Hi Mike:

"The formula works and there is nothing fishy about the images at the
web page".

I have serious doubts that the pictures on the web page are, "parts of
an image that is 89 inches, (8 feet 5 inches) in width. That is a
realy huge enlargement factor-and explains why most of the samples look
so bad."

Is there an explanation as to why the apparent DoF decreases as one
stops down, from f/8, down to f/32 ?

(For some strange reason, f/16 was skipped.)


I have viewed quite a few Macro stereo images, viewd in a Red Button,
44mm lensed, viewer which has a magnification factor of more than 5.7X.
Many of them were shot at f/stops as small as f/105.

Could you, please, indicate how terrible the 'macro' images should have
looked, "theoretically", if shot at f/105.

IMO, most were quite pleasant to view, even when magnified by more than 5X.



I have looked at my more than 250, "Modern Photography", lens test results.

Included, were 17 tests of lenses that stopped down to f/32.

Lens resolution tests of a 80-200mm Rokinon lens, in May of 1981.

lp/mm
f/4.5 66
f/5.6 66
f/8 75
f/11 75
f/16 59
f/22 53
f/32 53

Kodak T Max 100 film, developed in D 76.

Is there a logical explanation for the above,"real time", test results ?

I do not see any signs of serious degradation of the resolution test
results, as one stops down from f/8 down to f/22.


Is there any explanation for their appearance, on the web page, that the
f/11 shot has less DoF than does the f/8 shot ? Also, the f/22 shot
appears to show less DoF than does the f/11 shot.

Best regards,

DON

Don,

Ultimately, I can not argue that you should not be satisfied with images
that you find satisfying.

I have no additional information to offer regarding diffraction, so I'll
step down and leave it to you to offer any closing comments you might have
for this thread.

Thank you,

Mike Davis