paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Will a little extra thought and action one can achieve good depth of field.

(Download)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Shooting bugs i normally consider DOF and resolution more important than god and sex but
looking at your shot it occurred to me that in a landscape you can have too much of both.
When everything is clear/sharp you tend to lose the visual clues that are needed for 3-D.
The picture goes a little flat(2-D).

JohnKlingel

Your composition doesn't require it but when you want sharp focus throughout the photo, you can use focus stacking. I agree with a previous reply that you don't always want 100% sharpness but when you do, there's nothing like focus stacking to achieve it. Instructions can be found on YouTube.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Two things and maybe we can all learn something here. I did not like the photo but posted it because my wife did. That being said I have to look at the photo for what it is and each photo is a separate entity. Even though I think as you say the photo is a little flat I tried to picture the photo with out one or the other being out of focus. It does not work for me that way. The grass add an element for framing and depth and added interest. If it were out of focus it would add nothing but confusion to me. It would add disinterest to me and if the rock was out of focus since it is the main subject that would be stupid. And a plain rock such as that would be uninteresting to me.
As far as focus stacking goes, I am a little familiar with it and what I have seen done is where all elements are on the same plane instead of 300 yards apart. I do not see how it could work under the circumstances that were presented here. If you have some examples please post them so I can see. I have seen some great photo with focus stacking but do not believe it applies to all photos in all situations.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

i'm going to have to take your wife's side, i think its a great shot.

JohnKlingel

A great landscape photographer has free ebook on the subject and the photo on the cover is a good example. See the link below.

https://us-mg204.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.partner=sbc&.rand=88d1k6d3frs5b&action=inbox#mail

JohnKlingel

I wouldn't have used focus stacking for the scene in your photo and only mentioned focus stacking since you seemed interested in getting sharp focus through out the photo. When you do focus stacking you can use the prime f stop on your lens for the ultimate sharpness.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Thanks for the response. I tried to get into the email but Yahoo has me blocked out and I do not wish to fight their system. So I looked it up and found a great tutorial on focus stacking for scenics. And they were very impressive but I also notice that they were from front to back and not side to side as mine. This photo would not have worked front to back, I feel. Any ideas?

JohnKlingel

I don't understand your comment about side to side. From side to side, the DOF is the same as everything is the same distance from the camera and everything is automatically in focus.If there's an issue with the sides, it's due to lens quality.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Speaking of composition. The two are share the same amount of the photo even though the rock is in the back. It has nothing to do with lens. Go to a website and look at a photo that was taken and you will notice the foreground is in the front (bottom) and the Mountains are in the rear (top). Mine they share equally the same part of the photograph.

JohnKlingel

I don't know what website you refer to. It's very simple, if anything in the photo is not on the same plane as the lens, there's depth involved. Focus stacking increases the DOF and increases sharpness. DOF and sharpness have nothing to do with what shares what proportion of the photo. It has to do with distance and hyper focal length of the f stop you're using. Look up hyper focal length and maybe that will help.

sailorsmom Loc: Souderton, PA

Good one, Paul!