Please take me off your mailing list
thanks
On 11/06/2005, at 9:16 PM, karl shah-jenner wrote:
----- 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
