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]

Thanks, Matt!

This is why you are much more likely to see a blury background in an action photo.

That, and the option to pan with the action to keep the primary object in the same position, giving the background a speed blur effect.

I'm pretty familiar with depth of field from a camera POV (so to speak), and until Twilight Zone disturbed me, I hadn't considered it as a convention, an adaptation to a technical limitation that's become language. But not in every medium.

I've been googling a bit, and damn, I wish I had time to take an Art History bachelor's. I may be reading this all day.

eta: Heh, Sue. I just found that site too.

ita, you might find this book interesting: Art & Physics. I don't think I fully agree with the author's premise, but still, lots of interesing stuff. I don't remember off the top of my head if the book deals with focus issues, though.

The shark hunting was adorable.

That was almost unwatchable for me -- I kept picturing them wounding one but not killing it and sending all the other sharks in the water into a feeding frenzy which would result in at least one of them having their feet bitten off.. Seriously, who hunts sharks with a stick???

Thanks, Tommy. I've put it on hold at the library.

Seriously, who hunts sharks with a stick???

I bet The Rock would. Vin might have, a couple years ago. But not now.