Ysarex

So now people with phone cameras also won't know what bokeh is. That's great. Bokeh is not blur due to shallow DOF. Maybe we should just re-define it so the definition will match everyone's ...

It's 16mm. The angle of view of a 16mm lens on a DX camera is the same as the angle of view of a 24mm lens on an FX camera. Both cameras from the same position would take the same photo.

Make shirt white. More appropriate skin color. Retouch shadow. Tweak tone response.

Simple answer: Yes. The camera is going to create the JPEG no matter what. If you save raw files only you're still going to have the JPEG embedded in the raw file no matter what it's always there. ...

Hi Jerry, Only 454? Are you sure -- I'd have thought it was a lot more than that. You know this is all really Fuji's fault. They're the ultimate pixel peepers in this. What the bleep were they ...

Please, Show me: DSCF4196.RAF Thank you.

GIMP and it is free.

Yep! This: " Methodology: I tested the default import settings because I wanted to see what the programs did without tweaking." makes the article and the effort to even read it pointless.

Excellent -- did you draw that yourself or find it somewhere?

I found that illustration (long time ago & don't remember where) as is. You are correct that the CoC is behind the lens at the point of focus.

Don't want to get into what constitutes "normal distances" but I'd say the DOF distribution is "normally" more uneven that 1/3 -- 2/3. In any case maybe this illustration is helpful: DOF

Yes, you can check to see if clipping has occurred in the raw file. Use RawDigger to get a histogram of the raw file: There is no highlight clipping in this raw file. If you're experiencing any ...

Such problems can be tricky to troubleshoot. To begin with it's likely an ICC profile problem. My best guess is that it has to do with your monitor profile. LR and Firefox both use the display ...

I shoot exclusively raw and you are correct that the camera white balance setting does not effect the raw data. To control WB in my photos I shoot a target to take a reading from while processing ...

And you didn't prove it by the way.

No. All completely wrong. Which you know of course unless you haven't read through this and the previous thread. A clear answer to why the above is completely wrong is here: http://www.dpreview.com ...

All commonly accepted and commonly in-use DOF formulas and calculators disagree with this claim and they do calculate DOF with print size as a determinant. Your claim is both unsupported and ...

Prove it. Provide a link to a DOF calculator or DOF formula that does not incorporate print size as a DOF determinant factor. Here's a link that proves you wrong: http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html An ...

But that's not stopping you from posting in the thread and making unsupported fallacious claims. Do you want to understand? This thread was begun when another thread closed. In that thread you made ...

You said, "Does it really matter if I display the image at 1"x1" or 10"x10" if the out of focus area is filled with a very strong blur ? A strong blur can not be sharp no matter how small you print it.