MTF and the Picket Fence

[xpatUSA]

[sorry, I've deleted this post, it was too obscure by far]

By way of explanation, it tried to relate resolution theory to the good old "real world", more as an exercise in understanding technical data than proposing a practical method.

By using a picket fence as an example, I forgot that roads outside of Texas can be quite narrow ;-)

[Mike Buckley]

Since the fence is the subject in this picture

The photographer might have intended the fence to be the subject but I would strongly argue otherwise.

[dan marchant]

Some people like to analyze the theoretical side of photography, others prefer the real world aspect of the hobby.

It seems I clearly fall into the second category. I can't see any purpose to such wonderfully crafted calculations because:
1. I find it impossible to believe there is anyone out there who wouldn't instinctively know that photographing a picket fence from in-excess of 125 meters away would be sub optimal, and
2. In the real world the average street is something less than 125 meters wide (closer to 20), meaning that you would actually be two streets over and need an x-ray camera to see the fence.

Pretty sure that by the time you were half way through your calculation most togs would have taken a test, chimped it, taken a couple more shots, tried one at a different aperture and be half way to Starbuck for a double shot decaf recaf.

In a similar vein I have problems with the endless discussions of what the optimal settings for sharp images with a particular lens are. Admittedly I am biased because of the type of photography I like. I accept that when shooting product photography in a controlled environment you can focus on minute details. Likewise, if being paid $20,000 to shoot next years fashions I might order my underpaid assistance to calculate the best settings to perfectly capture the particular shade of puce the designers are using in their new creations. However, in the real world (don't think there is much more real world than street photography) composition and timing are far more important.

[xpatUSA]

I am regretful that my futile attempt to form a bridge of understanding between theory and practice has obviously failed.

[ajohnw]

Pity Ted it sounded like it may have been interesting. If people do want to fully utilise their gear they do need to get a grip on the capability of their optics. Camera too really and that is getting more difficult as time goes by, Mind you most of the ever increasing variation apply to jpg's.
-

[dan marchant]

There's no lack of understanding, I just don't agree with your original hypothesis and stated why. Given that this is a discussion forum, I would have expected you to support your argument by rebutting my points, rather than just performing the digital equivalent of "taking your ball and going home".

[xpatUSA]

There's no lack of understanding, I just don't agree with your original hypothesis and stated why. Given that this is a discussion forum, I would have expected you to support your argument by rebutting my points, rather than just performing the digital equivalent of "taking your ball and going home".

I deleted the post because the first response did not address the intent of the post and the second response was not in a style that I found particularly helpful and certainly not worthy of a response.

It's hard to spend half a day on a post which I considered to be of merit, only to have it lampooned unmercifully. While I should be able to take it, my 72-yr old skin is quite thin and I don't have to take mojon from anybody.