CU-dgpgu9 Added markdownlint and fixed markdown

content/post/aperture-study.md

@@ -17,28 +17,30 @@ setting for a specific lens.
 <!--more-->
 
 # The Setup
+
 I started out using a tripod, with the same ISO and exposure compensation using
 a [**Minolta 50mm f1/7**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_AF_50mm_f/1.7)
 lens. Starting at *f/1.7* I worked my way up at reasonable steps to *f/4.0*. My
 aim was to compare the differences. See the shots below. The target couch
 cushion was set up roughly a meter from the bottom center of the tripod.
 
-
 # Depth-of-Field
-There may be something to be said about maintaining the best DoF
-(*Depth-of-field*). However, using [PhotoPills DoF Calculator]
-(https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof) proves just how **wild**, using a
-50mm lens, an aperture of *f/1.7* is. Shooting a target of *2 meters* results in
-a depth-of-field of **16 centimeters** -- that's a very narrow range! Bumping up
-the aperture value to *f/2.8* provides a much more reasonable *27 centimeters*,
-though still a bit narrow. Either way this allays any fears I had of losing out
-on that sweet, *sweet* [bokeh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh), though the
-photos themselves illustrate that not a significant amount of Depth-of-Field is
-lost at that target distance of 1 meter.
 
+There may be something to be said about maintaining the best DoF
+(*Depth-of-field*). However, using [PhotoPills DoF Calculator](https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof)
+proves just how **wild**, using a 50mm lens, an aperture of *f/1.7* is.
+Shooting a target of *2 meters* results in a depth-of-field of **16
+centimeters** -- that's a very narrow range! Bumping up the aperture value to
+*f/2.8* provides a much more reasonable *27 centimeters*, though still a bit
+narrow. Either way this allays any fears I had of losing out on that sweet,
+*sweet* [bokeh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh), though the photos
+themselves illustrate that not a significant amount of Depth-of-Field is lost
+at that target distance of 1 meter.
 
 # Comparison
+
 ## *f/1.7*--*f/4.0*
+
 The biggest difference can be seen between the *f/1.7* and *f/4.0* shots. Note
 the increase in clarity on the pillows fabric.
 
@@ -49,6 +51,7 @@ the increase in clarity on the pillows fabric.
 ---
 
 ## *f/1.7*--*f/2.8*
+
 At *f/2.8* and above I started noticing less increase in perceived sharpness of
 the image, though the difference in comparison to *f/1.7* was still fairly
 noticeable
@@ -60,6 +63,7 @@ noticeable
 ---
 
 ## *f/2.8*--*f/4.0*
+
 Aside from the perceived exposure difference from what is most likely a
 difference in shutter speed, the overall difference does not seem as dramatic
 from *f/2.8* to *f/4.0*. Personally, I'd say that *f/2.8* is the clear winner in
@@ -72,6 +76,7 @@ finding the best middle-ground between maximum aperture and image quality.
 ---
 
 # Individual Photos
+
 Below is the entire collection of all the photos taken of the subject at
 increasing aperture steps.