Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]simon, that's a beautiful image. thanks for sharing it! kim At 11:21 AM 10/25/00 +0100, you wrote: >Jesse > >I took the attached picture with a 90mm AA at f/2 on an M6 at the closest >focussing range possible . I focussed on the child eye nearest the camera, >recomposed and took the picture. > >Even at the closest focussing distance and the widest aperture the depth of >field is enough to keep the eye in focus when the cameras is moved to >recompose with the child at the edge of the image area. > >http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=81039 > >Simon > >Jesse Hellman wrote > > > What is the best way to solve the following: you are shooting close-up, > > say at two feet, at F/2 or wider. The closer eye of your subject is > > off-center. There is nothing dead-center on which to focus. So you focus > > on the eye and then swing the camera back to frame. Now, obviously, the > > plane that passes at a right angle through the eye intersects the lens > > axis at a distance closer to the film plane than the distance from the > > film plane to the eye. The farther the eye is towards the edge of the > > film the greater this becomes. With a reflex you can avoid this problem > > by focusing on the groundglass. > > > > At wide f-stops the depth of field is very small at close distances. > > What is the best way to handle this? A lens with a curved field might do > > better in this regard than one with a flat field. So as the lenses get > > better, this effect has become greater. My own solution is, if it is > > possible, to try to set up something (like the subject's hand) where I > > think the center would be. But with quick action and more candid shots > > that simply is not possible. Or, you could focus a bit closer than > > indicated, but that seems like guessing. > > > > What do you do? I have never seen this issue discussed. > > > > Jesse > > > >