http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com...hread=22669914

Each photo is 500 KB to 700 KB.

Just excellent.

--Winston

Winston fired this volley in
:

http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com...hread=22669914

Each photo is 500 KB to 700 KB.

Just excellent.

I think it's important to repeat what someone else wrote earlier, and to
make another point.

1) The "excellent" pictures you're viewing are in greatly-reduced-
resolution digital representations of the real 4x5 transparencies.

2) The excellence comes from exquisitely skilled lighting, composition,
and framing, along with appropriate selection of subjects. Anybody with
a 10Mp camera can produce pictures with that _clarity_, but most wouldn't
likely be able to convey the _message_ with that clarity.

LLoyd

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:51:32 -0700, Winston
wrote:

http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com...hread=22669914

Each photo is 500 KB to 700 KB.


Check out the photo captioned (about number 26 down the page):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"October 1942. "Thousands of North American Aviation employees at
Inglewood, California, look skyward as the bomber and fighter planes
they helped build perform overhead during a lunch period air show.
This plant produces the battle-tested B-25 'Billy Mitchell' bomber,
used in General Doolittle's raid on Tokyo, and the P-51 'Mustang'
fighter plane, which was first brought into prominence by the British
raid on Dieppe."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lots of black bags under those folks' eyes. They look like they are
busting ass working long hours on not much sleep. Factory probably
going non-stop 24/7.
Dave

What struck me, not many of them looking skyward.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:51:32 -0700, Winston
wrote:

http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com...hread=22669914

Each photo is 500 KB to 700 KB.


Check out the photo captioned (about number 26 down the page):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"October 1942. "Thousands of North American Aviation employees at
Inglewood, California, look skyward as the bomber and fighter planes
they helped build perform overhead during a lunch period air show.
This plant produces the battle-tested B-25 'Billy Mitchell' bomber,
used in General Doolittle's raid on Tokyo, and the P-51 'Mustang'
fighter plane, which was first brought into prominence by the British
raid on Dieppe."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lots of black bags under those folks' eyes. They look like they are
busting ass working long hours on not much sleep. Factory probably
going non-stop 24/7.
Dave

On Mar 19, 8:48*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
What struck me, not many of them looking skyward.

Even in 1942, they were probably smart enough to not do the show
directly above all those workers they needed... Many do seem to be
looking up at a low angle, but then again, most of the other pictures
were clearly "posed" for so the photographer may have just said "hey,
everyone look over there!"

fired this volley in
:

sorry, I disagree, you would not be able to do the same quality with
a 10Mp camera, take those shots with the 4x5 and a 10mp put them side
by side, you would not have that depth

Are you brain dead, or do you intentionally refuse to read what people
write before you post, just so you can appear stupid?

Depth? Do you have any idea what that means? Did you mean dynamic
range? Did you mean depth of field? Did you even care before you
spouted an "artistic-sounding" word? (yeah... I know... go Google the
terms, then come back and post something like you knew all along)

The pictures YOU saw were not 4x5 transparencies, they were highly
reduced-resolution digitals... In some cases, you saw digital versions
of even less quality than a decent 5MP camera would produce...

Twit!

LLoyd

fired this volley in
:

ok Llyod Mr Know it all, I did not realize one had to use exact terms,
phrases when speaking to someone who supposedly knows something about
photography which you said you or think you do.

but seeing how you can not seem to make a point without being ignorant, I
won't waste me time with you any further than this dip****.

In other words, you had no idea what I wrote. G

LLoyd

fired this volley in
:

in other words you had to spend a ton of time looking up photography
to be able to try and make yourself feel better than someone else,
your wrong plain and simple

I guess that's why I had a darkroom with a Simmon-Omega enlarger with 4x5
condensors AND a color head, Heath "color canoe" for E6, the whole gamut
of PolyContrast-II filters and papers, and did it for about 25 years...

But other than that, yeah... I had to look up a LOT of stuff...

Like this... You didn't SEE any film there, dunce! You saw a reduced-
resolution digital copy of the film. Yet, you make the silly-assed
comment that the pictures had more "depth" than digital would.

It WAS digital. Durrrrrruuh!

Lloyd

Winston wrote:

http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com...hread=22669914

Each photo is 500 KB to 700 KB.

Just excellent.

--Winston

That was worth the time I spent viewing it. From a time when exposing a 4x5 sheet of
color film was expensive enough to warrant spending the time to get composition and
lighting correct.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

wrote:

sorry, I disagree, you would not be able to do the same quality with a 10Mp
camera, take those shots with the 4x5 and a 10mp put them side by side, you
would not have that depth

Most digicams don't work well with high numerical f stops. Thus, properly lighted, a 4x5
camera will have greater depth of field than a digicam. It was one of the first things I
learned when I went with compact digital cameras.

Some day, I'd like to own a DSLR with a 24x36 mm sensor, then what I learned on will be
relevant again.

Just my opinion,

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:16:14 -0400, Wes
wrote:

wrote:

sorry, I disagree, you would not be able to do the same quality with a 10Mp
camera, take those shots with the 4x5 and a 10mp put them side by side, you
would not have that depth

Most digicams don't work well with high numerical f stops. Thus, properly lighted, a 4x5
camera will have greater depth of field than a digicam. It was one of the first things I
learned when I went with compact digital cameras.

Wes, as a guy with two 4x5 cameras and 15 magazine covers behind me,
you'll have one hell of a time getting a lot of depth of field with a
4x5. When I've had to, it's been f/64 and use the swings and tilts.
I've also used an 8x10 Calumet for some trade-show Translites for
Casio. That sucker really shows you how depth of field disappears with
large sheet film.

When someone talks about "depth" in photography, I think of the things
that give the impression of actual, physical depth. Others have
pointed to expert lighting, and that's a big part of it. Kodachrome
also has (had) a slight inherent edge effect, which gives the
impression of more depth. And people like me, who made his living for
a while silver-masking Kodachrome slides, can tell you about another
edge effect. Or you can use Unsharp Masking in Photoshop and get
almost the same thing.

Anyway, it's there. But it's probably all lost in conversion to a
moderate-res digital copy for the Web. You'd have to blow it up and
look really close.

--
Ed Huntress


Some day, I'd like to own a DSLR with a 24x36 mm sensor, then what I learned on will be
relevant again.

Just my opinion,

Wes

fired this volley in news:vemkm7ptib8p0vtth4t1509klhtt9tldrn@
4ax.com:

what the **** I guess your jealous you can't shoot that good!

Oh... NOW you're agreeing that maybe it was the photographer who made those
superb pictures, and not the medium. How convenient for you to change your
argument 180-degrees! Amazing, considering that was my original point to
which you posted your blathering innanities.

Twit. (no... ****!)

LLoyd

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

When I've had to, it's been f/64 and use the swings and tilts.
I've also used an 8x10 Calumet for some trade-show Translites for
Casio. That sucker really shows you how depth of field disappears with
large sheet film.


Yeah... I had a Press Graffix 4x5 with a film-pack back.

It could do some sweet portrait work, though!

Lloyd

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:02:40 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

When I've had to, it's been f/64 and use the swings and tilts.
I've also used an 8x10 Calumet for some trade-show Translites for
Casio. That sucker really shows you how depth of field disappears with
large sheet film.


Yeah... I had a Press Graffix 4x5 with a film-pack back.

It could do some sweet portrait work, though!

Lloyd

You have more patience than I do. I used my Speed Graphic for some
in-the-field shots for American Machinist, but I shot covers with a
Calumet 4x5 monorail. They were mostly tricky machine shots -- often
multiple exposures -- which the shutters excelled at. And I did a lot
of tabletop work for McGraw-Hill book company, freelance, before the
M-H publications company hired me.

But silver-masking actually paid better. It was a pretty obscure
darkroom skill, and I had work coming out my ears. Again, that was
when I was first freelancing.

When I ended that period, my wife says my eyes had shrunk to little
dots from spending full days in the darkroom. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:00:14 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

fired this volley in news:vemkm7ptib8p0vtth4t1509klhtt9tldrn@
4ax.com:

Time for a twit filter, Lloyd.

--
Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.
-- Jimi Hendrix

Larry Jaques fired this volley in
:


Time for a twit filter, Lloyd.

ayup!

In article , huntres23
@optonline.net says...

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:16:14 -0400, Wes
wrote:

wrote:

sorry, I disagree, you would not be able to do the same quality with a 10Mp
camera, take those shots with the 4x5 and a 10mp put them side by side, you
would not have that depth

Most digicams don't work well with high numerical f stops. Thus, properly lighted, a 4x5
camera will have greater depth of field than a digicam. It was one of the first things I
learned when I went with compact digital cameras.

Wes, as a guy with two 4x5 cameras and 15 magazine covers behind me,
you'll have one hell of a time getting a lot of depth of field with a
4x5. When I've had to, it's been f/64 and use the swings and tilts.
I've also used an 8x10 Calumet for some trade-show Translites for
Casio. That sucker really shows you how depth of field disappears with
large sheet film.

When someone talks about "depth" in photography, I think of the things
that give the impression of actual, physical depth. Others have
pointed to expert lighting, and that's a big part of it. Kodachrome
also has (had) a slight inherent edge effect, which gives the
impression of more depth. And people like me, who made his living for
a while silver-masking Kodachrome slides, can tell you about another
edge effect. Or you can use Unsharp Masking in Photoshop and get
almost the same thing.

Anyway, it's there. But it's probably all lost in conversion to a
moderate-res digital copy for the Web. You'd have to blow it up and
look really close.

Dunno where the killfile resident gets the idea that digital cameras
don't work well at high f stops. My 30d works very nicely at any f stop
that any of my lenses can achieve. On the other hand, the performance
of the lenses is compromised by diffraction at small apertures, but that
affects any type of sensor.

But if you want a mighty ****load of depth of field, go for one of the
little point-and-shoots.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:12:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , huntres23
says...

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:16:14 -0400, Wes
wrote:

wrote:

sorry, I disagree, you would not be able to do the same quality with a 10Mp
camera, take those shots with the 4x5 and a 10mp put them side by side, you
would not have that depth

Most digicams don't work well with high numerical f stops. Thus, properly lighted, a 4x5
camera will have greater depth of field than a digicam. It was one of the first things I
learned when I went with compact digital cameras.

Wes, as a guy with two 4x5 cameras and 15 magazine covers behind me,
you'll have one hell of a time getting a lot of depth of field with a
4x5. When I've had to, it's been f/64 and use the swings and tilts.
I've also used an 8x10 Calumet for some trade-show Translites for
Casio. That sucker really shows you how depth of field disappears with
large sheet film.

When someone talks about "depth" in photography, I think of the things
that give the impression of actual, physical depth. Others have
pointed to expert lighting, and that's a big part of it. Kodachrome
also has (had) a slight inherent edge effect, which gives the
impression of more depth. And people like me, who made his living for
a while silver-masking Kodachrome slides, can tell you about another
edge effect. Or you can use Unsharp Masking in Photoshop and get
almost the same thing.

Anyway, it's there. But it's probably all lost in conversion to a
moderate-res digital copy for the Web. You'd have to blow it up and
look really close.

Dunno where the killfile resident gets the idea that digital cameras
don't work well at high f stops. My 30d works very nicely at any f stop
that any of my lenses can achieve. On the other hand, the performance
of the lenses is compromised by diffraction at small apertures, but that
affects any type of sensor.

But if you want a mighty ****load of depth of field, go for one of the
little point-and-shoots.

My cell phone does well at that, too. d8-)

I sent Wes a photo I shot with my crappy cell phone (a dumb phone, not
a smart one) a couple of years ago. It has even sharpness from the
right pectoral fin of the bluefish all the way to Staten Island.

It must have a teeny little sensor but a little unsharp masking makes
the fish pop pretty well.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:12:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , huntres23
says...

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:16:14 -0400, Wes
wrote:

wrote:

sorry, I disagree, you would not be able to do the same quality with
a 10Mp
camera, take those shots with the 4x5 and a 10mp put them side by
side, you
would not have that depth

Most digicams don't work well with high numerical f stops. Thus,
properly lighted, a 4x5
camera will have greater depth of field than a digicam. It was one of
the first things I
learned when I went with compact digital cameras.

Wes, as a guy with two 4x5 cameras and 15 magazine covers behind me,
you'll have one hell of a time getting a lot of depth of field with a
4x5. When I've had to, it's been f/64 and use the swings and tilts.
I've also used an 8x10 Calumet for some trade-show Translites for
Casio. That sucker really shows you how depth of field disappears with
large sheet film.

When someone talks about "depth" in photography, I think of the things
that give the impression of actual, physical depth. Others have
pointed to expert lighting, and that's a big part of it. Kodachrome
also has (had) a slight inherent edge effect, which gives the
impression of more depth. And people like me, who made his living for
a while silver-masking Kodachrome slides, can tell you about another
edge effect. Or you can use Unsharp Masking in Photoshop and get
almost the same thing.

Anyway, it's there. But it's probably all lost in conversion to a
moderate-res digital copy for the Web. You'd have to blow it up and
look really close.

Dunno where the killfile resident gets the idea that digital cameras
don't work well at high f stops. My 30d works very nicely at any f stop
that any of my lenses can achieve. On the other hand, the performance
of the lenses is compromised by diffraction at small apertures, but that
affects any type of sensor.

But if you want a mighty ****load of depth of field, go for one of the
little point-and-shoots.

My cell phone does well at that, too. d8-)

I sent Wes a photo I shot with my crappy cell phone (a dumb phone, not
a smart one) a couple of years ago. It has even sharpness from the
right pectoral fin of the bluefish all the way to Staten Island.

It must have a teeny little sensor but a little unsharp masking makes
the fish pop pretty well.

--
Ed Huntress

As a designer of lenses, I hope I can give some insight into why a point and
shoot almost always has larger DOF than a 4X5. The DOF (in most
photographic situations) is proportional to the focal length divided by the
F/#, in other words the inverse of the entrance pupil diameter. If the
point and shoot and 4X5 have the same field of view, the small sensor in the
point & shoot would need a lens focal length that is perhaps 1/20 as long.
To match the point and shoot DOF at F/5, the 4X5 would have to be stopped
down to F/100

I have seen some great shots taken with tiny f.l. endoscope lenses that show
sharply focused insects in the foreground and large trees in the distance.

It is also true, BTW, that the small pixels in small digital sensors require
some fairly fast f/#s to make the diffraction limit not noticeable. The
iPhone 4S camera, for example, is F/2.4 and has 1.4 micron pixels.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:05:43 -0700, "anorton"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:12:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , huntres23
says...

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:16:14 -0400, Wes
wrote:

wrote:

sorry, I disagree, you would not be able to do the same quality with
a 10Mp
camera, take those shots with the 4x5 and a 10mp put them side by
side, you
would not have that depth

Most digicams don't work well with high numerical f stops. Thus,
properly lighted, a 4x5
camera will have greater depth of field than a digicam. It was one of
the first things I
learned when I went with compact digital cameras.

Wes, as a guy with two 4x5 cameras and 15 magazine covers behind me,
you'll have one hell of a time getting a lot of depth of field with a
4x5. When I've had to, it's been f/64 and use the swings and tilts.
I've also used an 8x10 Calumet for some trade-show Translites for
Casio. That sucker really shows you how depth of field disappears with
large sheet film.

When someone talks about "depth" in photography, I think of the things
that give the impression of actual, physical depth. Others have
pointed to expert lighting, and that's a big part of it. Kodachrome
also has (had) a slight inherent edge effect, which gives the
impression of more depth. And people like me, who made his living for
a while silver-masking Kodachrome slides, can tell you about another
edge effect. Or you can use Unsharp Masking in Photoshop and get
almost the same thing.

Anyway, it's there. But it's probably all lost in conversion to a
moderate-res digital copy for the Web. You'd have to blow it up and
look really close.

Dunno where the killfile resident gets the idea that digital cameras
don't work well at high f stops. My 30d works very nicely at any f stop
that any of my lenses can achieve. On the other hand, the performance
of the lenses is compromised by diffraction at small apertures, but that
affects any type of sensor.

But if you want a mighty ****load of depth of field, go for one of the
little point-and-shoots.

My cell phone does well at that, too. d8-)

I sent Wes a photo I shot with my crappy cell phone (a dumb phone, not
a smart one) a couple of years ago. It has even sharpness from the
right pectoral fin of the bluefish all the way to Staten Island.

It must have a teeny little sensor but a little unsharp masking makes
the fish pop pretty well.

--
Ed Huntress

As a designer of lenses, I hope I can give some insight into why a point and
shoot almost always has larger DOF than a 4X5. The DOF (in most
photographic situations) is proportional to the focal length divided by the
F/#, in other words the inverse of the entrance pupil diameter. If the
point and shoot and 4X5 have the same field of view, the small sensor in the
point & shoot would need a lens focal length that is perhaps 1/20 as long.
To match the point and shoot DOF at F/5, the 4X5 would have to be stopped
down to F/100

I have seen some great shots taken with tiny f.l. endoscope lenses that show
sharply focused insects in the foreground and large trees in the distance.

It is also true, BTW, that the small pixels in small digital sensors require
some fairly fast f/#s to make the diffraction limit not noticeable. The
iPhone 4S camera, for example, is F/2.4 and has 1.4 micron pixels.

Thanks. A normal lens for that small sensor sure does have some depth
of field. My Minox III does the same thing -- 9.5 mm film.
\
At the other end, I've used a 310 mm normal lens for 8 x 10, and it
was f/64, f/128, or nothing. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:05:43 -0700, "anorton"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:12:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , huntres23
says...

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:16:14 -0400, Wes
wrote:

wrote:

sorry, I disagree, you would not be able to do the same quality
with
a 10Mp
camera, take those shots with the 4x5 and a 10mp put them side by
side, you
would not have that depth

Most digicams don't work well with high numerical f stops. Thus,
properly lighted, a 4x5
camera will have greater depth of field than a digicam. It was one
of
the first things I
learned when I went with compact digital cameras.

Wes, as a guy with two 4x5 cameras and 15 magazine covers behind me,
you'll have one hell of a time getting a lot of depth of field with a
4x5. When I've had to, it's been f/64 and use the swings and tilts.
I've also used an 8x10 Calumet for some trade-show Translites for
Casio. That sucker really shows you how depth of field disappears with
large sheet film.

When someone talks about "depth" in photography, I think of the things
that give the impression of actual, physical depth. Others have
pointed to expert lighting, and that's a big part of it. Kodachrome
also has (had) a slight inherent edge effect, which gives the
impression of more depth. And people like me, who made his living for
a while silver-masking Kodachrome slides, can tell you about another
edge effect. Or you can use Unsharp Masking in Photoshop and get
almost the same thing.

Anyway, it's there. But it's probably all lost in conversion to a
moderate-res digital copy for the Web. You'd have to blow it up and
look really close.

Dunno where the killfile resident gets the idea that digital cameras
don't work well at high f stops. My 30d works very nicely at any f stop
that any of my lenses can achieve. On the other hand, the performance
of the lenses is compromised by diffraction at small apertures, but that
affects any type of sensor.

But if you want a mighty ****load of depth of field, go for one of the
little point-and-shoots.

My cell phone does well at that, too. d8-)

I sent Wes a photo I shot with my crappy cell phone (a dumb phone, not
a smart one) a couple of years ago. It has even sharpness from the
right pectoral fin of the bluefish all the way to Staten Island.

It must have a teeny little sensor but a little unsharp masking makes
the fish pop pretty well.

--
Ed Huntress

As a designer of lenses, I hope I can give some insight into why a point
and
shoot almost always has larger DOF than a 4X5. The DOF (in most
photographic situations) is proportional to the focal length divided by
the
F/#, in other words the inverse of the entrance pupil diameter. If the
point and shoot and 4X5 have the same field of view, the small sensor in
the
point & shoot would need a lens focal length that is perhaps 1/20 as long.
To match the point and shoot DOF at F/5, the 4X5 would have to be stopped
down to F/100

I have seen some great shots taken with tiny f.l. endoscope lenses that
show
sharply focused insects in the foreground and large trees in the distance.

It is also true, BTW, that the small pixels in small digital sensors
require
some fairly fast f/#s to make the diffraction limit not noticeable. The
iPhone 4S camera, for example, is F/2.4 and has 1.4 micron pixels.

Thanks. A normal lens for that small sensor sure does have some depth
of field. My Minox III does the same thing -- 9.5 mm film.
\
At the other end, I've used a 310 mm normal lens for 8 x 10, and it
was f/64, f/128, or nothing. g

--
Ed Huntress

It occured to me that some of the other posters might have confused a large
depth of field with the impression of depth given by a small depth of field.
In other words, a small DOF can give some clue about the distance to objects
in the scene, whereas a large DOF might make the scene look flatter and less
3-dimensional. However, I have also heard people use the term "depth" in
photography to refer to dynamic range, color saturation, or a
well-distributed tone histogram. In digital sensor design, "well depth"
refers to how many photo-electrons can be stored for each pixel during
exposure, and it affects the noise and dynamic range of the sensor. Depth
used by itself is a pretty ambiguous term.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:35:15 -0700, "anorton"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:05:43 -0700, "anorton"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:12:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , huntres23
says...

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:16:14 -0400, Wes
wrote:

wrote:

sorry, I disagree, you would not be able to do the same quality
with
a 10Mp
camera, take those shots with the 4x5 and a 10mp put them side by
side, you
would not have that depth

Most digicams don't work well with high numerical f stops. Thus,
properly lighted, a 4x5
camera will have greater depth of field than a digicam. It was one
of
the first things I
learned when I went with compact digital cameras.

Wes, as a guy with two 4x5 cameras and 15 magazine covers behind me,
you'll have one hell of a time getting a lot of depth of field with a
4x5. When I've had to, it's been f/64 and use the swings and tilts.
I've also used an 8x10 Calumet for some trade-show Translites for
Casio. That sucker really shows you how depth of field disappears with
large sheet film.

When someone talks about "depth" in photography, I think of the things
that give the impression of actual, physical depth. Others have
pointed to expert lighting, and that's a big part of it. Kodachrome
also has (had) a slight inherent edge effect, which gives the
impression of more depth. And people like me, who made his living for
a while silver-masking Kodachrome slides, can tell you about another
edge effect. Or you can use Unsharp Masking in Photoshop and get
almost the same thing.

Anyway, it's there. But it's probably all lost in conversion to a
moderate-res digital copy for the Web. You'd have to blow it up and
look really close.

Dunno where the killfile resident gets the idea that digital cameras
don't work well at high f stops. My 30d works very nicely at any f stop
that any of my lenses can achieve. On the other hand, the performance
of the lenses is compromised by diffraction at small apertures, but that
affects any type of sensor.

But if you want a mighty ****load of depth of field, go for one of the
little point-and-shoots.

My cell phone does well at that, too. d8-)

I sent Wes a photo I shot with my crappy cell phone (a dumb phone, not
a smart one) a couple of years ago. It has even sharpness from the
right pectoral fin of the bluefish all the way to Staten Island.

It must have a teeny little sensor but a little unsharp masking makes
the fish pop pretty well.

--
Ed Huntress

As a designer of lenses, I hope I can give some insight into why a point
and
shoot almost always has larger DOF than a 4X5. The DOF (in most
photographic situations) is proportional to the focal length divided by
the
F/#, in other words the inverse of the entrance pupil diameter. If the
point and shoot and 4X5 have the same field of view, the small sensor in
the
point & shoot would need a lens focal length that is perhaps 1/20 as long.
To match the point and shoot DOF at F/5, the 4X5 would have to be stopped
down to F/100

I have seen some great shots taken with tiny f.l. endoscope lenses that
show
sharply focused insects in the foreground and large trees in the distance.

It is also true, BTW, that the small pixels in small digital sensors
require
some fairly fast f/#s to make the diffraction limit not noticeable. The
iPhone 4S camera, for example, is F/2.4 and has 1.4 micron pixels.

Thanks. A normal lens for that small sensor sure does have some depth
of field. My Minox III does the same thing -- 9.5 mm film.
\
At the other end, I've used a 310 mm normal lens for 8 x 10, and it
was f/64, f/128, or nothing. g

--
Ed Huntress

It occured to me that some of the other posters might have confused a large
depth of field with the impression of depth given by a small depth of field.
In other words, a small DOF can give some clue about the distance to objects
in the scene, whereas a large DOF might make the scene look flatter and less
3-dimensional. However, I have also heard people use the term "depth" in
photography to refer to dynamic range, color saturation, or a
well-distributed tone histogram. In digital sensor design, "well depth"
refers to how many photo-electrons can be stored for each pixel during
exposure, and it affects the noise and dynamic range of the sensor. Depth
used by itself is a pretty ambiguous term.

"Depth" is a pretty vague term, but I think I've heard it mostly in
reference to the appearance of 3D depth in a photo, and selective
focus can indeed enhance that impression.

One big factor that contributes to the 3D look, which we often
overlook these days, is adjacent-area contrast, at which Ansel Adams
was the master. Combined with the tonal-range compression he got by
using the Zone System, the effect was mysteriously 3D in his photos.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"anorton" wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:12:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , huntres23
says...

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:16:14 -0400, Wes
wrote:

wrote:

sorry, I disagree, you would not be able to do the same quality with
a 10Mp
camera, take those shots with the 4x5 and a 10mp put them side by
side, you
would not have that depth

Most digicams don't work well with high numerical f stops. Thus,
properly lighted, a 4x5
camera will have greater depth of field than a digicam. It was one of
the first things I
learned when I went with compact digital cameras.

Wes, as a guy with two 4x5 cameras and 15 magazine covers behind me,
you'll have one hell of a time getting a lot of depth of field with a
4x5. When I've had to, it's been f/64 and use the swings and tilts.
I've also used an 8x10 Calumet for some trade-show Translites for
Casio. That sucker really shows you how depth of field disappears with
large sheet film.

When someone talks about "depth" in photography, I think of the things
that give the impression of actual, physical depth. Others have
pointed to expert lighting, and that's a big part of it. Kodachrome
also has (had) a slight inherent edge effect, which gives the
impression of more depth. And people like me, who made his living for
a while silver-masking Kodachrome slides, can tell you about another
edge effect. Or you can use Unsharp Masking in Photoshop and get
almost the same thing.

Anyway, it's there. But it's probably all lost in conversion to a
moderate-res digital copy for the Web. You'd have to blow it up and
look really close.

Dunno where the killfile resident gets the idea that digital cameras
don't work well at high f stops. My 30d works very nicely at any f stop
that any of my lenses can achieve. On the other hand, the performance
of the lenses is compromised by diffraction at small apertures, but that
affects any type of sensor.

But if you want a mighty ****load of depth of field, go for one of the
little point-and-shoots.

My cell phone does well at that, too. d8-)

I sent Wes a photo I shot with my crappy cell phone (a dumb phone, not
a smart one) a couple of years ago. It has even sharpness from the
right pectoral fin of the bluefish all the way to Staten Island.

It must have a teeny little sensor but a little unsharp masking makes
the fish pop pretty well.

--
Ed Huntress

As a designer of lenses, I hope I can give some insight into why a point and
shoot almost always has larger DOF than a 4X5. The DOF (in most
photographic situations) is proportional to the focal length divided by the
F/#, in other words the inverse of the entrance pupil diameter. If the
point and shoot and 4X5 have the same field of view, the small sensor in the
point & shoot would need a lens focal length that is perhaps 1/20 as long.
To match the point and shoot DOF at F/5, the 4X5 would have to be stopped
down to F/100

I have seen some great shots taken with tiny f.l. endoscope lenses that show
sharply focused insects in the foreground and large trees in the distance.

It is also true, BTW, that the small pixels in small digital sensors require
some fairly fast f/#s to make the diffraction limit not noticeable. The
iPhone 4S camera, for example, is F/2.4 and has 1.4 micron pixels.

Also, the imaging chips have a far smaller acceptance angle (off normal)
for incoming light than silver-based film. This in effect requires the
lens to be near telecentric on the image side.

Joe Gwinn

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 07:54:19 -0400, not@home wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:46:21 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

refers to how many photo-electrons can be stored for each pixel during
exposure, and it affects the noise and dynamic range of the sensor. Depth
used by itself is a pretty ambiguous term.

"Depth" is a pretty vague term, but I think I've heard it mostly in
reference to the appearance of 3D depth in a photo, and selective
focus can indeed enhance that impression.

overall yes, that is what I meant, and it was not meant specifically to those
photos, my response was meant, generally speaking, saying "I" personally like
film photo's over digital, I guess why I do is because the class I took, was
from a commercial photographer, he spent a little time showing us complete
newbs some nice med format and large format photo's and the negatives, (8*10
was the largest he had there, those were awesome) it was my first time seeing
slides side by side of the prints as well, sometimes your first impressions
are most impressive, he was from N.Y. and had some pretty neat stuff of the
city as well, if I could I would build a dark room and learn to develop my own
photo's and would probably buy a med format camera of some sort,

I really enjoyed that class, wish I could had continued on, but at least I
have a general understanding of how my camera works and how lighting really
effects the picture and to add to the picture using surrounding scenes.


One big factor that contributes to the 3D look, which we often
overlook these days, is adjacent-area contrast, at which Ansel Adams

that was also the first time I heard of Ansel Adams,

was the master. Combined with the tonal-range compression he got by
using the Zone System, the effect was mysteriously 3D in his photos.

All of my experience is with film, so I can't judge its comparison
with digitial. I shot my first commercial digital photos just last
year, for an online trade magazine. They were ordinary
photojournalism.

They looked good to me but I wasn't scrutinizing them the way I would
scrutinize advertising photos or artsy work. I'd have to shoot
side-by-side comparisons to identify what's going on, but I have no
reason to do that now. Editors want electronic images, NOW, and there
is little choice in the matter for me.

--
Ed Huntress