Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 1:29 AM -0400 8/20/03, Afterswift@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 8/19/03 9:22:12 PM, wlarsen@ocsnet.net writes:
>
><< This has to rank with one of the most meaningless statements
>
>I have ever seen on the LUG or any other camera newsgroup.
>
>Since the plane of focus is by definition the film plane,
>
>groundglass, sensor plane, etc...what does this statement
>
>have to do with anything meaningful? Are you saying the
>
>concept of hyperfocal focus is nonsense? >>
>
>Bill,
>
>The image is out there in front of the lens. You focus on some plane in that
>image. You don't focus behind the lens because what happens behind the lens
>depends on what's in front of it. You don't focus on the film plane
>because all
>that's there is a piece of film or a sensor. Hold your fire up to the subject.
>I shoot the subject. I don't know what you shoot. Photography isn't diagrams.
>
>br
To some degree it is. And it definitely is physics. If you have a
certain plane of focus, a certain depth of field defined by the focal
length, the aperture of the lens and the sensitivity (in Mp) of the
sensor, you have a zone of focus; not just a plane as with film, but
a zone.
Depth of field takes on a new meaning with digital cameras, and
becomes especially significant with their short focal lengths. Zone
focussing actually means now that a _ZONE_ is _IN FOCUS_, not just a
plane with some additional space before and behind in near focus.
It is a consequence of digitisation.
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html