[Link] hyperfocal distance discussed

[Frank Fremerey]

https://photographylife.com/why-hyperfocal-distance-charts-are-wrong#more-148783

I found this very useful for my work.

[Anthony]

I use this app, which also takes account of diffraction  http://www.georgedouvos.com/douvos/Intro_to_TrueDoF-Pro.html

[Frank Fremerey]

Scene dependency is the more interesting and easy estimate

[pluton]

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.

[Hugh_3170]

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 

[Eddie Draaisma]

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)
 

[armando_m]

Most interesting reads

thanks for sharing the links

[pluton]

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.

[Eddie Draaisma]

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. 

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

+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

[aerobat]

Thanks Frank, very useful link.

[David H. Hartman]

Yes,  thank you Frank. The article makes more sense than the rule and markings on AIS and earlier NIKKOR- lenses.

Dave

[Martin Kellermann]

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