| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2004 03:59:27 PM · #51 |
or to entice you to buy the higher end lenses...?
|
|
|
|
06/06/2004 04:28:58 PM · #52 |
the way i see this challenge is up close = focus & far away = focus... i keep coming up with everthing out of focus aaahhhh
|
|
|
|
06/06/2004 04:31:15 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Chefboz:
the way i see this challenge is up close = focus & far away = focus... i keep coming up with everthing out of focus aaahhhh |
I know, I don't think just having a CONSISTENT focus throughout the DOF will be enough ... that's my worry too as I also have some JPEG "problems" to deal with for my shot, with which I'm otherwise pretty happy :( |
|
|
|
06/06/2004 04:43:30 PM · #54 |
| On such a 640 pixel image it is going to be difficult to judge ? |
|
|
|
06/06/2004 04:54:00 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by peecee:
On such a 640 pixel image it is going to be difficult to judge ? |
I think so ... |
|
|
|
06/06/2004 04:55:41 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by nborton:
i've read a bunch of different articles online about hyperfocal distance, and i have a question that isn't answered in any of the articles.
why did the lens makers stop putting markings on the lens for the hyperfocal distance? it sure would make things easier if it were still there. |
The only reason I can think of is that most newer lenses are not using manual aperture rings. |
that makes sence. |
|
|
|
06/06/2004 05:19:03 PM · #57 |
Well, I have submitted my entry,depends on how people translate the challenge, I will get slaughtered if I have misread this :)
To bed now and wake up to my results in the threes challenge.
Up to now fingers crossed, doing well, 197 votes, 6.44 and 19 very good comments.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2004 08:29:47 PM · #58 |
how large do you think the dop has to be? If I have a foreground that is 6 feet away from my lens, and a background that is 50 feet away, do you think that is enough, or do I have to have some huge landscape with a mountain or something in the back?
thanks
drake |
|
|
|
06/06/2004 09:34:46 PM · #59 |
|
|
|
06/06/2004 09:46:31 PM · #60 |
No, it's not a dumb question...I'd like to know the answer myself! :o)
I've been out shooting all afternoon, and methinks that those of us in the flatlands will have heck without all the mountainous, cavernous, and otherwise visually-intriguing landscapes in this challenge. Oh, well - life will go on! :o)
|
|
|
|
06/06/2004 09:48:36 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
No, it's not a dumb question...I'd like to know the answer myself! :o)
I've been out shooting all afternoon, and methinks that those of us in the flatlands will have heck without all the mountainous, cavernous, and otherwise visually-intriguing landscapes in this challenge. Oh, well - life will go on! :o) |
lol i see you live in texas too... |
|
|
|
06/06/2004 09:49:25 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
No, it's not a dumb question...I'd like to know the answer myself! :o)
I've been out shooting all afternoon, and methinks that those of us in the flatlands will have heck without all the mountainous, cavernous, and otherwise visually-intriguing landscapes in this challenge. Oh, well - life will go on! :o) |
lol i see you live in texas too... |
Yup...all my life!
|
|
|
|
06/06/2004 10:06:38 PM · #63 |
I don't think having an extremely distant object is necessary. What seems most important is the degree or percentage of diffference between the nearer and further subjects. Having one object in focus at eight inches and another at eight feet is more of a difference (deep DOF) than having one "subject" at eight feet and one at eighty, or one at 80 feet and the other a mile away.
My own goal (at which I think I succeeded for a change!?) was to have something very close (not quite macro) clearly identifiable, and some other stuff "pretty far" away, both in focus. I actually cropped out a far-distant tree and some nice blue sky, because I found them more of a distraction than adding to the overall "depth" of the scene. |
|
|
|
06/06/2004 10:13:29 PM · #64 |
| I don't think the DOF has to be infinite. Deep down, I think many voters treat meeting the Challenge as a yes or no prospect, then vote the photo on its own merits. A sharp, beautiful image with only 50ft between foreground and background could easily outscore a dull landscape. |
|
|
|
06/06/2004 10:14:20 PM · #65 |
I'm pretty sure I'm going to get a lot of not meeting the challenge comments, but I'm entering anyway. I like the photo! :)
|
|
|
|
06/06/2004 10:26:45 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by nborton:
i've read a bunch of different articles online about hyperfocal distance, and i have a question that isn't answered in any of the articles.
why did the lens makers stop putting markings on the lens for the hyperfocal distance? it sure would make things easier if it were still there. |
The only reason I can think of is that most newer lenses are not using manual aperture rings. |
Unless I have missed something in the past week, the hyperfocal distance is no longer the constant it was when all 35mm lenses were going to be put on a 35mm camera. Now that same full-size lense can be put on a digital camera with a sensor size much different, which causes the CoC to change and thus change the hyperfocal distance.
Inaccurate information is usually worse than no information, from a PR point of view.
David
|
|
|
|
06/06/2004 10:36:27 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Inaccurate information is usually worse than no information, from a PR point of view.
David |
It's close enuff :) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 05:26:55 PM EDT.
