What Is the Name For "Perspective" in Digital Photography?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jules Vide, Jul 14, 2006.

  1. Jules Vide

    Jules Vide Guest

    Hello. I'm going to change my screen name to AsTheCameraTurns. I
    bought a Canon PowerShot A620 two weeks ago, took it back after you
    guys told me it was no good for depth of field, bought a Kodak Z650,
    took that back because it got bad reviews from DPREVIEW, then finally
    ('cause Adorama, NYC, was offering the Canon PowerShot for $50 less
    than I paid in my superstore) bought the Canon PowerShot A620 again.

    Obviously it has no kind of image stabilization, but my sister told me
    that our Dad, a M.F.A. grad, said once that all claims of image
    stabilization are fool's gold; use a tripod.

    Well, I tried taking some photos "manually." The PowerShot just WILL
    NOT SHOOT when it decides it doesn't want to, which I suppose means
    when it decides the moron manning it has the dt's. So I set it on our
    deck rail and just shot randomly at a very baroque evening forest.
    VERY high contrast between the bright setting sun and the green leaves.


    Well, the depth of field in some pictures it decided to take is good,
    particularly if there's some large object in the frame (like a tree
    trunk); but the depth of field (or what *I* call depth of field) in
    far-off leaves is very flat. So is this what you guys meant when you
    said a 4X optical zoom wouldn't give me good focal length?
     
    Jules Vide, Jul 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jules Vide

    Stewy Guest

    In article <>,
    "Jules Vide" <> wrote:

    > Hello. I'm going to change my screen name to AsTheCameraTurns. I
    > bought a Canon PowerShot A620 two weeks ago, took it back after you
    > guys told me it was no good for depth of field, bought a Kodak Z650,
    > took that back because it got bad reviews from DPREVIEW, then finally
    > ('cause Adorama, NYC, was offering the Canon PowerShot for $50 less
    > than I paid in my superstore) bought the Canon PowerShot A620 again.
    >
    > Obviously it has no kind of image stabilization, but my sister told me
    > that our Dad, a M.F.A. grad, said once that all claims of image
    > stabilization are fool's gold; use a tripod.
    >
    > Well, I tried taking some photos "manually." The PowerShot just WILL
    > NOT SHOOT when it decides it doesn't want to, which I suppose means
    > when it decides the moron manning it has the dt's. So I set it on our
    > deck rail and just shot randomly at a very baroque evening forest.
    > VERY high contrast between the bright setting sun and the green leaves.
    >
    >
    > Well, the depth of field in some pictures it decided to take is good,
    > particularly if there's some large object in the frame (like a tree
    > trunk); but the depth of field (or what *I* call depth of field) in
    > far-off leaves is very flat. So is this what you guys meant when you
    > said a 4X optical zoom wouldn't give me good focal length?


    Have you actually read the manual?
     
    Stewy, Jul 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jules Vide wrote:

    > What Is the Name For "Perspective" in Digital Photography?


    It's still called perspective.

    > Obviously it has no kind of image stabilization, but my sister told me
    > that our Dad, a M.F.A. grad, said once that all claims of image
    > stabilization are fool's gold; use a tripod.


    Ever try and use a tripod on horseback? On a small boat?
    In a museum that bans tripods? In a park in Paris without
    a permit? (you'll be called a professional and you must get a permit)
    From an airplane?

    So your hiking down a trail, turn a corner and a bear is there
    in the middle of the trail. Do you:

    1) Take you pack off, set the pack down, and lean over
    to get out your tripod, mount the camera
    and take the picture as the bear charges at you
    after you bent over?

    2) Take a quick snapshot with your image stabilized camera
    that was hanging around your neck while you are slowly
    backing up?

    2A) Take a flash picture as the bear is about to pounce on
    you so people will know how you died.
    The bear gets startled by the flash and runs off (true
    story reported in Popular Photography a few years ago).

    3) Fall to a fetal position, play dead and hope?
    (hint: if it is a black bear, this one might get you killed.)

    ;-)

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Jules Vide

    J. Clarke Guest

    Jules Vide wrote:

    > Hello. I'm going to change my screen name to AsTheCameraTurns. I
    > bought a Canon PowerShot A620 two weeks ago, took it back after you
    > guys told me it was no good for depth of field, bought a Kodak Z650,
    > took that back because it got bad reviews from DPREVIEW, then finally
    > ('cause Adorama, NYC, was offering the Canon PowerShot for $50 less
    > than I paid in my superstore) bought the Canon PowerShot A620 again.


    Uh, no point and shoot is "good for depth of field" or all point-and-shoots
    are "good for depth of field" depending on whether you want a little of it
    or a lot of it. Changing brands unless you go to a superzoom which at long
    focal length and short range gives you a reasonably low depth of field and
    gives the same high one as other point and shoots under other conditions
    isn't going to make much difference.

    > Obviously it has no kind of image stabilization, but my sister told me
    > that our Dad, a M.F.A. grad, said once that all claims of image
    > stabilization are fool's gold; use a tripod.


    That's good advice for stationary subjects, but it's kind of hard to use a
    tripod to track a basketball game. IS works. It's not a substitute for a
    tripod, but it does work.

    > Well, I tried taking some photos "manually." The PowerShot just WILL
    > NOT SHOOT when it decides it doesn't want to, which I suppose means
    > when it decides the moron manning it has the dt's.


    If it has no IS then it has no way of knowing that it's moving. More likely
    it isn't getting focus lock.

    > So I set it on our
    > deck rail and just shot randomly at a very baroque evening forest.
    > VERY high contrast between the bright setting sun and the green leaves.
    >
    >
    > Well, the depth of field in some pictures it decided to take is good,
    > particularly if there's some large object in the frame (like a tree
    > trunk); but the depth of field (or what *I* call depth of field) in
    > far-off leaves is very flat. So is this what you guys meant when you
    > said a 4X optical zoom wouldn't give me good focal length?


    Depth of field isn't "flat" or "not flat". If everything from close to the
    camera on out is sharp then you have wide depth of field, if everything at
    a certain distance is sharp but things slightly closer or slightly farther
    away are not then you have a narrow depth of field.



    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 14, 2006
    #4
  5. On 13 Jul 2006 16:19:04 -0700, Jules Vide <> wrote:
    > Obviously it has no kind of image stabilization, but my sister told me
    > that our Dad, a M.F.A. grad, said once that all claims of image
    > stabilization are fool's gold; use a tripod.


    http://home.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/dart_stab.jpg
    http://home.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/dart_normal.jpg

    Two shots, taken in the same way except that the first had the
    stabilizer turned on, and the second had the stabilizer off. The
    difference in sharpness is pretty clear.

    The stabilizer means that you can take pictures at slower shutter speeds
    without needing a tripod. Of course, they have their limmits; a 1 second
    shot will certainly need a tripod.

    Picture info: 432 mm equivalent, 1/15s, f/3.3, no flash. The posted
    images are 100% crops from the original. Panasonic FZ5, using stabilizer
    Mode 2 for the first image, stabilizer off for the second.

    -dms
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Jul 14, 2006
    #5
  6. Jules Vide wrote:
    > Hello. I'm going to change my screen name to AsTheCameraTurns. I
    > bought a Canon PowerShot A620 two weeks ago, took it back ..
    > bought a Kodak Z650,
    > took that back
    > bought the Canon PowerShot A620 again.
    >


    I vote this one as our weekly troll.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Jul 14, 2006
    #6
  7. "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    >
    > Uh, no point and shoot is "good for depth of field" or all
    > point-and-shoots
    > are "good for depth of field" depending on whether you want a little of it
    > or a lot of it.


    It turns out that _for the same noise level and same pixel count_, there's
    absolutely no difference between a 6MP 4x5 sensor (with golf-ball-size
    pixels) and the tiniest 6MP dcam in the _maximum achievable DOF_.

    It turns out that diffraction (which limits how far you can stop down to
    increase the DOF) scales with sensor size, so that a larger format camera
    (for the same target resolution) can be stopped down much further without
    reducing sharpness.

    Furthermore, sensitivity scales in the same way, so while you need a much
    smaller aperture on the 4x5 camera, you get the same shutter speed at a far
    higher ISO (a higher ISO that gives the same signal to noise ratio as the
    P&S dcam).

    Of course, the minimum DOF is much smaller with larger format cameras.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 14, 2006
    #7
  8. Jules Vide

    Bill Guest

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

    > 1) Take you pack off, set the pack down, and lean over
    > to get out your tripod, mount the camera
    > and take the picture as the bear charges at you
    > after you bent over?
    >
    > 2) Take a quick snapshot with your image stabilized camera
    > that was hanging around your neck while you are slowly
    > backing up?
    >
    > 2A) Take a flash picture as the bear is about to pounce on
    > you so people will know how you died.
    > The bear gets startled by the flash and runs off (true
    > story reported in Popular Photography a few years ago).
    >
    > 3) Fall to a fetal position, play dead and hope?
    > (hint: if it is a black bear, this one might get you killed.)


    Phht!

    What do you know about bears? Probably never even seen one in the wild,
    right...?

    :)
     
    Bill, Jul 14, 2006
    #8
  9. Jules Vide

    J. Clarke Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:

    >
    > "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Uh, no point and shoot is "good for depth of field" or all
    >> point-and-shoots
    >> are "good for depth of field" depending on whether you want a little of
    >> it or a lot of it.

    >
    > It turns out that _for the same noise level and same pixel count_, there's
    > absolutely no difference between a 6MP 4x5 sensor (with golf-ball-size
    > pixels) and the tiniest 6MP dcam in the _maximum achievable DOF_.
    >
    > It turns out that diffraction (which limits how far you can stop down to
    > increase the DOF) scales with sensor size, so that a larger format camera
    > (for the same target resolution) can be stopped down much further without
    > reducing sharpness.
    >
    > Furthermore, sensitivity scales in the same way, so while you need a much
    > smaller aperture on the 4x5 camera, you get the same shutter speed at a
    > far higher ISO (a higher ISO that gives the same signal to noise ratio as
    > the P&S dcam).
    >
    > Of course, the minimum DOF is much smaller with larger format cameras.


    You _do_ like to argue from theory rather than practice, don't you.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 14, 2006
    #9
  10. "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Uh, no point and shoot is "good for depth of field" or all
    >>> point-and-shoots
    >>> are "good for depth of field" depending on whether you want a little of
    >>> it or a lot of it.

    >>
    >> It turns out that _for the same noise level and same pixel count_,
    >> there's
    >> absolutely no difference between a 6MP 4x5 sensor (with golf-ball-size
    >> pixels) and the tiniest 6MP dcam in the _maximum achievable DOF_.
    >>
    >> It turns out that diffraction (which limits how far you can stop down to
    >> increase the DOF) scales with sensor size, so that a larger format camera
    >> (for the same target resolution) can be stopped down much further without
    >> reducing sharpness.
    >>
    >> Furthermore, sensitivity scales in the same way, so while you need a much
    >> smaller aperture on the 4x5 camera, you get the same shutter speed at a
    >> far higher ISO (a higher ISO that gives the same signal to noise ratio as
    >> the P&S dcam).
    >>
    >> Of course, the minimum DOF is much smaller with larger format cameras.

    >
    > You _do_ like to argue from theory rather than practice, don't you.


    Yes, but this works in practice; f/16 on the 5D at ISO 800 will look very
    much like f/5.6 at ISO 100 on a P&S dcam in terms of both DOF and shutter
    speed. And current P&S dcams are seeing more damage from diffraction at
    f/5.6 than the 5D does at f/16.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 14, 2006
    #10
  11. Jules Vide

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    > Jules Vide wrote:
    >
    > > What Is the Name For "Perspective" in Digital Photography?

    >
    > It's still called perspective.
    >
    >> Obviously it has no kind of image stabilization, but my sister told me
    >> that our Dad, a M.F.A. grad, said once that all claims of image
    >> stabilization are fool's gold; use a tripod.

    >
    > Ever try and use a tripod on horseback? On a small boat?
    > In a museum that bans tripods? In a park in Paris without
    > a permit? (you'll be called a professional and you must get a permit)
    > From an airplane?
    >
    > So your hiking down a trail, turn a corner and a bear is there
    > in the middle of the trail. Do you:
    >
    > 1) Take you pack off, set the pack down, and lean over
    > to get out your tripod, mount the camera
    > and take the picture as the bear charges at you
    > after you bent over?
    >
    > 2) Take a quick snapshot with your image stabilized camera
    > that was hanging around your neck while you are slowly
    > backing up?
    >
    > 2A) Take a flash picture as the bear is about to pounce on
    > you so people will know how you died.
    > The bear gets startled by the flash and runs off (true
    > story reported in Popular Photography a few years ago).
    >
    > 3) Fall to a fetal position, play dead and hope?
    > (hint: if it is a black bear, this one might get you killed.)
    >
    > ;-)
    >
    > Roger


    Number 3, without a doubt, probably because I fainted. In any case,
    your chances of survival aren't all that good.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 14, 2006
    #11
  12. Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    : Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    : >
    : > So your hiking down a trail, turn a corner and a bear is there
    : > in the middle of the trail. Do you:
    : >
    : > 3) Fall to a fetal position, play dead and hope?
    : > (hint: if it is a black bear, this one might get you killed.)
    : >
    : > ;-)

    Reminds me of the old joke my cousin (a former National Park Ranger) told
    me. How do you tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly
    bear? Slap it and climb a tree. If it comes up after you, its a black
    bear. If it shakes you down, its a grizzly. :)

    To the prior point, counting on IS to completely replace a tripod is a bad
    idea. Just as bad is to count on a tripod to be as effective or useable in
    all situations as IS. Depending on the user and the types of photographs
    the photographer is looking to take, IS may be more useful to some people
    than others. Also it is one more "gadget" that may confuse those who are
    easily overwhelmed. And it could conceivably add to the "button press to
    image capture" delay that many find upsetting. That last will depend on
    how the IS is implemented. Having no direct evidence I can't say for sure.
    But if the IS is physically implemented after the auto focus, it COULD
    make the delay worse. IMHO. On the other hand, as mentioned (with tongue
    in cheek) above, in some situations IS is definately the best, or only,
    way to go.

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
     
    Randy Berbaum, Jul 14, 2006
    #12
  13. Jules Vide

    Neil Guest

    In message <e97ki1$arq$>, Randy Berbaum
    <> writes
    >
    >Reminds me of the old joke my cousin (a former National Park Ranger) told
    >me. How do you tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly
    >bear? Slap it and climb a tree. If it comes up after you, its a black
    >bear. If it shakes you down, its a grizzly. :)
    >


    The other old bear joke is:

    The Forest Service has issued a bear warning in the national forests for
    this summer. They're urging everyone to protect themselves by wearing
    bells and carrying pepper spray.

    Campers should be alert for signs of fresh bear activity, and they
    should be able to tell the difference between Black Bear dung and
    Grizzly Bear dung.

    Black Bear dung is rather small and round. Sometimes you can see fruit
    seeds and/or squirrel fur in it.

    Grizzly Bear dung has bells in it, and smells like pepper spray.

    Regards
    --
    Neil Pugh
     
    Neil, Jul 14, 2006
    #13
  14. In article <5rDtg.35686$>, Joseph Meehan
    wrote:
    > > Hello. I'm going to change my screen name to AsTheCameraTurns...

    >
    > I vote this one as our weekly troll.


    Seconded. :cool:

    Roger
     
    Roger Whitehead, Jul 14, 2006
    #14
  15. Jules Vide

    Guest

    Jules Vide wrote:
    > Hello. I'm going to change my screen name to AsTheCameraTurns.
    > ...took it back after you guys told me it was no good...
    > ...took that back because it got bad reviews
    > ...but my sister told me that our Dad said once...


    But my brother's friend's cousin once had a mate who...

    > ...The PowerShot just WILL NOT SHOOT


    RTFM.

    > ... I suppose .. it decides the moron manning it...


    Got that right..

    > ... just shot randomly at a very baroque evening forest.


    Puts a lot of thought into *all* his work, doesn't he..

    > ...but the depth of field (or what *I* call depth of field) in
    > far-off leaves is very flat.


    Uhuh. Far off leaves, and they are 'flat'. And he's talking about
    depth of field. Yep, right, that's all pretty clear. ?????

    > So is this what you guys meant when you
    > said a 4X optical zoom wouldn't give me good focal length?



    Not a (expletive deleted) clue.

    But at least he will always be able to blame 'us', his equipment,
    dpreview, his sister and his dad for the fact that his images will
    *always* be crap. (O;


    I note he has not returned. And yep, I'm probably replying to a troll
    post, but I'm bored..
     
    , Jul 14, 2006
    #15
  16. Jules Vide

    Jules Vide Guest

    wrote:

    > Uhuh. Far off leaves, and they are 'flat'. And he's talking about
    > depth of field. Yep, right, that's all pretty clear. ?????


    No, I'm not a troll. Several posters here have been extremely generous
    to me the past few weeks, speaking in laymen's terms about a subject
    that to someone unacquainted with the lingo can be extremely
    complicated. I've returned here (in a friendly way, I might add, not
    in the haranguing tone of a troll) to ask how to articulate the problem
    I have with a low-end camera. Mr. Clarke, for example, helped me
    articulate what I posted about.

    (I wish I were affluent like you, Mr. Meehan, et al, and could afford a
    variety of cameras to take shots of black bears who chase me in
    national forests. I can't and so take the risk of posting on Usenet,
    where (according to the time stamp of posts) you often meet rude and
    disrespectful posters, just as you do in bars.)

    I also don't know too many trolls who act on advice from strangers.
    That I ended up buying the A620 again has to do with what the
    collective wisdom of rec.photo.digital advised (by referring me to
    dpreview).

    To return to the subject of this thread, I therefore conclude that no
    cheap (I'm getting tired of the euphemism "low-end") camera will take
    consistently "three-dimensional" pictures. Thank you to those posters
    who saw fit to explain it without resorting to insulting or ignoring my
    original question.
     
    Jules Vide, Jul 14, 2006
    #16
  17. Neil <> wrote:
    >In message <e97ki1$arq$>, Randy Berbaum
    ><> writes
    >>
    >>Reminds me of the old joke my cousin (a former National Park Ranger) told
    >>me. How do you tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly
    >>bear? Slap it and climb a tree. If it comes up after you, its a black
    >>bear. If it shakes you down, its a grizzly. :)
    >>

    >
    >The other old bear joke is:
    >
    >The Forest Service has issued a bear warning in the national
    >forests for this summer. They're urging everyone to protect
    >themselves by wearing bells and carrying pepper spray.
    >
    >Campers should be alert for signs of fresh bear activity, and
    >they should be able to tell the difference between Black Bear
    >dung and Grizzly Bear dung.
    >
    >Black Bear dung is rather small and round. Sometimes you can see
    >fruit seeds and/or squirrel fur in it.
    >
    >Grizzly Bear dung has bells in it, and smells like pepper spray.


    This is all true, of course.

    However, there are easy ways to protect yourself from bears.
    The "Buddy System" is the easiest to implement, requiring only a
    small caliber .22 pistol and a buddy to be your constant hiking
    companion. Additional accessories are optional.

    If you are ever attacked by a bear it is 4 step proceedure:

    1. Yell
    2. Pull the .22 pistol from your pocket
    3. Shoot your buddy in the leg, and
    4. Then run like Hell.

    Optionally you may want to have a good pair of tennis shoes or
    even running shoes to wear when in bear country; however, that
    does tend to tip off acquantances, hence it is an optional
    accessory that should be used with caution.

    Also, you must *never* disclose to anyone that you own or use
    a .22 caliber weapon for bear protection.

    Depending on just how smart your buddies aren't, you might
    actually use a Magnum caliber pistol and wear it openly. The
    problem of course is the weight of the weapon and smart buddies
    mean you have to use a .22 and hide it. But average dummies
    might accept an openly carried .44 Mag if you can deal with
    carrying the weight around, and for real first class idiots you
    could even substitute a small .357.

    If you can't find a buddy, you'll have to carry a shotgun with
    slugs or a large caliber rifle, and shoot the bear instead.
    This is not recommended, however, because it takes *so* damned
    long to fill out the paperwork.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jul 14, 2006
    #17
  18. Bill wrote:

    > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    >
    >
    >> 1) Take you pack off, set the pack down, and lean over
    >> to get out your tripod, mount the camera
    >> and take the picture as the bear charges at you
    >> after you bent over?
    >>
    >> 2) Take a quick snapshot with your image stabilized camera
    >> that was hanging around your neck while you are slowly
    >> backing up?
    >>
    >> 2A) Take a flash picture as the bear is about to pounce on
    >> you so people will know how you died.
    >> The bear gets startled by the flash and runs off (true
    >> story reported in Popular Photography a few years ago).
    >>
    >> 3) Fall to a fetal position, play dead and hope?
    >> (hint: if it is a black bear, this one might get you killed.)

    >
    >
    > Phht!
    >
    > What do you know about bears? Probably never even seen one in the wild,
    > right...?
    >
    > :)

    See:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 14, 2006
    #18
  19. Randy Berbaum wrote:

    > To the prior point, counting on IS to completely replace a tripod is a bad
    > idea. Just as bad is to count on a tripod to be as effective or useable in
    > all situations as IS. Depending on the user and the types of photographs
    > the photographer is looking to take, IS may be more useful to some people
    > than others. Also it is one more "gadget" that may confuse those who are
    > easily overwhelmed. And it could conceivably add to the "button press to
    > image capture" delay that many find upsetting. That last will depend on
    > how the IS is implemented. Having no direct evidence I can't say for sure.
    > But if the IS is physically implemented after the auto focus, it COULD
    > make the delay worse. IMHO. On the other hand, as mentioned (with tongue
    > in cheek) above, in some situations IS is definately the best, or only,
    > way to go.


    I don't know about all cameras, but on Canon SLRs/DSLRs, IS does
    no cause any delay. In fact, the cameras and lenses are top
    performers in wildlife action and sports. The fastest DSLR
    on the market, last time I saw data, is the Canon 1D Mark II.
    With extremely fast auto focusing, a lens does
    not change autofocus speed whether IS is on or off.
    As son as you push the shutter button half way, then autofocus
    turns on, and stays on continuously. The only delay would
    be from the cold start, for which I have never noticed an
    excessive delay with my 1D Mark II when photographing action.
    When you have a football game (or soccer or US football),
    notice the photographers with the big lenses. The white
    lenses are Canon's, almost all image stabilized. I use my
    telephotos, e.g. 500 mm f/4 L IS, on a tripod with
    IS on when going wildlife. E.g., see bird and bear photos at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 14, 2006
    #19
  20. Jules Vide

    jeremy Guest

    "Jules Vide" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Well, the depth of field in some pictures it decided to take is good,
    > particularly if there's some large object in the frame (like a tree
    > trunk); but the depth of field (or what *I* call depth of field) in
    > far-off leaves is very flat. So is this what you guys meant when you
    > said a 4X optical zoom wouldn't give me good focal length?
    >


    I'd like to respond to your question, but there is too much ambiguity in the
    way you posed it. "Depth-of-field" describes how much of the scene remains
    in sharp focus. Shooting with the lens at maximum aperture typically
    results in "shallow depth-of-field."

    Is that what you are referring to? If your camera sets the aperture for
    you, then you have little control over this. If you are shooting
    landscapes, for example, you would typically want maximum depth-of-field, so
    everything in the shot is in sharp focus. On a manual camera, the way to
    accomplish this would be to stop down the lens, and compensate for the
    reduction in light by slowing down the shutter speed to let more light in
    (this usually requires a tripod, to avoid camera shake).

    In contrast, if you are taking a portrait, and you want to visually isolate
    the subject from the background, you would open the aperture up wide, to
    blur the background, and you would speed up the shutter to get the correct
    exposure.

    Most automatic consumer cameras do not allow you to select your own aperture
    choice, and you end up with whatever the camera sets. That is the major
    reason that I don't use P&S cameras for any work where I want maximum
    control.

    Some P&S cameras offer "shooting modes," where you can instruct the camera
    to take portraits, action shots, etc., but you don't have full control.

    I cannot be more specific in my response until you use correct terminology
    and describe what you are having a problem with. You may have meant
    something other than "depth-of-field" in your original post.
     
    jeremy, Jul 14, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Robert Feinman

    Film vs digital costs - another perspective

    Robert Feinman, Dec 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    53
    Views:
    1,089
    Rafe B.
    Dec 28, 2003
  2. gene ohara

    Image Perspective Software?

    gene ohara, Jan 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    449
    Robert Feinman
    Jan 12, 2004
  3. jaekim

    Future photo shop business perspective

    jaekim, Jun 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    504
    bagal
    Jun 10, 2004
  4. Robo-man
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    344
    Robo-man
    May 3, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,183
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page