<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for CA Workshops</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.caworkshops.com/index.php?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.caworkshops.com</link>
	<description>CAworkshops.com; where Camera + Art meet, Learn, Inspire</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:16:56 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Filter Basics by jburkholder</title>
		<link>http://www.caworkshops.com/?p=139&#038;cpage=1#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>jburkholder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 21:23:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.caworkshops.com/?p=139#comment-17</guid>
		<description>Yes, the use of multiple filters does add some bit of understanding of Depth-of-Field, specially to not have any filter stacking effect. Using shallow DofF does help on that. But I've also found the key is:
- keep your filters clean
- stack them upon each other, don't have to much gap
- keep them close to your lens

Those three things do help alot.
Thank you for the comments and if there's any particular lesson or thing you'd like CAworkshops to address please send us a note on the 'Contact' link. We're always looking for new topics to help people with.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, the use of multiple filters does add some bit of understanding of Depth-of-Field, specially to not have any filter stacking effect. Using shallow DofF does help on that. But I&#8217;ve also found the key is:<br />
- keep your filters clean<br />
- stack them upon each other, don&#8217;t have to much gap<br />
- keep them close to your lens</p>
<p>Those three things do help alot.<br />
Thank you for the comments and if there&#8217;s any particular lesson or thing you&#8217;d like CAworkshops to address please send us a note on the &#8216;Contact&#8217; link. We&#8217;re always looking for new topics to help people with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filter Basics by Teaman</title>
		<link>http://www.caworkshops.com/?p=139&#038;cpage=1#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>Teaman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:50:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.caworkshops.com/?p=139#comment-16</guid>
		<description>I particularly like the photo with three Cokins; tobacco at the bottom and gradient blue and grad  ND at the top. I find it hard to get gradient filters to look good myself. I found wide apertures seem to help the blending. Nice Job.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I particularly like the photo with three Cokins; tobacco at the bottom and gradient blue and grad  ND at the top. I find it hard to get gradient filters to look good myself. I found wide apertures seem to help the blending. Nice Job.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Depth-of-Field 101 by jburkholder</title>
		<link>http://www.caworkshops.com/?p=44&#038;cpage=1#comment-14</link>
		<dc:creator>jburkholder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:24:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.caworkshops.com/?p=44#comment-14</guid>
		<description>John,

Good question and comment. Depending on the focal length and type of lens some macro lenses actually do give a different effective depth field because of the inherent arrangement of the optics. Now to most of us we'd not see a huge difference, but if you were to compare a 100mm macro to 100 mm setting on a 70-200mm lens you'll see a slight difference in the depth of field at the same f/stop. This is because of the optical arrangement.

To the eye it slight, but if you talk to the science geeks of optical physics, they will tell you there is a difference and will have some scientific formula they'll spew out (looking something like Einstein's theories) of why and how much it would happen. I can see a difference it between my 70-210mm, my 24-105mm and my fixed focal length 100mm macro. 
-Jeff Burkholder, Executive Producer CAworkshops.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John,</p>
<p>Good question and comment. Depending on the focal length and type of lens some macro lenses actually do give a different effective depth field because of the inherent arrangement of the optics. Now to most of us we&#8217;d not see a huge difference, but if you were to compare a 100mm macro to 100 mm setting on a 70-200mm lens you&#8217;ll see a slight difference in the depth of field at the same f/stop. This is because of the optical arrangement.</p>
<p>To the eye it slight, but if you talk to the science geeks of optical physics, they will tell you there is a difference and will have some scientific formula they&#8217;ll spew out (looking something like Einstein&#8217;s theories) of why and how much it would happen. I can see a difference it between my 70-210mm, my 24-105mm and my fixed focal length 100mm macro.<br />
-Jeff Burkholder, Executive Producer CAworkshops.com</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Depth-of-Field 101 by Teaman</title>
		<link>http://www.caworkshops.com/?p=44&#038;cpage=1#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>Teaman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:42:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.caworkshops.com/?p=44#comment-13</guid>
		<description>Interesting little intro to DOF. One thing I think I heard was the implication that a macro lens would give a different DOF compared to a non-macro lens. I understand well that at close distances DOF is much limited but does the lens type have an effect too? Sure; distance, focal length and aperture do but type also?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting little intro to DOF. One thing I think I heard was the implication that a macro lens would give a different DOF compared to a non-macro lens. I understand well that at close distances DOF is much limited but does the lens type have an effect too? Sure; distance, focal length and aperture do but type also?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Exposure/Basic Zone system; Part 3 of 3 lessons on Exposure, Metering, Zone System by TigerEye</title>
		<link>http://www.caworkshops.com/?p=433&#038;cpage=1#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>TigerEye</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:14:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.caworkshops.com/?p=433#comment-12</guid>
		<description>Cool. I think I want to watch it again with my camera, a white shirt and a black shirt close by to experiment as I watch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cool. I think I want to watch it again with my camera, a white shirt and a black shirt close by to experiment as I watch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Light meter &amp; Exposure; part 2 of 3 by TigerEye</title>
		<link>http://www.caworkshops.com/?p=429&#038;cpage=1#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>TigerEye</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:49:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.caworkshops.com/?p=429#comment-11</guid>
		<description>I'm looking forward to part 3.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m looking forward to part 3.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
