Why No Camera Can Focus

[jgjbowen]

I feel so fortunate....since my eyes won't properly focus either, I saved myself the aggrivation of reading his thome

 

[Curt]

The Anstendig Institute

I would like to see Dave over at Satin Snow make one of these.

There are some new items on their web site, I'm still looking, it's not often that I find something new that is interesting. Whether it is of any practical use is not clear.

 

[Curt]

All papers of The Anstendig Institute are available to the public free of charge.


Anstendig Institute
915 Fulton St.
San Francisco, Ca
94117

 

[Petzi]

All papers of The Anstendig Institute are available to the public free of charge.

That is very anständig of them!

 

[DBP]

All papers of The Anstendig Institute are available to the public free of charge.

And still too expensive!

 

[Vaughn]

A few exerpts from another paper of his on the site.

"In front or in back of their precise focal-point, all tonal values are irradiated, i.e., diluted."

"The tonal gradations of a subject can only be accurately depicted at the focal point. This little-known fact about focusing accuracy is of crucial importance to art reproduction. Because of the inability of reproduction cameras to locate the focal-point, the reproduction of color tones varies with each camera setting, making it impossible to standardize the reproduction of color tones."

"Even small changes in focus change the impression of the size of the subject and cause the viewer’s gaze to be attracted to different parts of the subject."

"This use of the focal-point as the basis for photographic-artistic effect is an essential requisite of all photography that wants to call itself art. So many essential factors of a photographic image are dependent upon and controlled by the location of the focal-plane that, without the precise control of the focal-plane, photography is pure chance, not art."


He seems to place too much value on the precise focal plane. Those of us who use f64 or f90 and get a large depth of field must have images with significant strange tonal shifts throughout our images -- and those using color and large depth of field must be getting strange color shifts on each side of the plane of focus. Funny that I have never noticed this before.

The last excerpt I gave is really off-the-wall. Obviously I am not an artist -- I am a chanceist.

vaughn

 

[Woolliscroft]

He thinks that rangefinders are inherently limited to focusing on objects closer than 30 meters, having apparently never encountered the other uses of rangefinders or the study of geometry and trigonometry. Thus he does not realize that rangefinders have been used to determine distances of moving earthbound objects to at least 20 miles (e.g. naval rangefinders in the world wars), and celestial objects far beyond that.

Not with a 49mm base line though. The rangefinders on battleships were huge. Astronomical range finding uses, in effect, the diameter of the Earth's orbit as a base line and still can't measure accurately beyond a few light years. He's actually right on this one, which is why no one uses long lenses on rangefinder cameras. The question is does it matter?

David.

 

[jstraw]

A few exerpts from another paper of his on the site.

"In front or in back of their precise focal-point, all tonal values are irradiated, i.e., diluted."

"The tonal gradations of a subject can only be accurately depicted at the focal point. This little-known fact about focusing accuracy is of crucial importance to art reproduction. Because of the inability of reproduction cameras to locate the focal-point, the reproduction of color tones varies with each camera setting, making it impossible to standardize the reproduction of color tones."

"Even small changes in focus change the impression of the size of the subject and cause the viewer’s gaze to be attracted to different parts of the subject."

"This use of the focal-point as the basis for photographic-artistic effect is an essential requisite of all photography that wants to call itself art. So many essential factors of a photographic image are dependent upon and controlled by the location of the focal-plane that, without the precise control of the focal-plane, photography is pure chance, not art."


He seems to place too much value on the precise focal plane. Those of us who use f64 or f90 and get a large depth of field must have images with significant strange tonal shifts throughout our images -- and those using color and large depth of field must be getting strange color shifts on each side of the plane of focus. Funny that I have never noticed this before.

The last excerpt I gave is really off-the-wall. Obviously I am not an artist -- I am a chanceist.

vaughn

It's ALL gobbledygook. Might as well be reading a bottle of Dr. Bronner's..

Hasn't he got at least one defender we can argue with???

 

[Gatsby1923]

I have been following this one with a smirk on my face. That man has WAY to much time on his hands. Then again the fact that we all read his ramblings and commented on them say we do to. We should invite him to join APUG so he can defend his argument... On second thought never argue with a lunatic.

Dave M

 

[Vaughn]

Hasn't he got at least one defender we can argue with???

Okay, giving this too much thought, but he is not 100% wrong -- such as the rangefinder example above. The concept that tonal values are different at the point of focus than anywhere else is an interesting concept, and probably correct...it just doesn't seem very significant.

The exerpts I provided above were from an article about reproducing artwork with slide film. Reproducing artwork from slides is probably the best application of his focusing system -- especially if the slides are going to be scanned with the highest quality scanner. Once one loads the slides into a slide projector (even with the glass slide holders he says are essential), the advantage of his focusing system probably disappears (considering the slide projector lens, the allignment between the slide and the lens, focus on the screen, screen quality and the screen's exact placement relative to the plane of the slide.)

I don't know...I think this guy must have been in love with his boss...and now that his boss is dead he is on a crusade to spread the word and work of his boss. Just a guess.

Vaughn

 

[StephenS]

I was serious about the breathing on the lens thing. Isn't that what you're supposed to do before each exposure? If so, are there any papers online describing this?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The Anstendig Institute

I would like to see Dave over at Satin Snow make one of these.

There are some new items on their web site, I'm still looking, it's not often that I find something new that is interesting. Whether it is of any practical use is not clear.

Well, from the website, he seems like kind of a crank, but I'd still be interested in trying a new kind of focusing screen, whatever his justifications may be. I suspect Dave could make such a thing. It would just involve masking the screen to grind it in that pattern and it would have to be done on two surfaces, and it would have to be positioned so that the plane of focus falls between the two ground surfaces.

I still have my doubts that it's better than just a plain groundglass. It seems that the principle of the Messraster is that you look at the whole glass to see when it all looks uniform, and I'm not convinced that that would be better than magnifying the surface of a plain glass with a loupe.

 

[Helen B]

He doesn't understand how to use a clear screen with a graticule for accurate focussing on an aerial image either. The way he thinks it would work just doesn't work, which suggests that not only does he not understand it, but that he's never tried it. He doesn't even mention emulsion depth and the tiny variations it causes in the optimum image plane. He's obviously not a Class I Nitpicker. Must try harder.

Best,
Helen

 

[DBP]

Not with a 49mm base line though. The rangefinders on battleships were huge. Astronomical range finding uses, in effect, the diameter of the Earth's orbit as a base line and still can't measure accurately beyond a few light years. He's actually right on this one, which is why no one uses long lenses on rangefinder cameras. The question is does it matter?

David.

You forget that the prewar Contax was available with a 180mm, and had the base length to focus it. Framing a shot with it is not as easy. SLRs are just a much better solution to that task. And yes, I know that rangefinders on battleships were huge. I have also seen camera rangefinders that could easily have been designed to give more precise readings simply by extending the length of the body, but no one bothered because the gain in precision was not considered worth the effort. [See the Kalart rangefinders on the press cameras, and consider also the shortening of the rangefinder base from the Contax II to the IIa].

 

[phfitz]

Hi there,

" I have also seen camera rangefinders that could easily have been designed to give more precise readings simply by extending the length of the body, but no one bothered because the gain in precision was not considered worth the effort. "

Actually they could have done it with an extra mirror and doubled the base length. I think the Kodak Ektra did this, it had a really wide base length. Too expensive to manufacture and too delicate in use.

It would be far easier to paint the 'messraster' onto a glass than grind it, I think they are looking at a .0001" seperation between the 2 views on the same side of the glass. The only problem is there would be no way to keep this precision with film holders or film.

He may be nuts BUT he's actually correct with most of what he has posted. There is NO depth of field, just check the aerial image with a 20X eyepiece. DOF is an optical illusion provided by the GG, be happy the emulsion provides it also.

Happy New Year everyone.

 

[Jim Jones]

What is true in theory is often irrevelant in practice. Anstendig ignores that distinction. Even his theory is suspect. The Tessar can be a fine lens, but certainly not the best for everything. He should practice before he preaches. Anyone who thinks a few negatives taken on assignment with the Messraster are certain to be so perfect that the editor will be completely satisfied is arrogant almost beyond belief. Like Helen says, he obviously has no experience with parallax focusing. Perhaps his ground glass experiences were with inferior screens. Without practicing with a Messraster myself, I question the advantage of comparing two out-of-focus images over focusing on an appropriate ground glass. Despite this, we shouldn't be completely critical of someone who may desperately trying to create a market for a questionable product. Business is business, and photography is photography.

 

[jstraw]

What is true in theory is often irrevelant in practice. Anstendig ignores that distinction. Even his theory is suspect. The Tessar can be a fine lens, but certainly not the best for everything. He should practice before he preaches. Anyone who thinks a few negatives taken on assignment with the Messraster are certain to be so perfect that the editor will be completely satisfied is arrogant almost beyond belief. Like Helen says, he obviously has no experience with parallax focusing. Perhaps his ground glass experiences were with inferior screens. Without practicing with a Messraster myself, I question the advantage of comparing two out-of-focus images over focusing on an appropriate ground glass. Despite this, we shouldn't be completely critical of someone who may desperately trying to create a market for a questionable product. Business is business, and photography is photography.

Oh, I dunno. I don't find it difficult to be completely critical of someone that's obfuscating photography in the name of business while camoflaging the exersize with pseudoscience.

 

[JBrunner]

Oh, I dunno. I don't find it difficult to be completely critical of someone that's obfuscating photography in the name of business while camoflaging the exersize with pseudoscience.

I can't find where he is selling something. I rather think it is more the desire to be recognized as some sort of expert in photographic matters. It reminds me of the brighter bits of Mr. Terry Mester, although equally obtuse and pointless. For those who don't remember Terry's drive by, well, it really can't be explained, just experienced:

http://www.geocities.com/filmanddigitalinfo/

 

[jstraw]

I loved this opener:

"Most people are deceived by the term "Digital", and falsely assume that Digital Photography is superior to Film Photography in the same way that Digital Sound / Video is most definitely superior to Analogue Sound / Video."​

Compact Disks appeared in late 1983, long before the popularity of digital photography and audiophiles have been bashing sampled sound since before the first Sony Betamax-based PCM recorders were introduced. You would have no trouble finding a recording engineer that will tell you that digital sampling is fine for pictures but for serious audio, it's a horror.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

You would have no trouble finding a recording engineer that will tell you that digital sampling is fine for pictures but for serious audio, it's a horror.

On the other hand, if you asked me as an occasional recording engineer and music-lover (can't decide if I'm an audiophile), I would tell you that one of the happiest days of my life was when I quit using a 15 ips Ferrograph open-reel recorder and moved to Sony DAT. Not only infinitely lighter and virtually silent running, but a better final result.

With regard to photography, and without rekindling THAT debate yet again, I recognise as a trained pro that digital offers major economic and workflow advantages for busy studio shooters, with quality at the high end which compares favorably at least with medium-format film. But although I feel digital can be as good as film in certain circumstances, I can think of none in which it is better and many (particularly high-contrast outdoor scenes) where it is decidedly worse, with no immediate prospect of improvement.

Regards,

David

 

[Helen B]

"I would tell you that one of the happiest days of my life was when I quit using a 15 ips Ferrograph open-reel recorder and moved to Sony DAT..."

...and 48 kHz 16-bit DAT is very old hat. Even Bob Clearmountain uses digital these days. Wait until DSD becomes more common.

I don't see much of an analogy with photography though.

Best,
Helen

 

[jstraw]

I was only pointing out that among the crowd still babying their macintosh tube amps and linn sondek's, there is much similarity to folks here at apug and that from his position he was unable to see that the superiority of the quality of digital over analog audio is no more a settled issue among those folks than it is for images among photographers.

 

[Helen B]

Quite so. Thanks, I see that analogy.

Best wishes,
Helen

 

[Woolliscroft]

I was only pointing out that among the crowd still babying their macintosh tube amps and linn sondek's, there is much similarity to folks here at apug and that from his position he was unable to see that the superiority of the quality of digital over analog audio is no more a settled issue among those folks than it is for images among photographers.

Yup my Linn Sondek is still in daily use.

David.