Refurb7 said:
For the cost of exactly $0 every photographer already has the solution to those problems... It is stopping down the aperture.
The promise of the Lytro was that it was not necessary to stop down the aperture to place
everything in focus, but rather to
shift the focus from one subject to another without changing the overall depth of field, so that subject "A" would be in focus under choice "A" and subject "B" could be in focus under choice "B."
Plus, stopping down the aperture doesn't work in many real life situations, such as birds in flight or sports, where you need a high shutter speed to stop the action and you are limited by the high ISO capability of your camera. And, frankly if you are shooting with a long telephoto lens, even stopping down to f32 may not give you sufficient depth of field to keep a rapidly moving subject in focus.
JMZawodny said:
unfocused said:
Refurb7 said:
...you only had to think about it for 30 more seconds to realize that almost no one wants to actually do post-exposure focus selection....
Really? So you've never shot a bird in flight where the focus was on the wing instead of the eye? Never shot a sporting event where the focus was on the ball instead of the player's face? Never shot a portrait where the right eye was in focus, but the left eye was not?
I think almost everyone would like to "actually do post-exposure focus" tweaking. The problem was that the technology was not sufficiently developed to really achieve its promise. I suspect someone else will pursue this eventually. If it is ever perfected, it will revolutionize photography in a way that would make digital seem insignificant. Imagine never again needing sophisticated autofocus systems or worrying about autofocus adjustment.
If only it worked that way. The ability to focus these cameras comes only in discrete steps. The marketing hype suggested it worked the way you wish it would have, but the reality of the math was less forgiving.
Yes, of course, the technology was nowhere near where it needed to be to be really useful. Indeed, I suspect that was one of the problems – the cameras were released prematurely. I would hesitate to even say they were "beta" versions.
But, that doesn't mean it did not have tremendous potential
if it were fully developed (assuming that is even possible).
I just take issue with the idea that "no one" would want to do post-exposure focus correction, when in reality the ability to do so
(if it could be perfected) would be far more disruptive and significant than the digital revolution in photography.