Page 2 of 2

Re: Thank you, Steve Jobs

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:36 am
by Matt Quinn
Charles Haacker wrote:I very much enjoy the inclusion of the foreground leaf pile, and thanks to the tiny sensor the depth of field is essentially infinite. The shot would have been harder and harder to take the bigger the sensor. Duck said it: the best camera is the one you have with you. :)


Didn't know about the effect of the sensor size. Many thanks Chuck. I guess my Leica would not have worked well then. Matt

Re: Thank you, Steve Jobs

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:09 am
by Charles Haacker
Matt Quinn wrote:Didn't know about the effect of the sensor size. Many thanks Chuck. I guess my Leica would not have worked well then. Matt

Your Leica would have worked fine but to get that degree of depth-of-field you'd have had to stop down considerably. It's really not the senor size, it's the focal length. The smaller the sensor the shorter the "normal" focal length, which is usually approximately equal to the diagonal of the sensor. A so-called "full-frame" sensor is essentially the same size as a 35mm negative, 24 x 36mm, with a diagonal of ~50mm. That's why the "normal" focal length on a full frame is usually about 50mm, in a range of, oh, 40 to 60mm. Shorter focal lengths have greater apparent depth of field, and without going all techie, "depth of field" is defined as the area of apparent sharpness in front of and behind the actual plane of sharpest focus. Technically it's an illusion. It's affected by focal length, aperture, and distance, but very generally the smaller the sensor the shorter the focal lengths and the greater the apparent DOF. That's why the downside of all that astonishing DOF is that it's so hard to get anything like bokeh with a cell phone. I started and stayed with small sensor compacts, and control of DOF is difficult with them, but not as tough as a cell phone. My primary now is a 1" sensor Sony, and it's easier to get decent bokeh with it, but still harder than a larger sensor.

Re: Thank you, Steve Jobs

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:19 am
by Matt Quinn
Thanks, Chuck. I am happy, then, that all I had was my iPhone, since the dof was very important for me. I wanted that fog in the distance to isolate Bob and waited till he moved. I suspect I would have gotten a very blurry photo since I couldn't handhold it steady enough for that aperture in that low light. Matt

Re: Thank you, Steve Jobs

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:32 am
by minniev
This is a very good image, Matt. I care naught for what you captured it with, nor should anyone else. The composition is excellent, the detail in the foreground provides a fine anchor, the subject is well defined and positioned perfectly, the conversion is good. It's a keeper, job well done.

Re: Thank you, Steve Jobs

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:35 pm
by Matt Quinn
minniev wrote:This is a very good image, Matt. I care naught for what you captured it with, nor should anyone else. The composition is excellent, the detail in the foreground provides a fine anchor, the subject is well defined and positioned perfectly, the conversion is good. It's a keeper, job well done.


Thanks, Minnie. Always important to hear from you. Matt

Re: Thank you, Steve Jobs

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:29 am
by St3v3M
This is a beautiful image with a strong story! Great job and Welcome To The Darkside! S-

Re: Thank you, Steve Jobs

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:23 am
by Matt Quinn
St3v3M wrote:This is a beautiful image with a strong story! Great job and Welcome To The Darkside! S-


A good place to be. Thanks Steve. Matt