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

[Henry Ambrose <digphoto@nashville.net>]

>
>On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Henry Ambrose wrote:
>> 
>> Seems like a good idea to me for you to coin this use of "depth of focus" 
>> as your own teaching tool. I think I'll use it too.
>> I'm sure others will disagree.
>> 
>
>`Depth of focus' is already a technical term that is in use.  It refers to
>the "depth of field" at the film plane, i.e., how much the film can be out
>of perfect alignment and still capture an image in focus.  Teaching students
>terminology that is contrary to widely accepted standard use is probably not
>a very good idea.
>
OK, I was right about one thing (someone differs with my post:)

You are right.

And

Depth of focus used as you refer to it is probably of NO CONCERN to 
anyone who uses conventional cameras that cannot change the position of 
the film plane. Its built in the camera. Its not changing. 

The concept of "depth of focus" as you use it is meaningless to someone 
who is trying to grasp (or being helped to see) how to control focus area 
in a photograph.

When instructing at the level that Ted was talking about I think "depth 
of focus" really says it better. An explanation of accepted terminology 
can happen later.

When teaching, telling something differently (like maybe several 
different ways) is a good idea. 
Even if its not "book-perfect- correct"

The detail can be cleared up later. The important part is that the 
concept is communicated.

FLAME ON ALL YOU EDUCATORS - LET'ER RIP

:)

Henry
from Tennesse whar we just got shoes last week

PS
More new technical terms:

Moosh = bokeh (boy is bokeh a stupid term)
Whomp = the distortion of a wideangle lens