People don't have to be assigned areas, they just have them.

Exactly.

Okay, I'll give you slounging, but I haven't been around long enough to be a "true expert" on slash, and I only have twelve years practical experience with teh booze.

Pfft! You slashed the guys on your coke machine.

...don't make the lingerie match joke don't make the lingerie match joke don't make the lingerie match joke...

::waits expectantly for the lingerie match joke::

Aimee: Camels, ex-Michigan panel

Whoot!

Lori-Mars, rock-climbing, Hawaii
Kat- teaching, knitting, The OC.

pout

Oh, hush. The Empress does not need an assignment. She rules, regardless.

But, Aimee can have bargain shopping, how to knock anyone down a peg in 3 easy steps, and the LA transit system.

I'm on the ex-Michigan panel, too. NE mit division.

how to knock anyone down a peg in 3 easy steps,

BWAH! Love it.

I don't have an area. which is ok . because today I am going to glare at the rain and watch tv. eventually , I will drag my self to work.

I am not even an expert glarer.

Hello, peeps. This would be a meara, except is it only a response to one post, 200 posts ago. This is what happens when I actually work.

So I thought about depth of field on my way into work.

Another 1960s data point on field depth might be John Frankenheimer, who often used waaay wide lenses to be able to catch foreground and background action without refocussing. In the commentary track of The Manchurian Candidate, he mentions that he cut his teeth on early live TV dramas, so it's entirely possible there were TV shooting conventions that involved wide-angle lenses.

Are there people or schools that mimic limited depth of field?

Sure. There are painters who make background objects blurry or vague. I mean, there are whole schools of "everything is blurry", but some of the background details in Vermeer paintings are dim and vague (dimness, especially, because he played with chiaroscuro a lot). There's a famous Velazquez painting called "Las Meninas" that contrasts foreground and background in a visual joke. (Blurry image of the king and queen, reflected in a mirror, that shows they are sitting dead center outside the frame of the painting, having their portraits painted.)

However, I think most Renaissance stuff goes for the crisp, bright detail, even in the background. There's a theory going around that the photorealistic paintings of the Dutch Renaissance are so photorealistic because they were painted over camera obscura projections of real objects. My admittedly small experience of the camera obscura is that it does not tend to offer depth perception at all. It's only a theory, and doesn't say a thing about the Italian Renaissance, which was also all about the crisp, so, grain of salt.

That is all. Except to say, why is March not April? What is that all about?

beth b has libraries and gardening.

I so decree.