Aperture question

[timor]

I am sorry. But going back through the last 20 posts or so and the breakneck give and take, this thread is kind of really funny.

Agree. I try to contribute to it.

 

[Rollei12]

I guess for right now I'll keep things simple. Just have landscapes all in focus

 

[compur]

MLU ? Wait, FM2 doesn't have it.

Actually you can lock up the mirror on an FM2. Just use the self-timer and the mirror locks up for release.

 

[timor]

MLU ? Wait, FM2 doesn't have it.

Actually you can lock up the mirror on an FM2. Just use the self-timer and the mirror locks up for release.

Thanks. OK, so it has mlu. In specs mirror is listed as not lockable.

 

[timor]

I guess for right now I'll keep things simple. Just have landscapes all in focus

Lens as an optical system can focus only one distance. Having all "in focus" is a physical impossibility so this term "all in focus" is wrong. I know, everybody repeats it, it doesn't make it right of true. It is a nonsense which actually doesn't help with understanding the idea of depth of field and perceived sharpness.

 

[Buckster]

Hyperfocal.

I guess for right now I'll keep things simple. Just have landscapes all in focus

Lens as an optical system can focus only one distance. Having all "in focus" is a physical impossibility so this term "all in focus" is wrong. I know, everybody repeats it, it doesn't make it right of true. It is a nonsense which actually doesn't help with understanding the idea of depth of field and perceived sharpness.

Hyperfocal.

 

[photoguy99]

Timor is trying to distinguish between 'in focus' and 'sufficiently close to in focus to look sharp'. These are different and a technical understanding of dof demands that you understand this.

Hyperfocal distance, being a special case of dof, is just another example of the latter.

This sort of thing is why I increasingly advocate for non technical explanations. Experiment and look. It's infinitely faster, it's immediately comprehensible, and ultimately it's what you need to do anyways.

 

[Buckster]

Timor is trying to distinguish between 'in focus' and 'sufficiently close to in focus to look sharp'. These are different and a technical understanding of dof demands that you understand this.

Hyperfocal distance, being a special case of dof, is just another example of the latter.

This sort of thing is why I increasingly advocate for non technical explanations. Experiment and look. It's infinitely faster, it's immediately comprehensible, and ultimately it's what you need to do anyways.

When it's all said and done, "sufficiently close to in focus to look sharp" is all that REALLY matters.

The constant picking of nits around here is ridiculous.

 

[photoguy99]

So you to advocate a non technical explanation! Good on ya. I agree!

 

[Buckster]

So you to advocate a non technical explanation! Good on ya. I agree!

I advocate imparting a practical understanding, especially to the new photographers who frequent this forum and ask questions of us.

The OP simply wanted to know why when focusing on a tree 200 ft away with a wide open aperture, the background behind it wasn't thrown out of focus as he thought it would. My explanation to him about the DOF was that he'd need to focus closer than the tree so that the tree itself would be at the furthest practical focus area in the DOF. Then I gave one practical way to focus on that closer place to do it, a method I myself actually use.

And then the naysayers had to jump in with their picking of nits; Naysayers who evidently haven't even tried the method themselves, since they don't have the equipment and couldn't understand for the life of them how to work it out, so they had to try to poopoo all over it, which is a whole 'nuther thing about this forum that's all too prevalent.

 

[Dave442]

So now I know going out shooting with Buck is like playing golf with my dad, every few shots and he is looking through the laser rangefinder. Now I can justify a laser rangefinder between photography and golf.

 

[Buckster]

So now I know going out shooting with Buck is like playing golf with my dad, every few shots and he is looking through the laser rangefinder. Now I can justify a laser rangefinder between photography and golf.

If you want to make the shot, use the available tools.

 

[photoguy99]

Experienced golfers just look and know. Their ability to judge distances can be eerie.

 

[Buckster]

Experienced golfers just look and know. Their ability to judge distances can be eerie.

Cool. Now let's relate that to photography, which is what this is all about, after all.

You bill yourself as an experienced photographer. Can you just look at a scene and say, "that tree is 200' away. At f/3.5 at 55mm on this full frame camera, if I want to put that tree at the furthest end of my acceptable DOF, I'll need to focus at 64', which is riiiiight.... there. Click."

I've been shooting for over 40 years, and certainly call myself "experienced", but I freely admit that I certainly can't do it, and don't personally know any photographers who can.

 

[photoguy99]

Your loins are girded for battle, buck, it no longer matters what I say, you will attack.

Bye.