Tricky shot of an old church

Lorem Ipsum wrote:
What I find strangest of all in this thread is the term "Old" church. That
building ain't old. It is not even interesting.

Others would disagree
http://www.hawaiiweb.com/hawaii/html...ua_church.html

Scott

Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:
For portrait work I can see where that could be an issue but not so
much for landscape and architectural work.

I disagree. It is in landscape and architectural work that adjusting
the plane of focus has more of an impact on overall image quality,
because the DOF is incapable of being made large enough to cover
both near and distant objects.

You mean like in this shot?

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/21864044/original

I can't tell for sure, but it looks like your distant objects (mountains
and trees) are out of focus. If so, then no, I don't mean like that shot.

Neil

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...
You mean like in this shot?

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/21864044/original

I can't quite make out the markings on the satellite passing over.

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:
For portrait work I can see where that could be an issue but not so
much for landscape and architectural work.

I disagree. It is in landscape and architectural work that adjusting
the plane of focus has more of an impact on overall image quality,
because the DOF is incapable of being made large enough to cover
both near and distant objects.

You mean like in this shot?

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/21864044/original

I can't tell for sure, but it looks like your distant objects (mountains
and trees) are out of focus. If so, then no, I don't mean like that shot.

Neil

Well how about like this shot
http://www.sewcon.com/church/
As you pan and zoom keep in mind that the image is 10064 x 7474 pixels.
I don't think it is suffering from a DOF problem.

Scott

Colin D wrote:

Image shape can be controlled in Photoshop with digital images, but the
plane of focus cannot. However the dof of digital cameras can usually
cover the scene.

I disagree on this one. If one wanted to cover the same field of
view in a digital mosaic as a 4x5 view, and record similar detail,
then one needs similar focal length, and similar total
focal plane area. Thus the depth of field would would be
similar. One could adjust the focal point with each frame,
and if there was not too much difference between frames,
they might go together ok.

Roger

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well how about like this shot
http://www.sewcon.com/church/

It is skewed, distored, falling over.

Scott W wrote:

http://www.sewcon.com/church/

Those zoomify pages don't load for me (mozilla on a PC). I've used it in
the past. It just says 'transfering from zoomify' but there's no
transmission.

Paul Furman wrote:
Scott W wrote:

http://www.sewcon.com/church/

Those zoomify pages don't load for me (mozilla on a PC). I've used it in
the past. It just says 'transfering from zoomify' but there's no
transmission.

Here is the whole image, it is about 20MB so it might take a while to
download.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/pan2c%2011-15-05.jpg

Scott

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Scott W wrote:

http://www.sewcon.com/church/

Those zoomify pages don't load for me (mozilla on a PC). I've used it in
the past. It just says 'transfering from zoomify' but there's no
transmission.

Does this one work for you? http://elearning.winona.edu/staff%5Fo/jjs/z2/

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...

Scott W wrote:


http://www.sewcon.com/church/

Those zoomify pages don't load for me (mozilla on a PC). I've used it in
the past. It just says 'transfering from zoomify' but there's no
transmission.


Does this one work for you? http://elearning.winona.edu/staff%5Fo/jjs/z2/

Yes, it loaded right up!

I loaded Scott's in IE and it worked fine. I'm running Mozilla 1.7.3
which is not the newest thing.