Re: [Leica] Photographig Photographers

["Henning J. Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

At 11:52 PM -0400 4/2/00, Mitch Alland wrote:
>>>>>Tim Kuntz
>>>>Why does there seem to be so much pent up bile with so many of members of
>>>>this list?    Greg Locke
>>
>>Who knows why?....
>>Where do we go from here?  What do you want to see this forum
>>like?  What do you want to see this world-wide organization
>>doing?  What is your "vision" of what we, as 'Leica
>>photographers', should be?
>>
>
>I don't know either, but this forum is becoming awfully boring with
>interminable discussions of trivia and nonsense such as neck strap length
>and of what sign to give another Leica user. Who cares! Humor is fine but
>often it's just stupidity.
>
>When there is an attempt at some serious technical discussion, such as
>questioning traditional photographic practice, in many cases, the
>responses just regurgitate what was questioned without addressing the
>issue. For example, today I posted some questions concerning alternatives
>to hyperfocal distance focusing and referred to some articles by
>Merklinger which state that this type of focusing was suitable for lens
>and film quality of the 1930s and show that his recommended ways of
>focusing will lead to sharper pictures. The responses I got so far just
>referred to "the 1/3 rule" and to hyperfocal focusing at two apertures
>smaller than the actual aperture. I had indicated that the latter was
>disposed of by Merklinger as not leading to  pictures as sharp as with his
>recommended way of focusing; and the former, the 1/3 rule, is essentially
>the same as using the scales on the lens -- the very thing that I was
>questioning.
>
>Sorry to be so long-winded, but I wanted to show how difficult it is to
>get something useful out of this forum, owing to low signal to noise
>ratio. A refugee from the CompuServe Photo Forum, I have been following
>LUG for a few weeks -- and i's been pretty boring, so I don't know how
>much longer I'll hang in here. I'll see for a few more days whether I will
>get any interesting responses on the DOF issue.
>
>BTW, the CompuServe Photo Forum was supposed to open with free access to
>general internet users. I'll have a look at www.compuserve.com to see
>whether this has happened.
>
>--Mitch

Well, I haven't been on Compuserve for over  5 years, but the boredom
factor was pretty high there at the time. Maybe things have changed.

Here, people sometimes feel DOF is boring, and neck strap length is at
least something new, if not for everyone. If you want maximum sharpness at
infinity, set your lens at infinity. If you want 'critical' sharpness
between a closer object and infinity, set your lens to 2 or 3 stops smaller
than the DOF scale on your camera recommends and use the hyperfocal
setting. These thing are not fixed, just as the criteria of 'critical
sharpness' is not fixed. I usually feel satisfied in 35mm work if I set my
lens to 2 stops smaller than the DOF indeces dictate. If I need more, I
haul out a 4x5 and play with that. Sometimes you just can't get enough DOF
and you have to make a decision as to what's important, and focus exactly
on that. Maybe you have to open up to maximum aperture to properly isolate
the item to make sure everyone knows you don't want DOF. All the above
'rules' that you mentioned are applicable under some circumstances. None
are universally applicable.

   *            Henning J. Wulff
  /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
 /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
 |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com