Focusing for landscapes

C

Charlie C

Suspended / Banned
Messages
393
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello!

I've been attempting to get into this landscape photography thing. However, I'm finding it hard to get the focusing correct, amongst other things to.

I am using appatures of f19-f27, to try and get everything in focus, but its not really working.

Where abouts should i try and focus on in the frame, a few meters infront? on the horizon? on a house or tree or focal point 100 meters away? Anytips would be really useful please.

Thanks
Charlie
 
Charlie,

There are many different ways of achieving this, and everyone has different opinions - my technique is to compose the image and focus about a 3rd of the way into the picture. I normally use only the centre focusing point as well with AF, or use MF

Hope that helps.

Rob
 
You could try hyperfocal distance focusing. That way you can have everything in acceptable focus. Have a read of this. Sorry for the link but I'm still trying to get to grips with it myself and can't explain it very well.
 
Determining the hyperfocal length is the way to do it, but its dependant on the infinate horizon....err....have a go with this, see if you can get your head round it...

I'm just far too slow...
 
Sadly, modern lenses don't have the DOF scale any more, but as rwotton said, focusing about 1/3 of the way into the scene and using f8 or f11 will do the job in most circumstances as a rough rule of thumb.
 
I agree with the simple concept of focusing about one third the way into the picture in order to get the maximum depth of field (DOF). It works. For most landscape subjects there is little need to get too technical. When using a wide angle lens, I often turn auto focus OFF and use manual focusing anyway. Even better, I use the distance scale and my own judgement. That wide angle will have tremendous DOF anyway – and if you are stopping down to an aperture as small as f22 you should have few problems.

When I started work – showing my age – I began on old-fashioned press cameras as an apprentice. I used the bus to get to my assignments. The chief photographer told me the best way to learn how to judge distances was to count the concrete flag stones on the pavement while I was waiting for a bus. They were a standard two feet by three. I used to stride them out while counting. It screwed my up something rotten when we went metric!
Philip
www.philipdunn.blogspot.com
www.photoactive.co.uk
 
You can buy a DOF calculator for about £20. It's a simple rotary dial with details CoC and Apertures on one side and the DOF range on the other. It goes by the name of ExpoDisk. Useful for calculating the hyperfocal distance at specific f stops

I found a web site that lets you calculate DoF.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

I used to have the Hyperfocal Distance calculted for my prime lenses on card i carried with me. ExpoDisk is a lot easier
 
f19 - f27 - on what format? almost impossible to get a landscape out of focus at these settings!
 
I was taught to focus a 1/3rd into the scene, as CT says f8 to f11 should be ok too, if you go much smaller you risk excessively slow shutter speeds and the movement of grass etc in the frame will give an altogether soft appearance.

Is that what your confusing with poor focus?
 
digitalfailure said:
I was taught to focus a 1/3rd into the scene, as CT says f8 to f11 should be ok too, if you go much smaller you risk excessively slow shutter speeds and the movement of grass etc in the frame will give an altogether soft appearance.

Is that what your confusing with poor focus?
Click to expand...

100% agree
 
I went out shooting landscapes today and I tried the hyperfocal method and the focusing one third into the scene with aperatures such as f16 or f22 and using the distance scale on me lens and all work rather well. You cant really go wrong though using the focusing one third in method.
 
Thaks for all your comments, and although i've been using larger apatures i think i've been focusing too close to me.

Here is an example of what i mean (please ignor how crap it is, its the focusing that i am refering to here):

imgp1098et5.jpg

Larger version: HERE

Is my focusing just off completely or and i doing something else wrong.

It just seems far less crisp than it could be...
 
where was your focus point?

The foreground looks to be the sharpest area.

I think in that situation I'd have selected and locked the focus point on the cows or the hedge row and recomposed
 
digitalfailure said:
where was your focus point?

The foreground looks to be the sharpest area.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct there, foreground is definately the sharper area of the image. I think the easiest way to try and improve this is to focus roughly one third into the image using an aperature of around f16 which should give you good sharpness through the frame.
 
This shot was taken at f22 with a 24mm lens - you'd have to work very hard indeed to get anything out of focus with that focal length/aperture setting! The lens is likely to provide much sharper images at around f8/f11. The whole image is pretty sharp - you are seeing a bit of flare from the sun which is degrading the image. Did you use a lens hood? Was there a cheap filter on the lens to 'protect' it? If the answer is 'NO' + 'YES' = your problem. Show us a picture you consider to be sharp taken with this lens.
 
Was the shot handheld aswell? you might have very slight movement which can blur the shot a touch. A tripod and cable release helps.
 
awp and wanderingmind ur both right, those things would have had a big effect as well.

I guess i need to carry my tripod with me in the car aswell, this shot was a jump out and snap away whilst the light looked good. Didn't work though.

I have a UV filter on the end of the lens, to protect it. and i forgot to put the lens hood on for this i think (although its a pretty small one anyways).

Thanks for all your help guys.

Next time the light is good i'll have a bit more of an idea what to do.
 
Not sure if it's been said but sometimes the smallest aperture may not show a lens at its best e.g. I've found that f/16 tends to be sharper/better looking on a 17-40 Canon lens than, say, f/22. It's good at f/7.1 to f/11 too but not so smart at f/4. Then again, this might be due to my lens, or, more likely, my advancing years and increasing decrepitude.
 
I know this thread is mainly about focus, but bear in mind that with small apertures and slow speeds the subjects tree's clouds etc. can move in the breeze.
 
What lens are you using? What format are you shooting?
 
Charlie C said:
Where abouts should i try and focus on in the frame, a few meters infront? on the horizon? on a house or tree or focal point 100 meters away? Anytips
Click to expand...

Hi mate, it really depends on what you want to achieve with the final image but going on the fact you have an 18mm and using f22 you really should only be focusing a little over two feet into the frame....Focus first then compose your shot (if you can lock focus).....Although this changes depending on aperture used ie. f16 would be about 3 feet at 18mm and f11, 4.5 feet at 18mm etc.

I downloaded a printable chart which I carry round with me but can't remember which site I got it from, do a search on google.
 
awp said:
What lens are you using? What format are you shooting?
Click to expand...

I use my Pentax 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL for almost all my landscape attempts. And i am getting used to shooting in RAW (DNG) at the moment. I started using RAW today for my landscapes.
 
Ken are those figures correct??

There was a posting the other night somewhere that looked a good technique.

I'm not a fan of hyperfocal as infinity seems soft

Also try lining three batteries up near, middle and far distance, focus on the middle battery then take the picture at different apertures.

Ive found f8 to f11 the sharpest
 
dcash29 said:
Ken are those figures correct??

There was a posting the other night somewhere that seemed more sense.

I'm not a fan of hyperfocal as infinity seems soft
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on your sensor size and as I said they are rough estimates but that's how I focus and have done for a long time now.
 
Charlie
I too use a Pentax K10D and have found that the 18-55 AL is generally a bit on the soft side.
I am investigating an alternative at the moment, but have not come to any conclusion yet, so any suggestions would be welcome.

At present I also have a Pentax A 70-200 f4, Sigma 70-300 apo dg macro, and a Sigma 50-500 Bigma, so have the long stuff covered, it's the shorter lenses now.

Garry
 
dcash29 said:
With what ive read its really what works for you.
Click to expand...

Okay, i've found the link to the downloadable PDF Here You may want to read the explanation Here.
The chart covers 35mm, 4x5, 6x6 and digital format cameras.
HTH.
Ken.
 
Just as an example, if you dropped the aperture down from f/22 in the sample shot to f/11 you would have increased your shutter speed from 1/45th" to 1/180th" as each full f/stop (eg: f/8 - f/11 - f/16 - f/22) will enable you to double your shutter speed making that shot handholdable and ensuring the lens was probably closer to working within it's "sweet spot" :)
 
Chris L said:
Just as an example, if you dropped you aperture down from f/22 in the sample shot to f/11 you would could have increased your shutter speed from 1/45th" to 1/180th" as each full f/stop (eg: f/8 - f/11 - f/16 - f/22) will enable you to double your shutter speed making that shot handholdable and ensuring the lens was probably closer to working within it's "sweet spot" :)
Click to expand...

Very good advice.
 
Chris L said:
Just as an example, if you dropped the aperture down from f/22 in the sample shot to f/11 you would have increased your shutter speed from 1/45th" to 1/180th" as each full f/stop (eg: f/8 - f/11 - f/16 - f/22) will enable you to double your shutter speed making that shot handholdable and ensuring the lens was probably closer to working within it's "sweet spot" :)
Click to expand...
Indeed.

On a related subject, I'm surprised nobody's mentioned diffraction. Beyond about f/16, the sharpness of your lens actually reduces because of diffraction. At f/29, which Charlie mentioned he used, I'd expect images to be noticeably softer than at f/8 or f/11.
 
rwotton said:
... my technique is to compose the image and focus about a 3rd of the way into the picture ...
Click to expand...
CT said:
... focusing about 1/3 of the way into the scene and using f8 or f11 will do the job in most circumstances as a rough rule of thumb.
Click to expand...
phototutor said:
I agree with the simple concept of focusing about one third the way into the picture in order to get the maximum depth of field (DOF). It works.
Click to expand...
digitalfailure said:
I was taught to focus a 1/3rd into the scene ...
Click to expand...
awp said:
100% agree
Click to expand...
antc said:
You cant really go wrong though using the focusing one third in method.
Click to expand...
Wow. So many people all saying the same thing, and they're all wrong. I'm sorry to have to break it to you, folks, but the old 1/3 - 2/3 rule is an old wives' tale based on an inadequate understanding of the maths of DOF.

A little while ago I had a slow day in the office so I did some calculations. (Well actually DOFMaster did.) Suppose you have a 55mm lens on a 350D at f/8. The hyperfocal distance is 20m. With the subject at various distances, the DOF is as follows:

* Subject at 1m: DOF from 0.95m to 1.05m (48% in front)
* Subject at 2m: DOF from 1.82m to 2.22m (45% in front)
* Subject at 3m: DOF from 2.61m to 3.52m (43% in front)
* Subject at 5m: DOF from 4m to 6.65m (38% in front)
* Subject at 6.67m: DOF from 5m to 10m (33% in front)
* Subject at 10m: DOF from 6.67m to 20m (25% in front)
* Subject at 15m: DOF from 8.57m to 60.2m (12% in front)
* Subject at 19m: DOF from 9.73m to 395.4m (2% in front)

Note that there is only one point at which the DOF is 1/3 in front of the subject and 2/3 behind the subject, and that is when the subject is at exactly 1/3 of the hyperfocal distance.

Note also that the maximum DOF is achieved when the subject is at the hyperfocal distance.

My recommendation: focus at the hyperfocal distance or just beyond. The trouble with hyperfocal focussing is that, by definition, objects at infinity are right on the limit of acceptable sharpness. However, "acceptable" is a somewhat flexible term and what's acceptably sharp on a computer monitor might not be acceptably sharp on a 36"x24" print. So if there are objects in the scene "at infinity" (i.e. a long way away), then it's probably safest to err on the side of caution by focussing on a point slightly beyond the hyperfocal distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top