Using hyperfocal distance effectively in the field

DREW WILEY · Jul 22, 2015

I can understand hyperfocal in relation to certain MF situations where there's no plane of focus control. But once again, just seems like the
hard way to get from Point A to Point B when using a view camera. If someone enjoys theory for the sake of theory, fine. Technical info can be fun to tinker with at times. But in the field, one rarely has time for that nonsense, esp given the manner in which focus is a very different game with a view camera than with something with a flat fixed back and lens plane. Even using an MF SLR, there is maybe one time in the last ten years I've bothered with hyperfocal. It's easier just to use a clip-on magnifier to check critical focus, then spice that with some experience in analogous situations. My brother, as a pro commercial photographer, used hyperfocal theory quite often for his own MF work; but he had distinct eyesight problems, so it made sense in his case. But his shots very rarely as sharp and printable as mine
in terms of enlargement. For publication they didn't need to be enlarged much.

DREW WILEY · Jul 22, 2015

Sinar has their own built-in scales reminiscent to "focus spread", though the patented technique differs between the P and F series cameras.
I learned it, then forgot it. Now I shoot a Sinar Norma, manufactured prior to these particular amenities. Everything has gotten so spontaneous I'm have to think awhile just to describe it. I just do it.

Steve Smith · Jul 23, 2015

Alan Klein said:
It varies depending on the aperture. See the sample chart in my last post. You'll notice that at smaller apertures it could be 1/5 or a lot closer than 1/2.

Don't think so. The definition of hyperfocal distance is a setting which gives acceptable focus from half that distance to infinity. Changing aperture changes this distance setting but the definition remains true.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm

Focusing your camera at the hyperfocal distance ensures maximum sharpness from half this distance all the way to infinity

Steve.

DREW WILEY · Jul 23, 2015

And it's a relative, plastic definition based on average assumptions and vague terms, like "circle of confusion". Reminds me of "normal
viewing distance". Humbug!

RobC · Jul 23, 2015

Steve Smith said:
Don't think so. The definition of hyperfocal distance is a setting which gives acceptable focus from half that distance to infinity. Changing aperture changes this distance setting but the definition remains true.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm

Focusing your camera at the hyperfocal distance ensures maximum sharpness from half this distance all the way to infinity

Click to expand...

Steve.

That quote is incorrect. It won't get you maximum sharpness. It will get you the sharpness resulting from the aperture dof range marked on your lens which is the current standard and which was defined pre WWII. Mordern lenses and film are capable of way more than that standard and if you use the DoF range marked on your lens you will be losing out on what your lens and film are capable of.

In most circumstances focussing on your main point of interest and using f5.6 or f8 (on 35mm camera) will get you better results than adhering to the lens markings, especially for landscape/distant subjects. And if you have the right lenses even F4 or F2.8 can result in even sharper images.

There is that old saying "F8 and be there" which has more truth to it than you might think.

Steve Smith · Jul 24, 2015

You're right. It wasn't really a comment on sharpness but on the actual definition of hyperfocal distance.

Perhaps it should refer to acceptably unsharp!

Steve.

RobC · Jul 24, 2015

Steve Smith said:
You're right. It wasn't really a comment on sharpness but on the actual definition of hyperfocal distance.

Perhaps it should refer to acceptably unsharp!

Steve.

Perhaps acceptably sharp for 6x4 prints

gzinsel · Jul 26, 2015

what happens if you are still using pre-WWII glass and film that is single layer emulsion? do you use THAT dof table. . . . .. . . . .

RobC · Jul 26, 2015

if enlarger is perfectly aligned then you only need the DoF to cover the emulsion thickness. You can measure that yourself if you're worried about it or you can just stop down until the image doesn't get any sharper.

AlanC · Aug 2, 2015

Suppose I'm photographing a landscape and want everything as sharp as I can get it from infinity to as close as possible. If I'm using my OM1 with 50mm lens, then I will need the smallest aperture - f16. If I use the settings round the lens barrel and align f16 with the infinity mark, the settings tell me that I will actually be focussed on 5 meters, and that acceptible "sharp focus" will extend from 2.5 meters to infinity. So the hyperfocal distance is 5 meters. I know from experience that the hyperfocal settings aon the Zuiko lens are a bit optimistic . So I use the f8 markings, but still stop the lens down to f16. This ensures that distant objects will really be in acceptible sharp focus.

When I am using my 5x4 camera with, say, the 203mm Kodak Ektar lens, in the same situation, and want maximum depth of field without using camera movements, then I need the smallest aperture -f45. What I do now is open the lens right up, and focus on a prominent distant object. The lens is then stopped down to f45 and the bellows are slowly extended whilst checking the distant object with a loupe. As soon as it is seen to be going out of focus, extension is backed off a bit to regain acceptible sharp focus on the object. And that's it. The camera may now be focussed on some theoretical "hyperfocal distance". Or it may not be. But without having had to resort to theoretical charts that may or may not be accurate, and without having to measure any distances, the camera will now be set up to record the maximum amount of acceptible sharpness from infinity right into the foreground.

Alan

DREW WILEY · Aug 3, 2015

The flaw in that

DREW WILEY · Aug 3, 2015

oops ... The flaw in that idea is that at f/45, loss in sharpness due to diffraction will be conspicuously kicking in, just like it will at f/16 in a
50mm lens for 35mm film.

AlanC · Aug 3, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
oops ... The flaw in that idea is that at f/45, loss in sharpness due to diffraction will be conspicuously kicking in, just like it will at f/16 in a
50mm lens for 35mm film.

There is no flaw. I have tested both lenses at their minimum apertures and there is a loss of sharpness due to diffraction, as you say, but it doesn't conspictually kick in. It is actually quite slight.
The important thing to keep in mind here is that there is lot more loss of sharpness if the lens is used at a larger aperture causing reduced depth of field which leads to some parts of the subject actually being out of focus...

Alan

DREW WILEY · Aug 3, 2015

It's obvious with any big precise enlargement, and might be a deal-breaker in that 50mm example, since 35mm gets enlarged rather unrealistically at times. The nice thing about view cameras is that you can control plane of focus to some degree in most scenarios, and therefore use more optimal f-stops, rather than just stopping down or resorting to shorter focal lengths which alter the perspective. One
obviously learns the tricks and how to make realistic choices. But this requires some practice.

Alan Klein · Aug 3, 2015

AlanC said:
There is no flaw. I have tested both lenses at their minimum apertures and there is a loss of sharpness due to diffraction, as you say, but it doesn't conspictually kick in. It is actually quite slight.
The important thing to keep in mind here is that there is lot more loss of sharpness if the lens is used at a larger aperture causing reduced depth of field which leads to some parts of the subject actually being out of focus...

Alan

Often, after I've calculated the the aperture I need to satisfy the DOF I want, I'll stop down one stop just to be sure.

wiltw · Aug 4, 2015

AlanC said:
If I'm using my OM1 with 50mm lens, then I will need the smallest aperture - f16. If I use the settings round the lens barrel and align f16 with the infinity mark, the settings tell me that I will actually be focussed on 5 meters, and that acceptible "sharp focus" will extend from 2.5 meters to infinity. So the hyperfocal distance is 5 meters. I know from experience that the hyperfocal settings aon the Zuiko lens are a bit optimistic . So I use the f8 markings, but still stop the lens down to f16.

Alan Klein said:
Often, after I've calculated the the aperture I need to satisfy the DOF I want, I'll stop down one stop just to be sure.

The reason why the standard DOF scale or the standard DOF calculation program is 'optimistic' is simply that the CofC size is optimistic because it assumes the viewer's vision is poorer than 20/20 visual standard which optometrists all strive to achieve in correcting our vision! Therefore, we see 'blur' with our 20/20 eyes, yet the DOF table or scale marks says we should be fooled into seeing something as 'in focus'.

The use of a larger aperture value (than actual aperture on the lens) in the DOF table or DOF scale marks effectively is the same as increasing the CofC size in determination of what is 'acceptably blurred' in our assessment of an 8x10 print viewed from about 12" away.

zilch0md · Apr 15, 2016

AlanC said:
Suppose I'm photographing a landscape and want everything as sharp as I can get it from infinity to as close as possible. If I'm using my OM1 with 50mm lens, then I will need the smallest aperture - f16. If I use the settings round the lens barrel and align f16 with the infinity mark, the settings tell me that I will actually be focussed on 5 meters, and that acceptible "sharp focus" will extend from 2.5 meters to infinity. So the hyperfocal distance is 5 meters. I know from experience that the hyperfocal settings aon the Zuiko lens are a bit optimistic . So I use the f8 markings, but still stop the lens down to f16. This ensures that distant objects will really be in acceptible sharp focus.

When I am using my 5x4 camera with, say, the 203mm Kodak Ektar lens, in the same situation, and want maximum depth of field without using camera movements, then I need the smallest aperture -f45. What I do now is open the lens right up, and focus on a prominent distant object. The lens is then stopped down to f45 and the bellows are slowly extended whilst checking the distant object with a loupe. As soon as it is seen to be going out of focus, extension is backed off a bit to regain acceptible sharp focus on the object. And that's it. The camera may now be focussed on some theoretical "hyperfocal distance". Or it may not be. But without having had to resort to theoretical charts that may or may not be accurate, and without having to measure any distances, the camera will now be set up to record the maximum amount of acceptible sharpness from infinity right into the foreground.

Alan

I like your strategies for the two camera systems, and really, the diffraction suffered at f/45 with a 5x4 view camera will be no worse than that suffered by a 35mm format camera at f/11 - when producing like-sized prints. And if you make larger prints with the 5x4 sheet film, you've got a cushion that comes with most people defaulting to a proportionately greater viewing distance.

John Koehrer · Apr 17, 2016

AlanC said:
When I am using my 5x4 camera with, say, the 203mm Kodak Ektar lens, in the same situation, and want maximum depth of field without using camera movements, then I need the smallest aperture -f45. What I do now is open the lens right up, and focus on a prominent distant object. The lens is then stopped down to f45 and the bellows are slowly extended whilst checking the distant object with a loupe. As soon as it is seen to be going out of focus, extension is backed off a bit to regain acceptible sharp focus on the object. And that's it. The camera may now be focussed on some theoretical "hyperfocal distance". Or it may not be. But without having had to resort to theoretical charts that may or may not be accurate, and without having to measure any distances, the camera will now be set up to record the maximum amount of acceptible sharpness from infinity right into the foreground.

Alan

Diffraction is something that may or may not be noticeable unless you're using a high mag glass or big enlargements.

Another two things:
1) Photographic infinity is somewhere around 500-1000 times the focal length of the lens you're using.
you don't need the moon or any other distant planet to figure that out.
2) Your focus fu is good grasshopper. Keep doing that.

RobC · Apr 17, 2016

You focus at farthest point and note position on focussing rail. Then you focus on nearest point and note position on focussing rail. You then set focus on focussing rail at midpoint between the two points on focussing rail. This is most accurate focus you will get between two points contrary to what a lot of people will tell you. It is not the half way distance between two points in the subject which is something else.

Then you need to calculate/guesstimate the fno to use.

Simplest would be to use a phone app such as following:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.opticalsoftware.calclensthin

only thing is that you don't know the distance but you should be able to guesstimate the magnification ratio to put into the software.
So if your tallest object at focus point is 10000mm and that shows on GG as 30mm then magnification ratio is 30/10000 = 0.003. Basically anything at distance which is tall is close to infinity magnification as far as magnification is concerned.

You can set CoC in the general settings of software.

OR

if you get yourself one of those golfing rangefinders you can focus on a specific object and then find its distance with the rangefinder and set that in the software. Then you can adjust fno until you get to infinity (the software will tell you) and use that fno. It will also tell you the near focus point. Or you can focus on near and far points and check distance with range finder and then focus on midpoint on rail and then play with fno until it covers the near and far points which is a bit of a pain so guestimating magnification ratio is probably much easier and just stop down one extra stop to be sure you have it covered.

OR

None of above allows for tilt and angles which if you want all of that, which you will, then getting one of these will do it all without a phone app:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/155145-REG/Rodenstock_260700_Depth_of_Field_Calculator.html

only thing is you still need to guesstimate magnification ratio (which is close to infinity for distant objects like mountains of hills or trees).
And the rodenstock gizmo works using a CoC of 0.03 which is small for 4x5 which uses more like 0.1 but being smaller than necessary it incorporates a useful margin of error for you so its actually a plus.

p.s. There's a reason why LF cameras are really called technical cameras.

I'd get the rodenstock gizmo if you can afford it. It's very good. I have one and the software on my android device but rodenstock gizmo does it all once you've worked out how to use it. And it small and light and takes up no space in your pack.

RobC · Apr 17, 2016

and be aware that the rodenstock gizmo calculates dof when you have incoporated tilt and shift so it does far more than a basic distance DoF calculator does which most software doesn't do and the qioptiq software doesn't do either and you WILL want to calculate the DoF within a tilted lens setup sooner rather than later.

RobC · Apr 17, 2016

and just noticed this topic is a year old and has been resurrected making my post above somewhat late to the party.

RalphLambrecht · Apr 18, 2016

Doc W said:
I understand what the hyperfocal distance is, but just barely. There are lots of discussions about how to find the hyperfocal distance on 35mm or MF lenses, but what about large format? How does one effectively calculate and use this in the field. I don't carry any electronic devices with me. I am looking for crude but useful.

How about posting some concrete examples, or providing links, for the thick of skull among us?

Don't use it for landscapes or yo'll always end up with mediocre sharpness at infinity.All DOF calculations deliver poor sharpness at the DOF extremes;true sharpness is only at the focal planeActually, DOF is a myth.Sharpness has no depth.

DREW WILEY · Apr 21, 2016

Why does anyone need any kind of electronic device with them, other than a light meter? My method of working with hyperfocal theory is direct,
simple, and elegant - I ignore it completely. With a view camera you set your focal plane with tilts, inspect details with a loupe, and be done with
it when things look right. Otherwise, why bother to buy one?

wiltw · Apr 21, 2016

Steve Smith said:
The hyperfocal distance is a distance you focus the lens to which will give acceptable sharpness from half of that distance up to infinity.

Yeah, that is what is generally believed to be true. Then you look up hyperfocal distances for different FL and aperture sizes, you plug in the hyperfocal distance as the place of focus, and then look up the DOF calculation for that focused distance...and what you find is not consistent, can be fraught with calculation error, and who knows what else is wrong with DOF calculators and Hyperfocal calculators we find on the web!

Some oddities from examining the above table:

We commonly understand that DOF calculators assume 'manufacturer standard' for CofC size, yet we see conflict in the calculations, in the above table no agreement between a program called fcalc (wrongly shown in the table as 'DOF Master') (columns C,D, E) and calculations offered on the Cambridge Color website (columns G, H, I).
We believe shorter FL provides more DOF than longer FL, yet when we look at focusing at the hyperfocal distance suggested for different f/stops, the total depth of the DOF zone seems deeper for the longer FL vs. the shorter FL (e.g. value in cell F5 vs. F9, value in cell N6 vs. in N10)
We hear that hyperfocal provides sufficient fooling of the eye & brain to be 'in focus' out "to Infinity", yet we see values in cells (such as I6 and E6 or even I10) that look decided SHORT of 'Infinity'!

What are we to believe?!

Meanwhile I now need to seek a third DOF calculator, one that comes close to one of the two calculators in the chart, so I can say "this DOF calculator seems to be more correct, as 2 of 3 sort of agree"

RobC · Apr 21, 2016

see post 46 of this topic. It does depend on quite a few factors such as wavelength you are using and refractive index of glass.

Using hyperfocal distance effectively in the field

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency