Focusing Landscapes

Snapper73

Snapper73

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,496
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
What do people do when focusing for landscapes with a large deep of field. Do you use the manual focus or do you set it to infinite or just let the camera work it out for you. Thoughts Please ;)
 
set the camera to f8-11 use auto focus to focus on something a thrid of the way into the scene flick to manual focus recompose and shoot. Slight variations depending on any points of interest that I definately want razor sharp etc etc.
 
a1ex2001 said:
set the camera to f8-11 use auto focus to focus on something a thrid of the way into the scene flick to manual focus recompose and shoot. Slight variations depending on any points of interest that I definately want razor sharp etc etc.
Click to expand...


Just about what's said here, I sometimes go to F16/F22 if there's very close foreground detail that I want particularly sharp

I did try Hyperfocal distance focusing at some point but rarely saw the benefits of it... I still carry the charts around just in case
 
I use one of the cameras focus points (on auto) to select a focal point roughly a third in, usually f16-f22.
 
Not to mention those poor sods with FF cameras who have to use the whole lens area compared to cropped sensors where only the sweetest part of the lens is used ;)

Oh - and I use the hyperfocal distance at all times when maximising DoF, can't see the point in not :shrug:

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Oh - and I use the hyperfocal distance at all times when maximising DoF, can't see the point in not :shrug:

DD
Click to expand...

The trouble I find with Hyperfocal distance focusing is that it's designed to maximise DOF which isn't always what you want, sometimes you want certain foreground/background detail to be "pin sharp" & Hyperfocal won't necessarily achieve this... I tried it for a time but wasn't always pleased with the resulting sharpness of some features so went back to the "third rule", choosing to select a slightly smaller aperture when needed, works just as well and sometimes better for me

simon
 
simonkit said:
The trouble I find with Hyperfocal distance focusing is that it's designed to maximise DOF which isn't always what you want, sometimes you want certain foreground/background detail to be "pin sharp" & Hyperfocal won't necessarily achieve this... I tried it for a time but wasn't always pleased with the resulting sharpness of some features so went back to the "third rule", choosing to select a slightly smaller aperture when needed, works just as well and sometimes better for me

simon
Click to expand...


Forgot to mention - I was assuming a very wide lens too (most of my landscapes are on my beloved 12-24mm Nikon)

In which case the aperture is pretty much redundant as a means of controlling DoF as, by f8-f11, everything from a foot or so to infinity will be in focus anyway - using f4 only means from 4ft to infinity at the 12mm end

Not exactly much DoF control there then :D

DD
 
simonkit said:
The trouble I find with Hyperfocal distance focusing is that it's designed to maximise DOF which isn't always what you want, sometimes you want certain foreground/background detail to be "pin sharp" & Hyperfocal won't necessarily achieve this... I tried it for a time but wasn't always pleased with the resulting sharpness of some features so went back to the "third rule", choosing to select a slightly smaller aperture when needed, works just as well and sometimes better for me

simon
Click to expand...

Totally agree:)
 
DiddyDave said:
With longer lenses - so do I :thumbs:

DD
Click to expand...

That and time, many shots are taken in time when light is there one minute and gone the next. Id rather have the shot with good focus and the light that I was after than a shot with poor light and perfect hyperfocal focus.
 
devitt said:
That and time, many shots are taken in time when light is there one minute and gone the next. Id rather have the shot with good focus and the light that I was after than a shot with poor light and perfect hyperfocal focus.
Click to expand...

eh?

How does focussing a bit closer than a third take more time?

Are you a Canon user by any chance?

:lol:

I'm not on about getting the chart & string out to measure it - all you need do is learn a few basic numbers and you're away - just as easy, or as long, as learning to try to ensure you focus at a 1/3 really :shrug:

DD
 
I don't get you?

Well for me I am quicker at focusing without working out hyperfocal distance and all that and in fast changing light every second counts, thats what works for me;)
 
DiddyDave said:
In which case the aperture is pretty much redundant as a means of controlling DoF as, by f8-f11, everything from a foot or so to infinity will be in focus anyway
Click to expand...

Hmm, I must be doing something wrong. At F11 and infinity focus I'm finding that things only about 10-15 feet in front of me are getting in focus. At f22 I'm getting maybe 5 feet in front of me in focus. This is with a 40D and 24-105mm lens... :shrug:
 
ekimeno said:
Hmm, I must be doing something wrong. At F11 and infinity focus I'm finding that things only about 10-15 feet in front of me are getting in focus. At f22 I'm getting maybe 5 feet in front of me in focus. This is with a 40D and 24-105mm lens... :shrug:
Click to expand...

Try this to give you an insight into DoF & Hyperfocal distances...

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

DD
 
i have used a-dep before with good results
 
a1ex2001 said:
... focus on something a thrid of the way into the scene ...
Click to expand...
Uneducated_Rick said:
... the one third rule is usually close enough
Click to expand...
Les McLean said:
... select a focal point roughly a third in ...
Click to expand...
simonkit said:
... went back to the "third rule" ... works just as well and sometimes better for me
Click to expand...
Please please please can we have a TP moratorium on this myth?

I have no idea where this idiotic notion originated, but twenty seconds spent looking at a DOF table will show you that it's rubbish.
DiddyDave said:
Try this to give you an insight into DoF & Hyperfocal distances...

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Click to expand...
Well said DD. This should be compulsory before anyone spouts off about focussing and DOF.
 
StewartR said:
Please please please can we have a TP moratorium on this myth?

I have no idea where this idiotic notion originated, but twenty seconds spent looking at a DOF table will show you that it's rubbish.

Well said DD. This should be compulsory before anyone spouts off about focussing and DOF.
Click to expand...


Well this 'idiotic notion' works well enough for me, and I'm sure thousands of others.

And everyone is entitled to their opinion without this unnecessary sarcastic response.
 
StewartR said:
Well said DD. This should be compulsory before anyone spouts off about focussing and DOF.
Click to expand...

Interesting link... I have something similar on my iphone, but dont use it very often and I use this 1/3 thing too.

Full frame, 40mm focal length, f/9, hyperfocal 19.5ft is interesting and proves what you're saying though... near limit 9.7ft, far limit 3222.4ft!
 
There's a very good method to use with lenses which have depth of field scales on the barrel. I used to use it a lot when I had prime lenses.

I used to think it was called using the hyperfocal distance but now I'm not so sure.

With zooms or other lenses which don't have a useful DoF scale, its now more likely to be a guesstimate.

Let me know if there's anyone out there with a prime lens and I'll explain!
 
So when using like F9-11 for landscapes do you set it on a tripod and use a slower shutter speed?
Just curious, surely on a slower shutter speed the sunlight would be too over exposed?
 
Les McLean said:
Well this 'idiotic notion' works well enough for me, and I'm sure thousands of others.

And everyone is entitled to their opinion without this unnecessary sarcastic response.
Click to expand...
Les, I should stress that you are a far better photographer than I could ever dream of being, so it's not for me to criticise your approach. And I apologise if my tone was offensive.

But ... the notion that all points of view are equally valid doesn't apply to science. Focussing one third of the way into the scene might work "well enough" for you - and I grant you that it certainly avoids the potential dangers inherent with hyperfocal focussing - but if you want to maxmise your DOF for a landscape photo, then this technique does NOT achieve that. Fact.
 
J4MIE_P said:
So when using like F9-11 for landscapes do you set it on a tripod and use a slower shutter speed?
Just curious, surely on a slower shutter speed the sunlight would be too over exposed?
Click to expand...

Yes, you do. Your meter will compensate for the changes you make to the aperture. The two things work together to give the correct exposure.
 
jerry12953 said:
Yes, you do.
Click to expand...

That's only true half the time though

He could have meant he was using f2.8 prior to then using f9-11 - in which case your comment is correct; but if he was thinking of using f22+ then all would be likely to be blown if he opened up to f9-11 - where decreasing the shutter speed would be correct in the latter

:)

DD
 
StewartR said:
Les, I should stress that you are a far better photographer than I could ever dream of being, so it's not for me to criticise your approach. And I apologise if my tone was offensive.

.
Click to expand...

Thanks ;)
 
Must admit I'm a disciple of the 'idiotic' model, which for most of the time seems to work for me.
 
z3t4 said:
Must admit I'm a disciple of the 'idiotic' model, which for most of the time seems to work for me.
Click to expand...

Yep - sure does

That's because it's a 'Rule of thumb' rather than a 'Rule' as such, and on wider lenses (20mm or less) by f8 or higher you wouldn't notice much DoF difference anyway; unless you want something very close in perfect focus too (i.e. laid on floor for pebbles on a beach shot), in which case the HPF works best

:)

DD
 
Agreed. Being a great fan of having backups for the KISS principle, I use HPF in precisely those circumstances.
:)
 
DiddyDave said:
That's only true half the time though

He could have meant he was using f2.8 prior to then using f9-11 - in which case your comment is correct; but if he was thinking of using f22+ then all would be likely to be blown if he opened up to f9-11 - where decreasing the shutter speed would be correct in the latter

:)

DD
Click to expand...

You're right, DD, I stand corrected.:)
 
jerry12953 said:
There's a very good method to use with lenses which have depth of field scales on the barrel. I used to use it a lot when I had prime lenses.

I used to think it was called using the hyperfocal distance but now I'm not so sure.

With zooms or other lenses which don't have a useful DoF scale, its now more likely to be a guesstimate.

Let me know if there's anyone out there with a prime lens and I'll explain!
Click to expand...

Don't do this! Depth of Field scales are optimised for pre-WW2 film and smaller prints. You need to pay much more careful attention when printing big.

I'd write it up here but you may as well read that Luminous Landscape article (all of their technical writing is excellent) and then do your own research based off that.
 
Blapto said:
Don't do this! Depth of Field scales are optimised for pre-WW2 film and smaller prints. You need to pay much more careful attention when printing big.

I'd write it up here but you may as well read that Luminous Landscape article (all of their technical writing is excellent) and then do your own research based off that.
Click to expand...

I used to make exhibition prints up to 15x10 and sometimes bigger from 35mm with careful use of the depth of field scale and it worked. Sharp focus from about 2 metres to infinity at f5.6 on a 28mm lens, for example. As it was 35mm there were limitations over maximum print size anyway, but if I got it right there weren't any depth of field problems.

I skimmed over the Luminous Landscape article, but in a real world situation I'd rather believe what my own eyes and experience have told me.
 
Either the DoF scale (generally for night shots where infinity is what is needed) or more generally choose an aperture with a good DoF (f/8-f/11) and focus on the main object I want in focus, then check approximate sharpness in the viewfinder.

I find that works every time, and having slighly less sharpness in the backgound is better than having a slightly oof foreground IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top