Why do my photos look like crap?
November 21, 2004 12:15 PM Subscribe
Optics and Photography. A collection of illustrated articles on the chief causes of image degradation in photography.
I've read only the depth of field and the flare chapters yet, and they're very well done -- thanks chungking, good post
posted by matteo at 4:42 PM on November 21, 2004
posted by matteo at 4:42 PM on November 21, 2004
Yup, fairly nice site (he has some interesting photos, too).
I particularly like the page on misconceptions.
The focal length bit there has always bugged me. Eg, you bug a D1 and B&H will warn you that it multiplies the focal length of your lenses by 1.5. While this is useful information -- an 85mm will be more of a long lens on the D1 than it is on the F5, it is still an 85mm lens. It will just have a smaller field of view.
But focal length is a rather arcane way to market a lens. 85mm is a different lens on 35mm format than it is on medium format, and all the rest. And digital cameras have varying sensor sizes, so the focal length of their lenses all have different associated fields of view.
I've always thought that field of view should be measured, indstead, as an angle. 180 degrees would be a very wide angle, 1 degree a tight telephoto. That happens to be more "portable," and also more immediately obvious about what it means, as well. Although I imagine there is something wrong with that, too.
posted by teece at 5:13 PM on November 21, 2004
I particularly like the page on misconceptions.
The focal length bit there has always bugged me. Eg, you bug a D1 and B&H will warn you that it multiplies the focal length of your lenses by 1.5. While this is useful information -- an 85mm will be more of a long lens on the D1 than it is on the F5, it is still an 85mm lens. It will just have a smaller field of view.
But focal length is a rather arcane way to market a lens. 85mm is a different lens on 35mm format than it is on medium format, and all the rest. And digital cameras have varying sensor sizes, so the focal length of their lenses all have different associated fields of view.
I've always thought that field of view should be measured, indstead, as an angle. 180 degrees would be a very wide angle, 1 degree a tight telephoto. That happens to be more "portable," and also more immediately obvious about what it means, as well. Although I imagine there is something wrong with that, too.
posted by teece at 5:13 PM on November 21, 2004
I'm not exactly sure who his target audience is... Photography students? It seems to waffle between layman's terms and much more technical detail. But no complaints, it's good stuff.
posted by wolftrouble at 10:03 PM on November 21, 2004
posted by wolftrouble at 10:03 PM on November 21, 2004
« Older Redefining "political party" since 2004 | Advertising bigotry Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by fatllama at 1:49 PM on November 21, 2004