Balance best composition with max DOF

[oleg_lempert2]

Could you please help me by sharing your technique to balance best composition with max DOF. Let me explain the

problem.

You shoot a typical landscape with mountains afar, lake in the middle, and a bunch of flowers in the foreground. To

gain the ideal DOF you want to focus on at hyperfocal distance (flowers area). Av set to f/16 or smaller, of course .

Presumably then both flowers and the distant mountains and all in between will be in relatively sharp focus. The

problem is that to FOCUS ON FLOWERS located in the very bottom of the frame I have to change the camera angle

while on the tripod. But if I do this I lose the composition and the mountain tops simply cut from the top of the frame.

I know I can use one of the options here:

oPTION 1: MANUAL FOCUS. It would be nice to have the full distance scale, like in old lens, on my lens. It would

resolve this issue at once. Unfortunately, my Canon 17-40L does not have it. Should I rely on my less than perfect

eyesight during the challenging light of sunset or sunrise? I doubt it. If I do, 70% of my landscape shots will be ruined

by missed focus.

oPTION 2: AUTO FOCUS. Ah, here it is! A night in the shining armor! Use focus lock! Just press the shutter 1/2

way,lock the focus on the flowers, re-compose to get your mountain tops back to frame and shoot. Perfect? Not so

soon. The problem is that you are ON TRIPOD. You must use 1 hand to control the 1/2 pressed shutter and use the

other to adjust the tripod and fasten all screws. Vey inconvenient. To add another curve, you must also bend to your

viewfinder and pull GND filter into right position. Since I mostly shoot landscape, this filter is almost always in action.

So, here you are trying to re-compose while adjusting the tripod AND GND filter. Am I alone wrestling with this

issue? I'd like to hear from others. How other landscape photographers do it in the filed? What exact step do they

use? As usual, your advice and guidance is much apreciated.

[geoffs]

Focus on the flower using autofocus.Hold and switch to manual before doing anything else.Obviously you do not do any other adjustments apart from reframing.Reframe and when you happy with the composition,shoot.

[studor13]

I don't know how many times this gets asked and how many times I have to keep repeating myself, but here goes.

 

With say an 18mm lens, just turn the focus to infinity and set aperture to f13. That's it.

 

I have no idea why people are so hung up on this hyper focal nonsense. Just look at the images below!<div></div>

[studor13]

And, you can count all five toes, as well as every stone to about two feet!<div></div>

[rainer_t]

Google "Harold Merklinger"

[geoffs]

Andy dont repeat yourself.

[James G. Dainis]

Andy, The OP is asking about maximum DOF and you are showing good enough DOF. (And it is). Moving the infinity

mark to 13 on the lens would get the maximum DOF, but I don't believe the OP has those markings on his lens.

 

Setting the infinity mark to 13 is setting the lens to the hyperfocal distance for maximum DOF. Is that more

complicated than setting the infinity mark to focus for good enough DOF?

[oleg_lempert2]

Andy, thanks. Just looked at Merklinger theory. I think I understand the math. What you're saying is that (in your example) I should get: 18mm / 13 = about 1.4 mm. What it basically saying is "All objects in size of 1.4 mm and larger will appear in sharp focus". Is this correct?! If this is true this is revolutionary, at least for me. Obviously 1.4 mm is "less than enough" for my purpose. Still have a question. As James suggests quite correctly, Canon 17-40L lens does NOT have adequate distance scale. One can't "move infinity mark to 13 on the lens ", but it does have an infinity symbol (oo) and a "|" mark on the ring. (http://www.adorama.com/catlite.tpl?op=large_image&sku=CA1740.JPG ) And one can match "|" with the infinity symbol. Is this how I set "to infinity" ?

Or do I simply lock focus on a distant mountain? Thanks

[frank uhlig]

Oleg,

 

you got it right: all objects larger than the aperture diameter will be depicted right however far they are fom the lens ... if you set focus at infinity.

 

BUT, you did not read all of Merklinger; one must also worry about diffraction.

 

As Harald M points out: do not decrease the aperature below about 2.5 mm; or with an 18 mm lens not below about f/8.

 

All clear? [incidentally, that is why Putts and others always find superwides to be best at around f/5.6 or f/4. And teles down

to f/22 or smaller. ]

[oleg_lempert2]

Frank and Andy,

What is the best way of focusing to infinity in scenic landscapes shots? Also, is there any difference in how Merklinger's theory would apply to Full-Format vs Medium-Format cameras? Mine, for example, is Canon 30D with 1.6 CCD crop factor.

 

Thanks

[geoffs]

Oleg do your own test.

Set camera on tripod.Focus on "those" flowers with aperture at f8.Then shoot another with aperture at F22.

Compare closely on pc screen or even your rear lcd in one distant area of the photograph.See for yourself which is sharper.View those flowers also.

 

Objects in the distance cannot be sharp enough to resolve detail with the human eye,whatever f stop you use,or even if you focus at infinity.Objects close by can, and so are relatively more important to make sharp in relation to the whole image.Thats not to say the distant detail will be blurred it will not.The sum of the detail though will be acceptably sharp.

 

I use a Sigma 10-20mm and shoot at f22,the focus point being approximately 1 metre from my cameras lens.

I get nice results with images that are sharp throughout.

[geoffs]

PS Oleg.Take a look at the snow scene I have just this minute uploaded onto my portfolio.Its taken at F22,focus point 1 metre in.

I really suggest you do some tests for yourself :)

[oleg_lempert2]

Geoff,

Why would you need to go down to f/22 when f/8 does it? Are you saying that you can achieve a better DOF (i.e. sharper flowers) at f/22 than at f/8 ? But what about more distant objects? Would diffraction make them less sharp? Also, you suggest "Focus on the flower using autofocus.Hold and switch to manual before doing anything else.Obviously you do not do any other adjustments apart from reframing.Reframe and when you happy with the composition,shoot".

Geoff, my initial message was just because I have to do "other adjustments" along with focusing / re-composing. If I "hold" the shutter button as you suggest, I only have 1 remaining hand to: 1) adjust the tripod and fasten all screws, 2) play with GND filter.

[geoffs]

Oleg I do not believe f8 "does it".Please do test for yourself.This is the only way to actually give you an answer to

your query.

I am saying that more of your image will be sharper overall using f18 to f22 than at f8.I never worry about diffraction.I

do not think it affects digital images or comes into play as much as it used to with analogue images.This mantra just

keeps being repeated over and over,but to my mind is wrong.

 

When you have focussed on the flowers and then switched your camera to manual (this is manual focus

switch/button on the camera body) you no longer have to touch the shutter button until you shoot.The focus point is

set and it will not alter.It will still be the same even when you have taken a photograph.

[User_3804048]

Here are a couple of clear discussions from reliable sources.

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/doftable.html

[geoffs]

Oleg,

I suggest you read through this interesting thread on dof.

http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00JngV

Come to your own conclusions at the end of it,but I found the comments from Wieslaw Zdaniewski extremely illuminating and insightful in my humble opinion.

 

Geoff

[geoffs]

Oleg sorry, I should have also said, read Bill Prouds comments.

[oleg_lempert2]

Geoff,

I understand your point. What you're saying is: Use the smallest aperture to obtain the max DOF, and do not worry about diffraction. I do NOT disagree with you. I am yet to take a single photo to demonstrate effect of diffraction. But diffraction was not the main topic here (at least originally). Andy started out by suggesting that Hyperfocal Distance theory is rubbish. He introduced me to Merklinger theory that in effect denies focusing at HFD because , according to Mr.Merklinger, the foreground object's sharpness is achieved at the expense of the background objects. This, Mr.Merklinger argues, is not always acceptable. I have formed my own opinion on this subject. It goes as follows: the conventional HFD theory is not rubbish. Many generations of photographers (and when I say "photographers" I do not mean amatures like myself) lived by it and earned their living publishing exceptional quality photos. When I look at a good landscape shot I almost always see a well-defined main subject in the foreground. It could be anything: a rock, a tree branch, a barn, a boat, etc. This is the subject that grabs viewer's attention first. I would always try to make it as sharp as I can. In so doing I can allow my distant objects sharpness to degrade slightly. Is this a fair trade-off? I think yes. After all, you can never have distant mountains that are miles away 100% sharp. Even if you just focus on infinity (i.e. the mountain). Not just the distance, but factors such as haze,light.wind, etc. come into play. But your main subject of interest CAN and should be in focus. This is why I support traditional DOF theory. It is not to say that Mr.Merklinger is totally wrong. His theory has its use but only when there's landscape WITHOUT CLEARLY IDENTIFIED OBJECT OF INTEREST in the foreground.

[James G. Dainis]

I read Merklinger with my jaw hanging open. I can see how it would be misleading to many people, actually causing

them to take worse photos. I don't know where to begin. Let's start with the three photos on this page:

 

http://jimdoty.com/Tips/Depth_of_Field/More_DOF/dof_merklinger/merkdof01.pdf

 

The B) photo is sharper because at 160 feet it is, in effect, at infinity. But, on an 8x10 photo, both face images would

be less than 1/16 inch high so they would appear very sharp. The C) photo of the woman is not very sharp. Being

large and in the foreground that softness is very noticeable. There is no D) photo showing how much sharper the

woman would be (and she would be) if the lens were taken off infinity and focused closer to the woman, closer to the

hyperfocal distance.

 

He uses the word "resolve" very loosely. "The size of the diaphragm opening you see is the approximate size of

objects which the lens will resolve when focused at infinity". Most people seem to accept "resolve" as meaning

sharp. That is not so. He only means they will show up, albeit very fuzzy, but they will be recognizeable.

 

He only clarifies that one time. "For the pictures taken close up, the image will not be as sharp as it could be if we

were allowed to refocus [move to the hyperfocal distance] but it is still sharp enough to allow us to resolve the same

features it resolved at greater distances." But he still goes on giving the impression that "resolve" means "sharp".

 

So a 50mm lens focused at infinity and with an aperture opening of about 1/4 inch could resolve a 1/2 inch stone at

one foot distance. True. (But don't run out and sell your macro lenses just yet). The stone will be "resolved" (show

up) but the smaller 1/16 speckles and textures won't. You will just get a nice blurry gray stone.

 

As I first said, I was astounded reading this. I even printed out the entire thing so I could read it at my leisure thinking

I might have been mistaken about what I read on the computer monitor. I wasn't.

[James G. Dainis]

Oleg,

 

As per your post - What it basically saying is "All objects in size of 1.4 mm and larger will appear in sharp focus". Is this correct?!

 

No that is not correct. What it is saying is ""All objects in size of 1.4 mm and larger will be resolved (show up)". They may be soft and out of focus, but they will be there.

 

As to your question - "And one can match "|" with the infinity symbol. Is this how I set "to infinity" ? "

 

The answer is Yes.

 

With your 17mm lens you could take Andy's suggestion. Check the depth of field value for the lens at f/13 to see what the near limit is. It probably is three feet or less when set to infinity.

[oleg_lempert2]

James,

 

My Canon lens is 17-40, not 17 mm. I have and will use 25, 35 and 40 if I have to. And this is where I have to carry a small HF distance sheet. I may not always be on exact HF spot with 25 or 40 mm, but I know I can make my life easier by just walking about 10 feet and/or stopping down to f/16. Also, as I pointed out before, I have no objection to f/22. I have seen many landscape photos taken with f/22 and I must say that I liked them. For example, Darwin Wigett, ( http://www.darwinwiggett.com/main.html ) the photgrapher in Alberta, does not hesitate to set aperture to f/22 and his work is simply terrrific.

Regards,Oleg

[James G. Dainis]

I looked at Wiggett. I see he uses or used Velvia slide film to get that highly saturated color look or massages digital captures in photoshop to get the same look.

 

I used the 13 and 17mm figures because that is what I saw in previous posts. Using the 17mm wide angle end will give you a lot more depth of field. Here is a depth of field calculator that you can play around with to give you an idea of what is what:

 

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

Using a good lens hood or shade will give you better results than not using one, you don't have all that light bouncing around in the lens barrel. That is probably more important than worrying about diffraction at f/22. Try the same shot at f/16 and f/22 for several scenes.See if you notice any difference caused by diffraction.