Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Education
Diffraction limited pixels... Really?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="J-see" data-source="post: 363107" data-attributes="member: 31330"><p>The unavoidable problem is that one can't calculate it all.</p><p></p><p> The composition is only constructed during the moment of the shot (unless you start with a specific goal). I could check the size of a specific spider and calculate exactly what magnification at what distance at which aperture covers all the DOF I require but that's only of use when I'm cataloging spiders and need species shots. When I'm not doing that, all this info about spider X requiring X, Y and Z suddenly falls apart when I'm trying to compose something that includes a part of a branch and a portion of the web. Suddenly all my calculated information is irrelevant. </p><p></p><p>Now what's there to do? Write down and calculate every possible option I could ever encounter? That's an option but I'd be busy until my last breath and would lack the time to actually shoot something. Or I could improvise in the moment.</p><p></p><p>I'm the improvising type.</p><p></p><p>There's nothing wrong with knowing your stuff and I'm the first to close down the lens, up the ISO or do whatever possible when such improves the end result. However; the moment any of these changes come at the expense of something and I'll have to find a compromise, I wonder about the why of that change. If the answer is that it'll improve my shot as a whole, I find it an acceptable solution. If the answer is because that's what you're supposed to do, I don't find that a good enough reason.</p><p></p><p>I go with my flow and hopefully the more experience I gather, the steadier that flow becomes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J-see, post: 363107, member: 31330"] The unavoidable problem is that one can't calculate it all. The composition is only constructed during the moment of the shot (unless you start with a specific goal). I could check the size of a specific spider and calculate exactly what magnification at what distance at which aperture covers all the DOF I require but that's only of use when I'm cataloging spiders and need species shots. When I'm not doing that, all this info about spider X requiring X, Y and Z suddenly falls apart when I'm trying to compose something that includes a part of a branch and a portion of the web. Suddenly all my calculated information is irrelevant. Now what's there to do? Write down and calculate every possible option I could ever encounter? That's an option but I'd be busy until my last breath and would lack the time to actually shoot something. Or I could improvise in the moment. I'm the improvising type. There's nothing wrong with knowing your stuff and I'm the first to close down the lens, up the ISO or do whatever possible when such improves the end result. However; the moment any of these changes come at the expense of something and I'll have to find a compromise, I wonder about the why of that change. If the answer is that it'll improve my shot as a whole, I find it an acceptable solution. If the answer is because that's what you're supposed to do, I don't find that a good enough reason. I go with my flow and hopefully the more experience I gather, the steadier that flow becomes. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Education
Diffraction limited pixels... Really?
Top
