I think we're getting more Mark Vincent and less Dwayne Johnson. If you see what I'm saying.

I kind of agree. I think Mr. Vincent needs to push his "real guy" image to get away from the meathead issue. Dwayne, OTOH, is at the time where crafting another persona useful. He only has to be realer than The Rock to win. And that ain't hard.

before it became commonplace among the masses

Do you think it would be something that the artists were exposed to, if not their audience?

Also, another benefit to Survivor: Miss Alli does the kickin' recaps, and she rules so hard. She is what all recappers should aspire to be.

The Rock & Vin Diesel: Two Stars, One Slot. I need to figure out why he kept his wrestling name-- he's probably still associated with the WWE.

I think Mr. Vincent needs to push his "real guy" image to get away from the meathead issue. Dwayne, OTOH, is at the time where crafting another persona useful. He only has to be realer than The Rock to win. And that ain't hard.

Yeah, like that. Vin's being all Mr. Working Actor Guy.

The Rock & Vin Diesel: Two Stars, One Slot.

Have you missed ALL of Vin Diesel's recent press?? The entire point is that this is NOT AT ALL TRUE!!1!!!eleven!

I need to figure out why he kept his wrestling name-- he's probably still associated with the WWE.

Nope.

The Rock & Vin Diesel: Two Stars, One Slot.

Thank you, Ms. Fametracker. No, I think they can work it. If Bruce Willis, Arnie and Sly all had careers at the same time, with Van Damme picking up some cash and hos, they can work it.

Do you think it would be something that the artists were exposed to, if not their audience?

Probably so, but if I remember correctly almost all photography back then was used for posed portraits, because the film took so long to expose. Assuming those were generally taken indoors or against the facade of a building, there probably wouldn't have been that much depth apparent in the photos they'd have had exposure to. I don't recall seeing much photography with people in the context of the natural environment until Eakins, years later.

I think before the Impressionists' holistic approach, painters would have created limitless (or nearly so) depth of field because any particular part of the environment they looked at at a given time would have been in focus.

Loving this season of Survivor.

Like Angie surprisingly kicking butt, and Ian rules. The shark hunting was adorable. Tom is Da Man.

I don't know if this pertains to what ita's wondering about... and someone correct me if I'm wrong here...

The depth of field (how much stuff is in focus - I think that's the right term) varies depending on the aperture (size of the opening to the lens) of the camera. On good cameras this can be changed. A small aperture produces the most depth of field (so stuff further away from the thing you focused on will still be in focus). The downside to a small aperture is that you need to increase the exposure time to compensate for the reduced light. Consequentially a small aperture is bad for action photos. This is why you are much more likely to see a blury background in an action photo.

Here's a study involving the possible use of optics in Renaissance Painting.

[link]

And here's a very comprehensive article on DoF in Photography: [link]