Hyperfocal distance

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

BillK

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
125
Reaction score
5
Location
Merrimack, NH
Does anyone here use the hyperfocal distance for maximizing DOF?
If not, what method do you use? (i.e., focus 1/3 in, 1/2 in, focus on primary subject of interest and let the aperture take care of the rest, use your DOF preview, etc., etc.) I'm very curious as to what techniques you've found to work best out in the field. I plan to use my new DSLR up in the mountains
for the first time this Friday, so I'm anxious to hear your recommendations based on your experiences.

Thanks,
- Bill
 
I try to use a good "sweet spot" f/value for the lens. Generally f/11 is good and try to focus midway in the field. I set my Rebel to Av mode and leave it on f/11, then adjust my ISO as needed.

You just have to remember you're in Av mode if you're switching to taking photos of flowers or other objects where you want less DOF.

I believe there are some other really (involved) threads in this forum discussing hyperfocal distance, hyperspace, and hyperactive children... :p

Kevin
 
Thanks Kevin. That sounds reasonable. I too have a Rebel and had planned on using between an F11-F16 aperture in AV mode. I'm not really looking to get too scientific by pulling out a hyperfocal chart and calculating a precise hyperfocal distance, etc. I'm just looking for a simple approach that'll give you good consistent results. If any of you happen to use the hyperfocal distance, then I'd be interested in hearing about your technique. I'm open to try anything at this juncture.

- Bill
 
BillK said:
planned on using between an F11-F16 aperture in AV mode.
Depends upon the desired depth-of-field. Smaller apetures will give you greater depth-of-field, but will lose resolution due to diffraction and make dirt on the sensor more obvious.

The XTi has an "A-dep" mode which is supposed to help with large-depth-of-field pics, but one reviewer was less than impressed: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dep.shtml.

As kmorgan noted, depth-of-field has been discussed previously in this forum.

And a tutorial can be found here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dof.shtml

Doug
 
Last edited:
DougPaul said:
Depends upon the desired depth-of-field. Smaller apetures will give you greater depth-of-field, but will lose resolution due to diffraction and make dirt on the sensor more obvious.

The XTi has an "A-dep" mode which is supposed to help with large-depth-of-field pics, but one reviewer was less than impressed: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dep.shtml.

As kmorgan noted, depth-of-field has been discussed previously in this forum.

And a tutorial can be found here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dof.shtml

Doug


Thanks Doug. I've already taken some test shots using A-dep but it was really hard to judge the differences based on the shots taken around my house. Gary Friedman talks about the caveats of this mode in his new Digital Rebel book:

There are two caveats to A-DEP mode:
1. You must compose your image extremely carefully in order for your
nearest and furthest subject to be positioned directly behind a focus
point.
2. If there is a great deal of distance between your nearest and farthest
subject, then the camera will probably choose a very small f/stop,
resulting in a shutter speed that is quite long – possibly too long for a
handheld shot. A tripod might be required.


I'm really more interested in what techniques my fellow-hikers have found to work consistently in the field. I've read plenty of articles on the subject thus far. I've seen some fabulous pictures posted by VFTT members with amazing DOF, so I'm curious as to what your secrets are.

Thanks,
- Bill
 
Last edited:
I find one of the biggest things is to really pay attention to the readout in the viewfinder when you press 1/2 way for focusing. It took a while for me to really look every time I took a shot to be sure I wasn't shooting with a 3 sec. exposure or some such.

I've also gotten used to using my thumb to hit the focus point selection button and the exposure hold button next to it. I find it useful to be able to go down to a single (usually the center) focus point, focus on the most important subject and then while still holding the shutter button 1/2 way move to frame and shoot.

The same goes for the exposure hold which is especially useful for exposing for shadows.

I stay away from the A-Dep for the same reasons previously mentioned by others.

There's also a ton of great advice on the Canon Photography on the Net forums here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php?

Kevin
 
BillK said:
I've seen some fabulous pictures posted by VFTT members with amazing DOF, so I'm curious as to what your secrets are.
I won't claim to have posted any fabulous pics, but it is just simple technique: small apertures, proper focusing, and a tripod if need be.

There might even be a bit of art involved somewhere...

An example or two of extereme DOF:
http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~kuriken
* click on enter
* click on Gallery1 (micro landscape)
* click on 1,2,...6 across the top
Also a few in Gallery5.

Doug
 
DougPaul said:
I won't claim to have posted any fabulous pics, but it is just simple technique: small apertures, proper focusing, and a tripod if need be.

There might even be a bit of art involved somewhere...

An example or two of extereme DOF:
http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~kuriken
* click on enter
* click on Gallery1 (micro landscape)
* click on 1,2,...6 across the top
Also a few in Gallery5.

Doug


I guess my question is more around "proper focusing", as in where precisely do you focus for a given scene to maximize DOF? How'd you stumble upon that site Doug? I can't find the link but I stumbled upon some really nice pictures taken by Dave Metsky just recently while searching through the forum, (on Moosilauke) and the pictures were extremely sharp with a great DOF. I'm convinced he was using a tripod. :)

- Bill
 
BillK said:
I guess my question is more around "proper focusing", as in where precisely do you focus for a given scene to maximize DOF? How'd you stumble upon that site Doug?
The best focal point is "1/3 of the way into the scene". Measure the closest point by focusing on it and read the distance from the lens. Do the same for the farthest point. The difference is the desired range. Set the focus to the closest distance plus 1/3 of the range.

Prime lenses used to have the DOF marked on them which made it easy to choose the required aperture. Now the simplest thing to do is to take the pic at a several apertures. (You can use the preview button, but you can't see the image well enough in the viewfinder to accurately asses the focus.)

More info in http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dof.shtml


The ref to the site was from Natural History Magazine. The pic of the grasshopper was featured in their "natural moment" picture.

Doug
 
DougPaul said:
The best focal point is "1/3 of the way into the scene". Measure the closest point by focusing on it and read the distance from the lens. Do the same for the farthest point. The difference is the desired range. Set the focus to the closest distance plus 1/3 of the range.

Doug

Bill,

To answer your origional question, best technique would have you taking the time to carefully consider all of your options in the first post, but Doug's advise here is the best for the 'on the fly' photography that most hiking photogs do.

Figure out what you want sharp, and focus 1/3 of the way into that. It's simple, and it works very well. Adding a DOF preview button push on top of this and you are golden!
 
DougPaul said:
The best focal point is "1/3 of the way into the scene". Measure the closest point by focusing on it and read the distance from the lens. Do the same for the farthest point. The difference is the desired range. Set the focus to the closest distance plus 1/3 of the range.
Doug

Doug, this is the first time that I've actually looked closely at the numbers on my prime lens. When I switch it to manual focus and rotate it, the numbers range from 1.5ft to 10ft, and then infinity I guess. Based on that, I'm not sure how I'd conclude if a subject was 70 feet away, etc. after focusing on it. There is also a number "22" on each side of the center hash mark. (Not sure what that's about) If there's a way to calculate distance to a subject by using the markings on the lens after focusing, then I could conceivably bring a hyperfocal chart, and then once I determined the proper hyperfocal distance, use the lens / AF sensor to roughly locate that area, focus, recompose. If that makes any sense.


- Bill
 
BillK said:
Doug, this is the first time that I've actually looked closely at the numbers on my prime lens. When I switch it to manual focus and rotate it, the numbers range from 1.5ft to 10ft, and then infinity I guess. Based on that, I'm not sure how I'd conclude if a subject was 70 feet away, etc. after focusing on it. There is also a number "22" on each side of the center hash mark. (Not sure what that's about) If there's a way to calculate distance to a subject by using the markings on the lens after focusing, then I could conceivably bring a hyperfocal chart, and then once I determined the proper hyperfocal distance, use the lens / AF sensor to roughly locate that area, focus, recompose. If that makes any sense.
Some lenses have better markings than others. A simpler version of the instructions would be to guess which object is ~1/3 of the way into the scene and just focus on it. Make sure you have the autofocus set to center only to make sure you are focusing on what you think you are focusing on*. (Don't forget that you can set the auto-focus and auto-exposure with a half press and then re-aim the camera for the final half of the press.)

* FWIW, I generally leave the autofocus set to center only because I got tired of the camera focusing on the wrong thing. Artificial intelligence isn't as good as real intelligence...

Doug
 
Last edited:
BillK said:
Doug, this is the first time that I've actually looked closely at the numbers on my prime lens. When I switch it to manual focus and rotate it, the numbers range from 1.5ft to 10ft, and then infinity I guess. Based on that, I'm not sure how I'd conclude if a subject was 70 feet away, etc. after focusing on it. There is also a number "22" on each side of the center hash mark. (Not sure what that's about) If there's a way to calculate distance to a subject by using the markings on the lens after focusing, then I could conceivably bring a hyperfocal chart, and then once I determined the proper hyperfocal distance, use the lens / AF sensor to roughly locate that area, focus, recompose. If that makes any sense.


- Bill
The numbers on either side of the focus, e.g. 22, show the focal range for that f/stop. So if you focus at 30 feet and the 22's are at, say, 5 and 100, then everything between 5 feet and 100 feet would be in focus.

Kevin
 
kmorgan said:
The numbers on either side of the focus, e.g. 22, show the focal range for that f/stop. So if you focus at 30 feet and the 22's are at, say, 5 and 100, then everything between 5 feet and 100 feet would be in focus.

Kevin

Ahh...I guess the 22 in my case is the maximum F-stop setting for my particular lens. The numbers don't change regardless of the actual F-stop setting that I may be using, so I'm not sure if that reference would do me any good if I was using an F-stop of say F-11, etc.

- Bill
 
First Rule -- Hold It Steady!

Before anything else, it is worth pondering the point that image sharpness in common practice is more likely to be degraded by camera movement than anything else.

You can fettle f/stop and focus to maximize depth of field ((DOF) and ISO to minimize grain or image noise until the cows come home, but if the camera moves during exposure it all goes for naught.

This leads me to advise, right up front that you worry little about sharpness decline due to diffraction at small f/stops, and worry a lot about the law of reciprocity as applied to exposure.

In a nutshell in this context, the reciprocity law says smaller f/stops mean slower shutter speeds at any given ISO, and slower shutter speeds aggravate the effect of camera movement on image sharpness. This is one of the few immutable laws or rules in photography – an honest-to-goodness verity.

In general, I focus on what my judgment says is the main point of interest or a dominant feature in the frame, and choose an f/stop that will either extend or contract the depth of field (DOF) to suit my fancy and capacity to keep the camera steady during exposure. I may adjust ISO to achieve the desired result.

It is a juggling act with three balls in the air at all times.

But, since the discussion here has centered on focus and f/stop …

Finding the right f/stop comes of experience and experimentation, once you understand the basic rule: the smaller the f/stop, the greater the DOF at any given focusing distance (and vice-versa). I don’t think there is any magic formula. The advice already dispensed here about hyperfocal distance (HD) and focusing 1/3 (or 2/5) of the way into the scene to maximize apparent front-to-back sharpness is a good starting point, but it isn’t the ending point by any means.

This may be saying the very obvious, but in this age of automated-everything in our cameras, one of the great “problems” lies in overriding the autofocus system to lock the focus where we want it when we compose in the viewfinder. Without the ability to do that, all chit-chat about things like hyperfocal distance becomes moot.

I generally do not use the shutter release activated autofocus option on my cameras, except when shooting sports or other fast-moving action. Instead, I use a separate button on the camera body to activate the autofocus: this allows for locking the focus by letting up on the button, and reframing, all in an instant before releasing the shutter.

Sometimes, manual focus is the better way to go, provided the focusing screen actually allows for doing it accurately. Plain ground glass focusing screens – some etched with vertical and horizontal lines to help keep horizons level and verticals (reasonably) vertical – always were my favorites on manual focus 35mm film SLRs. In more recent years I haven’t found the screens on autofocus SLRs to be that great for manual focusing, but then, I’m also not getting any younger and my eyes aren’t getting any sharper, either.

One other point to remember is that some of the wonderful apparent sharpness and sharpness-in-depth we see in images these days results from skillful use of “sharpening” technique in post-shoot image processing. That is a whole ‘nother topic, really, but it does introduce a pertinent concept.

What we are discussing, in the end, is not so much absolute image sharpness as it is perceived image sharpness.

We want to trick the eye/brain into believeing that every detail is rendered in crisp focus, even if it isn’t. That is where the sharpening tools in processing programs like Photoshop work their magic.

In the old days, we used to make sure our prints were “grain sharp,” i.e., when inspected under magnification, the actual grain of the film was crisply focused on the print. Even grainy film images that were quite “fuzzy” in reality (due to misfocus or camera/subject movement) could achieve an exciting visual crispness by being printed “grain sharp.”

Our eye/brain really appreciates what is known as acutance, or “edge sharpness” in an image.

Pay attention to all the advice here, of course. But in the end, just keep shooting and experimenting to find your own way on this, always remembering first and foremost to “hold ‘er steady.”

G.
 
DougPaul said:
Some lenses have better markings than others. A simpler version of the instructions would be to guess which object is ~1/3 of the way into the scene and just focus on it. Make sure you have the autofocus set to center only to make sure you are focusing on what you think you are focusing on*. (Don't forget that you can set the auto-focus and auto-exposure with a half press and then re-aim the camera for the final half of the press.)

* FWIW, I generally leave the autofocus set to center only because I got tired of the camera focusing on the wrong thing. Artificial intellegence isn't as good as real intellegence...

Doug

Thanks Doug. I too generally use the center AF sensor as well as one-shot AF. I've played around with AI Servo a little for subjects that won't stay still, such as my dog, or my daughter's pet rats, etc. Without getting to scientific, the 1/3 rule seems to be the best approach. I'll give it a shot tomorrow.
 
Grumpy said:
Before anything else, it is worth pondering the point that image sharpness in common practice is more likely to be degraded by camera movement than anything else.

You can fettle f/stop and focus to maximize depth of field ((DOF) and ISO to minimize grain or image noise until the cows come home, but if the camera moves during exposure it all goes for naught.
G.


Thanks Grumpy. Camera shake has been a major concern of mine. I'm just not steady no matter how hard I try or how much I practice. I just received my new polarizing filter yesterday, and that's going to cause me to lose additional stops of light when used. (My shutter speed dropped from 1/125 to 1/50 in some test shots I took yesterday just by adding the filter) This ongoing concern has led me on a quest to find a "hiker friendly" tripod. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm going to be able to rely on being able to achieve fast shutter speeds at narrow apertures the majority of the time, and I'm not a big fan of bumping up my ISO.

- Bill
 
BillK said:
Unfortunately, I don't think I'm going to be able to rely on being able to achieve fast shutter speeds at narrow apertures the majority of the time, and I'm not a big fan of bumping up my ISO.
The XTi is actually pretty good (relatively low noise) at the higher ISOs. (P&Ses get rather noisy at high ISOs because they have small sensors.) I treat the ISO as just another control. In bright light, I'll use 50 or 100. Some of the reviews have said that noise basically isn't an issue up to about 400. In dim light, I'll use 800 or 1600 if needed. The noise basically shows up in "smooth" areas like the sky and is not visible in busy sections of a pic (eg leaves). Given the choice between a shutter speed where I can handhold the camera steady and one where I cannot, I will use the higher ISO.

BTW, polarizers typically only lose ~1 stop (through the lens metering will compensate properly). Use it when you need it, take it off otherwise. It also dims the viewfinder.

Doug
 
DougPaul said:
BTW, polarizers typically only lose ~1 stop (through the lens metering will compensate properly). Use it when you need it, take it off otherwise. It also dims the viewfinder.
Doug

Yep, I noticed the viewfinder was a little dimmer. I only plan to use it on bright sunny days, and if the scene happens to be at the proper angle to the sun for maximum effects. Otherwise, I'll slap on my clear filter. I learned a neat little trick last night. If you're unsure as to what position to rotate the polarizer ring for maximum effects, just aim it at your LCD monitor, (laptop screen, etc.) and rotate it. For my filter, I achieve maximum effects when the letter "B" in "B+W" is lined up with the top center of the lens. Then just turn 90 degrees either way for minimal effects.

- Bill
 
BillK said:
Yep, I noticed the viewfinder was a little dimmer. I only plan to use it on bright sunny days, and if the scene happens to be at the proper angle to the sun for maximum effects. Otherwise, I'll slap on my clear filter.
A polarizer can also be used in the trees for controlling glare off water or wet objects.

I learned a neat little trick last night. If you're unsure as to what position to rotate the polarizer ring for maximum effects, just aim it at your LCD monitor, (laptop screen, etc.) and rotate it. For my filter, I achieve maximum effects when the letter "B" in "B+W" is lined up with the top center of the lens. Then just turn 90 degrees either way for minimal effects.
That is fine if you are going to take a pic of an LCD monitor...

For natural scenes, just aim it at the scene and rotate it to see the effects. In general, it has the most effect when shooting at a right-angle to the sun and least when shooting into the sun or directly away from the sun.

BTW, some lenses rotate the filter mount when they focus, so if you have one of these, focus before adjusting the polarizing filter.

Doug
 
Top