You are knocking the photographer(s) and from the sound of your description there may be some merit for it however, whoever hired him should get most of the blame. Didn't he/she/them see any samples of his work? Was he recommenced? How was he dressed for the interview (was he even interviewed)?

I'll bet he was hired because he gave them a great deal. So sad. You only get what you pay for. How long has that saying been around?

Good article. Thanks.

What is the difference between making an "image" of my C drive vs making a "copy" of my C drive and then writing either to my backup disk? Is the Register also copied?

Excellent tip.

Thanks for the Welcome Imagemeister, been here about the same length of time as you and rather enjoy the friendly firefights. Keeps me on my toes.

Stay Well

Just one more comment and that's it. On one of the links Gene mentioned http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/04/12/professional-photography-with-compact-cameras/ uses a compact camera and is very technically knowledgeable on using it. Point and shoot to me means: set the camera on auto, press the button and let the camera do the rest.

I'm going to get a cup of coffee.

Hi Grandpa (I'm one too). Not sure what got you so stimulated and excited (all those asterisks, plus, and thumbs ups), must have typing cramps. Was it because Gene pointed out the error in my definition of the hyperfocal distance or you don't like all that technical mish mash some of us do when taking a photograph. It it's the latter, then you need to drop the Zone System in your username. Ansel Adams would be turning over in his grave.

If it is the former, and he is correct, then give me a break. Mistakes do happen. Made any lately?

You are absolutely correct in that it is 1/2 rather than 1/3 the distance from the hyperfocal distance to the camera. My bad, I do know better.

Also, thanks for the links. They are excellent articles and explanations of how and why to use the hyperfocal distance. Would have used them had they been available when I was teaching.

I did not coin the phrase "acceptable focus". Its been in use for a long time and is repeatedly mentioned in the links you supplied. Of course acceptable is not ideal. I never stated that. It is acceptable.
To me that means most observers looking at a print will accept it as being in focus. I would also venture that most of the time the "center of interest" is not at either the near or far points, but somewhere in
between, which would bring it closer to ideal focus, thus helping to direct the observer to the "center of interest". If someone is going to put a loupe on it I don't even want to go there.

My reason for even getting into these discussions is to try and help someone to get the results they visualize when taking a photograph. If one doesn't have a working knowledge of laws of optics, then its usually going to be hit and miss.
Its one of many tools available to photographers. If one does not want to use it that's fine with me.

Incidentally, isn't the hyperfocal distance formula used in deriving the depth of field charts. My point regarding your comment about selective focus was that by using the hyperfocal distance formula one can determine where the near
and far points are and then make adjustments to the aperture setting or refocus or both, thus achieving selective focusing. Does this answer your question on how to obtain selective focus by using the hyperfocal distance formula?

Point and shoot. This really hit a raw nerve, didn't mean to do that, just MHO. I did go over to the links you recommended and saw some very artistic photos. Most of the photographers have a very visual artistic eye, probably better than I have.
In my time (a long time ago) we called them "grab" shots" (point and shoot). As I said, it has its place. But in my opinion, if one is going to rise to the next level or hopefully to the top in the field of photography something more is needed.
And that is all the technical factors, all those boring things such as correct exposure, lighting ratios, hyperfocal distance, contrast control, etc, etc, etc. This is what the Masters of Photography understood/understand and practiced.

My understanding had a mistake, not a misunderstanding. Do I want to reconsider my thoughts on all of this? Except where noted, a big fat NO.

It is my understanding on using the hyperfocal distance as a focal point is that everything from 1/3 the distance from the hyperfocal point to the camera all the way to infinity will be acceptably sharp. This will give the photographer the greatest range of sharpness possible with that particular lens and settings. So, if you are trying get as sharp a photograph that has near objects and objects that are at infinity, focus on the HFD. Remember, infinity for a camera lens does mean the moon or stars, it can be as close as fifty feet from the camera.

HFD can also be use to obtain selective focus. Say you want to selectively have an object(s) soft (out of focus), use the HFD formula to determine where the image will fall out of focus. Ansel Adams used this as a tool in many of his photographs.

This may sound boring and to much trouble to deal with for some folks, but if you want to really master photography, you are going to have to bite the bullet. Adams had not only a very artistic eye, he was a technical master.

Point and shoot has its place, just not in the field of serious photographers. IMHO.

I've been using cameras for 70 years and never heard that either. Of course it could be my age.

I'm not quite in agreement with your other statement about barely being in focus. Looking at a prints sharpness is subjective. If one looks at a print and considers it sharp or in focus then it is. Others may not agree (Maybe a smaller circle of confusion would help).

Hyperfocal distance is a law of physics. It is one of many factors that deal with "sharpness". If the print is not sharp don't blame HFD. Maybe the photographer stopped down to much (a whole different conversation).

So what you're saying is "focus at infinity". Therefore an important object in the foreground that you wanted to be sharp could possibly be out of focus. What you wrote regarding the circle of confusion is entirely correct. That's why if the hyperfocal distance is applied correctly the important objects that are at infinity will be sharp to your satisfaction. As a plus, that baby fawn or flower(s) in the foreground will be sharp as a tack (again, accordingly to your specifications).

There are different times when one should focus at infinity, but to state that one should focus "as far away as you can" is very bad advice. The right answer is "hyperfocal distance" for most of the time. Its a win/win.

All this chatter is assuming that the sharpest print is wanted. If an out of foreground is wanted then set focus at infinity.

Question on Acronis. Does this mean that all the apps do not have to be reloaded? That sure would be a huge time saver.

Thanks for the input.

I just spent over an hour reviewing this site and would highly recommend it to both beginners and pros. Excellent videos and the instructor is top notch.

Thanks for the Heads Up.

Gosh Cat it's that easy huh? A -2 exposure compensation will give you a 5-1 lighting ratio which in MHO is quite dramatic.

Was a fill light used on your portrait (and a very nice one at that)? If a fill was used, I would guess it was a -1 which would give a 3-1 lighting ratio. :lol:

The problem Joseph is that he wasn't asking a question, but was trying to explain something to us (big difference). It's obvious he wasn't quite clear from the number of negative responses posted.

If it had been a question the tone of this discussion would be completely different.