I have learned from Darwin's How to Photograph the Canadian Rockies that if I set my 28mm wide angle lens at f22 and manually focus at 4.5 feet, then everything will be in sharp focus from 2.25 feet to infinity.
I always want everything in focus from foreground to infinity. So why would I not use the f22 formula if the nearest element in my composition is, say, 3 feet away? Should I instead manually focus at 6 feet and set my 28mm lens at f16? Of course f22 produces a slower shutterspeed. I think I should use the widest aperture possible and still retain hyperfocal distance.
I never was sure how close to focus manually and get virtually everything in focus until I read that tip.
Pretty close. Much will depend upon your composition (where you need your foreground) and conditions (wind, etc).
What format are you shooting? Hyperfocal distances are not the same for 35mm and digital, except for full frame digital cameras.
There's a good hyperfocal chart on the Vivid Light site that you can download. It comes in Excel or PDF files. The Excel file allows you to plug in the numbers you like. I've modified it to include focal length down to 12mm for my 12-24mm lens. I've also messed with the Circle of Confusion number to favor better focused backgrounds (smaller circle of confusion)
Because depth of field is controlled by aperture which is the inverse of shutter speed for a given selected exposure. Thus there are situation where slow shutter speeds will cause blurring thus a compromise is necessary. For instance if imaging foreground wildflowers and vegeation or moving water on a lake surface. Using a small aperture thus a slow shutter speed may result in blurring, particularly if one is using one of the better low ASA high grain films. If using a fast grainy film such may not be important. ...David
Other than what Rod and David suggested, also keep in mind that at very small apertures you are also losing image resolution due to diffraction. Resolution at f/22 will be lower than say f/11 or f/8. Therefore the rule of thumb is to use the largest aperture that still allows you to get the depth you need, i.e. if f/11 will suffice - don't use f/22.
Another important factor is that these measures are based on a given circle-of-confusion (CoC) size. In reality only one plane is in "true" focus, while elements in front of, or behind it only appear sharp because the CoC is very small, but the larger you print, the more pronounced they will become. If your subject is in the "true" plane of focus it will appear sharp with a much greater enlargement factor than if you focused somewhere else and stopped down to make it appear in focus.
Though it takes a little distance estimation, I use the hyperfocal distances formulas all of the time. I have a chart that I keep in my camera bag that shows the hyperfocal distance and minimum sharp focus distance with infinity in focus for various f stops. Like Guy mentions, if you're after maximum sharpness you should try to use the f stop closest to the sweet spot of your lens, though it's easy to get a little lazy with this and shoot at higher f stops.
Theoretically you can use the markings on the lens and not even focus through the viewfinder. Back when I used a lot of primes, I did this routinely. At least part of the problem using this method is that the lens markings are not always in the same increments as the charts. My zoom markings go from 3 feet to 7 feet, so it takes a little guess work to figure where 4.5 feet is.
Also, lens markings usually represend a CoC for a fairly small print size (8x10, I believe) so a common rule of thumb is to use the scales for one stop larger than your actual aperture (e.g. use the scale for f/16 and shoot at f/22).
Rod, the hyperfocal distance charts are very handy, and especially with the chart for the 4x5 format. I appreciate that very much. I shoot 4x5 format but I still use my Canon EOS 3000 SLR with 28-80mm lens and it was with the Canon in mind that I posted this thread.
The numbers in the chart seem somewhat exacting (3.90 feet) for 28mm @ f22. I don't think very many can precisely pick out something at that distance. But getting reasonably close would suffice I think.
With a little practice I can estimate the distances pretty good.
Yeah, reasonably close is usually good enough. I like having the chart in meters as well since sometimes you can use those in cases where you have to guess at the foot settings.
I suppose you could carry a tape measure, but it would have to fit inside the pocket protector...
I initially used the numbers provided in the chart. But I wasn't getting the backgrounds as sharp as I wanted so I adjusted the COC number (made it smaller). This pushes the foreground back but that's ok, I rarely need to have my foreground only 6 inches away...
Has anyone ever heard of this way of making the most out of the depth of field
(the idea is that there's a best place to focus even when aren't shooting everthing out to infinity).
focus on nearest point you want in focus - mark point by holding with thumb nail at that distance on lens.
focus on farthest point you want in focus - mark with other thumbnail
turn lens to half-way between the two thumbs, not by reading distance scales, but splitting the difference of the tiny distance between your thumbs (this ends up focusing closer to the closest desired focus point).
which aperture will encompass both points? That's the maxium (physical size) aperture you could use, but stop down one from there.
meter and shoot.
Pete, that's a good (literal) rule of thumb. Note though that some distance scales are not linear so do the actual math rather than split the distance on the lens barrel.
Some Canon cameras actually have an automated feature (DEP?) that determines the aperture for this workflow (focus on close point, then far point).
It is possible to know distances accurately after all. I did a search on distance measuring devices and came up with a device called an Efector PMD laser optical distance measurement sensor. Would something like that be useful in a photographers gadget bag? Anyone here use one? Or something similar?
Thanks again to all for your replies. Again a special thanks to Rod for the charts.
I don't use a formal measuring device, but it sounds as though it could be helpful; it does seem a bit pricey, however ($325-odd, according to the press release I saw).
I use a hyperfocal approach essentially every time I use a wide angle lens when I want everything to be in focus (almost always). I have a hyperfocal chart that I keep in my bag (and a mini-version that I had laminated that I keep in my wallet in case my bag isn't nearby), and typically do as Guy suggested (e.g. use the reading for f/11 at the appropriate focal length when I'm shooting at f/16, etc.). I've always estimated the distance to the nearest object and tried to give myself a bit of leeway when composing. So far, in six-odd years of applying this technique, I've not had a problem when viewing the final print of an image.
I tend to use handy measuring devices, like my hand for instance. I know that the distance between my elbow and wrist is one foot, from the tip of my fingers to the center of my chest is 3 feet. This gets me close enough whenever I feel the need to do any measuring.
Roger mentioned just using the marks on the lens to focus and not using the viewfinder. I think this is important to do. When looking through the viewfinder, more often than not your foreground will look out of focus. That natural tendency will be to refocus so it looks good in the viewfinder. But don't be tempted because you'll sacrifice the far focus. Use the DOF preview button to confirm that your foreground will actually be sharp.
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 19, 2006 at 8:16 PM
If you are shooting 35mm lenses, Guy is right about diffraction stepping in and taking a lot of sharpness away. With most 4x5 lenses I've found I can get away with using f22 and even larger. I don't use charts etc. myself, but instead rely on the DOF preview function (or stopping down when shooting 4x5.) I sort of have a rough idea of what my lenses will do too.
Unfortunately, the lens on my Canon EOS has no markings, except for the focal lengths; 28/35/50/80. There is no DOP preview button either. Alas. I even miss the round spotmeter that I had in my old Nikon EM. It made selective focus a lot easier. I think focusing is much easier with my Shen Hao.
Discussion
14 repliesI always want everything in focus from foreground to infinity. So why would I not use the f22 formula if the nearest element in my composition is, say, 3 feet away? Should I instead manually focus at 6 feet and set my 28mm lens at f16? Of course f22 produces a slower shutterspeed. I think I should use the widest aperture possible and still retain hyperfocal distance.
I never was sure how close to focus manually and get virtually everything in focus until I read that tip.
Do I understand it correctly?
Thank you for your replies.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
What format are you shooting? Hyperfocal distances are not the same for 35mm and digital, except for full frame digital cameras.
There's a good hyperfocal chart on the Vivid Light site that you can download. It comes in Excel or PDF files. The Excel file allows you to plug in the numbers you like. I've modified it to include focal length down to 12mm for my 12-24mm lens. I've also messed with the Circle of Confusion number to favor better focused backgrounds (smaller circle of confusion)
Other than what Rod and David suggested, also keep in mind that at very small apertures you are also losing image resolution due to diffraction. Resolution at f/22 will be lower than say f/11 or f/8. Therefore the rule of thumb is to use the largest aperture that still allows you to get the depth you need, i.e. if f/11 will suffice - don't use f/22.
Another important factor is that these measures are based on a given circle-of-confusion (CoC) size. In reality only one plane is in "true" focus, while elements in front of, or behind it only appear sharp because the CoC is very small, but the larger you print, the more pronounced they will become. If your subject is in the "true" plane of focus it will appear sharp with a much greater enlargement factor than if you focused somewhere else and stopped down to make it appear in focus.
Guy
Theoretically you can use the markings on the lens and not even focus through the viewfinder. Back when I used a lot of primes, I did this routinely. At least part of the problem using this method is that the lens markings are not always in the same increments as the charts. My zoom markings go from 3 feet to 7 feet, so it takes a little guess work to figure where 4.5 feet is.
Guy
The numbers in the chart seem somewhat exacting (3.90 feet) for 28mm @ f22. I don't think very many can precisely pick out something at that distance. But getting reasonably close would suffice I think.
With a little practice I can estimate the distances pretty good.
Thanks again to you all.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
I suppose you could carry a tape measure, but it would have to fit inside the pocket protector...
I initially used the numbers provided in the chart. But I wasn't getting the backgrounds as sharp as I wanted so I adjusted the COC number (made it smaller). This pushes the foreground back but that's ok, I rarely need to have my foreground only 6 inches away...
(the idea is that there's a best place to focus even when aren't shooting everthing out to infinity).
focus on nearest point you want in focus - mark point by holding with thumb nail at that distance on lens.
focus on farthest point you want in focus - mark with other thumbnail
turn lens to half-way between the two thumbs, not by reading distance scales, but splitting the difference of the tiny distance between your thumbs (this ends up focusing closer to the closest desired focus point).
which aperture will encompass both points? That's the maxium (physical size) aperture you could use, but stop down one from there.
meter and shoot.
I think I heard this at a workshop.
Pete D.
Some Canon cameras actually have an automated feature (DEP?) that determines the aperture for this workflow (focus on close point, then far point).
Guy
Thanks again to all for your replies. Again a special thanks to Rod for the charts.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
I use a hyperfocal approach essentially every time I use a wide angle lens when I want everything to be in focus (almost always). I have a hyperfocal chart that I keep in my bag (and a mini-version that I had laminated that I keep in my wallet in case my bag isn't nearby), and typically do as Guy suggested (e.g. use the reading for f/11 at the appropriate focal length when I'm shooting at f/16, etc.). I've always estimated the distance to the nearest object and tried to give myself a bit of leeway when composing. So far, in six-odd years of applying this technique, I've not had a problem when viewing the final print of an image.
Roger mentioned just using the marks on the lens to focus and not using the viewfinder. I think this is important to do. When looking through the viewfinder, more often than not your foreground will look out of focus. That natural tendency will be to refocus so it looks good in the viewfinder. But don't be tempted because you'll sacrifice the far focus. Use the DOF preview button to confirm that your foreground will actually be sharp.
Kent in SD
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada