The DOF has been photoshopped, I was careful to include all the twig in the blurring. The snail was asleep. Chris http://www.chrisssoftwareshop.co.uk/ http://www.chrisscrazyideas.co.uk/ http://www.chrissimageshop.co.uk/ -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu [mailto:owner-photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu]On Behalf Of İzzet Sent: 28 July 2002 19:34 To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: RE: PF exhibits of 2002-07-27 Yes, That was what I was pointing at. The twig is blurred all along. If it was not blurred to mimic shallow DOF, the twig would not be uniformly blurred. At the focal plane, near the snail, the twig would have been sharp. You are also right about the outer shell too. The problem is the very big DOF in most digital cameras because the CCD itself is very small in relation to 35 mm. film. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu > [mailto:owner-photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu] On Behalf Of Roderick > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 8:38 PM > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > Subject: Re: PF exhibits of 2002-07-27 > > > > At the macro scale shown I believe using a smaller aperture at the > > time of capture would have ruined the shot and still not > succeeded in > > sharpening the twig enough. All the bokeh would have gone too. > > When I view the shot of the snail I have the impression that > the soft focus was added later. Looking at the outer edge of > the snail's shell I see some form of contouring or haloing > that does not seem natural. >
