharper. My suggestion is to try selecting just the near lion,
sharpen it (with Focus Magic if you have it), invert the selection, and
gaussian blur the background lion a bit, something like:
<http://i43.tinypic.com/2lbm990.jpg> (just a quickie job)
>Thanks again, John
Happy to help.
thankyou
testing. Sort of crazy... they print quickly out of a upright printer
and charge you $17 bucks.
The uploaded resolution is 1024 x 1535
From what I learned here. My 3465 x 2304 master photo "max" enlargment
should only be:
10 x 7
3456ppi / 350 dpi = 9.87
2304 / 350 = 6.68
I'll figure out what you wrote and try it. Thanks for the tip.
J
thankyou
A QUICKIE JOB??
Damn, I'll never be able to look at my photo again.
John Navas
wrote in
<66fb9c37-6f38-4095...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>:
>From what I learned here. My 3465 x 2304 master photo "max" enlargment
>should only be:
>10 x 7
>
>3456ppi / 350 dpi = 9.87
>2304 / 350 = 6.68
My own printing guide:
Assuming that the image has been taken with a good lens, for printing
figure at least 130 PPI (pixels per inch) for acceptable results (at
normal viewing distances), and up to 230 PPI for excellent results.
With current technology, anything more than 300 PPI is pretty much
wasted.
4x6 5x7 8x10 11x14 16x20 20x30
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Acceptable: 0.4MP 0.6MP 1.4MP 2.6MP 5 MP 10 MP
Very good: 0.8MP 1.1MP 2.6MP 5 MP 10 MP 19 MP
Excellent: 1.3MP 1.9MP 4 MP 8 MP 16 MP 32 MP
Best: 2.2MP 3.2MP 7 MP 14 MP 28 MP 54 MP
Note that there is much more to the quality of digicam images than
the raw pixel count. The quality of the lens is an important item
that is often overlooked -- I'd usually go for 3-4 MP taken with a
high-quality lens over 5+ MP taken with an inexpensive consumer lens.
Your original image is 8 MP, which if high quality should be able to
produce an excellent 11x14 print.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Assuming that the image has been taken with a good lens, for printing
> figure at least 130 PPI (pixels per inch) for acceptable results (at
> normal viewing distances), and up to 230 PPI for excellent results.
> With current technology, anything more than 300 PPI is pretty much
> wasted.
nonsense. 130 ppi is very low, 230 ppi is decent for most purposes and
300 ppi is generally accepted as tack sharp but higher ppi can be seen
in good light.
John Navas
in <190620091220223782%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
Nonsense yourself -- it depends on the printing process and the viewing
distance, and what I wrote is correct for high-quality printing at
normal viewing distances.
Bob Williams
> Right, good, makes sense. But, still, when I tried to get a handle on
> all this at the photo shops, many looked at me like I was nuts.
>
> Not sure this is the correct forum, but, since we are talking.
>
> Could you take a look at this photo?
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/traveltv/3641954486/
>
> It's a depth of field thing, but the subject that is OUT of focus is
> much larger and prominent than the subject that is IN focus. That sort
> of bothers me.
>
> Does this photo "work" for you? If not, why?
>
> Thanks again, John
Some people LIKE the shallow depth of field effect, because it keeps
mundane backgrounds from distracting the eye from the central image.
In fact, one reason that many people CHOOSE a DSLR over a good P/S, is
because it is much harder to get a shallow depth of field with small
sensor cameras like most P/S on the market.
I, personally, do not want my camera to provide the shallow DOF for me.
I like my entire image to be as crisp as possible.
Then, if I want to blur certain parts of the background, I do so in
Photoshop.
I think it is purely a matter of aesthetics and personal preferences.
Bob Williams.
John Navas
wrote in <kMR_l.9352$FI5....@newsfe12.iad>:
>Some people LIKE the shallow depth of field effect, because it keeps
>mundane backgrounds from distracting the eye from the central image.
>In fact, one reason that many people CHOOSE a DSLR over a good P/S, is
>because it is much harder to get a shallow depth of field with small
>sensor cameras like most P/S on the market.
Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
<http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >nonsense. 130 ppi is very low, 230 ppi is decent for most purposes and
> >300 ppi is generally accepted as tack sharp but higher ppi can be seen
> >in good light.
>
> Nonsense yourself -- it depends on the printing process and the viewing
> distance,
yes it does.
> and what I wrote is correct for high-quality printing at
> normal viewing distances.
then what you consider quality work is not very high. it's *very* easy
to see the difference between 150 ppi and 250-300 ppi.
tony cooper
You're new at this. *All* edits and improvements are offered as
"quickie jobs". Even if the guy spent hours of work on it, he'll
claim it was "just a quickie I tossed off". It's a pre-emptive
defense to "there's a spot over the left eye you missed".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
tony cooper
My own rule is 240 to 300. Never below 240 for printing. Always at
300 unless I'm trying to hold down the file size as some condition for
submission.
People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
convincing argument that proves this. Of course, I've never seen
convincing argument that anything over 300 improves, either.
nospam
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
> convincing argument that proves this. Of course, I've never seen
> convincing argument that anything over 300 improves, either.
it depends on the image and viewing conditions.
<http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/>
Laser printers used to be 300 dots per inch (dpi), but evolved to 600
and even 1200 dpi. Why? People could see ragged edges on letters on 300
dpi laser printers. At 600 dpi edges appear smoother. Some can tell the
difference between 600 and 1200 dpi printers if the paper quality is
high.
<http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#printpixels>
Examine the closely spaced grass blades: you need at least 400 dpi to
resolve the details. There are improvements in the image all the way up
to 600 dpi. Some have stated that 200 dpi is sufficient to get all the
detail in a photographic print. That is clearly not the case here.
Examination of an 8x10 print on a sharp 35mm image shows similar
results.
John Navas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<6urn351q6gk79k36m...@4ax.com>:
34 minutes between posts, less the time it took me to notice his.
Next time take a moment to check instead of a fast knee jerk pot shot.
I don't appreciate being called a liar.
John Navas
in <190620091249399184%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
With that insult you concede the debate. Thanks for saving me the time.
And feel free to rant on without me -- I'm giving you the last word.
--
John
When Will They Get It
Something that none of you bit-head and gear-head trolls will ever
comprehend -- the presentation resolution is COMPLETELY dependent on the
content of what is being printed and HOW it is being presented.
Some things print just fine at 100 dpi, others require 600 dpi. It solely
depends on the content and the viewing distance or presentation method.
Make no mistake about that. But you will. Again and again and again and
again and again and again and again .... Stupidity is consistent if
nothing else.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> >nonsense. 130 ppi is very low, 230 ppi is decent for most purposes and
> >> >300 ppi is generally accepted as tack sharp but higher ppi can be seen
> >> >in good light.
> >>
> >> Nonsense yourself -- it depends on the printing process and the viewing
> >> distance,
> >
> >yes it does.
> >
> >> and what I wrote is correct for high-quality printing at
> >> normal viewing distances.
> >
> >then what you consider quality work is not very high. it's *very* easy
> >to see the difference between 150 ppi and 250-300 ppi.
>
> With that insult you concede the debate. Thanks for saving me the time.
> And feel free to rant on without me -- I'm giving you the last word.
that's not an insult at all. and what's with copy/pasting the exact
same quip every time?
TheAnswerMan
Here's something that I used to tell people online many many years ago when
all they deserved were canned replies. It's probably appropriate.
"Most people online aren't worth more than a single mouse-click for a
response (just like this one). Anything more is a waste of my time and
effort. They're not bright enough to realize that all they'll ever get are
canned replies. So they keep trying."
Little has changed. Some, most, still deserve nothing more than canned
replies.
thankyou
know something) in context with links and (quick) references. Yes, it
may be "lost" on the reader, a "waste" a lot of time and ultimately
end up with way too many words for anyone to read, but, it helps me
understand what I know and practice never hurts when learning to
explain something.
Having said the above, I don't reply too much online, but I'm am
always amazed at the generosity of the people that continually spend
time sharing what they know, despite the tough reviewers.
About the "canned" replies: Hey, if you wrote something "good" or
useful, why invent the wheel?
Eric Stevens
Before that, print sizes were based on cut-film and plates. To the
list above you can add:
1/4 plate 3-1/4 x 4-1/4
1/2 plate 4-1/4 x 6-1/2
4" x 5"
8" x 10"
16" x 20" (yeah - these were contact prints!)
... and many more.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Something that has been left out of all of this so far is the paper.
There are some papers on which 300 dpi is just wasted.
Eric Stevens
Don Stauffer
> Learned a lot here in the last few days and now the questions begs?
>
>
> The popular analog P/S camera�s negative ratio 4:3 (1.33) never did
> �FIT the old standard printed photo size of 3 x 5 (1.6).
>
> Now, the popular 4 x 6 print (1.5) fits a 3:2 (1.5) Canon 350D, but
> maybe not some of the other digital cameras (?)
>
> 3 x 5 = 1.66
> 4 x 6 = 1.5
> 5 x 7 = 1.4
> 8 x 10 = 1.25
> 18 x 24 = 1.3
>
Serious photographers used a cropping exposure frame and a paper cutter.
For casual photography the photo finishers could convince paper
suppliers to supply properly sized paper for the more popular formats.
Even then, there were popular formats that did not fit mechanized
processing machines, so the photo finisher would do a "judicious" crop.
People lived with this- it was just a fact of life. Consider too that
there were cameras with oval or circular formats :-)
John Navas
wrote in <4a3ceef2$0$89388$815e...@news.qwest.net>:
>thankyou wrote:
>> But, anyway, the photo paper sized don�t hardly match �anything�
>> 3 x 5 = 1.66
>> 4 x 6 = 1.5
>> 5 x 7 = 1.4
>> 8 x 10 = 1.25
>> 18 x 24 = 1.3
>>
>> What�s up with all that?
>
>Serious photographers used a cropping exposure frame and a paper cutter.
> For casual photography the photo finishers could convince paper
>suppliers to supply properly sized paper for the more popular formats.
There were and are lots of "serious photographers" who print in standard
sizes.
Bob Larter
IMO, 200DPI is generally plenty for printing.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:20:22 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <ilon35dbaig21pbqv...@4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming that the image has been taken with a good lens, for printing
>>> figure at least 130 PPI (pixels per inch) for acceptable results (at
>>> normal viewing distances), and up to 230 PPI for excellent results.
>>> With current technology, anything more than 300 PPI is pretty much
>>> wasted.
>> nonsense. 130 ppi is very low, 230 ppi is decent for most purposes and
>> 300 ppi is generally accepted as tack sharp but higher ppi can be seen
>> in good light.
>
> My own rule is 240 to 300. Never below 240 for printing. Always at
> 300 unless I'm trying to hold down the file size as some condition for
> submission.
>
> People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
> convincing argument that proves this.
If the native resolution of the output device is only 300DPI, anything
over that will be wasted, & might even produce artifacts.
Bob Larter
> In article <dmtn35t52isccta89...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
>> convincing argument that proves this. Of course, I've never seen
>> convincing argument that anything over 300 improves, either.
>
> it depends on the image and viewing conditions.
>
> <http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/>
>
> Laser printers used to be 300 dots per inch (dpi), but evolved to 600
> and even 1200 dpi. Why? People could see ragged edges on letters on 300
> dpi laser printers. At 600 dpi edges appear smoother. Some can tell the
> difference between 600 and 1200 dpi printers if the paper quality is
> high.
That's for monochrome bi-level prints. Continuous tone images are much
less demanding. For example; dye-sub prints give good results at 100-150DPI.
Bob Larter
Rather you than me! I usually shoot wide-open or close to it for very
shallow DoF.
> I think it is purely a matter of aesthetics and personal preferences.
> Bob Williams.
Indeed.
Bob Larter
Hrm. The bokeh in that shot is pretty ugly, & you can clearly see the
cars in the background.
Here's a DLSR shot with moderately shallow DoF (F4.0)(warning - large file):
<http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4710.jpg>
nospam
<bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
> >> convincing argument that proves this. Of course, I've never seen
> >> convincing argument that anything over 300 improves, either.
> >
> > it depends on the image and viewing conditions.
> >
> > <http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/>
> >
> > Laser printers used to be 300 dots per inch (dpi), but evolved to 600
> > and even 1200 dpi. Why? People could see ragged edges on letters on 300
> > dpi laser printers. At 600 dpi edges appear smoother. Some can tell the
> > difference between 600 and 1200 dpi printers if the paper quality is
> > high.
>
> That's for monochrome bi-level prints. Continuous tone images are much
> less demanding. For example; dye-sub prints give good results at 100-150DPI.
i find that to be extremely low, at least with ink jet printers, and
can easily see a difference between that and 250-300 ppi (not dpi).
John Navas
wrote in <4a3dd3d6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>> Laser printers used to be 300 dots per inch (dpi), but evolved to 600
>> and even 1200 dpi. Why? People could see ragged edges on letters on 300
>> dpi laser printers. At 600 dpi edges appear smoother. Some can tell the
>> difference between 600 and 1200 dpi printers if the paper quality is
>> high.
>
>That's for monochrome bi-level prints. Continuous tone images are much
>less demanding. For example; dye-sub prints give good results at 100-150DPI.
Yep, apples and oranges.
John Navas
wrote in <4a3dd81d$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
>> can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
>> <http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
>
>Hrm. The bokeh in that shot is pretty ugly, & you can clearly see the
>cars in the background.
To each his own -- I like the bokeh in that shot, likewise the amount of
blurring of the autos.
>Here's a DLSR shot with moderately shallow DoF (F4.0)(warning - large file):
><http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4710.jpg>
To each his own -- I find extremely shallow depth of field to be
artificial looking and/or distracting, your image included, which
I think would have benefited from greater depth of field.
It's a matter of personal taste -- I much prefer my image to yours --
but as always, YMMV.
p.s. It's one thing to say you personally like or dislike something,
but it's rude, insulting and childish to use labels like "ugly" to put
down other people and their work, and there's way too much of that here.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"When the superior scholar hears of Tao, he diligently practises it.
When the average scholar hears of Tao, he sometimes retains it,
sometimes loses it. When the inferior scholar hears of Tao, he loudly
laughs at it. Were it not thus ridiculed, it would not be worthy of the
name of Tao." [Lao-Tzu]
John Navas
wrote in <kMR_l.9352$FI5....@newsfe12.iad>:
>Some people LIKE the shallow depth of field effect, because it keeps
>mundane backgrounds from distracting the eye from the central image.
>In fact, one reason that many people CHOOSE a DSLR over a good P/S, is
>because it is much harder to get a shallow depth of field with small
>sensor cameras like most P/S on the market.
>I, personally, do not want my camera to provide the shallow DOF for me.
>I like my entire image to be as crisp as possible.
>...
You're in pretty good company.
Group f/64 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64>:
Group f/64 was a group of seven 20th century San Francisco
photographers who shared a common photographic style characterized by
sharp-focused and carefully framed images seen through a particularly
Western (U.S.) viewpoint. In part, they formed in opposition to the
Pictorialist photographic style that had dominated much of the early
1900s, but moreover they wanted to promote a new Modernist aesthetic
that was based on precisely exposed images of natural forms and found
objects.
* Ansel Adams
* Imogen Cunningham
* John Paul Edwards
* Sonya Noskowiak
* Henry Swift
* Willard Van Dyke
* Edward Weston
Also from time to time:
* Preston Holder
* Conseuella [sic] Kanaga
* Alma Lavenson
* Brett Weston.
The term f/64 refers to the smallest aperture setting on a large
format camera, which secures maximum depth of field, rendering a
photograph evenly sharp from foreground to background.
tony cooper
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:50:05 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>wrote in <4a3dd81d$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>>> Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
>>> can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
>>> <http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
>>
>>Hrm. The bokeh in that shot is pretty ugly, & you can clearly see the
>>cars in the background.
>
>To each his own -- I like the bokeh in that shot, likewise the amount of
>blurring of the autos.
The shot is interesting because of the varied depth-of-field effect in
the flowers, but fatally flawed because of the background. If the
background was trees or bushes or something else with similar
blurring, it would work. Cars, though? No.
>>Here's a DLSR shot with moderately shallow DoF (F4.0)(warning - large file):
>><http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4710.jpg>
>To each his own -- I find extremely shallow depth of field to be
>artificial looking and/or distracting, your image included, which
>I think would have benefited from greater depth of field.
But not an interesting shot. The viewer is presented with a
recognizable insect on a non-recognizable plant structure. Even as an
exercise in depth-of-field it fails. The idea of depth-of-field
control is to emphasize the subject and minimize the background. In
this composition, the subject includes the plant - or a least the part
of the plant immediately around the bee - and that's fuzzy.
John Navas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<gjis35p8rju0q6fjb...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:30:31 -0700, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:50:05 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>wrote in <4a3dd81d$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>> Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
>>>> can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
>>>> <http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
>>>
>>>Hrm. The bokeh in that shot is pretty ugly, & you can clearly see the
>>>cars in the background.
>>
>>To each his own -- I like the bokeh in that shot, likewise the amount of
>>blurring of the autos.
>
>The shot is interesting because of the varied depth-of-field effect in
>the flowers, but fatally flawed because of the background. ...
In your personal opinion, not in mine, and not necessarily in others.
>>>Here's a DLSR shot with moderately shallow DoF (F4.0)(warning - large file):
>>><http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4710.jpg>
>
>>To each his own -- I find extremely shallow depth of field to be
>>artificial looking and/or distracting, your image included, which
>>I think would have benefited from greater depth of field.
>
>But not an interesting shot. The viewer is presented with a
>recognizable insect on a non-recognizable plant structure. Even as an
>exercise in depth-of-field it fails. The idea of depth-of-field
>control is to emphasize the subject and minimize the background. In
>this composition, the subject includes the plant - or a least the part
>of the plant immediately around the bee - and that's fuzzy.
It's one thing to say you personally like or dislike something, but it's
rude, insulting and childish to use labels to put down other people and
their work.
dj_nme
> In article <dmtn35t52isccta89...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
>> convincing argument that proves this. Of course, I've never seen
>> convincing argument that anything over 300 improves, either.
>
> it depends on the image and viewing conditions.
>
> <http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/>
>
> Laser printers used to be 300 dots per inch (dpi), but evolved to 600
> and even 1200 dpi. Why? People could see ragged edges on letters on 300
> dpi laser printers. At 600 dpi edges appear smoother. Some can tell the
> difference between 600 and 1200 dpi printers if the paper quality is
> high.
That's because pixels and droplets are two totally different things,
although printed pixels can made up of thousands of droplets.
DPI refers to the droplet dithering density, not the number of pixels
per inch that have been printed.
That's why you see DPI ratings for printers in the thousands, it allows
them to lay down pixels by the hundreds per inch.
> <http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#printpixels>
>
> Examine the closely spaced grass blades: you need at least 400 dpi to
> resolve the details. There are improvements in the image all the way up
> to 600 dpi. Some have stated that 200 dpi is sufficient to get all the
> detail in a photographic print. That is clearly not the case here.
> Examination of an 8x10 print on a sharp 35mm image shows similar
> results.
You seem to have mixed up printing DPI (Droplets Per Inch) with the
scanning DPI (Dots Per Inch), wich is the scanning reslution used when
scaaning a document (photograph, negative, transparency, ETC)
The Clarkvision quote above is refering to the scanning resolution
required to extract all the detail from a negative/transparency and
definitely NOT to do with printing, as your selective quote implies.
Why have you seemingly deliberately mixed two different uses of the of
the abreviation DPI?
Astounded
Wow. All that wasted bandwidth only to find a very badly composed image
where he couldn't even get one whole wing of a bee in proper focus, let
alone its body too. This must have been caused by that "superior"
phase-detection focusing that they all evangelize.
Never before in the history of photography have people been so proud of how
blurry they can make everything, including their main subjects.
Astounded
Wow. All that wasted bandwidth only to find a very badly composed image
where he couldn't even get one whole wing of a bee in proper focus, let
alone its body too. This must have been caused by that "superior"
phase-detection focusing that they all evangelize. Couldn't he see that the
whole bee, minus a small portion of one wing, was out of focus in his
"superior" optical viewfinder? I thought that's exactly why they require
those "superior" optical viewfinders on their "superior" cameras, just so
they can detect and always prevent major photography errors like this.
Huh. I guess not. Live and learn too I guess.
tony cooper
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:12:00 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
><gjis35p8rju0q6fjb...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:30:31 -0700, John Navas
>><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:50:05 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote in <4a3dd81d$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
>>>>> can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
>>>>> <http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>Hrm. The bokeh in that shot is pretty ugly, & you can clearly see the
>>>>cars in the background.
>>>
>>>To each his own -- I like the bokeh in that shot, likewise the amount of
>>>blurring of the autos.
>>
>>The shot is interesting because of the varied depth-of-field effect in
>>the flowers, but fatally flawed because of the background. ...
>
>In your personal opinion, not in mine, and not necessarily in others.
Why do you feel a need to point this out? Any critique of a
photograph is personal opinion.
>>>>Here's a DLSR shot with moderately shallow DoF (F4.0)(warning - large file):
>>>><http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4710.jpg>
>>
>>>To each his own -- I find extremely shallow depth of field to be
>>>artificial looking and/or distracting, your image included, which
>>>I think would have benefited from greater depth of field.
>>
>>But not an interesting shot. The viewer is presented with a
>>recognizable insect on a non-recognizable plant structure. Even as an
>>exercise in depth-of-field it fails. The idea of depth-of-field
>>control is to emphasize the subject and minimize the background. In
>>this composition, the subject includes the plant - or a least the part
>>of the plant immediately around the bee - and that's fuzzy.
>
>It's one thing to say you personally like or dislike something, but it's
>rude, insulting and childish to use labels to put down other people and
>their work.
What are you on about? I didn't use any labels to put down your
photograph or the other photograph. I said nothing rude, insulting or
childish.
What is childish is over-sensititivy to criticism.
Dr. tRuth
wrote:
John, you've accidentally slipped into the nether-regions of Tao. There
weren't any labels or put-downs in his reply. Pull back John! Pull back
before it's too late!
Ooops, it is too late. John is in another universe altogether now. Let us
hope that that universe doesn't label and insult him too.
"The belief of 'thou shalt not judge' was a brilliant psychological war
ploy invented by christians. They taught it to your Pagan ancestors so they
wouldn't judge christians as christians judged them to death. In short, if
you don't judge -- you die. People who claim to not judge are hypocrites,
they judge 24 hours a day or they wouldn't be alive. "
Now ain't that a purty picher. (segue)
Bob Williams
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:35:44 -0700, Bob Williams <mytbob...@cox.net>
>> wrote in <kMR_l.9352$FI5....@newsfe12.iad>:
>>
>>> Some people LIKE the shallow depth of field effect, because it keeps
>>> mundane backgrounds from distracting the eye from the central image.
>>> In fact, one reason that many people CHOOSE a DSLR over a good P/S,
>>> is because it is much harder to get a shallow depth of field with
>>> small sensor cameras like most P/S on the market.
>>
>> Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
>> can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
>> <http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
>>
>
> Hrm. The bokeh in that shot is pretty ugly, & you can clearly see the
> cars in the background.
>
> Here's a DLSR shot with moderately shallow DoF (F4.0)(warning - large
> file):
> <http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4710.jpg>
>
Bob,
IMHO, the DOF in your image is way too shallow.
As others have observed, even the bee, which is, or should be, part of
the main subject is not in sharp focus.
In John's picture, if he WANTED to blur the auto some more, he could do
so in a few seconds with Photoshop or similar photo editor.
In your case, there is NOTHING that you or all the kings horses and all
the kings men can do to bring the bee and other parts of the cotton boll
into sharp focus.
As far as good looking bokeh is concerned, that is a concept I just
can't appreciate.
To me, any bokeh in an image is a FAULT and not a feature.
The less, the better. None at all is optimum.
Fortunately, that too can be reduced or eliminated with a little
Photoshop legerdemain.
So the Artsy crowd will not get all upset with this critique, let me
emphasize that this is just my opinion. I respect other opinions even if
I may disagree with them.
Bob Williams
tony cooper
I'm puzzled by this. The background in John's image does not seem to
me to contain bokeh. There is one spot that is the car's bumper just
below the taillight that some might consider to be bokeh, but I don't.
Certain parts of the background will show as light areas no matter
what is done.
In this image of mine, there's a circular area below the right wing.
Would you consider this to be bokeh?
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/519880382_cDdFh-L.jpg
>Fortunately, that too can be reduced or eliminated with a little
>Photoshop legerdemain.
>So the Artsy crowd will not get all upset with this critique, let me
>emphasize that this is just my opinion. I respect other opinions even if
>I may disagree with them.
>Bob Williams
John Navas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<juns35tppvq9kc163...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:15:17 -0700, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>In your personal opinion, not in mine, and not necessarily in others.
>
>Why do you feel a need to point this out? Any critique of a
>photograph is personal opinion.
Because your language and tone, pejoratives (like "fatally flawed" and
"it fails") aside, come across as a general rather than a personal
assessment. If it's really just a personal assessment you can easily
make that clear with "to me", "IMHO", etc.
>What are you on about? I didn't use any labels to put down your
>photograph or the other photograph. I said nothing rude, insulting or
>childish.
>
>What is childish is over-sensititivy to criticism.
Don't be disingenuous.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Nothing is as peevish and pedantic as men's judgments of one another." -Desiderius Erasmus
John Navas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<kbvu35t0ni02rpike...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:29:15 -0700, Bob Williams
><mytbob...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Bob Larter wrote:
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
>>>> can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
>>>> <http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
>>>
>>> Hrm. The bokeh in that shot is pretty ugly, & you can clearly see the
>>> cars in the background.
>>>
>>> Here's a DLSR shot with moderately shallow DoF (F4.0)(warning - large
>>> file):
>>> <http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4710.jpg>
>>IMHO, the DOF in your image is way too shallow.
>>As others have observed, even the bee, which is, or should be, part of
>>the main subject is not in sharp focus.
>>In John's picture, if he WANTED to blur the auto some more, he could do
>>so in a few seconds with Photoshop or similar photo editor.
>>In your case, there is NOTHING that you or all the kings horses and all
>>the kings men can do to bring the bee and other parts of the cotton boll
>>into sharp focus.
>>As far as good looking bokeh is concerned, that is a concept I just
>>can't appreciate.
>>To me, any bokeh in an image is a FAULT and not a feature.
>>The less, the better. None at all is optimum.
>
>I'm puzzled by this. The background in John's image does not seem to
>me to contain bokeh. There is one spot that is the car's bumper just
>below the taillight that some might consider to be bokeh, but I don't.
>Certain parts of the background will show as light areas no matter
>what is done.
>
>In this image of mine, there's a circular area below the right wing.
>Would you consider this to be bokeh?
>
>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/519880382_cDdFh-L.jpg
Perhaps yes, because "bokeh" is simply a term for the appearance of out
of focus point sources of light, which can take the shape of the
aperture blades in the lens (e.g., an octagon), especially in poorly
designed lenses.
The only thing close to a point source in my image is the bumper, and
the out of focus circle is smooth and round, making Bob's comment
actually pretty funny.
The bee image and your dragonfly image likewise show no undesirable
bokeh.
tony cooper
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:36:48 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
><juns35tppvq9kc163...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:15:17 -0700, John Navas
>><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>In your personal opinion, not in mine, and not necessarily in others.
>>
>>Why do you feel a need to point this out? Any critique of a
>>photograph is personal opinion.
>
>Because your language and tone, pejoratives (like "fatally flawed" and
>"it fails") aside, come across as a general rather than a personal
>assessment. If it's really just a personal assessment you can easily
>make that clear with "to me", "IMHO", etc.
I certainly don't speak for anyone else, so there's no reason to
assume that any comments of mine are a compendium of the assessment of
others. You know that. I know that.
You will never see me using "IMHO". That mealy-mouthed phrase
mitigates nothing. What I've stated is my opinion. The opinion is
neither humble nor arrogant.
>>What are you on about? I didn't use any labels to put down your
>>photograph or the other photograph. I said nothing rude, insulting or
>>childish.
>>
>>What is childish is over-sensititivy to criticism.
>
>Don't be disingenuous.
The comment was about one photograph. A photograph that is a good
exercise in depth-of-field, but one that is fatally flawed as a
composition because of the background. The same photograph, taken
from the street side, may work.
Bob Williams
I only mentioned it in response to Bob Larter's comment that the bokeh
in your was pretty ugly.
Agree that neither the bee nor the dragonfly show any discernible bokeh.
BTW. Tony, your dragonfly is killer......great shot.
Bob
John Navas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<r8nv35hnr8iug5kkf...@4ax.com>:
>The comment was about one photograph. A photograph that is a good
>exercise in depth-of-field, but one that is fatally flawed as a
>composition because of the background. The same photograph, taken
>from the street side, may work.
For you, but not for me, because the urban context was what I was trying
to capture. It would have been all too easy to make yet another pretty
flower picture as you suggest. What I wanted instead was a floral
moment in a parking lot.
There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good
photographs. ~Ansel Adams
A Ming vase can be well-designed and well-made and is beautiful for that
reason alone. I don't think this can be true for photography. Unless
there is something a little incomplete and a little strange, it will
simply look like a copy of something pretty. We won't take an interest
in it. ~John Loengard, "Pictures Under Discussion"
tony cooper
Good Lord. Are we having a Quote Off?
"Good Lord Boyet, my beauty, though but mean,
Needs not the painted flourish of your praise:
Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye,
Not utter'd by base sale of chapmen's tongues"
William Shakespeare - Love's Labor Lost
"Beauty, like supreme dominion
Is but supported by opinion"
Benjamin Franklin - Poor Richard's Almanack
"Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them."
David Hume - Moral and Political
If you wanted a floral moment in a parking lot, the correct setting
was f/16. You have "neither fish nor flesh, nor good red herring".
John Navas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<ck50455cs2p9vuukp...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:30:04 -0700, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>For you, but not for me, because the urban context was what I was trying
>>to capture. It would have been all too easy to make yet another pretty
>>flower picture as you suggest. What I wanted instead was a floral
>>moment in a parking lot.
>>
>>There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good
>>photographs. ~Ansel Adams
>>
>>A Ming vase can be well-designed and well-made and is beautiful for that
>>reason alone. I don't think this can be true for photography. Unless
>>there is something a little incomplete and a little strange, it will
>>simply look like a copy of something pretty. We won't take an interest
>>in it. ~John Loengard, "Pictures Under Discussion"
>
>Good Lord. Are we having a Quote Off?
>[SNIP irrelevant quotes]
>If you wanted a floral moment in a parking lot, the correct setting
>was f/16. You have "neither fish nor flesh, nor good red herring".
Nope, sorry, not even a good scramble.
It was just what I wanted and like, whether you like it or not.
Bob Larter
Inkjets aren't continuous tone, they use dithering.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>nospam wrote:
>> In article <4a3dd3d6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
>> <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
>>>>> convincing argument that proves this. Of course, I've never seen
>>>>> convincing argument that anything over 300 improves, either.
>>>> it depends on the image and viewing conditions.
>>>>
>>>> <http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/>
>>>>
>>>> Laser printers used to be 300 dots per inch (dpi), but evolved to 600
>>>> and even 1200 dpi. Why? People could see ragged edges on letters on 300
>>>> dpi laser printers. At 600 dpi edges appear smoother. Some can tell the
>>>> difference between 600 and 1200 dpi printers if the paper quality is
>>>> high.
>>> That's for monochrome bi-level prints. Continuous tone images are much
>>> less demanding. For example; dye-sub prints give good results at 100-150DPI.
>>
>> i find that to be extremely low, at least with ink jet printers, and
>> can easily see a difference between that and 250-300 ppi (not dpi).
>
>Inkjets aren't continuous tone, they use dithering.
Epson printers can be continuous tone for all practical purposes.
Their printers control droplet size and make use of blending to mix
colours on the paper.
Eric Stevens
John Navas
>nospam wrote:
>> In article <4a3dd3d6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
>> <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That's for monochrome bi-level prints. Continuous tone images are much
>>> less demanding. For example; dye-sub prints give good results at 100-150DPI.
>>
>> i find that to be extremely low, at least with ink jet printers, and
>> can easily see a difference between that and 250-300 ppi (not dpi).
>
>Inkjets aren't continuous tone, they use dithering.
And overlaying.
John Navas
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
<i4n0455fq6n59b9a8...@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:37:19 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>Inkjets aren't continuous tone, they use dithering.
>
>Epson printers can be continuous tone for all practical purposes.
>Their printers control droplet size and make use of blending to mix
>colours on the paper.
Not without more colors.
Eric Stevens
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:42:26 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
><i4n0455fq6n59b9a8...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:37:19 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Inkjets aren't continuous tone, they use dithering.
>>
>>Epson printers can be continuous tone for all practical purposes.
>>Their printers control droplet size and make use of blending to mix
>>colours on the paper.
>
>Not without more colors.
Eeh? You only need two colours to enable mixing.
Eric Stevens
John Navas
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
<sn7145dkeh70l91l3...@4ax.com>:
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Subtle shades of color, for
example, can't really be achieved just by mixing just intense color
inks, which is why photo printers have had to add less intense colors to
get respectable results. That is still an imperfect compromise -- these
printers can't really do full continuous tone printing.
Eric Stevens
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:23:42 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
><sn7145dkeh70l91l3...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:02:12 -0700, John Navas
>><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:42:26 +1200, Eric Stevens
>>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
>>><i4n0455fq6n59b9a8...@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:37:19 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Inkjets aren't continuous tone, they use dithering.
>>>>
>>>>Epson printers can be continuous tone for all practical purposes.
>>>>Their printers control droplet size and make use of blending to mix
>>>>colours on the paper.
>>>
>>>Not without more colors.
>>
>>Eeh? You only need two colours to enable mixing.
>
>Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Subtle shades of color, for
>example, can't really be achieved just by mixing just intense color
>inks, which is why photo printers have had to add less intense colors to
>get respectable results. That is still an imperfect compromise -- these
>printers can't really do full continuous tone printing.
Agreed. Otherwise Epson would not now be using three shades of black,
two shades of blue and two shades of magenta. Nevertheless, the
printers can also control droplet size and print overlapping drops.
They can get closer to full continuous tone printing than can an
offset printer or a LCD screen. Where they do fall short is in gamut.
Eric Stevens
Bob Larter
Stick a glossy inkjet print under a good magnifier some time.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
With the purpose of seeing what, exactly?
I'm asking not to be difficult but because I've just done what you
asked and I don't know what stage of the image forming is responsible
for what I am seeing.
Eric Stevens
John Navas
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
<elt445dcmdr7c9rmq...@4ax.com>:
Lack of continuous tone.
Eric Stevens
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:00:59 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
><elt445dcmdr7c9rmq...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:32:02 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>>> Epson printers can be continuous tone for all practical purposes.
>>>> Their printers control droplet size and make use of blending to mix
>>>> colours on the paper.
>>>
>>>Stick a glossy inkjet print under a good magnifier some time.
>>
>>With the purpose of seeing what, exactly?
>
>Lack of continuous tone.
I've had a look at two
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:00:59 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
><elt445dcmdr7c9rmq...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:32:02 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>>> Epson printers can be continuous tone for all practical purposes.
>>>> Their printers control droplet size and make use of blending to mix
>>>> colours on the paper.
>>>
>>>Stick a glossy inkjet print under a good magnifier some time.
>>
>>With the purpose of seeing what, exactly?
>
>Lack of continuous tone.
I have studied three prints on Epson 13" x 19" Premium Photo Paper
Glossy. There are two different photographs involved both taken with a
D300 set to RAW. The first photograph was of a surf beach scene and
was printed on an Epson 1800 at (I think) 1440 x 720 dpi. I could see
no evidence of discontinuous tone. That's why I asked what exactly I
should be looking for.
I had two examples of the second photograph which was a much edited
(NX2) photograph of a most spectacular sunset. Both prints were on
Epson 13" x 19" Premium Photo Paper Glossy. The first was printed by
the Epson 1800 at (I think) 1440 x 720 dpi. I could see no evidence of
discontinuous tone but I could see a mottled texture resembling noise
in the clouds. I'm not sure what caused that but I suspect excessive
editing. The second print came from an Epson 3800 still in the process
of being set up. It was also printing at 1440 x 720 and its print was
similar to the print from the 1800 but seemed more 'noisy'.
Examination of the +100% image on the screen shows that the 'noise' I
could see present in the prints was present in the edited RAW file.
I'm still puzzled as to what you think I should be seeing.
Eric Stevens
Bob Larter
That it isn't a continous tone print. You should be able to see the
dithering quite clearly.
> I'm asking not to be difficult but because I've just done what you
> asked and I don't know what stage of the image forming is responsible
> for what I am seeing.
Some combination of the printer driver & the printer firmware.
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:35:44 -0700, Bob Williams <mytbob...@cox.net>
>>> wrote in <kMR_l.9352$FI5....@newsfe12.iad>:
>>>
>>>> Some people LIKE the shallow depth of field effect, because it keeps
>>>> mundane backgrounds from distracting the eye from the central image.
>>>> In fact, one reason that many people CHOOSE a DSLR over a good P/S,
>>>> is because it is much harder to get a shallow depth of field with
>>>> small sensor cameras like most P/S on the market.
>>>
>>> Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
>>> can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
>>> <http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
>>>
>>
>> Hrm. The bokeh in that shot is pretty ugly, & you can clearly see the
>> cars in the background.
>>
>> Here's a DLSR shot with moderately shallow DoF (F4.0)(warning - large
>> file):
>> <http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4710.jpg>
Bah! - I uploaded the wrong file.
This is the good one:
<http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4708-1.jpg>
Astounded
wrote:
>Bob Williams wrote:
>> Bob Larter wrote:
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:35:44 -0700, Bob Williams <mytbob...@cox.net>
>>>> wrote in <kMR_l.9352$FI5....@newsfe12.iad>:
>>>>
>>>>> Some people LIKE the shallow depth of field effect, because it keeps
>>>>> mundane backgrounds from distracting the eye from the central image.
>>>>> In fact, one reason that many people CHOOSE a DSLR over a good P/S,
>>>>> is because it is much harder to get a shallow depth of field with
>>>>> small sensor cameras like most P/S on the market.
>>>>
>>>> Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
>>>> can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
>>>> <http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hrm. The bokeh in that shot is pretty ugly, & you can clearly see the
>>> cars in the background.
>>>
>>> Here's a DLSR shot with moderately shallow DoF (F4.0)(warning - large
>>> file):
>>> <http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4710.jpg>
>
>Bah! - I uploaded the wrong file.
>This is the good one:
><http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4708-1.jpg>
The "good" one? LOL!
Same parts of the flower are in focus. By using your machine-gun burst mode
(ContinuousDrive in EXIF) you managed to luckily get one shot where the bee
moved to where, for the most part, it's in meagerly better focus. 3 frames
before the other one that you posted, proving how your camera can't focus
on the intended subject. Proving even more how desperate snapshooters must
depend on their point and shoot machine-gun mode to hopefully get something
worth looking at one day. Even then, in this one, the parts of the flowers
closer to the lens are still more in focus than the bee. I think I'll use
your same method the next time I'm shooting elk. I'll just wait until one
comes within range. Firing continuously until one almost does, but then
gets only slightly maimed by accident from a ricochet.
Try to save face some other way. It's not working. You know nothing about
how to use DOF effectively without it totally ruining your photography, nor
how to compose any shot into something worth seeing. Even when you do it by
using your point and shoot and pray machine-gun shooting method.
Consider Hara-Kiri next time to try to save-face. It would be much simpler,
quicker, and vastly fewer would have to suffer in your attempts to do so.
(Everyone, do note the "-1" added to the filename. That means he even tried
to fix this in editing.)
Bob Larter
*yawn* That shot is an order of magnitude better than anything you've
posted, troll.
Paul Furman
With a magnifying glass:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samshian/643205009/
-not my photo, just a quick search
>> I'm asking not to be difficult but because I've just done what you
>> asked and I don't know what stage of the image forming is responsible
>> for what I am seeing.
>
> Some combination of the printer driver & the printer firmware.
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I see nothing like that with any of the hand magnifiers I have
available. Unfortunately I have recently sold my microscope. I will
try and track down another one somewhere.
>
>
>>> I'm asking not to be difficult but because I've just done what you
>>> asked and I don't know what stage of the image forming is responsible
>>> for what I am seeing.
>>
>> Some combination of the printer driver & the printer firmware.
>>
Eric Stevens