If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:26:20 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: I originally wrote: "There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with digital. then you know wrong. Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up while keeping the whole image in focus. A technical camera copes with this by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the camera back". as i said, the camera back is *not* tilted for a tall wall, or more commonly a tall building because walls are boring, however, the math is the same. Let's say it is the front of a 1000 year old building: and you have limited room: and you want to have all of the wall in the best possible focus. It's interesting and just making do with hyperfocal distance is not good enough. You *have* to use a camera setup that employs the same basic geometry of https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cheimpflug.jpg (except that the assembly is pointing up rather than down). no, you don't *have* to use such a setup for a tall building. in fact, it would be a bad idea. here's a situation where it would be, and note the rear standard is *parallel* to the building: https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...b9/t/576c2e495 a655be13f013aba/1467902699499/Scheimpflug.gif I've seen that before but I don't think it qualifies as "photographing a very tall wall from close up" as I originally specified. it doesn't. that's the whole point. scheimpflug is not needed for a tall building. It is if you are close up. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: here's a situation where it would be, and note the rear standard is *parallel* to the building: https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...ef5b4b9/t/576c 2e495 a655be13f013aba/1467902699499/Scheimpflug.gif I've seen that before but I don't think it qualifies as "photographing a very tall wall from close up" as I originally specified. it doesn't. that's the whole point. scheimpflug is not needed for a tall building. It is if you are close up. you're moving the goalposts again. your original problem image was *not* close up. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:22:05 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: here's a situation where it would be, and note the rear standard is *parallel* to the building: https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...ef5b4b9/t/576c 2e495 a655be13f013aba/1467902699499/Scheimpflug.gif I've seen that before but I don't think it qualifies as "photographing a very tall wall from close up" as I originally specified. it doesn't. that's the whole point. scheimpflug is not needed for a tall building. It is if you are close up. you're moving the goalposts again. Go back and read the thread. I wrote "Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up". I've already told you twice. your original problem image was *not* close up. No it wasn't, but that's not we were discussing. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: scheimpflug is not needed for a tall building. It is if you are close up. you're moving the goalposts again. Go back and read the thread. I wrote "Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up". I've already told you twice. your original problem image was *not* close up. No it wasn't, but that's not we were discussing. it was until you decided to change it. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:56:46 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: scheimpflug is not needed for a tall building. It is if you are close up. you're moving the goalposts again. Go back and read the thread. I wrote "Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up". I've already told you twice. your original problem image was *not* close up. No it wasn't, but that's not we were discussing. it was until you decided to change it. Exactly. I raised it as an example and have been discussing it ever since. I had no idea what you thought were talking about. Mind you that makes two of us. You have no excuse for not noticing that I had raised a particular example as *I* never snipped any text, let alone snipped text without acknowledging the fact. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My first analog photos! | Russell D. | Digital Photography | 0 | May 29th 12 08:50 PM |
My first analog photos! | George Kerby | Digital Photography | 0 | May 28th 12 07:47 PM |
My first analog photos! | Andrew Reilly[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | May 28th 12 12:01 PM |
Analog Black Dial | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | May 21st 09 10:42 AM |
Old Analog Meter: Any Value ?? | Magnusfarce | Digital Photography | 14 | July 3rd 07 06:53 PM |