Tom Axford

Lives in United Kingdom Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined on Aug 11, 2010

Tom Axford's recent activity

  • My inclination would be to go for the macro lens over the normal prime. In my experience (somewhat limited, I admit), some macro lenses outperform primes at all distances. The main reason is that ...
  • There should be no major difficulties in doing this provided (i) the focussing is done accurately and (ii) the scene is  beyond the hyperfocal distance for that aperture and focal length. (i) ...
  • If you shoot in raw and then pull back the highlights and lift the shadows during processing, you can cope with many such situations. Have you tried that?
  • As you say, it's not exactly the same, just very close. But it turns out that the DoF for 100/4 is exactly twice that for 50/2 (at half the subject distance).
  • You are being very fussy! Those artefacts are barely noticeable. To be honest, I am surprised that you did not get rather more lens flares and ghost images when using an UWA lens at night with many ...
  • There is a widely used definition of sharp that is used in calculating depth of field values (by  dofmaster.com, etc.). It says that an image is sharp if the blur is less than about 1/1500th of ...
  • Replied in Blurry people
    Nice images! Despite the blur (or even perhaps because of it), the subject immediately stands out from the background. Don't bin them.
  • Lens design is always a compromise between a variety of choices. For instance, a very long zoom with a small aperture or a much shorter zoom with a large aperture. I think most camera manufacturers ...
  • To be honest, it has taken me a long time to understand fully why this is so. My understanding was helped a lot by discussions in this forum. The traditional explanations of DoF and background ...
  • You are correct. 50mm f/2 gives the same depth of field for a headshot as 100mm f/2. However, for a background at a very large distance (effectively at infinity), 100mm f/2 will give twice the size ...
  • No, because the convention is that you view the image from a distance equal to the length of the diagonal.  As you enlarge the image, you stand further back to view it. E.g. View a 12" x 9" image ...
  • Deliberately badly blown highlights are less common today, but looking at nineteenth century photographs they were more common then because the glass plates used then had very high contrast often ...
  • I think it was my mistake to agree with your mention of depth of focus. Let's keep away from depth of focus as it is really a bit of a red herring. Depth of focus can be defined in different ways ...
  • Agreed if you want to talk about depth of focus on the sensor, but most photographers are more interested in depth of field in practice (contributors to this forum excepted as a majority of them ...
  • IN answer to you and several others who have made the same point: According to the standard definition of DoF (as used by all the camera manufacturers and all the textbooks that I have read), the DoF ...
  • So, are we to take it that if you make an 8"x10" print of an uncropped image, but you crop away about half of another image you wouldn't then print it larger than around 6"x8" (in other words, ...
  • DoF is defined according to what appears sharp and what appears blurred. This obviously depends on magnification (or viewing distance, which is effectively the same). For example, in this image the ...
  • The standard way of viewing an image to decide on depth of field (as used by camera manufacturers, etc. for well over a century) is to view the image from a distance equal to the length of the ...
  • I suffer much the same problems, but if the light is bright enough I don't think I see any improvement in making it brighter still. However, it would be interesting to know if anyone has done any ...
  • ..... If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the amount of detail we can see in a print depends not only on the size of the print and the viewing distance (I think everyone probably ...
Activity older than 12 months is not displayed.
Tom Axford has not added any gear yet.
Total messages 3613
Threads started 88
Last post 10 hours ago
Total comments 12
Total likes 4
Last post 4 weeks ago
Total reviews 0
Entries 0
Votes cast 0
Photos uploaded 0