Re: [KOML] hyperfocal focus

["Al Smith" <adsmith@mailzone.com>]

I'll agree with that.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mel Brown <melbrown@eatel.net>
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List <koni-omega@snoopy.cmagic.com>
Date: Sunday, January 31, 1999 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: [KOML] hyperfocal focus


>John J Stafford wrote:
>
>> From: Al Smith <adsmith@mailzone.com>
>>
>>
>> > New York Inst of Photography still teach the use of hyperfocal
>> distance.....
>>
>> So what?  They may teach the mathematical principle of hyperfocal, and
that
>> is real and worthy, but is their information CURRENT?  Come on, you are
>> talking to a guy who studied physics and philosophy for over thirty years
>> and is still in higher ed. Don't try to tell me that because somebody
>> teaches SOMETHING that it is current.
>
>John, as I read it, Al was merely stating a fact. I don't see what
"current"
>has to do with a mathematical principle that you assert is real. What
>happened--did you bet on the Falcons today?  [:-)
>
>I think we're drifting from the point of whether the use of the hyperfocal
>distance is appropriate for aerial photography. I vote no because its use
>cannot benefit any subject more distant than 500 feet, the minimum altitude
at
>which aircraft are generally allowed to fly. I say, as did someone else,
tape
>the focus at infinity and forget about it. If the images are not in sharp
>focus, get the camera checked or learn better techniques for holding it in
a
>vibrating aircraft.
>
>Mel Brown
>
>
>