----- Original Message ----- From: "Veli Izzet Cigirgan" <izzet@xxxxxxxx> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:57 Subject: RE: digital future - was something else. : The author is talking about depth of field here. : : He thinks the shallow depth of field that makes the image more pleasant is a : function of analog vs. digital; he of course does not know the lenses used, : has no idea of lens speed, etc. : : Comparing apples to watermelons.. no he's talking *format* a large format shooter understands this.. the difference between the smaller formats (half frame, 110, 35mm) is negligible when compared to the larger. An example, oft quoted in photo texts but little understood by smaller format shooters: photograph a dice from above with a small format and you will ONLY see the top of the dice. Switch to mf and repeat.. you will now also see the 4 sides of the dice as well as the top - move to large format and you will be able to see the *numbers* on the sides of the dice as well as the top - magic? no, it's merely the fact that the format is so large. A dice is an easy example but when you move to a face the difference is less objective, but just as evident - there is a dimentional quality to the image that cannot be reproduced by smaller formats. Even shooting landscapes this sense of depth is conveyed far, far more than can be hoped for with small formats. Another example. Take a 35mm frame and enlarge it to 4x5 then do a contact print of the same scene shot on 4x5. One (the 4x5) will literally look like you can put your hand in it, the 35mm frame will look flat in comparison. It's not a dof issue at all - the elements in such frames seem to seperate and hover in or out of the image.. truly! :-) k
