On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > On 9/19/2011 6:14 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> I find the essayist's snoopy metaphor silly and demeaning. And while he >> admits to an Adams renaissance, t's clear that he doesn't understand the >> artistry of Adams' work and how he was able to bend light in the darkroom to >> idealize a scene. He seems dismissive of the zone system, a a way of working >> that redefined photographic excellence. The writer continues to demonstrate >> his lack of photographic knowledge in asserting that an f64 aperture results >> in both optimum depth of field and clarity. Depth of field, yes. Clarity, no. > Doesn't that depend on the focal length? Whether you're using a 6mm lens on > a point and shoot, 30mm on an APS, 50mm on a 35mm, or 300mm on an 8x10?
Yes it does. But even on a "normal" 300 mm lens for 8x10, f64 is a small ap and will cause diffusion. It's definitely not optimum in that regard. > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
