Landscape or Scene? There is a school of thought that prefers a Landscape to be sharp from the nearest blade of grass in the foreground to the furthest distant hills in the background.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

There is a school of thought that prefers a Landscape to be sharp from the nearest blade of grass in the foreground to the furthest distant hills in the background. I probably agree - but I find that more often lately my shots are not true Landscape but more Scene, with the subject likely to be middle ground. In such circumstance I find sharp foreground, and sometimes sharp background, can easily distract, and wish I could create a sort of “foreground boket” - but I put up with shortening the DOF which takes the eye straight to middle ground without looking for leading lines. This gives me the choice of sharp middle and background, or just sharp middle.
Not for dedicated pixel peepers rejoicing in sharpest detail, perhaps overlooking artistic intention?

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

Think of how your eye sees it. It focuses on the bit that you want to view. Trouble is, even old eyes (many of them) can focus quick enough that if you look down at your feet they'll have refocused before you notice whether the foreground is sharp or not. So I work on the not sharp idea, besides if using a wide angle you get an enhanced depth of field anyway. Freeze a frame on an HDTV and see if the foreground is as sharp as the scene on that.

Senior Photog

If you are selling it, you have to create what the customer desires. If it's for you,
ignore negative comments. Many years ago a friend gave me a coffee table book by Weston. I believe he followed two rules when shooting. He cropped in the camera
and printed full frams. He also like to shoot
around f:22 to get max field of view.
Feel free to correct me if I have my facts
incorrect. ...Joe in NJ

Senior Photog

Make that 'full frame', not frams. I'm typing in my wife's dark hospital room at 6am.
She is recovering nicely.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You can get two different effects from long range landscapes. Everything from close up to distant can be in focus. Either a small aperture of focus stacking can achieve this. The alternative is decide what should be in focus and leave the rest blurry. I think the single point of focus is nice because it emphasizes one key area of the scene.

Senior Photog

Since you already hiked miles to reach that spot, shoot different versions and decide which you like best. Ask 100 photographers and you'll probably get 101 different answers. Is one really better? Not necessarily. Just keep having fun!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Delderby wrote:

There is a school of thought that prefers a Landsc... (show quote)

Foreground Bokeh is a lens characteristic - your foreground can either be busy(distracting) or smooth.

If your subject is best isolated in the scene, use a large lens opening. That's exactly how to do it - reduce the depth of field.If you want the foreground and middle ground reasonably sharp, then you use a smaller lens opening and focus closer to the foreground.

Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to achieve. Can you post an image or two which illustrates your goals?

Senior Photog

I'm glad to see fellow photographers
sharing constructive advice and not
attacking every opinion. Can you imagine how this would turn out if it was on FB?

I became a professional photographer by reading every article I could find,
asking loads of questions and experimenting. Every pro gave freely.

tommy2 Loc: Fort Worth, Texas

Senior Photog wrote:

I'm glad to see fellow photographers
sharing constructive advice and not
attacking every opinion...

Exactly my experience here, thank you.
I stated out using the method called "hyperfocal" focusing with the help of an app on my iPhone but finally got the hang of it and can just about guess what is needed to get that blade of grass to all the way out in sharp focus - at least enough to suit me. The kicker here is when looking through the viewfinder not everything always looks in focus after setting the parameters.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Your mention of "perhaps overlooking artistic intention?"...after posting hundreds of photos on UHH for feedback, I'm finally beginning to "get" that sometimes our best intentions are not "gotten" by the viewers. So, depending on whether I personally feel I achieved my goal, I thank the opinion-giver and move forward, or I re-edit for stronger story, or I remember the suggestion (composition, light, perspective) for next outing.

It can be fun to look at photos by some pros and to think, that'd never be popular on UHH

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Here's an interesting article on Foreground Bokeh:
https://fstoppers.com/education/complete-guide-epic-foreground-bokeh-102211

.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Senior Photog wrote:

If you are selling it, you have to create what the customer desires. If it's for you,
ignore negative comments. Many years ago a friend gave me a coffee table book by Weston. I believe he followed two rules when shooting. He cropped in the camera
and printed full frams. He also like to shoot
around f:22 to get max field of view.
Feel free to correct me if I have my facts
incorrect. ...Joe in NJ

I take it you mean Edward Weston. He used an 8x10 view camera, for which the lenses stop down to at least f64, so f22 is a mid-range aperture, not stopped down all the way. And I'm sure you meant max depth of field, not field of view.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I don’t think there’s a difference between landscapes and scenics. It’s all a matter of semantics to me.

Senior Photog

Weston also used a roll film camera.
I believe it was larger than 6x7.
In his book he referred to depth of field.
That's what I always called it. I know termonology changes. Does anyone remember 'ASA' numbers? 😊

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Senior Photog wrote:

Weston also used a roll film camera.
I believe it was larger than 6x7.
In his book he referred to depth of field.
That's what I always called it. I know termonology changes. Does anyone remember 'ASA' numbers? 😊

He had 3 ¼ x 4 ¼ and 4x5 Graflex cameras, which he used for portraits.