Mamiya 7 & Landscapes, what do you focus on???

I've been using my Mamiya 7 when shooting landscapes, and have been

using the hyperfocal settings in order to get the best overall focus

of the scene. Yes, I also realize that Mamiyas hyperfocal numbers are

too generous, so I focus down 2 stops to compensate on all lenses.

Yet, when I see the final enlargements (typically 11x14) I'm left

with the impression that I can achieve sharper images.

When you shoot landscapes and you have say a mountain range at

infinity, with other interesting objects much closer as well, what do

you focus on in order to achieve the sharpest overall focus? The

mountain range, then stop down all the way? A subject say 1/3rd of

the way to infinity, then stop down? Does focusing as you do, give

you sharper results than using hyperfocal settings?

Thanks

Richard, I typically focus on the most prominent thing in the scene - for example, if I'm taking a picture of a bridge, I'll try to lock onto that bridge - at effective-infinity, DOF should cover quite some ground. However, another school of thought would be to set the focus slightly on the near side of infinity and stop down, as you've done.

If there are other interesting things in the foreground, focus on the foreground item and then find the midpoint inbetween that item and the background (I think the visible rangefinder movement is linear, although I can't recall if it is for sure).

 

I know that the M7 is amongst the best for handholding and therefore sharp shots, but have you considered that perhaps your lack of the 'ultimate' sharpness is due to not using a sturdy tripod?

 

Stopping down to f16, say, may introduce a degree of extra camera shake (due to long exposures) coupled with perhaps some quality fall-off due to the refraction effect of small apertures.

 

I'm assuming from what I've read that the images are pretty sharp, you just want more sharpness? If so, I'd say a sturdy tripod is your best bet, focus somewhere inbetween infinity and the foreground, stop-down to say f11, use a cable release and away you go.

 

If your prints are coming out a bit soft, have you considered that perhaps it's the printing process? Are your chromes soft too?

 

John

Another thing to check is that

Whoops, disregard that last 'another thing to check' bit - shoulda checked my preview more carefully before hitting the submit button...

 

John

Generally if the foreground is soft the picture will read as soft. The far away tends to be hazy in life so the viewer is more forgiving. Hyperfocal and depth of field are useful compromises but in the final analysis based on acceptable softness . As previously suggested pick on the "subject" and focus right on it - if in doubt try several versions with different "subjects". When focussed securely decide how deep you'd like the sharpness to be. Often everything sharp detracts from the picture - too much distracting detail. Equally important is the enlarger lens which can quietly negate the value of any number of expensive and excellent camera lenses - and of course careful darkroom technique. I shelled out for a Peak focussing aid (since criticized by Barry Thornton) which enables focus checks right into the print corners and got a few shocks and instant improvement in results . I'd recommend BT's books which teach rigorous technique in a very "human" style - and a tripod where sharpness is all important.

What lens are you using, the 80, 65, 50, 43? With 6X7 negs, unless you are using a fairly wide lens, you can't get foreground to infinity sharpness as easily as you can with 35mm or even 645. I had the same problem. If you use the minimum aperture on the lens to try and compensate, then you are losing sharpness due to diffraction. What F stop were you using? By the way, there has been some detailed discusions here at photo.net that suggest if you want infinity as sharp as possible, you need to focus on infinity with the lens, no matter what f stop you are shooting at.

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your response. I'm using the 43mm, 80mm, and 150mm w/tripod. Once I see the photo I want, I've been typically stopping the lenses down completely, then turning the focus knob to read two stops wider on the DOF scale. I've been stopping down the lenses as far as possible (to f-22 on the 43mm, and 80mm, and f-32 on the 150mm)

after reading several posts on photo.net indicating that diffraction is only noticable on these lenses when one enlarges past 16x20's.

Richard

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your response. I'm using the 43mm, 80mm, and 150mm w/tripod. Once I see the photo I want, I've been typically stopping the lenses down completely, then turning the focus knob to read two stops wider on the DOF scale. I've been stopping down the lenses as far as possible (to f-22 on the 43mm, and 80mm, and f-32 on the 150mm)

after reading several posts on photo.net indicating that diffraction is only noticable on these lenses when one enlarges past 16x20's.

Richard

Richard, I beleive even the superb Mamiya optics are not optimized for their smallest aperture. My findings with most every lens I ever owned, including the Mamiya 65, was that 20 to 30% resolution loss occurs at the minimum aperture-much of it in the center. I'd try some at f11 and f16 for comparison.

Rule of thirds usually works and stopping down but what is the most important thing in the picture...

For the work you describe (landscapes, camera on a tripod, goal: maximum DOF and sharpness) a view camera is the proper tool (less expensive than the Mamiya too)... I once did some side by side shooting using Hasselblad CF100 lens versus Schneider XL110 on a 6x9 view camera. When focusing on a specific, distant object, the Hasselblad lens was just a touch sharper, but when trying to achieve maximum DOF, using lens tilt with the Schneider lens gave results MUCH more satisfying than what I could achieve with the CF100 stopped down!

Hi Richard,

I seriously believe that for real-life situations, diffraction at f22 is not going to be a problem. For the 43mm I find that 2 stops is not enough. Give it 2 and a half. So, at f22 focus on 3 metres. You will be sharp from 1.5 metres to infinity. The 150mm and 80mm are fine with 2 stops adjustment.

Near point of focus can be assumed to be half hyperfocal distance so... with the 80mm at f22 rotate the focus ring so the infinity symbol is lined up with the right hand f11 mark on the lens.You will then be focussed on about 9 metres. You will be sharp from 4.5 metres to infinity. It's simple and it works. You can see examples of maximum depth of field at my website. www.geoffmurray.com

 

Geoff

Take a look at: <a href="http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/DOFR.html">

http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/DOFR.html</a> for a pretty good explanation of why you really need to bias towards the distant objects in a scene if you want that part of the picture to be sharp.

<p>

In general, I focus my M7 on the most distant element that I want to be in sharp focus, then adjust aperture to bring the closer items into focus. Occasionally, if I'm close to achieving forground focus, but don't have a small enough aperture to quite get there, I'll fudge a little on the distant subject (but only a tiny bit). Sometimes this works, but more often it's just not as "tack sharp" as I like to see it.

I too have learned a lot from reading Merklinger's writings on DoF. I have a Mamiya 6MF (on a tripod whenever possible) and the resolution of eg the 75 mm lens deteriorates noticeably at f/22 on big enlargements, compared with f/11, due to diffraction. My basic and simple practice is to focus on infinity whenever I can, and to stop down only as much as I need to get the foreground in focus. If the latter is not a problem (eg a shot from a cliff top), I use f/8 or f/11 (possibly sharper at the lateral margins). Image sharpness is more uniform as a function of distance when you focus at infinity. Whenever the lens is focussed closer than infinity, only the part of the field on which the lens is focussed will be really sharp. If your field of view contains objects at infinity (taken as >200x the focal length of the lens) and you have not focussed at infinity, then what lies at infinity will not be properly in focus. Of course, for eg portraits, this may be desirable!

Richard, focusing at 1/3 the distance to infinity would be thoeretically correct, if we knew how much 1/3 times infinity was!

 

Ansel Adams said he felt that it was helpful to focus on the nearer subjects. Merklinger, apparently, thinks we should focus father off towards infinity.

 

You say infinity, I say hyperfocal--let's call the whole thing off. The question will never be answered, because it calls for judgment in each case. The technocratic answer lies with Mr. Merklinger or Mr. Hyperfocal. The right answer may depend on the individual photo--focus on the nearest subject here; use Merklinger there; hyperfocal distance in another case. So judgment is called for. It might be worth trying several ideas in a few photos, two or three points of focus on successive frames. Sort of like focus bracketing, instead of the more usual exposure bracketing. Later, in the darkroom, one of these shots will prove to be best. With time, experience and judgment come into play until instinct will tell you which approach to take.

 

Best Wishes,

Hi Mike,<br><br>How many more old threads are you planning to reopen to point our attention towards another old thread?<br>Have you perhaps found a stash of old books you want to flog, and is this part of your marketing strategy?