Hyperfocal Distance

[Glenn NK]

Just i hope when the weather will get better here in our area then i will go out and test my TS lenses for that hyperfocal distances, then it will help me to understand another lenses too, but i want to have more fun using TS over another lenses for landscapes or architecture.

Tareq:

With a scene like Russell's with most of the objects essentially in a single plane; your TSE will work very well. I use mine on shots like this (Canon f/3.5 24TSE II). I've taken shots at f/3.5 (which is wide open for this lens), with good results.

Focusing method I picked up from another forum:

1) With camera set on tripod and framing set, and tilt set to zero, focus on a point at infinity (camera does not have to be leveled first - angle camera to achieve framing),

2) Without touching the focus ring, using Live View and toggle to move around the LCD, pick an object in the near foreground that is important and use the Tilt adjustment to get that object into focus,

3) Check infinity focus again, and adjust with focus ring if required,

4) Do a final check on near object, using tilt adjustment to achieve focus.

5) If required, stop down a bit.

6) Throw away the tilt charts - they are not necessary any more.

Russell's image is custom made for a TS lens, and using the hyperfocal technique for an image like that is an exercise in frustration.

Glenn

[george013]

Hi, Many thanks for ALL the views.
One of the things that I cannot really get the head round is that if you have a full frame camera and set for example 16mm on the lens and the guy or girl opposite has a Canon 1.6 crop with a 10-22mm lens that will give 16mm what is the or why is there a differance on a HD chart or DOFMaster even, as the focus distance /object would be the same distance away from the sensor?
Russ

In addition to the other answers.
A human ey sees a circle of 0.25mm at a distance of 1 meter as a sharp point. I'm not sure of the exact figures but that's not important to see the idea. Printed on a A4, long side = 297mm, this means that the crop-sensor, long size 23.6mm, has to be magnified 297/23.6=12.58 times. This gives a circle of confusion of 0.25/12.58=0.019mm. A same calculation will give you 0.03mm for a FF, long side=36mm.

The definition of sharpness is based on a printed circle of 0.25mm viewed on a meter distance.

The circle of confusion is a back calculation based on the times that the sensor has to be magnified to fit a A4 print.
The DoF is that traject in the photo that has a light cone with a topcircle equal or less than the CoC.

So you see that all is based on a print viewed on a certain distance.

George

[mrinmoyvk]

Sorry guys , you might be serious photographers but do you calculate all these things before taking a picture. Really !!!!
I agree that I am new to photography but I just know my camera very well. Every button and every menu so that I can use is with closed eyes.
I only frame the picture, if it looks good, I click. Might be all these calculations would be going in my mind but I never figured those out. Those might be happening in fraction of second and I click.

[russellsnr]

Hi, You may no your camera well but it is not the camera that takes the photograph, it is you the photographer and I was always told that if a job is worth doing it's worth doing well. Don't get me wrong if you are happy with your results then your goal has been reached and you go away happy but look at some of the images in books and on the internet and ask yourself are mine as good.Most important though is that you enjoy it. Russ

Sorry guys , you might be serious photographers but do you calculate all these things before taking a picture. Really !!!!
I agree that I am new to photography but I just know my camera very well. Every button and every menu so that I can use is with closed eyes.
I only frame the picture, if it looks good, I click. Might be all these calculations would be going in my mind but I never figured those out. Those might be happening in fraction of second and I click.

[Inkanyezi]

Sorry guys , you might be serious photographers but do you calculate all these things before taking a picture. Really !!!!

Mostly not of course. But then, on the other hand, with old-fashioned lenses, the scale for DOF is there, and there is not a lot of calculation to estimate the hyperfocal distance, in case one would want to use it. I am sure that hyperfocal distance was used a lot more in the past than it is now, and I remember having used it.

I don't know however how to do so fruitfully with a modern camera and lens, as those seldom have the simple aid of a focusing scale and depth of field markings. In the case of a manual focus lens that does have the scales, it is a simple matter. But as stated before in this thread, hyperfocal distance is not the solution for the problem in the opening question.

It is a Good Thing to know the limits of what can be done. Sometimes a DOF calculatior might give guidance, even if it would fail for the example in the opening question. So if you want to know if you can have two objects at different distance from your camera sufficiently sharp, a DOF table or a calculator might be a good help for evaluation. When you do not have a tilt lens, and you need to get objects at different distances sufficiently sharp, these calculations can be used.

[PhotomanJohn]

As has been said, it is good to understand the principles of DOF and hyperlocal distance. I generally find that there is something I can focus on mid-way into the scene even if it is only ripples on water or the like. If I know the approximate hyperfocal distance and it is the right focal point for the particular scene, then I can usually estimate the distance accurately enough and focus something. Many times the hyperfocal is not be "best" distance to focus at.

John

[TareqPhoto]

As i said, i just hope the weather getting better and i will head out to use my lenses, TS or not, then i can learn more about hyperfocal distance, there is a beach nearby where i have those kind of rocks, but i don't call there is any rocks immersed into the sea somewhere in the middle of the frame, and my very very bad situations and bad luck that i canceled a travel where i was going to do a lot of landscapes and seascapes using different lenses and i can show you about hypserfocal distance.

Anyway, these days i don't shoot much due to my situations, and also i don't post results because they are just normal compared to beautiful breath-taking shots of members here and there.

[Stagecoach]

Russel,

When I first started taking scenes such as the one you posted when I was learning how to tackle focus of near and far subjects I undertook a simple exercise in familiarizing myself with some basic hyperfocal data.

From that I produced a very simple cheat sheet, from which by just producing it I became familiar with distances and what was achievable and could also keep it in my camera bag should I want to refer to it. The range it covered was based upon the lenses and FLs I seemed to be using along with a general desire to shoot around f/11 for best IQ.

Here it is quickly tidied in print form,



I do of course appreciate that shooting at hyperfocal distance is not the answer in all situations and taking a shot such as the one you posted for me the horizon could be the lowest priority on sharpness requirement.

Grahame

[TareqPhoto]

^^^ So it is like the hyperfocal distance = 2x or double of the near focus distance.

[Stagecoach]

^^^ So it is like the hyperfocal distance = 2x or double of the near focus distance.

Tareq,

The hyperfocal distance is the focus distance from the camera which will place the furthest edge of the depth of field at infinity and the near edge of that depth of field is 1/2 (half) the hyperfocal distance from the camera.

So as an example, at 50mm, f/11 the hyperfocal distance is 12m from the camera and everything between 6m and inf will be within acceptable (not looking to debate acceptable) sharpness.

Grahame

[dje]

Many times the hyperfocal is not be "best" distance to focus at.

Indeed and to take Grahame's example (previous post) further, if there is nothing at the 6m mark that needs to be sharp, then you are better off focusing further in to the scene than 12m to get extra sharpness at infinity.

Dave

[russellsnr]

Hi, Grahame I have a chart and an app to equate HD, the problem I am thinking in the image I posted is not just that I focused in the wrong place but when water is involved it makes it more difficult to judge distance, not making an excuse for bad focus above because even on dry land trying to judge 3.7ft or 5.4 feet away from the camera is not an easy feat but practice,practice and more practice as with most things will get me there in the end.
Russ

[Inkanyezi]

when water is involved it makes it more difficult to judge distance

The thing is that hyperfocal shooting implies that you do not judge distance, except for the near object. However, as stated before, if you do not have a distance scale on your lens, you cannot set the hyperfocal distance, unless you have an object at that distance to focus at.

So it is more complicated with a zoom lens without any distance scale.

In the past, long before the digital era, many cameras were set to, or supposed to be set to, the hyperfocal distance, and the aperture was fixed. Box cameras, Instamatics and similar, all were supposed to be hyperfocal, say set to 3 m and supposed to be sufficiently sharp from 1,5 m to infinity. Other cameras that had a focus helix might have a "red point" setting, usually hyperfocal at f/11.

More advanced cameras, as rangefinder or reflex cameras, did not have that red point, but instead a rangefinder or a matte screen to help focusing, the philosophy being different from the one behind hyperfocal shooting. With those cameras, we focused on the subject we wanted to be sharp. This philosophy followed us into the digital era, and few bother about hyperfocal shooting.

Sometimes however, we can use it, and considering the quality loss at very small apertures, we may set for an aperture of f/8 at the shortest wide angle setting of the lens, often 18 mm. Using the table found at http://photo.net/beginner-photograph...0Xbtm?start=10 we can see that setting to 2,10 m will render anything between 1,05 m to infinity sufficiently sharp. Stopping down to f/16 indeed will render anything from a couple of feet away to infinity sufficiently sharp, when setting the distance at 1,2 m. So you can, at 18 mm, setting your lens to 4" get anything from 2" to infinity within DOF. And yes, the close distance of hyperfocal shooting always is half that of the hyperfocal distance that you set.

You might notice that different charts state different hyperfocal distances, and that is because of different assumptions of the circle of confusion. The circle of confusion is a subjectively chosen measure, a guesstimate, and it is somewhat random. Some of us are more critical than others, and our opinions about "sharp" differ.

[TareqPhoto]

Tareq,

The hyperfocal distance is the focus distance from the camera which will place the furthest edge of the depth of field at infinity and the near edge of that depth of field is 1/2 (half) the hyperfocal distance from the camera.

So as an example, at 50mm, f/11 the hyperfocal distance is 12m from the camera and everything between 6m and inf will be within acceptable (not looking to debate acceptable) sharpness.

Grahame

Which is again the double of the near focus distance.

[Stagecoach]

Which is again the double of the near focus distance.

Which is the same as 1/2 the hyperfocal distance of which is the datum that defines the maximum depth of field and its extremities.

[Stagecoach]

Hi, Grahame I have a chart and an app to equate HD, the problem I am thinking in the image I posted is not just that I focused in the wrong place but when water is involved it makes it more difficult to judge distance, not making an excuse for bad focus above because even on dry land trying to judge 3.7ft or 5.4 feet away from the camera is not an easy feat but practice,practice and more practice as with most things will get me there in the end.
Russ

Hi Russel,

I totally agree that judging distances is not always easy and especially difficult where there's just water. For my foreshore shots I generally look for something at the right distance on the shore and generally working in wider FLs focus targets are short distances.

Going back to your image it is a perfect example of an OOF horizon having absolutely no detrimental affect on the scene whatsoever.

Grahame

[TareqPhoto]

I prefer these kind of topics to be explained by images and videos rather than theories and equations, even if i am 100/100 in math i will never keep calculating in field when i shoot here and there.

[jcuknz]

Sorry guys , you might be serious photographers but do you calculate all these things before taking a picture. Really !!!!
.

I cannot remember ever bothing about HD .... most images have a subject and I focus on it.

[russellsnr]

Hi, Again many thanks for ALL the input into the thread and to show I grateful I am I am going to add an additional question rather than start a new thred
While looking into HD I have come across Focus Stacking and although mostly used in macro photography some have used it to great effect in Landscape photography to give very good DOF throughout an image, it seems a lot easier in some respects than HD but does require more than the one image.
So to anyone who has tried FS the question is when shooting over water how do you get the middle focus in PP or does the software take the movment of water into the frying pan when it evaluates the images?
Russ

[chauncey]

I won't speak to the other software but, PS CC doesn't do well in it's handling of water movement,
whether it be stacking or merging.