Getting Landscape in focus

[GiuPhoto]

Hello,

I'm approching landscape photography from a little time and I have doubt on the classic rule of thumb to focus (focus at 1/3 the way up) based on iperfocal concept.

My question may seem really basic but would like to be completly sure of this concept and how to apply it.

Assuming I have a manual lens like Samyang 14mm, if I have to get in focus all a landscape scene with backgroung possibile far away...rule of thumb is saying my to turn the ring of manual focus to focus a distance 1/3 of the distance from me to the background?

Thank you for any clarification!

[Manfred M]

Hello,

I'm approching landscape photography from a little time and I have doubt on the classic rule of thumb to focus (focus at 1/3 the way up) based on iperfocal concept.

My question may seem really basic but would like to be completly sure of this concept and how to apply it.

Assuming I have a manual lens like Samyang 14mm, if I have to get in focus all a landscape scene with backgroung possibile far away...rule of thumb is saying my to turn the ring of manual focus to focus a distance 1/3 of the distance from me to the background?

Thank you for any clarification!

Welcome to CiC. Would you mind clicking the "My Profile" button on the top of this page and filling in at least your first name and where you are from? We tend to be a fairly informal group here and go about on a first name basis.

The two things you are asking about here are both depth of field (DoF) and the hyperfocal distance, when are dependent on both your camera (i.e. sensor size) and your lens (focal length and aperture). You might want to review the two CiC tutorials on the subject and look at the depth of field calculator and hyperfocal distance calculators"

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...h-of-field.htm


https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...l-distance.htm


I'm also going to move this into the General Photography Discussion thread. The thread you posted in is really for posting images for discussion and critique.

[Geoff F]

All rules are merely guidelines when it comes to photography and no two landscapes are the same.

One of my personal dislikes is for landscapes with a noticeable out of focus foreground. In those cases I prefer to keep that area sharply focused and just let the rest of the scene gradually merge into the far distance.

When possible, I shoot several images with different focus points then decide which will be the keepers when I see the results on my computer screen. Also, when suitable, I will attempt to merge two or three focus points into the final edited image.

[Manfred M]

One of my personal dislikes is for landscapes with a noticeable out of focus foreground.

Ah - you share one of my pet peeves...

My understanding is that the human visual system works this way and has no issues dealing with things behind the subject being soft, but anything ahead of it needs to be reasonably sharp. If this is not the case and some of the foreground is unacceptably blurred, our minds will inherently know that something is wrong and the image won't look quite right to us.

[rpcrowe]

Shooting with a wide angle lens, I have not had any problems getting my landscapes in focus when using a rather narrow aperture of around f/8 to f/11.

I totally agree that I like my foreground objects to be in focus such as like this...



Canon 30D, 35mm focal length at f/8

[billtils]

All rules are merely guidelines when it comes to photography and no two landscapes are the same.

... I prefer to keep that area sharply focused and just let the rest of the scene gradually merge into the far distance.

Geoff, do you mean something like this?



This was a one-shot opportunity as we were in an open Land Rover on an evening desert safari, but running late to get to the assigned place/time for dinner. The driver/tour guide was therefore very reluctant to stop en route. I'm still not sure what I feel about this one; probably reasonably happy but far from delighted.

[chauncey]

I'm a fan of image-stacking that delivers incredibly deep DOF.

[Manfred M]

I'm a fan of image-stacking that delivers incredibly deep DOF.

Something that really isn't necessary in landscape work, especially if you choose a reasonably wide angle lens and a decent aperture. If I shoot my full frame camera with a 24mm lens at f/11, the hyperfocal distance is 1.6m / 5ft 2". No need to worry about focus stacking and all the issues associated with that. No issue at all if I am standing up and holding the camera at eye level, but if would be a problem if I set the camera at ground level.

[DanK]

Ah - you share one of my pet peeves...

My understanding is that the human visual system works this way and has no issues dealing with things behind the subject being soft, but anything ahead of it needs to be reasonably sharp. If this is not the case and some of the foreground is unacceptably blurred, our minds will inherently know that something is wrong and the image won't look quite right to us.

This has been my experience with macro photography as well, particularly shots of flowers. (I think people notice the foreground less in shots of bugs.) For some reason, it's sort of unsettling to have prominent out-of-focus foreground elements, and before I learned to be more careful about this, I got some (warranted) negative comments about otherwise reasonably nice images.

[Donald]

I'm still not sure what I feel about this one; probably reasonably happy but far from delighted.

I'd be elated. I think that's great.

(Sorry, got nothing to do with the thread, but worth saying.)

[billtils]

Thanks Donald.

[benm]

>> This was a one-shot opportunity as we were in an open Land Rover on an evening desert safari, but running late to get to the assigned place/time for dinner. The driver/tour guide was therefore very reluctant to stop en route.

Just beginning to get the Golden Light and your guide is reluctant to stop??? Wrong safari company!

[Geoff F]

Regarding focus stacking in landscape photography.

Normally a reasonably narrow aperture will do the trick but sometimes I want to include a bit of foreground which is quite close and even at F16 it is impossible to achieve everything sharply focused; which is where a bit of stacking can be helpful, providing there isn't a potential problem with subject movement.

[Shadowman]

Regarding focus stacking in landscape photography.

Normally a reasonably narrow aperture will do the trick but sometimes I want to include a bit of foreground which is quite close and even at F16 it is impossible to achieve everything sharply focused; which is where a bit of stacking can be helpful, providing there isn't a potential problem with subject movement.

I just wonder, if a landscape needs focus stacking perhaps there are too many elements in the composition.

[Mike Buckley]

I just wonder, if a landscape needs focus stacking perhaps there are too many elements in the composition.

Tilt/Shift lenses have long been used during the days of film photography as a method of keeping everything in a landscape image sharp. That has been especially true if the aperture had to be relatively large to allow a shutter speed that was relatively fast to stop the action of foreground flowers blowing in the wind.

[Manfred M]

Tilt/Shift lenses have long been used during the days of film photography as a method of keeping everything in a landscape image sharp.

While you are technically correct, how many people do you know that own a tilt shift lens? They are in the same price range as "pro" zoom lenses and are fixed focal length. They also tend to not fit on crop sensor cameras as the lens controls won't fit under the penta prism / mirror bulge and are restricted to the larger full frame bodies.

[Mike Buckley]

You're correct about all those points, Manfred. I was merely explaining to John that for the same reason tilt/shift lenses have long been used by landscape photographers, it's understandable that focus stacking can be useful. That's as opposed him wondering whether a landscape image requiring focus stacking might have too many elements in the composition to be artistically successful.

[Shadowman]

You're correct about all those points, Manfred. I was merely explaining to John that for the same reason tilt/shift lenses have long been used by landscape photographers, it's understandable that focus stacking can be useful. That's as opposed him wondering whether a landscape image requiring focus stacking might have too many elements in the composition to be artistically successful.

Mike,

Your example of the flowers blowing in the wind and also my vision of clouds rolling across the sky as well as the fluttering of shadows across the landscape suggests to me that focus stacking is less preferable to single image capture or in-camera image overlay taken at very fast shutter speed. Additionally, if elements are aligned just right then the human mind will fill in any peculiarities caused by nature.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree, John. But that fast shutter speed you and I are willing to use drives up the ISO, which in turn increases the noise and limits the dynamic range the sensor is able to record. I'm happy to accept those compromises but that's not true of everyone.

[Brev00]

I think the rule of thumb still holds true but is easily verified when you are out in the field. Take a few shots with the same frame varying your focal point and see what works best when you get home on your computer. A great thing about digital photography is that we are all photo scientists engaged in our own experimental work.

A lot depends on the scene. As others have mentioned, closeup up detail deserves some respect. But, it sounds like you are more concerned with capturing distant detail well. You can try one of your shots with the focal point at the far distance and see how that works for you with your scene. I find f 8 is typically fine when a subject is at a certain distance from my camera (and in so many other circumstances as well). If you have no immediate foreground detail, it might be a good solution. I have found over time that small apertures are often unnecessary. I am often quite pleased with the overall clarity in a scene at f 5.6 when, in the past, I might have chosen f 11--especially at the wider focal lengths. Depends on the nature of your scene, of course. How much foreground detail there is and how close you are to it. I have a quick shortcut when confronted by very close foreground detail. I will stop down to f 13, switch to manual focus and set it to 4-5 feet. Or stay in af and focus on something just past the near detail. But, I have an odd interest in shooting obstacles (like an almost frame filling bare winter bush) and getting the background clear, too. I actually like going both ways: shooting in this quasi hyperfocal way for overall clarity; and/or, focusing on the close detail with max zoom, and wide open for a blurred background effect. It is all good fun and being able to shoot with so much variety is a great joy of this digital age.