Indecent Exposure 35: Interrogative excitement

Reflections on our reflections contest, why depth of field varies deeply, and digitizing mom's photos.

Reflections on our reflections contest, why depth of field varies deeply, and digitizing Mom's photos.

Listen now: Download today's podcast

Episode 34

Today's links:
Panasonic's new point-and-shoots: cheap and shiny

Last topic: Reflections

Too many good choices this week for a definite runner-up!

Next topic: Self-portraits
To enter, please use the blog comments to provide a link to your entry plus any background information you'd like to share with us and other listeners.

Today's questions
Digitizing old photos

Hi Lori and Matt:
1. Is there a preferred method to get my mom's old b&W photos into digital format?
2. Do you have any information (or guide me to another source) about the quality of those photo books producers such as Shutterfly, Snapfish, etc.? (I'm wanting to create many of them for my mom.)
Thank you,

Depth of field

This is a question that's been on my mind for quite some time. I do know a bit of thigs about depth of field. For example to achive greater detail and focus with subjects both near and far, one should increase the f-stop on the lens for something like f11 or up. If one wants to achieve grat macro shots with "blurred" backgorunds one should use a small f-stop like f3.5 or f2.
The thing is that with the lens I have (14-45mm f3.5 f5.6 olympus ED) I can achieve the great macro "blur" when I extend the zoom to it's greatest (45mm f5.6 minimum). Why is that? I don't get the great macro "blur" at 14mm f3.5.
This also happens with my larger lens (54-140mm).
- JD

About the author

Lori Grunin is a senior editor for CNET Reviews, covering cameras, camcorders, and related accessories. She's been writing about and reviewing consumer technology and software since 1988.


Discuss Indecent Exposure 35: Interrogative excitement

Conversation powered by Livefyre

Show Comments Hide Comments