johann3s wrote in post #15634736
It is because you are moving the wrong way. I said for smaller subject sizes the advantage for the longer lens becomes more clear. And what do you do? You show me a plot for a field of view of 10 meter. You clearly did not understand it.
By the way the assesment of which test shot has more blur for the closest subject (the small pole) is highly subjective to me anyway. You could argue for both as the difference is too small to draw a clear conclusion.
@JeffreyG: As for why I let users not simply enter a value for subject distance, is because to me this is not as intuitive. What I want to do is link this calculator to actual photography, and then it is easier to think of what you want to capture in your photo, then how far you actually need to be in order to achieve this with a given focal length.
You're getting very defensive and accusatory in your tones, guy! Calm!!!! I am trying to UNDERSTAND, not persecute you!
You clearly missed the point of the two plots which I displayed. As I was unable to necessarily reproduce the information about exactly what shooting distance and frame area was used in the test shot, I chose TWO EXTREMES, 1) head and shoulders framing, and 2) a very large area framed. Therefore the curves show the expected blur at 1m behind the subject and at 10m behind the subject, which BOTH of my targets (the PVC fitting, and the apple) fall within. So it should be possible to see in one graph or the other graph that one of them echoes the test shots taken months ago, as the conditions of the shoot were somewhere IN BETWEEN the two framing extremes which were graphed, shouldn't they??
As for me not understanding....I wrote to you suggesting that you explain HOW to INTERPRET your graphs, for those who do not understand the topic. If I, who have read considerable amounts about the topic of background blur, cannot read your graphs correctly, you can't expect a lesser understanding person to correctly interpret your graphs either, should you? Q.E.D.