Landscapes / cityscapes (all afar) - hyperfocal-distance?

[rayonline_nz]

Let's say I am photographing everything afar such as observation decks and outdoor rural landscapes. If I simply used hyperfocal distance technique any pitfalls (rather than manual focussing)? Obviously F11 under 35mm standards and F22 or F16 for 6x7 medium format.

Cheers

 

[grahamp]

What is the nearest point that you need to be acceptably sharp? If it is effectively infinity, focus the camera there. The trouble with using hyperfocal distance options is that the extremes of the zone of 'acceptable' sharpness often lie where you have key parts of the subject. In your case the distant skyline.

If you have to have foreground to distant horizon sharp then, yes, you have to use hyperfocal distance (unless lens tilt is an option). But be very conservative about your settings. Most DoF tables are fine for small enlargements, but very optimistic for large prints. Expect to stop down further. Then you may get into the DoF/diffraction trade-off, but one dose of optical reality at a time

 

[wiltw]

I just wrote this, in another thread. Pertinent discussion.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Diapositivo]

Hyperfocal distance is a very tricky, debateable concept.

I like this text: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

There is one (1) plane of focus. All the rest is compromise. Compromises are necessary in life but, to go on with common places, there are no free meals.

Mathematical tables do not necessarily help good photographic rendering.

My simple rule: the main subject of your landscape must be in exact, perfect, real focus. If you have a tree in your landscape composition, and you know observer's eye and attention will necessarily fall on the tree, put the tree in perfect focus. The mountain in the background can be slightly out of focus. That's OK, I never heard a mountain complaining she's slightly out of focus

Don't try to have the tree and the mountain in perfect focus, or you will end up with a picture with "something wrong". There is one, only one main subject in your picture. That must be in real focus. The rest can be slightly out of focus because the brain of the observer will "compensate" for this subconsciously knowing it is not the most important subject.

 

[pentaxuser]

Doesn't it depend on what the OP means by "everything afar" and what his lens and camera format is. If there is nothing in the scene closer than say 35ft and it is a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera then focusing on the far object( mountain) at "infinity" makes sure that even the nearest object at 35ft is also in focus even at f8 so the tree in the example quoted in post #4 will be in real focus as well as the mountain?

pentaxuser

 

[wiltw]

Doesn't it depend on what the OP means by "everything afar" and what his lens and camera format is. If there is nothing in the scene closer than say 35ft and it is a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera then focusing on the far object( mountain) at "infinity" makes sure that even the nearest object at 35ft is also in focus even at f8 so the tree in the example quoted in post #4 will be in real focus as well as the mountain?

What folks are alluding to is that 'perfectly in focus' only happens AT the Plane of Focus. Any deviation at all results in increasingly large 'blur circles'. IF the blur circle is 'small enough to fool the eye/brain' into thinking the blur circle is a 'sharp point' the brain says 'in focus'. But perception of the blur circle being small enough (in focus) vs. too large to fool the brain (out of focus) depends upon the viewer. And a person who just got new glasses is corrected to 20/20 or even 20/15, and will see 'blur circles' rather than 'points' and think 'out of focus' even though the DOF calculator or DOF scale says otherwise. NOTHING other than 'exactly AT the plane of focus' is ever truly 'in focus', so if I move closer to the print I will begin to perceive things to be 'out of focus' where I might have been fooled into thinking 'in focus' at longer viewing distances.

So now, to answer your inquiry, "Maybe!"

• If I take 50mm lens on 135 format, set aperture at f/8 and focus at 97', even for a viewer with 20/20 vision I will have a DOF Zone from 48' to Infnity.
• I have to focus at 55' for something at 35' with 50mm lens on 135 format and set aperture at f/8, to see 35' as Near 'in focus' for the 20/20 vision viewer, but Far 'in focus' only extends out to 128'.

Yet the Hyperfocal Distance with 50mm f/8 is supposedly 90'...and my 35' distance object is 'out of focus', as the DOF Zone is 46' - 1538'

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Excellent advice in the posts above. One thing that I will note regarding the original post is that I avoid going above f/8 with 35mm-format lenses if I want to maximize resolution. Generally speaking, diffraction starts to reduce image quality at f/11; at f/22 you'll notice it.

With medium format, the sweet spot of my lenses are f/8.

 

[removed account4]

hi ray -

i hate to suggest this, how about
before you go wherever you are going , you burn a roll of film
and do exposures of things at a distance ... one view, use hyper focal calculations
the 2nd view do it "the other way" and see which one you like better ?

rather than take textbook answers i'd see for myself, because "good enough"
might work for you ...

good luck !
john