I like the phrase “depth of field.” It would be a great title for a book of essays on the subject of photography. I have little, if any depth of field, so the whole concept intrigues me. I see with one eye at a time, and therefore have monocular vision. I often wonder -- how and why is it that others are seeing the immediate environment differently than me? And what if I suddenly had binocular as opposed to monocular vision?

I have no idea about how my impaired sight is affecting my photographic vision. Actually, my photographic vision is two-fold: There’s my figurative vision – what I’d like to do over the short and long haul. And there’s my literal vision – what I should do over the short and the long haul. I get frustrated because of the seemingly wide dissonance between the two.

Last night and this morning I read some on the subject of depth of field, and came an f-stop closer to being able to put theory to practice.

Depth of field involves three things: One factor is subject distance. The further the subject is from the object, the more depth of field. Another factor is the wideness of the aperture opening. The more closed it is, the more depth of field you have. And still another factor is the lens type. Telephoto lenses have little depth of field because the focus is narrower. And wide angled lenses have more depth of field because the focus is broader.

All the above are to be considered in that time spent between seeing the image and taking the photo. The more time spent in this realm the better.

Next: 116. 4/3/12: Mare Watch Begins