Quote Originally Posted by leicam5 View Post
I thought that the distance neg. <> lens and the distance lens <> paper are 'reversed proportional' ( is this the right expression in English?) to each-other. So, when one of the two distances is wrong the other one is equaly wrong, or am I wrong?
I was thinking about this whilst I was out on a walk yesterday (sad isn't it?!).

Considering the enlarger as a camera, I came to these assumptions:

For 1:1 reproduction, I agree with your 'reversed proportional' theory. i.e. distances and depth of field/depth of focus being equal.

When focused at greater distances, a huge change in subject distance translates to a small change in lens to film distance. e.g. a change from infinity focus to ten feet may result in a lens position change of about 1" (thinking about a view camera here).

My thinking then is that if you go in the opposite direction, e.g. the image on the film (or paper on the enlarger) is larger than the subject, then the reverse should be true. i.e. a small depth of field at the subject (negative) translates to a larger depth of focus at the paper.



Steve.