----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re: PESO - Finally...
> Bill, I appreciate the comments. This is a good example of my > frustration and struggle with macro. At this level of macro, some > portions benefit from more DOF and some things get worse. It seems to > be a big tradeoff. > > The curled green frond on the upper right I really like as is. The > water droplets on the top are sharp and the frond is a little more > abstract looking. But the lower section could stand some more DOF. > > So what I find frustrating is the competing areas of focus (or lack > thereof). Another example would be where some flower of something > would have a smooth, creamy background, but not enough DOF for the > entire flower. Stop it down some and the background looks much worse. I would prefer that the frond upper right was in focus. We can agree to disagree on this. Consider that depth of field is both controllable in depth, but also placement. For example, you have a subject 2' from the camera (a flower stamen, for example), with an objectionable background 2' behind that. Most would focus on the main subject (2') then try to control DOF to get the front of the flower in focus, and the background defocused enough to be happy, and end up with a background that is a bit too sharp, and an out of focus forground. Consider focusing in front of the main subject, not enough to defocus it, but enough to allow the forground to come into focus. This will also drop the background more out of focus, and perhaps allow a smaller aperture, which is rarely a bad thing. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
