Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> I simply answered your message after message after message that > put down the use of DOF preview, stating, over and over, ad nauseam: [AUSTIN] "In 25 years of professional photography, and all the professionals I know, I don't know any who actually uses the DOF (p)review. I'm sure some people do use it, I just don't know any. Perhaps it's a Left Coast thing." [AUSTIN] "Sure it has some use, but how do you determine 'in focus' on the darkened fringe of the viewfinder of a 35mm camera? As you say, you can probably gauge whether it's 'identifiable' or not...but certainly not sharp focus..." - ------------------ Jim, That was not a 'simply answer'. Your reply was clearly an arrogant insult. Apparently you can not distinguish from 'simple answers' and arrogant insults. Where's the put down of anyone choosing to use DOF preview? I made none. I merely stated MY experience, and preference. I, unlike you (who thinks that everything that you think is what everyone else SHOULD think), know that MY opinion or way of doing something isn't the only way. - ---------- > You were simply babbling from an unknowledgeable position. > You do not know what you are talking about. How typical of you. You just can't act like an adult, gotta throw some insults in there... Are you so insecure with your own knowledge that no one else can have an opinion on something? You believe you know everything, and you just don't. I, and many others, probably know as much as you do on this subject, and many other subjects, but you don't like to be challenged. When someone questions your 'view', or way of doing something, you take it as a personal insult, and tell them they are stupid, wrong, or 'unknowledgeable'. > So please, Austin, do not continue to make incorrect statements like "you > can probably gauge whether it's 'identifiable' or not...but certainly not > sharp focus..." as it is completely and totally wrong. You conveniently clipped out "as you say" following that statement. I am not the originator of the "identifiable" statement. That comment you incorrectly quote was a reply. That was THEIR rationale for using DOF preview, and if you actually followed the conversation, you would have known what you (and that statement) were talking about. It is ONE persons way of using DOF preview, and it isn't wrong. Here was the original statement (not from me): "If I'm stopping down for DOF and I don't want some extremely out-of-focus thing to become identifiable the DOF preview is quite handy, to say the least." What's wrong with someone wanting to check, by using DOF preview, if something is 'identifiable' or not? Are you claiming it doesn't work? YOU'RE the one who claims DOF is WYSIWYG. Did you just not understand the conversation, or are you contradicting your self. Once again, you are just being contentious for the sake of being contentions, without actually reading what is being said. Now I'm sure you're just going to backpedal, try to change the subject, bring up irrelevant points, just to avoid looking foolish and being WRONG. Same trick, just a different day.