The Circle of Confusion in the Print
Jun 17, 2023 20:36:57 #
[quote=selmslie] "By 1866, CoC was used to determine the nearest and the farthest objects that are in acceptably sharp focus, within the depth of field (DoF)..."
Thank you for the in depth explanation of "Circle of Confusion". You have provided an excellent overview of an important technical subject, and a great review and memory refresher for myself, as medical retirement has kept me away from photography for quite awhile. In the 1970's, as a student and later as a salesman at Dodd Camera in Cleveland, Ohio, and before the use of the term "Bokeh", we referred to that phenomenon as "Circles of Confusion." As a pinpoint of light - well out of the Depth of Field - renders as a circle and not a dot - I have always found that simple definition to be useful. I am sure that you or someone else here could give me the history of the term and use of "Bokeh", but I find it to be a word that brings more, pardon the pun, confusion to the subject.
I don't understand the trolling by at least one poster here, whose anti knowledge approach to photography seems to be the clueless antithesis of what the purpose of a forum to share knowledge of photography is about!
Again, thank you for sharing this information, keep up the good work, and don't be dissuaded by the ignorance of a few for whom anything beyond 'put it on auto and point and shoot' strains their technical interest and / or their cognitive abilities!
Thank you for the in depth explanation of "Circle of Confusion". You have provided an excellent overview of an important technical subject, and a great review and memory refresher for myself, as medical retirement has kept me away from photography for quite awhile. In the 1970's, as a student and later as a salesman at Dodd Camera in Cleveland, Ohio, and before the use of the term "Bokeh", we referred to that phenomenon as "Circles of Confusion." As a pinpoint of light - well out of the Depth of Field - renders as a circle and not a dot - I have always found that simple definition to be useful. I am sure that you or someone else here could give me the history of the term and use of "Bokeh", but I find it to be a word that brings more, pardon the pun, confusion to the subject.
I don't understand the trolling by at least one poster here, whose anti knowledge approach to photography seems to be the clueless antithesis of what the purpose of a forum to share knowledge of photography is about!
Again, thank you for sharing this information, keep up the good work, and don't be dissuaded by the ignorance of a few for whom anything beyond 'put it on auto and point and shoot' strains their technical interest and / or their cognitive abilities!
Jun 17, 2023 21:01:47 #
NorCal Bohemian wrote:
I don't understand the trolling by at least one poster here, whose anti knowledge approach to photography seems to be the clueless antithesis of what the purpose of a forum to share knowledge of photography is about!
I'm happy that I managed to reach the intended audience.
Thank you for appreciating my post in the manner in which it was intended it to be received!
Jun 18, 2023 00:19:16 #
MJPerini wrote:
Is there a question here? br All DOF 'calculators'... (show quote)
Thaz the full Chicago. Good to find out that at least one person actually gets it.
Jun 18, 2023 09:31:20 #
Jun 18, 2023 09:45:46 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Obviously, this topic leads to confusion.
It's particularly confusing to trolls who like to post cartoons and insults to hide their inability to address the topic.
Jun 18, 2023 10:13:05 #
selmslie wrote:
It's particularly confusing to trolls who like to post cartoons and insults to hide their inability to address the topic.
Unfortunately, insulting has become SOP here. I haven't seen this on other forums. Did you watch Fawlty Towers - very funny English comedy? "What we need is a better class of clientele."
Jun 18, 2023 10:36:28 #
User ID wrote:
Thaz OK. Real photographers dont print anymore ... thaz for hobbyist fossils and "arts fair" peddlers wearing berets.
That's me. If an image isn't suitable for a print, what is it good for?
Jun 18, 2023 12:11:45 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Unfortunately, insulting has become SOP here. I haven't seen this on other forums. Did you watch Fawlty Towers - very funny English comedy? "What we need is a better class of clientele."
Watched it many times. Too bad there were so few episodes made. "Too [two] short and sweet."
Jun 18, 2023 12:20:24 #
scsdesphotography wrote:
That's me. If an image isn't suitable for a print, what is it good for?
If you can't make a decent print from an image it there is something fundamentally wrong with it.
Many digital images are technical exercises that show off the camera's capabilities rather than the photographer's artistry. They are just conversation pieces appropriate only for a digital display.
Jun 18, 2023 14:35:29 #
selmslie wrote:
It's particularly confusing to trolls who like to post cartoons and insults to hide their inability to address the topic.
There is no actual topic. You authored a trolling thread yourself. Just your usual stuffed shirt puffery.
Jun 18, 2023 16:47:45 #
User ID wrote:
There is no actual topic. You authored a trolling thread yourself. Just your usual stuffed shirt puffery.
Great 'toon 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
Jun 18, 2023 19:04:10 #
joecichjr wrote:
Great 'toon 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.