Chuck, I agree with both your points below but my persepctive is a bit
different (and not because I'm using a shift lens!) - it's that we judge
whether an image is "out of focus" by reference to other parts of the image
which are "in focus". If the lens can resolve better than the theory
assumes, then even though the 8x10 is within acceptable tolerances
(enlargement size, viewing distance) for a sharp image, differences are
perceptible.
Perhaos it's that I am looking at the image too closely?
Perhaps "pixel peeping" has a longer heritage than just digital
photography??
--
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Chuck Norcutt
Sent: 30 November 2007 12:37
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Is the emperor called hyperfocal distance that well
dressed?
--snip
Although he may be interested in knowing if June is recognizable as June at
50 meters I'm not. I want to know if June is critically sharp at 50 meters
for a 16x20 print and she's not.
--snip
If your lens and film/sensor can resolve enough detail for a crisp 16x20
rather than an 8x10 that's good. But it doesn't obviate the accuracy of the
DoF markings when used as intended... for an 8x10 max print size.
--snip
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|