Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: DOF, thanks Austin
From: Johnny Deadman <>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:55:48 -0500

on 2/8/01 12:31 PM, Austin Franklin at wrote:

>> Therefore I think it needs to be
>> distinguished in some way from the traditional definition or the mass
>> confusion we have seen here results. I can't see that your
>> definition of DOF
>> can just be substituted for the traditional definition,
>> whether or not it's
>> more accurate or logical.
> I don't disagree, but I still hold the effect (result) IS the same, and
> therefore I don't have a problem calling it 'depth of field'.

Well, it isn't what everyone else means by depth of field, unless you want
to be Humpty Dumpty and insist that words mean just what you want them to.
The end result certainly ISN'T the same because your DOF tells me nothing
about apparent depth of field in a print, wheras the standard one does.

- -- 
Johnny Deadman