Grahame Loc: Fiji

Possibly?

More than likely, and true to form, knee jerk reactions due to the astonishment that others realize the limiting factors of DoF control with cell phones. Also, that they had not taken enough care to look outside the box and consider that that the word 'priority' does not necessarily equate to 'adjustability'.

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

The last time I did all that to check my DoF the subject got tired of waiting and left.

User ID

Agreed ! We are on the same page. I shouldve been clear that I didnt mean useful photographic traditions. I was referring to our UHH Sacred Traditions.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

For those that can follow thisc (apologies to everyone else), what if we applied the same logic to formats larger than full frame?

Hasselblad made a special body (903 SWC) to provide a wide angle view for their camera. They had to remove the mirror to use a Zeiss Biogon 38mm f/4.5 lens. You might come close to that combination at f/22 with a 20mm full frame lens at f/11.

You might even be able to come close with 8x10 film using a 150mm lens at f/90.

But I doubt that anyone is sufficiently obsessed with DoF to go to that much effort and expense.

Hasselblad SWC

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

We know that.

Priority means that it’s more important than something else. What is DoF more important than?

Is DoF important to think about as opposed to simply accepting the what we get as a result of the other choices we make?

Speaking of priority in real life, how many times have you heard, "Your call is very important to us. Please stay on the line for the next available representative. Your call will be answered in xxx minutes." Doesn't that give you the impression that maybe you are not really their top priority? It might give you some time to consider what other things actually have a higher priority.

Of course, if you can't even get through, you can be pretty sure that you are not really a priority to them.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Here is what you could get if you want a shallow DoF.

SWC


8x10

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It's commonly understood that the crop factor can be used to get two different formats to produce the same field of view. Of course, the field of view cannot be replicated precisely if the aspect ratios are different.

What should be apparent from the examples I have posted is that, when you also apply the crop factor to the aperture, you end up with about the same HG, DoF and the same actual (physical) aperture. This is true when comparing a fixed aperture smartphone to full frame or when comparing variable aperture full frame to larger formats.

But that's about as far as we can take it. It's impractical to have a fixed physical aperture as large as f/1 for a smartphone and unlikely that you can stop a large format lens down to the physical size of a smartphone's.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Interesting!! I had the first model of the SWC as well as the Brooks unit shown in the attached image. This camera had no rangefinders and although ground-glass focusing was someaht possible, it was impractical because of the relatively small maximum aperture. In lower light and stopped down, precise focus and assessment of DOP were virtually impossible. It was therefore vital that the photographer is thoughly familiar with DOP, and hyperfocal distance to be able to accurately scale focus and fully utilize the camera/lens's potential for extreme DOP.

I still use the Brooks camera for cert jobs, shooting film, and scanning to digital. I used the Hasselblad System for over 40 years including their entire range of wide-angle lenses.

I have to say that some of the folks posting here should be ashamed of themselves. I haven't seen this kind of mocking begavio since the 7th grade. Things improved in the 8h grade- the bullies and class clowns were admonished and some were expelled. A few were set upon by the 9th graders and were sent tothe school nurse of first-aid! If someone is not interested in a thread, why not skip over it rather than make ridiculous comments and post grotesque images?

As I have mentioned previously, I am more interested n applied photography that deep dives into the science. In my background, I was fortunate enough to have had some university-level education in science. Not wanting to become a chemical or optical/mechanical engineer for Kodak, like mostof my classmates, I changed up to the new at the time, "Applied Photograhy" Programme".

I still hold a gret deal of respect for my ex-fellow "science nerds" as they would be affectionately called nowadays. Many of these folks are responsible for all the latest and greatest gear and materials we use today. Many of them will help us get to the bottmof many vexing technical issues. Besides, every person is entitled to enjoy their photography from whatever aspect ot viewpoint they prefer.

Many of the technical issues and problems many photographers experience and can not troubleshoot and solve is because of their lack of basic scientific and theoretical background-even a little would be helpful!. Even if one person's theory or concept is perceived as incorrect, it gets folks thinking. If they only knew how to debate or argue with some decorum and logic!

Cellphone cameras? When I am called upon to furnish an estimation of costs or illustrate a concept for a commercial job, I will often go to the location and assesses the place as per lighing, etc. I will include some "rough shots", which I make with my cellphone. I don't bring in the "big guns" and all the gear until I close the deal and shoot the assignment. So, the attached shot is poin and shoot. mixed lightng the Univers only knows the f/stop, focal lengh, or exact DOP. Not too terrible.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

After getting my degree in mechanical engineering I worked briefly at an iron mine in Ontario and then Kodak Park in the paper mill where I could check out cameras. I took advantage of the deep employee discounts on film and processing. After we returned to South Florida I moved on from engineering to software development and mathematical modeling.

I sold my Mamiya RB67 (too heavy for traveling but fantastic pictures) and accumulated an almost complete Hasselblad kit (except for the SWC) and traveled extensively with it nearly 40 years. Meantime I also started using a 4x5 view camera and eventually a Rolleiflex which was a lot easier to carry. They all had their place.

Digital and then cellphone photography presented some additional challenges but they can be addressed with a logical mind and careful reasoning.

My background helps me figure out most of the technical aspects of photography. I am happy to pass on that information.

Thank you for recognizing the social challenges presented by a small group of individuals. It's probably safer to pretend they are not here.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Samll word!

I still have my Mamiya RZ and RB- systems and converted them, via Phase I, back to digital. I have a lot of kind of exotic and standard lenses for it so it was worth the investment.

Back in the day, The Rolleiflex was my favorite for weddings and event coverages in medium format. The f/2.8 n and f//3.5 leses were incredibly sharp and flat field. Of, course the standard models had no lens interchangeability so I had to buy a Rolliwide and a TeleRellei- reasonably priced in the olden days- now they are insanely costly collector's items.

Up until my studio's transition to digital, I did the majority of my commercial work on large formats- 4x5 and 8x10. That's when whatever I learn about optics, circle of (format) coverage, and the use of multiple camera movements came in very handy. All theories came to life, bellows extensions, precise color filtration, bellows factors, and our old friend, the dreded reciprocity law failure. Sometms, just making a shot of a small site, like a piece of jewelry or a small electronic component, became a case study in photo-physics, science, and optics. All of the aforementioned potential bugs converged and conspired against you so the "fun" was working around and/or solving the problems. And...we were shooting transparency film- no post-processing to remedy mistakes.

Attached are " My Studio "Ancestors"

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Interesting how our paths converge.

In the beginning I used a lot of Kodachrome. It taught me two things that carried over to digital.

1. Careful exposure with particular attention to the highlights.
2. Paying attention to ambient light and not worrying about white balance. That’s a good way to preserve the blue hour, sunsets, stormy weather, etc. I usually leave the WB set to Daylight and don’t try to second guess it unless I’m shooting in artificial light.

Lately I have been concentrating on B&W so #2 lie less important.

User ID

A SWC used to be my schlep everywhere snapshot box. I reeeeeally miss it, as a device, but I dont miss film ... so Ive got no real regrets. I also used the Graflex and the Brooks superwides, but the SWC is 6x6, and square is my fave !

"SWZ" supplants SWC no hey problemo ! When cropped down to square it exactly matches the angular coverage of a SWC.

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I mentioned earlier that not all calculators seem to use the same constant for calculating CoC (d/1500). Here is an estimate of their defaults:

The Omni Calculator lets you adjust the lp/mm integer.