lens perspective question?

[Steve Smith]

What about variations in drunken state of the viewer?


Steve.

[Mark Sawyer]

What about variations in drunken state of the viewer?

That too. I also find that a sharp blow to the back of the viewer's head can improve depth of field and appreciation of the artistic aesthetic...

Sooooo many variables...

( I imagine Peter Lik's stuff looks great on acid... )

[E. von Hoegh]

That too. I also find that a sharp blow to the back of the viewer's head can improve depth of field and appreciation of the artistic aesthetic...

Sooooo many variables...

( I imagine Peter Lik's stuff looks great on acid... )

Unfortunately, it's hard to find really pure acid around here. How about Gursky? Psilocybin?

[cowanw]

1) Real focus only exists on one plane. That plane has no depth dimension. Focus then is one plane thick, of no dimension.
2) Everything else is just varying degrees of blurriness.
3) The degree of blurriness is dependent upon the distance from the focus plane and the circles produced on the film or sensor.
4) Larger circles means further distance and more blur.
5) The circles can be so small they appear to be points.
6) Small circles appear in focus.
7) Small circles can become large circles when enlarged, and this become blurry. They are no longer small enough to be confused as points on an enlargement.


Question is does point 7 remain true if viewing distance changes proportionately to the enlargement?

I suppose that is the root of discussion, Either the comparative assessment of DOF is made at a constant defined distance and size of print eg 8x10 arms length away.
Or the comparative assessment is made at a distance proportional to the enlargement size of the print.

But comparing different sized prints at arms length is less revealing.