[pure-silver] Re: Depth of Field (35mm vs. 4x5 or 8x10)
- From: "Gene Johnson" <genej2@xxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:36:02 -0700
1600mm? You sure about that Jim? I was thinking more like 400. He used a
100mm on his 35mm camera
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Brick" <jim@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 3:42 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Depth of Field (35mm vs. 4x5 or 8x10)
> At 12:21 PM 10/29/2004, DarkroomMagic wrote:
>
>
> >This will change the perspective, and I understood that he wanted to keep
> >that.
>
>
> Correct. You would have to use approximately a 1600mm lens and shoot
> alongside the 35mm camera to fill the 4x5 frame with the same image that
> fills the 35mm frame, and keep the same perspective. And you still lose ~
> four stops of DOF.
>
> Depending upon the subject matter, the number and type of focus planes,
> swings and tilts can gain back some of the lost DOF. But one should never
> forget that if you use a swing or tilt to gain DOF in one direction (x
> axis,) you lose the same amount in the perpendicular direction (y axis.)
>
> There's no free lunch!
>
> :-)
>
> Jim
>
>
============================================================================
=================================
> 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.
>
=============================================================================================================
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.
Other related posts:
