Re: was: 35mm Eyes now: AF vs. MF

[dlevy@worldy.com.plugplay.com]

What you don't know department. Didn't remember Weegee (he predates me).
Until today when in a Dec. 1992 Popular Photography I was reading had a
photo of him with his Speed showing those HUGE bulbs. I agree flash probably
wouldn't work at the 1st base line, but a Speed zone focused would. I used a
Rollei at a soccor match and set the focus for the goal, so it was zone
focused from side to side and infront of it to just into the net. Using ISO
100, I got f/16 @ 1/125. No magic. I would agree that w/ hyperfocal distance
setting, which you mention, but I didn't, it may not work. With today's
populance mentality, I don't think it would be acceptable.

At 06:19 PM 12/14/96 -0500, you wrote:


>Dunno about sports photography but certainly Weegee was known for
>setting his Speed Graphic to the hyperfocal distance and using the
>"sports finder" and not the rangefinder.  His pictures look quite
>sharp.  But there are a couple of other reasons for this that don't
>apply to the modern 35mm case.
>
>First, he used honking big flashbulbs.  Many photographers today are
>not aware that a big flashbulb produces one hell of a lot of light! --
>lots more than most electronic flashes.  We're talking guide numbers
>in the three hundreds with ISO 100 film in some cases.  If you used a
>G.E. #22 bulb at 1/200 with 100-speed film, and your subject was 20
>feet away, you would stop down to f/16.  Most of Weegee's pictures
>were taken from closer than 20 feet, so he was probably stopped down
>more than that, for pretty good depth of field even with a 127mm lens.
>
>Second, he used a honking big negative!  When you enlarge a 35mm
>negative 10 times, you enlarge the circles of confusion on it 10 times
>as well.  But Weegee was shooting 4x5 negatives, so his circles of
>confusion were not being enlarged very much.
>
>I don't think his technique would apply so well to sports photography,
>though.
>
>
Brian Levy, J.D.
Agincourt Ont.
dlevy@worldy.com