Apeture settings

<p>Hi,<br>

When I take the landscape pictures, if I want everything look sharp from near to far, I always set the camera to the smallest aperture that's available on the lens that I'm using. Yet, recently, I hear/read these two new options/opinions and I'd like to ask your inputs about them.<br>

1) Set the lens to infinitive & then manually focus the lens to the sharpest level, then take the picture.<br>

2) Set the aperture 3 levels from the biggest aperture of your lens, and this will give sharpest picture all around. If your lens has a F2.8 aperture as the biggest aperture, for example, then in order to capture the sharpest picture near to far with this lens would be F8.</p>

<p>Has any of you tried these two methods and what's your results? I haven't had a chance to try them but I personally don't think option 2 is a right/good choice. I tried the first option in the past when I was taking star trails at night only, never tried in the day light.</p>

<p>Which one is the correct one? Please let me know. Thanks!</p>

<p>I don't understand #1 but I assume it is a variation on setting the hyperfocal distance. Google hyperfocal distance for more info. One remark: with today's autofocus lenses it is difficult to set the exact distance and the f-stop info on the lenses is of limited value because of the short throw of these lenses. </p>

<p>With regard to aperture: avoid the smallest apertures because sharpness will be limited by diffraction. Try f-stops around f/8 - f/11 for best sharpness, depending on whether you use full frame (f/11) or APS-C (f/8). Diffraction sets in gradually so use these f-stops as a guideline only.</p>

<p>Number one sounds to me like using hyperfocal distance indeed. Number two is a very crude rule of thumb. Not all lenses are created equal, and some are best 1 stop down from their maximum aperture, some need to be stopped down three stops. You need to test per lens to define that. In addition, there is diffraction as Jos mentioned. Sharpness of lenses may also differ on distances: some lenses perform better at close focus ranges, some are better near infinity. So, there is no hard, simple rule.<br>

In my view, neither is correct in itself alone. Bottomline is that depth of field is always limited, no matter what you do. So you'll never get front to back perfectly sharp anyway. Hyperfocal only looks to reduce the impact of the limited depth of field (and that is useful), but the limits are there all the same. Especially at longer focal length, you'll hardly ever get a depth of field that covers everything from 0,1m to infinity, and hold up in large print/projection.</p>

<p>Personally, I just focus where I feel the primary subject of the photo is, and use an aperture small enough to get sufficient depth of field for what I want the photo to look like, just like I would approach any kind of photo really. Works surprisingly well. In fact, having the furthest plane near infinity slightly less than pinsharp is hardly ever distracting, most of the time I actually like it better. But that's a personal preference possibly.</p>

<p>I don't use either approaches, but in landscape photography I tend to use the optimum apertures of the lens (usually between 2 and 4 stops down) and recognize that the infinity distance is often the more important. If you use a depth of field scale on the lens (not all have them) you can set the hyperfocal distance (that in this case being between infinity and a closer distance) and use that aperture, or better (as DOF indications are minimum for sharpness) stop down to the next smaller aperture. If you don't have a DOF scale on your lens you can find one for your particular lens focal length via an Internet search and memorize the more important DOF situations where the longer distance is infinity.</p>

<p>Life is much easier when you are using wide angle or very wide angle lenses or zoom settings as the DOF is much greater. My feeling is that it is sometimes worthwhile to check the results of the lens at various DOF - hyperfocal distance - aperture settings to find out which is best. I have a well rated 21mm lens that on long distance landscapes I prefer to set to infinity as the hyperfocal (in between) distance setting doesn't give as good rendition of far off details as the infinity setting. For best results a good inbuilt stabilisation system or tripod aid landscape photography.</p>

Image sharpness is also affected by shutter speed as well as depth of field. The larger the viewed image

the more obvious camera shake and out of focus areas become. When I used slide film I tried to set 1/250

second whenever possible and then used whatever aperture resulted. Out of focus only affects some of

the image, camera shake affects the whole image.

<p>I suggest testing your lenses if it is sharpness throughout the field you're after. The way to do this is put the camera on a tripod and take a series of shots at different apertures. Generally, I've found that the sweet spot of most lenses is stopped down 2-3 stops from wide open. If that doesn't give you sufficient DOF, however, you'll need to stop down more or use a ND filter.</p>

Don't confuse lens sharpness with a wide depth of field.

 

The general thesis has been that a lens is sharpest 2-3 stops above its widest aperture. Thats up to debate im sure, but

generally speaking that is what has always been said.

<p>Hyperfocal focusing is the traditional means to achieve the maximum acceptable detail in landscapes. In my experience, however, this method does not capture detail where it is needed. I prefer to focus on the principal object in the landscape, often infinity, then stop down until nearer objects are in acceptable focus. If you close down to f/11 you start losing detail due to diffraction, especially if you have a high resolution digital camera. it is what it is.</p>

<p>Traditional landscapes were taken with large format cameras, tilting the lens (or back) to tilt the plane of sharpest focus to encompass both near and distant objects. This is called the "Scheimpflug Effect," which you should look up on your own. There are tilting lenses for small format cameras which accomplish the same thing.</p>

<p>A modern alternative is to use "focus stacking." Several exposures are taken, focused at different distances, and combined in software which keeps the sharpest parts of each image. Most used for closeups, in which DOF is very limited, it can be used for landscapes to good effect.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hyperfocal focusing is the traditional means to achieve the maximum acceptable detail in landscapes. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it is not. It is focusing at a distance that extents DOF to infinity. Inherent to the whole DOF/hyperfocal distance is a certain fuzziness, quite appropriately name the "circle of confusion". Few realize that the concept relies on the visual inspection of a 8x10 print held at arms length and needs substantial modification if other print size and viewing distances are involved. Also, everyone's definition of "acceptable" sharpness differs, often substantially.</p>

<p>One needs to read Harold Merklinger's writings to get a grasp on how detail resolution and aperture relate to each other; in many cases, following Merklinger's approach results in a better balance of foreground/background sharpness than the "hyperfocal distance" approach everyone talks about.</p>

<p>Personally, I do as Wouter and Edward point out, focus on what's important and stay away from the small apertures that spell out diffraction.</p>

<p>Victor, you might also visit DxO labs' website to see if they have performed tests on your lens or lens and body combination for sharpness. If so, you will learn which apertures are the sharpest and any other individual personalities of your lens according to their tests.<br>

Next, if you are relying on AF I would strongly suggest you calibrate your lenses to your body. It made a definite improvement to my results - an afternoon well spent.</p><div></div>

<p>Dieter,<br>

If you read on, you know I am not an adherent of "hyperlocal" focusing. However it continues to be touted in photographic primers despite it's obvious flaws, the most notable of which puts distant objects consistently out of focus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you know I am not an adherent of "hyperlocal" focusing. However it continues to be touted in photographic primers despite it's obvious flaws, the most notable of which puts distant objects consistently out of focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We are in total agreement then. Just didn't want to leave that sentence unchallenged. Using "hyperfocal focusing" blindly often just means that nothing in the image is actually in focus.</p>

<p>The definition of hyperfocal focusing is that distance at which objects at both half that distance and infinity will be in acceptable focus, although not as sharp as the objects at the set distance (which is always true). Given that DOF acceptable resolution or circle of confusion on lenses is not all that good (still quite large), I always close down at least one f stop to ensure better results.</p>

<p>I have read, and agree that sharper foreground and less in-focus background is optimal with landscapes. I mostly do that. I agree that getting it all in focus is very difficult with long views.</p>

<p>Should the foreground be sharp at the expense of the background? That depends on the subject, composition and the relative importance of these elements - in other words, the photographic intent.</p>

<p>In general, if my subject is a bold landscape, like mountains, the background should be in sharp focus. The middle ground is often an important element of the composition, but can be brought into acceptible focus by stopping down. The foreground is problematic. If it can't be in sharp focus, then it should be minimized in the composition so that it is not a distraction. If, for example, a broken down fence is important, then it should be in sharp focus and the background used to establish a mood or sense of place. If you need it all, then use a view camera (or focus stacking). Traditional calendar photos of flowers in the foreground, crystal clear against the Swiss Alps, come to mind. If you're not sure, experiment and take the shot from several points of view (or focus).</p>

<p>No disagreement, Edward. I find the most interesting and complete landscapes to have significant components in foreground, mid, and background of the frame. With 35 mm there is frequently the need to accept some lesser focus somewhere. Photographer's intent guides. Sometimes a narrow depth of field is of interest to highlight just a portion of the landscape. With wide depth of field, is something has to be underfocused, I think that the distance component is frequently better. Or use tilt-shift lenses to avoid the problem.</p>

<p>Victor didn't mention whether he is using 35mm or another format. Even with the more limited DOF of medium format or larger a tripod is often the best friend to enable closing down the aperture to a value more open than the diffraction limits of the lens. Even with the considerable depth of field of normal and wide angle optics in 35mm a tripod or good image stabilisation feature are useful.</p>

<p>I usually prefer detailed backgrounds in landscapes, but not always to the point of sacrificing close or mid range subject sharpness. Again, the tripod is a good friend for near to far sharpness. Fuzzy background detail in large prints often degrades the overall perceived quality of the image, even if the background is not the main subject and only a secondary subject.</p>

<p>When is a landscape not a landscape? It can be argued that close subject matter and a fuzzy distant background is sometimes less a landscape or not a landscape and more an image featuring the close vegetation, human interest, architecture, boat, car, animal or whatever may be the characteristic of the close main subject. Some landscapes involving close but fuzzy details can be successful as the foreground environment then leads the viewer's eye to the sharp middle to distant features, even adding a sort of 3 dimensional quality to what is being perceived.</p>

<p>Remember also that the eye sees in a very very narrow beam of sharp detail (1 or 2 degrees of angle), all else being fuzzy until the person scans the other detail. Like the written pages of a book, however, we end up scanning the whole image and overall sharpness can be valuable.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In the days when Large Format Cameras were used for serious landscape, I believe the photographers who wanted everything sharp used F-64, hence the f 64 club of Ansel Adams and Weston etc. I think the general rules of thumb are stated above for modern digital stuff. if your lens has its smallest aperture at f-22, which is some what less common, then a couple stops more open should be good. A lot of fast lenses today tend to have their sharpest in focus areas around 4 - 8, though I'll use f11 works pretty good, maybe f 8 for a crop or even a M43.</p>

Depth of field on an 8x10 camera at f/64 is about the same as the depth of field on a 35mm camera at f/16.

<p>Barry and James, the important variable for DOF, whether in large format or 35mm, is the focal length of the lens. Of course, LF permits more easily a way of increasing DOF by tilts of the front and back frames, whereas only a very limited number objectives exist in 35mm to accomplish something similar. </p>

I should have added that what I said is true with the "normal" lenses i.e. 300mm for 8x10 and 50mm for 35mm camera or equivalent and variant lenses. 150/25mm wide angle lenses, 600/100mm telephoto lenses etc. When I would mention that I used f/64 with my 8x10 camera and 300mm lens, most people would say, "Wow, you must get tremendous depth of field." No, as I said the depth of field was about the same as f/16 with a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera.

As mentioned, it does depend on the style of your landscape. With the modern trend to put foreground objects with lead in lines, then hyperfocal may well be the best option. I rarely shoot this way, and as such, I aim for a lens size of around 4mm and use infinity focus. This will give the optimum for mid and far range sharpness, sacrificing foreground (if you have one).

 

DoF - different formats?

You may want to experiment with "focus stacking".

I do use the smallest aperture knowingly that the diffraction will rob some sharpness but I want the DOF. I would then focus on the most important subject.

Sony A7Rii + 24-70/2.8 GM @ 70 mm, 1/80 @ f/9, ISO 400.

 

Focus stacking is one way to approximate tilting the lens in aview camera (Scheimpflug Effect). It doesn't have to be a complicate matter. This photo was taken in two shots, focused on the fence post and the other on the round barn. The aperture was set at f/9. Helicon Focus Stacker does a good job masking prominent features in each frame, then compositing the results. This software was designed for macro photography, where the DOF is measured in fractions of an inch. That can take many exposures, using a focusing rack or screw drive. If you are willing to take the time and use a tripod, it's easy to get sharp foregrounds and backgrounds by combining two or three shots, like so many calendar photos of the Alps in years gone by.

 

Using f/22 results in a significant loss of sharpness when used with a really sharp lens (Sony 24-70/2.8 GM) and a high-resolution digital camera (Sony A7Rii, 42 MP). The peak sharpness is f/8, falling off rapidly above that value. If you look closely, there are some artifacts (e.g., barbed wire toward the right of the image), but not objectionable.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Ed_Ingold