Posted by Matt Pereira on April 21, 2007 at 7:13 AM
Hi guys, i wonder if I could get some help here.
I am struggling with the Hyperfocal Sharpness thing, and it's killing me. I am primarily a Social Photographer, so Landscapes have always been somewhat of a dark art to me.
This is the 3rd time I have attempted to do some landscape photography, using manual focus at the hyperfocal point, but yet again I seem to be struggling with really soft images.
I am currently taking test shots outside the front of my house.
Right now I am using my full frame Canon 1Ds Mark II body and a Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 lens on a sturdy tripod, weighted down with a camera bag.
Focal Length is set to 24mm
Aperture is at f/22
From my 35mm Hyperfocal chart i am reading that i should be manually focussing at 2.9 feet.
Despite doing all this, when I convert the RAW image in C1, to a 16-bit TIFF and view at full size in Photoshpo CS3 the houses which are just 200 yards away are soft as marshmallows! I just cannot fathom what on earth i am doing wrong ...
This happened the last time I tried some landscape photography (with my 1D Mark II - different chart, of course) and it's what hs put me off trying again. I am determined to crack it this time.
Does anyone have any ideas or see any flaws in my M.O. ?
Matt, Rod Barbee's article Demystifying Hyperfocal Focusing for Wide Angle Landscape Photos in the March edition of NPN will help. According to my understanding, at a focal lenght of 24mm @ f/22 you should be focusing at 5.4 feet. That is for digital. Interestingly for film you should be focusing at 2.9 feet. I have a feeling your chart is meant for film. I have tested hyperfocal focusing according to Rod's article and it works. Thank you Rod.
Matt, I re read your post and noted you are using a full frame digital. So one would think focusing at 2.9 feet would be correct. Did you experiment at other distances? I would be interested to find out what others say in your post.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Steve Bunn on April 21, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Matt, you may be finding that Canon has put a bias in the focusing towards making the FG sharper. I've found with some lenses, even fixed FL, that there is a tendency for the FG to be tack sharp and then the BG to be slightly soft. I've not had very blurry BG's, so that may be another issue. I compensate by focusing beyond the theoretical HF distance a certain amount and I have found that my FG's are still tack sharp but then the BG is also sharp. Hopefully, this helps.
Posted by Kent Staubus on April 21, 2007 at 12:58 PM
I've shot a series of "test" photos over the years, and have come to the conclusion that f22 is pretty much worthless for sharpness. The tightest I'll stop down to is f16 on my Nikon lenses (f45 on my large format lenses.) The problem you run into past f8 is diffraction. The aperature is such a tiny hole at f22 that it causes big problems for the light going through it. My suggestions is to skip f22 unless you are going for an unsharp look.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html
Matt,
Both Steve and Kent bring up good points, though I've not had any softness issues using a fixed Nikon 24mm f/2.8 lens at f/22 on my film cameras. In fact, I've been asked if I'm using medium or large format cameras to get that sharpness.
On a zoom lens though, the diffraction at f/22 may be an issue. Even so, the background should be sharper than marshmallows
You can try fudging the hyperfocal point and push it back a bit like Steve suggests. Try going a bit past 3 feet (which also pushes back foreground), and this should help with the background elements.
2.9 feet is a good distance for 24mm at f/22, but again, the zoom lens at such a small aperture may be the problem. Is there any way you can rent or borrow a good fixed 24mm lens and see what results you get?
Another though occurs to me, and that's mirror slap. Depending on the shutter speed, you could be seeing vibration from the mirror. But you'd also see that in the foreground. If your camera has a mirror lock-up function, be sure to use that too.
From reading your post, it sounds like you may be refocusing on the foreground instead of leaving the focusing at 2.9 feet. But you've been very specific that you manually focused to the hyperfocal point. Is there any chance that AF was accidentaly on and the camera refocused itself?
Also, when you get things set up and you're looking through the viewfinder, the foreground and background often look very soft. Use the DOF preview button to confirm that they will be sharp in the final image. The viewfinder gets dark, but you should be able to see them pop into focus, although you probably won't see any detail.
I'd also skip f22, I normally max out at f16 with wide angles. The distance markings on your AF lens may be inaccurate as well Suggest you try taking a series of shots at different distance settings, taking notes. Use the distance setting at the f stop you're testing that renders details at infinity sharp. Also check the EXIF, does it record the distance the lens is focused at? DOF preview may help as well.
Posted by Barry Siegel on April 27, 2007 at 9:22 AM
I agree with all of the above about not using f22 and also allowing a bit of a fudge factor by focusing a bit beyond what the scale indicates. Things should be sharp at half the hyperfocal distance to infinity. Did you really have something at 1.5 feet that needed to be sharp? If not, then move the focus until it is not quite twice the distance from the closest object that you need to be in focus (say, 1.5 times, for example). Are you sure that the tripod was steady? Was the attached camera bag swinging? Use mirror lock up as previously mentioned. Finally, read this article:
Now, go here and make a hyperfocal reference scale with a more restrictive circle of confusion (try 0.02 or 0.01 instead of the suggested 0.03 for your camera) :
http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html
Your on your way! I hope this solves your problem.
Discussion
6 repliesI am struggling with the Hyperfocal Sharpness thing, and it's killing me. I am primarily a Social Photographer, so Landscapes have always been somewhat of a dark art to me.
This is the 3rd time I have attempted to do some landscape photography, using manual focus at the hyperfocal point, but yet again I seem to be struggling with really soft images.
I am currently taking test shots outside the front of my house.
Right now I am using my full frame Canon 1Ds Mark II body and a Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 lens on a sturdy tripod, weighted down with a camera bag.
Focal Length is set to 24mm
Aperture is at f/22
From my 35mm Hyperfocal chart i am reading that i should be manually focussing at 2.9 feet.
Despite doing all this, when I convert the RAW image in C1, to a 16-bit TIFF and view at full size in Photoshpo CS3 the houses which are just 200 yards away are soft as marshmallows! I just cannot fathom what on earth i am doing wrong ...
This happened the last time I tried some landscape photography (with my 1D Mark II - different chart, of course) and it's what hs put me off trying again. I am determined to crack it this time.
Does anyone have any ideas or see any flaws in my M.O. ?
Many Thanks in advance
Matt, I re read your post and noted you are using a full frame digital. So one would think focusing at 2.9 feet would be correct. Did you experiment at other distances? I would be interested to find out what others say in your post.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html
Kent in SD
Both Steve and Kent bring up good points, though I've not had any softness issues using a fixed Nikon 24mm f/2.8 lens at f/22 on my film cameras. In fact, I've been asked if I'm using medium or large format cameras to get that sharpness.
On a zoom lens though, the diffraction at f/22 may be an issue. Even so, the background should be sharper than marshmallows
You can try fudging the hyperfocal point and push it back a bit like Steve suggests. Try going a bit past 3 feet (which also pushes back foreground), and this should help with the background elements.
2.9 feet is a good distance for 24mm at f/22, but again, the zoom lens at such a small aperture may be the problem. Is there any way you can rent or borrow a good fixed 24mm lens and see what results you get?
Another though occurs to me, and that's mirror slap. Depending on the shutter speed, you could be seeing vibration from the mirror. But you'd also see that in the foreground. If your camera has a mirror lock-up function, be sure to use that too.
From reading your post, it sounds like you may be refocusing on the foreground instead of leaving the focusing at 2.9 feet. But you've been very specific that you manually focused to the hyperfocal point. Is there any chance that AF was accidentaly on and the camera refocused itself?
Also, when you get things set up and you're looking through the viewfinder, the foreground and background often look very soft. Use the DOF preview button to confirm that they will be sharp in the final image. The viewfinder gets dark, but you should be able to see them pop into focus, although you probably won't see any detail.
Let us know how it goes.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/Digital%20Focusing.shtml
Now, go here and make a hyperfocal reference scale with a more restrictive circle of confusion (try 0.02 or 0.01 instead of the suggested 0.03 for your camera) :
http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html
Your on your way! I hope this solves your problem.