How to photograph a ring all in focus?

Wilt wrote in post #10115453
Perhaps reading a text book written by professors at the Rochest Institute of Technology would convince those who doubt the truth!

While I read this: http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/d​epth-of-field.htm (which actually makes a lot of sense) - I'm still waiting for an explanation of the above images.

Come on Mr. Smarty-pants, I dare you, I double-dare you

anj273 wrote in post #10115473
While I read this: http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/d​epth-of-field.htm (which actually makes a lot of sense) - I'm still waiting for an explanation of the above images.

Come on Mr. Smarty-pants, I dare you, I double-dare you

The original DOF calculation program which I used in post #13 was flawed. In going back to the Cambridge Color DOF calculator, the result was indeed that double the distance to subject, along with doubling the size of the print of the full frame did all result in an increase of DOF.

Just shows how full of flaws the things we find on the web truly are!

Wilt wrote in post #10115499
The original DOF calculation which I used in post #13 was flawed. In going back to the Cambridge Color DOF calculator, the result was indeed that double the distance to subject, along with doubling the size of the print of the full frame, along with doubling the viewing distance did all result in an increase of DOF.

- Thanks for the link anyway, great articles on that site.

So once again just to clarify on the OP's question:

If you keep your settings, and move back from the subject, then crop your image in post, you will see an increase in DOF. This will of course come at a price. Your IQ will possibly degrade, but it might not be enough to notice, depending on how you intent to display the final image.

anj273 wrote in post #10115538
- Thanks for the link anyway, great articles on that site.

So once again just to clarify on the OP's question:

If you keep your settings, and move back from the subject, then crop your image in post, you will see an increase in DOF. This will of course come at a price. Your IQ will possibly degrade, but it might not be enough to notice, depending on how you intent to display the final image.

This is how I see things working....

FatCat0 wrote in post #10115556
This is how I see things working....

Keep in mind, that Wilt and toxic weren't wrong - The effect of viewing distance (or cropping) just isn't as pronounced as the other factors in play.

anj273 wrote in post #10115574
Keep in mind, that Wilt and toxic weren't wrong - The effect of viewing distance (or cropping) just isn't as pronounced as the other factors in play.

Yeah after reading the rest of the topic (and not doing so while watching a movie on the side), I get what they're saying now too.

anj273 wrote in post #10115538
- Thanks for the link anyway, great articles on that site...

This site's article on DOF was a key reason why I and SkipD and others had decided not to create a sticky topic on POTN about the topic of DOF.

Now the accuracy of the DOF program (as well as its greater flexibility) will result in me using it, rather than the program which I had previously downloaded, for DOF calculations. (That same program continues to be useful for calculation of the size of the area captured in the frame by a given FL at any particular distance, so I won't abandon it entirely.)

anj273 wrote in post #10115574
Keep in mind, that Wilt and toxic weren't wrong - The effect of viewing distance (or cropping) just isn't as pronounced as the other factors in play.

I might not have been wrong, but I am darned embarrassed by the fact that I understand all the principles of DOF, but did not catch the erroneous conclusion caused by a errant program, that I posted in post #13!

Wilt wrote in post #10115722
I might not have been wrong, but I am darned embarrassed by the fact that I understand all the principles of DOF, but did not catch the erroneous conclusion caused by a errant program, that I posted in post #13!

As well you should be

anj273 wrote in post #10115768
As well you should be

What are you doing awake at 4am and correcting my mistakes, instead of sleeping?!

Wilt wrote in post #10115796
What are you doing awake at 4am and correcting my mistakes, instead of sleeping?!

Holy crap! It's 4 am?!

It's ok though, got the day off tomorrow. Only thing planned is going to the Crumpler store, and buy a new bag. Guess I can do that in the afternoon as well

But I might need to catch some shut-eye right about now.

anj273 wrote in post #10115574
Keep in mind, that Wilt and toxic weren't wrong - The effect of viewing distance (or cropping) just isn't as pronounced as the other factors in play.

Yeah, it turns out that cropping doesn't affect DoF as much as I thought it did (however, it does still have an effect).

Viewing distance, though, is still inherently tied to DoF, though not in any convenient formula that I know of. It's the same idea as thinking an image is sharp as a 600 pixel Jpeg but finding it all blurry at 100%. As you make a point bigger, all the defects get bigger, too.

Scheimpflug Principle..

toxic wrote in post #10116808
Viewing distance, though, is still inherently tied to DoF, though not in any convenient formula that I know of. It's the same idea as thinking an image is sharp as a 600 pixel Jpeg but finding it all blurry at 100%. As you make a point bigger, all the defects get bigger, too.

I posted this earlier in this thread...
http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/D​OF-calculator.htm