RE: [Leica] depth of field..depth of focus?

["Stewart, Alistair" <AStewart@gigaweb.com>]

Ted, 

This is a late response (was shooting all weekedn, not emailing!), but I
would suggest not 'dumbing down' the language and concepts. Go with what's
correct, it takes less time overall than other approaches.

best of available darkness,

Alistair

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ted Grant [mailto:tedgrant@islandnet.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 1999 12:17 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] depth of field..depth of focus? 


Hi gang,

I had a young photo student ask me, "Why do they call it depth of field
when it's really a kind of "depth of focus?"

In technical terms it's "depth of field". But when you think about calling
it, the "shallow depth of field" to a newby, then you have to go into a
whole story about what the depth of field is.  Wouldn't it be easier or at
least more visually  understanding if "shallow depth of focus" were used?

Isn't that what it's really all about..the "depth of in and out of focus?"

So if we were to say "this subject requires a great depth of focus for
sharpness front to back."  Or to "really get the subject to pop off the
print, you need a shallow depth of focus."  Then you explain how the
effects are created through the size of aperture.

And we all know how shallow the "depth of focus" is with a Noctilux at f
1.0!:)

What think you folks?  The student is waiting, because I told him I'd
present his question to the worlds "great photo minds for an answer!" :)

ted

Ted Grant
This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler.
http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant