Hyperfocal Distances (Page 3): I read that article with a dof calculator in my other hand. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it doesn't insure sharp focus unless you dial in the right...

bleirer

[quote=2Much]

camerapapi wrote:

Spencer Cox has more than an article written where... (show quote)

I read that article with a dof calculator in my other hand. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it doesn't insure sharp focus unless you dial in the right f stop for your focal length and subject distance. You could get yourself a rule of thumb for your favorite focal length what f stop would fit the rule. But it is not that hard to call up an app either.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

[quote=2Much]

camerapapi wrote:

Spencer Cox has more than an article written where... (show quote)

That's a quick and easy method that every one should become familiar with. It's real handy when your shooting landscapes and there is a field of grass or flowers in the for ground. Focus about 30' out, compose and shoot. If all of the foreground isn't in focus, that part that isn't will be a narrow band that is easily trimmed without harm to the image.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

It's sad, but many "lower end" cameras (including the Nikon D5300) do not have a DOF preview button. The manufacturers save five or ten dollars and the user is "screwed".
As suggested above you can use an app etc.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Robert Bailey wrote:

It's sad, but many "lower end" cameras (including the Nikon D5300) do not have a DOF preview button. The manufacturers save five or ten dollars and the user is "screwed".
As suggested above you can use an app etc.

"Long ago and far away" With view cameras we could stop down and see the depth of field, dimly. Other than those, a depth of field preview wasn't available until the advent of the SLR. The rangefinder camera didn't have it nor did Great Grand Pa's Brownie. Yet millions of photos had been and still are taken with good DOF by cameras with out a DOF preview ability. Learn your craft and you can "walk with out crutches".

2Much Loc: WA

bleirer wrote:

I read that article with a dof calculator in my other hand...

Just came back to this post while clearing some Watched Topics. On the outside chance anyone is still watching, below is another of Spencer's articles explaining why a calculator may not be preferable to developing some quick rules of thumb.

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

bleirer

2Much wrote:

Just came back to this post while clearing some Watched Topics. On the outside chance anyone is still watching, below is another of Spencer's articles explaining why a calculator may not be preferable to developing some quick rules of thumb.

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

I like this article, it explains DOF very clearly in my opinion: https://www.photopills.com/articles/ultimate-guide-depth-field

The article you cited seems to have at least one factual error, if I read it correctly, though I agree with the idea that one shouldn't use the calculator blindly. It says that if you use a DOF calculator you will not have any part of your image sharper what is specified by the circle of confusion on the calculator. I don't think that is true, because there will still be a single plane of sharp focus, with depth of field extending to the near an far limits until it reaches the point defined by the calculator's circle of confusion. The article I cited has an advanced calculator that you can actually dial the display size and the viewing distance to get any circle of confusion you wish. I did it using .006 as the circle of confusion and got very interesting results.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

bleirer wrote:

I like this article, it explains DOF very clearly ... (show quote)

I presume you’ve read the Wiki on CoC and DOF and the associated formulas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

Ultimately this will lead to an investigation of and understanding the factors that limit optical/visual resolution in an image reproduction system and perception.

2Much Loc: WA

bleirer wrote:

...It says that if you use a DOF calculator you will not have any part of your image sharper what is specified by the circle of confusion on the calculator...

The Photography Life article stated that hyperfocal distance charts will produce a background that is no sharper than the circle of confusion, referring to sharpness at infinity and not the entire image. As you stated an image will be sharp at the distance you choose to focus, with circles of confusion increasing in size as you move away from that plane toward the near and far extremes of your range of acceptable focus. That's just a property of lenses and is true regardless of how you choose your point of focus. The author was saying that in landscape photography the background (perhaps a distant mountain range) could be of primary interest and you may want to bias sharpness toward infinity. Hyperfocal distance charts will instead place that mountain range at the far edge of acceptable focus.

Haven’t seen the PhotoPills article, I’ll check it out.

bleirer

2Much wrote:

The Photography Life article stated that hyperfoca... (show quote)

I don't disagree with the general idea of it, I just don't like incorrect 'facts.' For example it said:

"If the closest element in your photo is one meter away, the hyperfocal distance is two meters away. If the closest element in your photo is ten feet away, the hyperfocal distance is twenty feet away."

That is incorrect because the hyperfocal distance stays the same no matter what the subject distance is, assuming the focal length and aperture have not changed.

Another thing he implies is that 'in focus' projects equally foreground and backgound from the point of sharpest focus, but in reality that varies widely depending on the subject distance, focal length, and aperature.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

bleirer wrote:

I don't disagree with the general idea of it, I ju... (show quote)

You seem to have over looked this in his article "That’s the real hyperfocal distance, as defined by equal foreground and background sharpness." He explained that for landscape photography most photographers try to obtain equal sharpness through out the image and that the "hyperfocal" point is where you focus to achieve that end.
Try it. It's not a new concept and it does work.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

bleirer wrote:

I don't disagree with the general idea of it, I ju... (show quote)

This (from wiki) pretty well sums it up: (the CoC for FF is generally considered to be .029mm and .018mm for crop)

bleirer

Rich1939 wrote:

You seem to have over looked this in his article "That’s the real hyperfocal distance, as defined by equal foreground and background sharpness." He explained that for landscape photography most photographers try to obtain equal sharpness through out the image and that the "hyperfocal" point is where you focus to achieve that end.
Try it. It's not a new concept and it does work.

I like the rule of thumb in general, but just have to be aware that there are plenty of focal length, focus distance, and aperture combos that would leave the subject out of focus if you focus at double the distance to the subject, and to his credit he does address that in the article by telling you to choose the right aperture for the situation. For example shooting at 50mm at f11 with a subject at 10 feet, if you focus at 20 feet the subject will be just out of focus. Even worse if you are shooting at f8.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

bleirer wrote:

I like the rule of thumb in general, but just hav... (show quote)

That's true. I would hope though that like all of the advice, about anything, it is applied with a large measure of common sense. A user who knows his equipment will use the ROT in conjunction with his knowledge. In this particular example, focus at 25 ft.
When I use the 2X ROT, the distances are always apx. anyway. So I position the nearest subject far enough into the frame to allow trimming if necessary.

bleirer

Rich1939 wrote:

That's true. I would hope though that like all of the advice, about anything, it is applied with a large measure of common sense. A user who knows his equipment will use the ROT in conjunction with his knowledge. In this particular example, focus at 25 ft.
When I use the 2X ROT, the distances are always apx. anyway. So I position the nearest subject far enough into the frame to allow trimming if necessary.

I get what you mean about common sense, but it's easy to get turned around, at least for me. In the example given I had to check the app to see that focusing at 25 feet would make the subject at 10 feet even more out of focus.

Rules of thumb about DOF:

- As the focal length increases the depth of field decreases.
- As the f number increases the depth of field increases.
-When the subject is farther away the depth of field increases and there is more in focus behind the subject than in front.
-I only get a certain number of in-focus pixels allotted to me and I don't want to use them up all at once.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

bleirer wrote:

I get what you mean about common sense, but it's e... (show quote)

You're right, I didn't take the time to work that out correctly.