[Tfug] Way OT: optics mumbo jumbo

[Bexley Hall]

Hi,

This is *way* OT but it seems there are some folks
with more than a casual knowledge of optics (while
I have *less* than a casual knowledge!) so...

I often take photos of things that I have built
(etc.) to show clients problems that I have
encountered (picture, 1000 words, etc.).

But, I don't waste a lot of time thinking about
*how* I do this -- I just keep dicking around
with where I am standing, ambient lighting,
camera angle, etc. until I get something that
more-or-less shows what I want/need to show.
(much easier when you can click a dozen frames
"for free" instead of having to use Polariods!!)

Dealing with the flash is almost always a PITA
for me.  It's always "too hot" and too much
reflected glare, etc.  Granted, I can change the
camera angle to eliminate this to some extent.
But, at other times, it just moves the reflection
to another surface, etc.

Often, my solution is to back away from the item
(light falls off as the square -- or cube? -- of
the distance) until the reflections are manageable.

Of course, this means the image is smaller  :-/

So, I crank up the (optical) zoom to make the
image large enough to be useful.

Now, my naive question:  by doing this, am I,
to some extent, counteracting the effect of
"moving away" from the target?  I.e., does
the magnification I am bringing in to play
*increase* the amount of light that strikes
the (digital) film?

<sheepish grin>  I've tried to construct a
"thought experiment" to convince myself one way
or the other but seem to just be thinking myself
in circles...

<shrug>  I definitely won't lose any sleep over
this but it *is* amusing (to me) to think about
what's really going on...

We now return you to your regularly scheduled
program...


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs