Mas Ayoob: Shooter, Not Photographer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
2,668
Location
MN
From backwoodshome.com at http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob87.html

The opposite of the thousand yard stare is the “target stare.†This is the guy who narrows his eyes and glares directly at you. The narrowing of the eyelids does for our vision what shutting down the f/stop on your camera does for the lens: it enhances depth perception.

Huh?

Stopping down a lens (making the iris smaller) decreases depth perception by allowing near and far objects to be in focus at the same time.

Oh, well. The rest of the article is pretty good.
 
What is Mas talking about? My eye doctor told me my depth perception was caused by being near sighted in one eye and far sighted in the other. Squinting would not help. I don't even drive because of my problem. If I try to shoot with both eyes open I shoot way to the left. With both eyes open nothing is where I think it should be. Otherwise I see just fine.


Mrs. Toro

___________________________________________
John 1:1-4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
 
Honestly, Ayob so overrated in my opinion. I tried reading "In the gravest extreme", because a lot of people here on this forum recommended it.

I couldn't get past the 2nd chapter. Way too much tripe for me.
 
The narrowing of the eyelids may increase the depth of field, but only if they narrow down enough to be smaller than the pupils. Otherwise, you don't actually get the the aperature reduction needed.

Actually Matt, the iris does not get any smaller on a camera or in the eye. It is the pupil or opening in the iris that changes size.

So Ayoob contrasts this with the 1000 yard stare. What a load of spent cases! The 1000 yard stare is typically brought on by various battle/high stress conditions, often over a period of time. The eyes may be 'wide,' but it has nothing to do with shooting.

The target stare that Ayoob describes may be for reasons other that increased depth of field. Squinting is also done as a result of glare and poor vision.

I think a lot of people squint because it is what they think they are supposed to do, just like they think they should be closing one eye (the one not being used), or just like they think they should be holding their gun hand wrist like Dirty Harry does while firing.
 
Squinting IIRC DOES tweak the semi-voluntary muscles in the eye for a clearer picture....

And ya it's depth of field he's increasing though it isn't through aperture so much as muscle changes in the eye.


Sahdowfane
 
Is Ayoob suggesting that one has to read the labels on their assailants shirts before shooting now? I mean really a person at 5 yards is big enough that squinting seems a little excessive.
 
Haven't read the article, but young shooters and old shooters have different ocular concerns. When you get over '50, and can't check out the ladies in sidevision with bifocals , you start looking for any trick you can.

Currently, I have 20/20 corrected straight ahead, but many long guns start to get fuzzy because I have to aim at a slant.

As for Ayoob, he deserves a lot of respect as an innovator. His book "In Gravest Extreme", really made the legal issues pop into focus for the shooting community. In its time, this book was a trendsetter. Lot of copy work since.
 
Assuming that squinting is to produce greater depth of field vision, like stopping down a lens on a camera, the image captured by the eye definitely may not be clear. For constant amount of light, the depth of field should increase as the aperature becomes smaller, but the resolution decreases because less light actually makes it into the eye. In manual photography where depth of field is needed, to get both depth of field and proper exposure and resolution, shutter time is increased. On the automated cameras such as some (maybe all?) of the Canon EOS and similar series when using a flash, shutter speed can remain the same, the aperature small, and the camera actually boosts the flash. So instead of compensating with time, the camera compensates by increasing the amount of light.

For grins, try this low light test. Go into a darkened area where with normal vision, you can it is difficult to tell what objects are. Now squint. By reducing the light getting into the eye, you will either lose the objects all together, lose the ability to recognize them, etc. Squinting in low light situations can definitely have a negative impact on your ability to make out and identify objects and people.
 
As for Ayoob, he deserves a lot of respect as an innovator. His book "In Gravest Extreme", really made the legal issues pop into focus for the shooting community. In its time, this book was a trendsetter. Lot of copy work since.

It was a good book. But, it seemed to me that he did a lot of armchair hypothetical lawyering. ALmost to the point of completely making stuff up. If i recall he was the guy that made up that tripe about going to prison if you shoot reloads :rolleyes:
 
Anyone wanting a refresher on depth of field, take a peek at my Image matters mini site ... this page shows examples and can link back to other info.

Squinting - with concommitant light loss - can act as an approximation to a pinhole camera and increase depth of field. If light is good and I use these tired eyes on my iron sights then ... it helps. As does a small sucker attached iris device that goes on my glasses... tho much better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top