Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

The issue is specific. I noted that understanding how DOF distributes in front of and behind the focus plane can be helpful for a photographer in selecting a focus point: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-805958-3.html#14593785
You said no: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-805958-3.html#14593785 and you're wrong.
Images in which 90+% of the DOF is behind the focus plane are the best example of your error and recently I've taken a number of such photos. They demonstrate that you're wrong.

I'm not interested in changing the subject. That's one of your most common trolling tactics in which you try and confuse and obfuscate the issue to cover up your error.

Understanding how DOF distributes around the focus plane can be helpful in many types of photos especially landscape/cityscape images and you remain wrong.

BebuLamar

The DOF is proportional to the sensor size.
At the same focus distance. Same focal length. Same f stop. Take the example of the 50mm and f/5.6 focused at 5 feet
The FF has DOF of 12.13" and the M43 has the DOF of 6.33". The ratio is 2.01 which is the crop factor.
12.13 / 6.33 = 2.01

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You are hung up on a hyper-focal technique for landscapes that extend to infinity. You are a one-trick pony.

That method does not work well with most other situations.

There is often a specific subject in the frame. That is where we want to focus and where DOF is completely different.

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Third......

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Exactly. Well said.

I use the settings for the camera I'm using to get the photo I want. If I want a specific depth of field, or close to it, I use hyper focal app.

Right now, since I'm blind in my right eye, I don't get out much to do photography. I have to use a tripod and live view.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Rubbish. It's just the best example to illustrate that you're wrong.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

What you use for landscape is not universally relevant. Photography is not all about landscapes.

There is DOF in the images below but what's beyond their DOF is not important, nobody cares.

These particular subjects are more important than their surroundings.

You need to develop an understanding of something beyond landscape photography.

Enough DOF for blossom


Enough DOF for vehicle


Enough DOF for airplane


Enough DOF for the birds


Nobody cares about the DOF, just the composition


Nobody cares about the DOF, just the closing of the restaurant

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I never said it was. I presented the issue as a question to Longshadow. It's not helpful to understand that DOF distributes unequally around the focus plane?

You're the one who made the universal statement: "No, it's not really helpful." And that's why you're wrong. It can be helpful with some photos which include more than just landscapes. So you're still wrong.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Look at the six images I just posted.

1. The orchid was a closeup taken with a macro lens. I focused on the center of the bloom. There is very little more DOF behind that point than closer to the camera. But what's closer to the camera? Nothing but air!

2. The VW was taken with an A7 III and a 35mm lens at f/8. I focused on the middle door. Some DOF extended into the bus. But what's closer to the camera? Nothing but air!

3. The airplane was taken with the A7 II (while it still had the Bayer Array) with a manual focus Zeiss 35mm lens at f/8 or f/11 (no computer contacts so I am relying on memory). I focused on the lettering on the fuselage. The entire plane is sharp but not the one behind it or the guy walking into the frame.

4. The flamingos were taken with a Df and a 150-600mm Tamron at 600mm at f/8. There was enough DOF to cover the birds but not the closer or more distant vegetation.

5. The B&W portrait mode image of the building was taken with the A7 II (now without the Bayer array) with a 35mm lens at f/8 (the DNG conversion lost track of the actual f-stop). I focused on the second column on the right. The background is sharp but the foreground isn't. But the foreground contains large geometric shapes. The eye is led into the picture, away from the foreground, so the viewer may not notice that. This is the only image I might redo with the focus closer to the camera because the loss of a little distant sharpness would do no harm.

6. The nighttime shot of the restaurant was taken with the A7 II and the Zeiss 35mm lens at f/8. I focused on the signs in the window and the DOF reached into the restaurant (despite the reflections on the wavy glass) and far enough back toward the camera to keep the small blue sign for the shrimp basket. You can download the 2k result below to your computer to see how well things worked. out.

These are common scenarios that do not involve distant landscapes or hyperfocal distances.

That's why I said that knowing that the DOF is unequal in front of and behind the focus point is not really that useful, especially if you focus a landscape close to the hyperfocal distance.

I have always known that the DOF distribution is unequal bit that is rarely an issue unless you need it to reach to infinity.

(Download)

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

And that, of course, is not what you said; "not really that useful" is not the same meaning as, "No, it's not really helpful." What you're saying now is a subtle change. "not that useful" leaves open some room for usefulness. So yes you were wrong and now you'd like to amend what you said?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I’m not going to argue semantics with you.

If you don’t understand what I have said it’s on you.

Others can see my point because they are not limiting themselves to landscapes.

What you are claiming has no relevance to o portraits, human or animal, because there is rarely any foreground. It doesn’t relate to BIF or sports because the subject is really the only important part of the image. And it’s not really that important unless you are shooting landscapes because that’s about the only time there is anything important at infinity focus distance.

Demonstrate your claim with any subject other than landscape. We’ll all be surprised if you can.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I'll agree with Selmslie, not really helpful. Not like I'm going to go measure what I want to accomplish...
X feet in front and Y feet behind the point of focus... REALLY?
If X>Y or X<Y adjust? Nope...
But I suppose it really does matter to some. Get the tape measure out.
Big DOF, small DOF, medium DOF. (In some cases no DOF.)
It depends on the DOF I feel I desire at the time.
And sometimes not.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I just go with large, medium, or small aperture for small, medium or large DOF.
Much quicker.
IF I'm worried about DOF.......

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

What ever blows your skirt up. Different strokes for different folks. I usually do the same thing. But sometimes I will use a DOF calculator. Another way is to set for hyper focal distance and focus about 1/3 the distance, I've heard. I don't do it but maybe I should.