I think this helps define the respective audience of the two sites. I don't think many pros frequent KR's site and neither do people go there to learn how to achieve world class print quality.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have no doubt you are right. KR's site isnt really any good for that. On the other hand, it does have some use..to some people. And some iffy ones no question
This site has loads of great articles, but a few not so good ones.
"you'll see that one of the laws of optics is that the DOF extends from 1/3rd in front of the point focused on, to 2/3rds behind it. In other words, you have twice as much DOF behind your point of focus than in front of it" (this is only true when subject distance is 1/3 the hyperfocal distance)
I shouldn't have to point this out. This was a fun article..I enjoyed reading it..
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml]http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml[/url]
But it failed to tell me that whilst the DOF is the same in many cases, the distribution of the DOF is not. Longer focal lengths have a more even almost 50/50 front and back, short WA ones have the more usual 1/3rd front to 2/3rd back DOF.
Now some smart person will come along and say focal length has nothing to do with DOF. What the correct response is, it is part of the formula for DOF, but its effect can be "negated" by distance to subject. Two variables that can cancel each other out. Sorry to be picky now, but I think I made a point here.
Same on metering and exposure, whilst a solid article..it could have mentioned all modern multizone systems are autofocus based. I know there is a variation on systems between makers, but few sites ever say that. I don't want to pick apart too much, as the good stuff here is well worth it, I could have a field day on KR's site too.