12-09-2010, 09:24 PM
Hi Serkan,
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1291887008' post='4898']
I sounds quite simple... Can I apply this for all focal lengths (@F/8 with FF for example)?
Actually I find hyperfocal focusing very unusable, but I couln't test if it works well in field (and I won't struggle on doing it). But I can see that in some of my landscape shots, the area between infinity and me is "sharper" than usual. And I see that they were not shot with apertures smaller than F/10 (I mean not neccessarily)... So I'm looking for a practical way to produce this effect... And I'm going to try yours Wim...
Thanks & regards,
Serkan
[/quote]
Well, you could I guess, just that you have to be careful with longer FLs, as the DoF gets rather thin very quickly. In the case of longer FLs i normally focus on the main subject, or that part of the main subject that I want to be sharpest.
The thing with DoF is that the further you get awat from the actual plane of focus, the less sharp the details get. I'd say that for anthing from approximately 50 mm and down on FF this works well, for me at least, although I also used this method successfully at slightly longer FLs, certainly up to 135 mm. Of course, landscape subject matter gets a little different in those cases.
With (U)WAs this really helps when shooting very wide subjects from very close. It often, IME, is the only way to get satisfactory results.
BTW, one of th eresaons this works well is because detail gets lost in the far background anyway. With digital there obviously aren't enough and small enough pixels to provide details of e.g. leaves on a tree several 100s of metres away, and with film there aren't enough halide grains.
The TSE-17L picture in the Pentax 645D thread was taken this way. I know it is a 17 mm FL picture, but if I had used hyperfocal distance in that case, I would have lost detail of the castle tower in the background. Essentially it is about knowing where to focus to get the optimal effect, but the 1/3 - 2/3 rule works very well as a starting point. And with the steep sharpness curve in digital it really makes a difference IME.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1291887008' post='4898']
I sounds quite simple... Can I apply this for all focal lengths (@F/8 with FF for example)?
Actually I find hyperfocal focusing very unusable, but I couln't test if it works well in field (and I won't struggle on doing it). But I can see that in some of my landscape shots, the area between infinity and me is "sharper" than usual. And I see that they were not shot with apertures smaller than F/10 (I mean not neccessarily)... So I'm looking for a practical way to produce this effect... And I'm going to try yours Wim...
Thanks & regards,
Serkan
[/quote]
Well, you could I guess, just that you have to be careful with longer FLs, as the DoF gets rather thin very quickly. In the case of longer FLs i normally focus on the main subject, or that part of the main subject that I want to be sharpest.
The thing with DoF is that the further you get awat from the actual plane of focus, the less sharp the details get. I'd say that for anthing from approximately 50 mm and down on FF this works well, for me at least, although I also used this method successfully at slightly longer FLs, certainly up to 135 mm. Of course, landscape subject matter gets a little different in those cases.
With (U)WAs this really helps when shooting very wide subjects from very close. It often, IME, is the only way to get satisfactory results.
BTW, one of th eresaons this works well is because detail gets lost in the far background anyway. With digital there obviously aren't enough and small enough pixels to provide details of e.g. leaves on a tree several 100s of metres away, and with film there aren't enough halide grains.
The TSE-17L picture in the Pentax 645D thread was taken this way. I know it is a 17 mm FL picture, but if I had used hyperfocal distance in that case, I would have lost detail of the castle tower in the background. Essentially it is about knowing where to focus to get the optimal effect, but the 1/3 - 2/3 rule works very well as a starting point. And with the steep sharpness curve in digital it really makes a difference IME.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
