DOF and Cropping take 2

Started Feb 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
moving_comfort Veteran Member • Posts: 8,226
Three things to talk about

awaldram wrote:

moving_comfort wrote:

awaldram wrote:

Equivalence as defined by you ,Ian and Lumo is just wrong and misleading.

A lens does not change any of it characteristics ever !

The above leaves me wondering what you've learned....

Honestly it wont hurt that much , you've run-out of wiggle space time to man up.


I was going to start this post with another insult in kind, but that serves little purpose and will probably result in you listening with less than open ears (as it would me.) What a way for grown adults to behave, in other words...

Anyway, there are three main areas I want to touch on with you regarding this thread in general:

1) You often cite correct information, but are unable (or unwilling?) to apply it correctly in every case. For example, you cited the fact that magnification will change the perceived DOF, but you didn't see how that applied to what Ian was saying - that cropping does change DOF, because the subsequent magnification follows the cropping. He tried many ways to tell you, to show you, and you would answer by continuing to argue and not accepting how what he was saying was, in fact, true - and consistent with your supposed understanding of the effects magnification had. I jumped in to try to help on that point, and I think you suspected an FF-uber alles agenda, which fueled your fires of denial. It was never meant that way.

2) You keep trying to cite outside sources and posters in the thread as being on 'your side' while claiming that the things I've said are somehow inconsistent with those sources or untrue - that's vexing, and borders on dishonest. I've been perfectly consistent throughout, and absolutely nothing I've written is inconsistent with equivalence, the established concepts of perspective - it's all correct. In some cases, it's actually consistent with what you were claiming - and you even refused to see some of those occasions. It makes me wonder if this isn't related to #1 above, in which you don't want to apply the concepts in occasions where it may force you to say, "OK, you were right, I see what you're saying now."

3) Most disturbing in a way; you still do not accept the terms of equivalence while claiming to have the broad support of the external sites you cite - the two things are mutually exclusive. You can't claim equivalence is 'wrong' and still be in compliance with those things you claim. You have called equivalence a fallacy, crackpot, while at the same time trying to claim it's somehow on 'your side'. It's similar to someone claiming they agree with some of the tenets of evolution, but don't accept that the fossils found in sedimentary strata and carbon dating processes show that the earth is more than 6000 years old - you can't accept one without fully accepting the other.

And I really don't want you to backtrack and start claiming that you never questioned equivalence - In This post (link), you are actually openly and admittingly trying to disprove equivalence with a shot you took. You've also disparaged it throughout this thread and in other threads in other ways.

I mentioned before that when I originally encountered equivalence in 2009, I didn't fully believe it at first, but came around after reading Joseph James, Joseph Wisniewski and a few really illuminating threads. Hopefully beyond all the rancor this thread can serve a purpose like that.


-- hide signature --

Here are a few of my favorite things...

 moving_comfort's gear list:moving_comfort's gear list
Pentax K20D Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow