[Rockhounds] achieving depth of field w digicam?

[Axel Emmermann]

Tim,

The problem is real but exists mainly in our minds.
A photo is a flat object thus our mind expects it to be in focus all over
when we look at it.
Nonetheless, if the photo is a macroscopy of something that is 1 cm wide and
has 1 cm of depth, than it would NOT be a good reproduction of reality if it
were ALL in focus.
Take out the fossil and look at it with just a loupe or even the naked
eye... There is no way that you can get view that is "sharp" all over "at
once". You focus on one point at a time and that point is in focus along
with all the other points at equal distances from your eye.
If you want to reproduce reality, you should be prepared to make sacrifices.
Making background and foreground out of focus while providing a solid focus
on the subject firmly "places" the subject in the reality that you want to
show the viewer.
Look at my photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22753159@N04/2212174499/in/set-7215760378477153
7/ (you may have to unwrap) 
Or
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22753159@N04/2212174565/in/set-7215760370425562
9/
Both photos show distinct gradients in sharpness.
These out of focus zones assist the viewer's mind in designating an
hierarchy of depth-levels...to place the object in space, relative to the
other objects in the picture that are either in or out of focus.

If you "stack" images to obtain overall sharpness, you forfeit the reference
points that allows the viewers to "spatialise" the object in their minds.
In some rare instances you may want to let the didactic aspect prevail.
Sometimes you just have to show the full detail for the sake of science...
Say an insect included in amber or for that matter, any inclusion in any
transparent mineral.
I think that the use of stacking software for such purpose could very well
be deemed permissible.
However, I'm a fervent advocate of integrity in all aspects of life... I
guess you can hear me coming ;-)) Each and every photo that is a result of
stacking software or HDR tools should be labeled as such. (yes, period). The
author of the photo should volunteer the information upon publication in any
form without the viewer having to inquire about it.

There you have it, my two Eurocents ;-)))

Axel


> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com 
> [mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] Namens Tim Jokela Jr.
> Verzonden: woensdag 16 april 2008 16:14
> Aan: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem 
> collectors
> Onderwerp: [Rockhounds] achieving depth of field w digicam?
> 
> This one goes out to the digital photography gurus out there.
> 
> I was talking to a buddy last night about macrophotography of 
> small fossils, 1-3cm stuff, and how capturing any depth of 
> field continues to be the major challenge. He suggested three 
> ways of doing it: buy the $25,000 camera system made to do 
> the job, take the picture 3 meters away from the specimen and 
> blow up the image, or take multiple shots, focusing on 
> different areas, and stitch them together with Helicon, 
> Combine-Z, or the expensive new version of PhotoShop.
> 
> All are basically horrible options.
> 
> So, is there anything new and interesting in the world of 
> digital photography that's giving depth of field to 
> macrophotography in a simple, affordable manner? (My weapon 
> of choice atm is a Canon Digital Rebel with a 50mm macro lens.)
> 
> Many thanks for any info!
> 
> Tim Jokela Jr., tjokela at execulink.com
> Business: http://www.element51.com
> Pleasure: http://www.ontariominerals.com
> 
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> Subscription Services:
> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html
>