That's the final proof that you don't understand DOF!!

You can't get the foreground and background "in focus". Only someone ignorant of the subject would make that statement.

There is only one plane of focus. Depending on the lens design, that plane might not even be flat.

Everything closer to or further from the camera is out of focus and gradually gets worse until you notice it. That's why it gets worse as you crop and enlarge the image.

Go to the back of the class.

You didn't post the images, just a link to a bunch of other links. That means that almost nobody would take the trouble to look at them and nobody would learn anything from them.

Just looking at the first two, with a hyperfocal distance (HD) between 14 and 15 meters, you could have focused anywhere beyond 16 meters and gotten the far limit of infinity within the DOF because the DOF is theoretically infinite. That's really simple and it's what an amateur could have done with a film camera and the markings on any of the old manual focus lenses that lead you to HD.

Doing that, you would still end up with the same mediocre snaps that anyone who used hyperfocal distance focusing believed would produce a "sharp" image from HD/2 to infinity. But they soon found out they were wrong when they started to print one of those images.

Experience will tell you that you can't get something for nothing. By relying on hyperfocal distance you overlook the sad fact that your image will not be sharp from HD/2 to infinity. What usually happens is that the most distant parts of the scene are so close to the DOF limit that you can't make a large print without revealing a pretty soft image in the distance, as you have shown.

No matter what you say about whether there is more DOF beyond the focus distance, it's not a reliable bit of knowledge. You are better off focusing on what's important and that may well be far past the HD.

And if you really want to talk about DOF, you need to include examples where the background is deliberately out of focus.

Close up, the DOF is almost equal behind and in front of the focus point. Who cares?

(Download)

They are pure B&W tonal values. Colorspace has nothing to do with it.

Maybe now you can see why the back and forth goes on until the penny drops.

The TIFF was created by placing a gradient from 0 to 65535 (black to white) on a blank sheet using Picture Window Pro v7.

Since the base image is not 65,536 pixels wide, the separation in TIFF values is about 33 units per pixel.

The TIFF was saved and then converted into a JPEG with values from 0 to 255. Since the image is a lot more than 256 pixels wide, each value covers a band with a finite width in pixels, about 8 pixels per JPEG value.

The banding is visible because a one unit change in JPEG value is sharpened by our visual perception, an optical illusion.

C1 had nothing to do with it. Neither image was touched after being created.

Not on this thread.

Posting a condensed version of an image does not illustrate DOF.

Posting a full version of an image does a better job.

These two images may not be earth shatteringly beautiful but at least they are on-topic and their sharpness does not make me look like a fool.

Limited DOF

(Download)

More DOF

(Download)

The optimal approach is to do all of the editing during the raw file conversion using parameter driven edits to achieve an end product.

Lightroom and Capture One do this naturally. They let you redo or remove edits without having to go back and repeat anything.

My editing ends once I export from C1 although some might want to do some additional things that C1 and Lightroom can't handle.

Early black ink dot-matrix and laser printers used 600dpi as the standard to produce text that was as good or better than what you could get from ordinary typewriters. Teletypes and other machines for typing text from computers were much more crude.

Although 600dpi was better than 300dpi for text, it was not good enough for printing gray scale images. It didn't work for color images.

The TIFF came first and the JPEG was made from it.

Unless you have a 10-bit display, both should look the same on the screen but different in a print.

If it couldn’t handle 16-bit TIFF it wouldn’t let you print it.

Windows can do 16 also (Epson).

It is just an objective appraisal of those images.

If you can’t handle critique, post something better.

I can see it on a 2k and 4k monitor because both are calibrated 8-bit displays when I look closely.

It’s not as likely to be an issue with a color image.

I can export a B&W 24MP image at 137mb RGB and convert it from 48-bit to 16-bit TIFF at 46mb.

That makes no sense. The export from C1 does it very quickly.

The colors aren't the issue. It's the banding, even when developed from a raw file. It's more noticeable when the image has no colors at all.

As I said in the first post, we very rarely need to export to 16-bit TIFF but it's an option if you are making your own prints and can print them large.

I don't necessarily need an enormous TIFF. If I downsize it to 6000x4000 the file is big but not excessive and 24MP is more than enough to make an image at any size.

Another option is to convert the B&W 48-bit TIFF to a 16-bit TIFF. That reduces the file size to about 1/3 of the original.