This Alex Webb picture has me a bit stumped, how did he manage this amount of depth of field. It's low light and the furthest man is walking so the shutter speed cant be long at all, yet that depth of field must require some thing like f8? And in those light conditions at f8 would surely need a long exposure and result in the walking man being a little blurred. Any ideas?
I seem to detect a softness in the "corn" lettering. Ditto somewhat with the cotton candy. The lady on the right appears to be in focus, so I would say that she and the cotton candy are right on the edge.
My guess is that it's a fast film, wide lens, slow(er) shutter, stopped down, and focused maybe around the edge of the water to give a DOF roughly from the lady to the horizon.
None of the picture seems in sharp focus, so he's probably using hyperfocal set near the girl on a wide angle lens, say 25mm at maybe even f4 or F5.6. The people are probably strolling so 1/125 would do it easily
Thanks for all those possible approaches, I would guess too it's around f8, I think he does use 35mm a lot so would need to be close to the popcorn stand, maybe too the light is more than it actually looks. Would 1/60 be quick enough to freeze somebody walking?
I feel there's too much compression to be a 21/24/28. This image looks 35mm to me. Webb back in 2003 most likely was using the version 4 Summicron, which has more depth of field than the ASPH version. The scene doesn't look "low light" at all given this is most likely slide film. The highlights are well exposed so that's why it gives the appearance of a darker scene.