Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

[William Mortensen]

"2) F/16 and Be There."

Odd, I have a friend who flies fighters for the National Guard. They have the same saying...

[Dan Fromm]

Robert, I do a fair amount of closeup photography. The only calculations I now do just before pushing the button when shooting closeup have to do with exposure. When I'm not using a pre-calibrated flash rig, I have have to calculate adjustments to exposure given magnification and, if using flash I have to do GN arithmetic too. When I'm using a pre-calibrated flash rig, I measure extension, calculate magnification, and set aperture/flash power from a table.

I did a lot of calculations back when after I figured out what I was trying to accomplish. They had two goals. To find out what couldn't be done, which led to the rules of thumb about limiting aperture given magnification. Diffraction, magnification, film resolution, and intended magnification from subject to final print all affect choice of aperture when working closeup. And to refine the designs of my pre-calibrated flash rigs.

When shooting distant subjects, I pick aperture by rule of thumb, don't calculate. I have a hard time seeing what is and isn't reasonably sharp on the GG at small apertures, so focus wide open as best I can, stop down as suggested by rule of thumb, and hope for the best. After making informal tests at distance, I resist stopping down below f/22.

For what I do, I think that the calculations were, if not absolutely necessary, very helpful. If nothing else, they cut down on directed trial and error. They didn't eliminate t & e completely, though. After all that, there's not much need to recalculate -- except aperture when the gear's not calibrated -- in the field or even to revisit my original calculations. If I got them right in the first place, I'll get the same answers every time.

But understand that my big problem is "choose aperture and, given that, get the exposure right." Given what I do, I have little freedom to choose aperture after I've chosen magnification.

Hope this helps,

[John_4185]

There are not just two different modes of working, except to those inclined to think so. Pity them. One is of just words, the other is floundering to realize just that. To the former I say nothing; you have your own particular Hell. To the later I say Get to Work, be happy, find the Other Way.

Photography is not rocket science.

[Steven Nestler]

f/16 and be where? That, really, is the question.

[Kirk Keyes]

"2) F/16 and Be There."

At f/16 with a circle of confusion of 1/225 inch, your depth of focus is about 0.14 inches.

[CXC]

Okay, okay, I made a mistake! Maybe I was distracted by the Sunny 16 rule. I meant:

F/64 and Be There

[John_4185]

At f/16 with a circle of confusion of 1/225 inch, your depth of focus is about 0.14 inches.

You can't get away with that without showing us the givens. What FC, what subject distance (or magnification), and what universe really cares?

[John Kasaian]

An approach is only that---an approach. Approaches change with each new thing we learn or forget. I think what messes the works up is that many of us don't look at photography as a "whole" getting caught up in whims and fashions like exotic chemicals, theories for focusing, lenses from antiquity(or the latest and greatest gizmo) and esoteric formulas for the so-called perfect proportion(among other things.)

Hey, its fun. But is it The Truth ? Or The Right Way? Any of it? I think if you want to get Platonic about this, then its a lost cause. A better question would be: "Does Photography lead somewhere meaningful, or is it merely a distraction?

Do we see nature, or do we merely look at it through a ground glass "windshield" like when driving a car?

Do we 'live' the moment or do we steal it, like putting a rarewild animal in a zoo?

Is a truly great photograph something that represents a split second in the life of the person tripping the shutter as much as it is the subject? Or is something mechanical, like those cameras that record bank robbers?

Maybe That is what is true or right, and the approach is just the path leading there. Of course some paths are more funner than others. Just another thought to rip into.

[BrianShaw]

"Photography is not rocket science."

Even rocket science isn't always rocket science!

[John_4185]

I think if you want to get Platonic about this, then its a lost cause.

Not to a Platonist. Methinks you mean Sophist.

Fortunately, this kind of thing never incites a flame war; way too obscure.

I be a Platonist, BTW.