NikonGear'23
Images => Life, the Universe & Everything Else => Topic started by: Frank Fremerey on September 20, 2017, 14:24:53
-
https://photographylife.com/why-hyperfocal-distance-charts-are-wrong#more-148783
I found this very useful for my work.
-
I use this app, which also takes account of diffraction http://www.georgedouvos.com/douvos/Intro_to_TrueDoF-Pro.html
-
Scene dependency is the more interesting and easy estimate
-
Thanks for posting this. I'll refer photographers to that article in the future. The 'double the distance' method can basically be discovered with practice using a given camera and lens...easy in the digital era where we can shoot many test shots at zero cost.
-
Thanks Frank and thanks Anthony - two useful links.
Also this one (from the end of Anthony's link to the article by George Douvos called "Best Practice in Working with Depth of Field"):
http://www.georgedouvos.com/douvos/Best_Practice_in_Working_with_Depth_of_Field.html
-
The method described in the document (‘focus on two times the closest distance’) works well in getting the same unsharpness in both foreground (‘closest distance’) and far background (‘infinity’), with the illusion of sharpness being created by stopping down sufficiently (if possible). Same unsharpness being defined as the same blur on the image for both closest distance and infinity.
But to me slight unsharpness in distant objects that are clearly visible in the picture (like treetops / buildings against the sky or highly detailed facades of buildings) is much more objectable than some unsharpness in close objects. So I prefer to focus farther away, and in a lot of cases just on the most distant point in the scene.
It is how the Orvieto cathedral pictures were shot (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6381.0.html)
-
Most interesting reads
thanks for sharing the links
-
But to me slight unsharpness in distant objects that are clearly visible in the picture (like treetops / buildings against the sky or highly detailed facades of buildings) is much more objectable than some unsharpness in close objects. So I prefer to focus farther away, and in a lot of cases just on the most distant point in the scene.
It is how the Orvieto cathedral pictures were shot (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6381.0.html)
I have found that deciding on the placement of the unsharpness requires a prediction of where in the composition the viewer's attention will go. Each new composition may require a complete re-calculation of where to place the sharpness/unsharpness.
-
I have found that deciding on the placement of the unsharpness requires a prediction of where in the composition the viewer's attention will go. Each new composition may require a complete re-calculation of where to place the sharpness/unsharpness.
I understand. Compared to the "focus at two times the closest distance" method, focussing at infinity results in the closest point of same unsharpness being nearly two times more distant. That is in many cases not a problem, if so then I have to do something else. It is not written in stone. :)
-
I have found that deciding on the placement of the unsharpness requires a prediction of where in the composition the viewer's attention will go. Each new composition may require a complete re-calculation of where to place the sharpness/unsharpness.
Keith. Yes. This is the advanced shooters perspective on scene dependency of focus choicd. You know what you are doing and that is true for a lot of people here. For people who begin to use the physical rules it is more helpful to have the twice the nearest important subject rule than a calculator that simply gives you scene independent numbers.
-
Since I started shooting with digital cameras and the ability to see images at 100%, I have largely abandoned hyperfocal distance focusing. Too often the main subject never seemed quite sharp and the far distance was't really sharp either, only some intermediate point in between was crisp (if there happens to be anything at that distance) and it just looks wrong unless the image size is kept rather small.
See what is the main point of interest of your picture and focus on that. Sometimes if I want the background to be more in focus (landscapes) I might focus a shade behind the primary subject to make the background a little more defined, but only if I have stopped well down so am comfortable the DOF will cover the subject. But even then I often find the subject turns out a bit soft (or my focus accuracy is poor - I mostly use manual lenses and focus errors are more common than I would like!)
The only real alternatives are to use a tilt lens so you can place the focus plane over the subjects near-far, or to use focus stacking (or both), or stop down further and live with some diffraction.
-
+1 to Rolland's post above.
I usually focus on the primary subject or heavily weight my focus to it. I'll stop down as far as f/11 and usually not father. f/11 is about as much diffraction as ill accept That's for FX/35mm.
Swings and tilts are only available to me in 4x5 B&W.
Dave Hartman
-
Thanks Frank, very useful link.
-
Yes, thank you Frank. The article makes more sense than the rule and markings on AIS and earlier NIKKOR- lenses.
Dave
-
Many years ago when trying to find out where all the "rules" for best focus point for maximum depth of field came from, I stumbled on the writing of Harald Merklinger. His views are still interesting, even though they were developed for large format photography in the film era. The link is:
http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html
Martin
-
Comments in the original linked article discuss Merklinger and dismiss his ideas.
-
Comments in the original linked article discuss Merklinger and dismiss his ideas.
Perhaps quite unfairly since they assume he adovcates focusing at infinity for *all* photographs which is pretty rediculous assume. Surely Merklinger would not adovcate focusing at infinity if there were no important subject matter at infinity or infinity wasn't even in view in the photograph.
Dave Hartman
-
Interesting discussion, but hyperfocal, double the distance, the lines on lenses, and even DOF preview button are generally outdated for landscapes these days. It is so easy to see the results and adjust focus if necessary that a rule-based approach is likely to do injustice to your subject. Practice and knowing the character and limitations of your lens are much more critical. And speaking of critical, whatever your subject is should be in critical focus, so if you are using the double the distance approach, move back to the point where your foreground subject is twice the distance. :-)