Thanks, Rob and Ralph. Yes, I'm up there with the magnifier anyway. I guess the old Schneider has plenty of coverage for laying the plane of sharp focus down. I do know it's a pretty tight bellows squeeze at the bottom, which would be the far focus on my landscapes. Thanks, I know from other disciplines that even if it works anyway, I need to be thinking in terms of what's really happening. I've lost the original post, but unless I'm mixing threads, I'm now recalling John said something about architectural. He might still need the extra coverage for rise. Regards... Dick Gifford DarkroomMagic wrote: > Rob is right. An often overlooked fact. > > Regards >Ralph W. Lambrecht > >On 9/13/04 9:46 PM, "Rob Champagne" <psps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>Ah but as the focal length gets shorter and the "depth of field" gets longer >>the "depth of focus" at the film plane gets shorter so what you gain in one >>hand you lose in the other making film plane and focus accuracy critical. >> >>rob >> >>At 13/09/2004 13:29 -0500, you wrote: >>> >>>>(snipped)...And as the lens gets >>>shorter we fortunately find the depth of sharp focus >>>improving... >>>Regards... Dick Gifford >>> ============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.