Circle of Confusion: This is in the technical sense as applied to photography, although there are times it seems to apply elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

This is in the technical sense as applied to photography, although there are times it seems to apply elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html

I found this while looking at the references on f-stop.

All you pixel peepers, What are you getting for your camera's and lenses' CoC?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

DaveC1 wrote:

This is in the technical sense as applied to photography, although there are times it seems to apply elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html

I found this while looking at the references on f-stop.

All you pixel peepers, What are you getting for your camera's and lenses' CoC?

Excellent term for almost any technical discussion in photography.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Reasonably good articles.
--Bob

DaveC1 wrote:

This is in the technical sense as applied to photography, although there are times it seems to apply elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html

I found this while looking at the references on f-stop.

All you pixel peepers, What are you getting for your camera's and lenses' CoC?

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

In a practical sense, who cares, "Real lenses do not focus all rays perfectly, so that even at best focus, a point is imaged as a spot rather than a point. The smallest such spot that a lens can produce is often referred to as the circle of least confusion." So yes, live with it and do photography with good composition and no one will notice how big your circle of confusion is... It is a So What item.

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

dpullum wrote:

In a practical sense, who cares, "Real lenses do not focus all rays perfectly, so that even at best focus, a point is imaged as a spot rather than a point. The smallest such spot that a lens can produce is often referred to as the circle of least confusion." So yes, live with it and do photography with good composition and no one will notice how big your circle of confusion is... It is a So What item.

I suppose that depends on what size enlargements you anticipate from your photos. The second article seemed to offer a sort of real world comparison between different digital cameras' resolution, IMO.

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

Good composition is certainly the first step, but for those who want to affect the impression the image makes by controlling depth of focus, being reminded that DOF is a function of (1) the CoC of the original image, (2) its degree of enlargement for viewing, AND (3) the viewing distance is probably worth the read.

The Wikipedia article suggests that most CoC and DOF discussions in photography assume an 8x10 image viewed at 10" as the standard for seeing what's in or out of focus (and for marking DOF points on a lens.) If you're cropping an image much, or "printing" it larger than 8x10 AND viewing it at normal reading distance, it won't have the DOF you might expect. Longtime photographers, especially those who have cropped and enlarged a lot of paper prints in a darkroom, may have internalized this, but for digital-only folks who haven't done much printing (or viewing on high res monitors) it's worth pointing out.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

jerryc41 wrote:

Excellent term for almost any technical discussion in photography.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Dave, in reality it wouldn't depend on the size of the enlargement. Remember, each size print as an optimal viewing distance. So, the larger the print, the further the optimal viewing distance. At that distance the human eye would be hard put to discern the slight amount of blur the CoC could cause.
--Bob

DaveC1 wrote:

I suppose that depends on what size enlargements you anticipate from your photos. The second article seemed to offer a sort of real world comparison between different digital cameras' resolution, IMO.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Let me see now.. in the middle of my photo there is a 0.005mm not quite in focus area.. oh my aunt Sally look your blurred. "The diameter of human hair varies from 0.017 to 0.18 millimeters"
So if hair is fine at average of .11 mm that circle of confusion is 5/110 of a human hair... !!! for easy figuring 5/100 or 1/20 thickness of the human hair.... I can not see it as being significant....lighting/printer/human eye all confuse more that that.... so enjoy your turmoil souls ... that nude... is it circle of confusion or a small pimple....? or worse yet a whisker on her chin

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

rmalarz wrote:

Dave, in reality it wouldn't depend on the size of the enlargement. Remember, each size print as an optimal viewing distance. So, the larger the print, the further the optimal viewing distance. At that distance the human eye would be hard put to discern the slight amount of blur the CoC could cause.
--Bob

I lived through a similar set of wars when big screen TVs came out, still with NTSC analog video standards. Just try and tell someone that your not supposed to sit 5 feet away from your 60" big screen. The point is that the viewing distance is, in many cases, entirely at the viewer's discretion.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

DaveC1 wrote:

This is in the technical sense as applied to photography, although there are times it seems to apply elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html

I found this while looking at the references on f-stop.

All you pixel peepers, What are you getting for your camera's and lenses' CoC?

It has always been Circle of confusion, nowadays its bokeh.

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

dpullum wrote:

Let me see now.. in the middle of my photo there i... (show quote)

That 0.005 mm is on the sensor not the photograph your viewing. So, how big is the sensor?

But really, if you find no benefit in the information presented in the two articles your entitled to that position, just forget you read them and go on with your photographic life.

frankie c Loc: Lake Havasu CIty, AZ

WOW...... Photography seems a combination of Science and Art... It's light writing based on some really neat science. seems like over thinking f stops and not thinking about the art. Certainly this would tend to tax the brain of almost anyone. So trying to keep this all in perspective and creating an equation to handle it, is interesting. We have Brain = Thinking / f stop relationship to art so Art/f stop the results = Brain f Art :) I gonna go take some pictures now... have a great day.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

Unfortunately, the details of RAW processing fall within many people's CoC.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

DaveC1 wrote:

That 0.005 mm is on the sensor not the photograph your viewing. So, how big is the sensor?
But really, if you find no benefit in the information presented in the two articles your entitled to that position, just forget you read them and go on with your photographic life.

aaaa yes, getting old!! ya got me for sure.... thanks for pointing out my Homer Simpson Thinking... dah