teethgator Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 <p>OK I have read and reread about hyperfocus but I still haven't mastered it. Here are 2 examples one regular and the other hdr. The non hdr were done with a 20d canon, tripod and set at f/22 at 1/13 with iso 100. I was a 14mm ( which would be about 22 feet) so I focused at about 3 feet. The hdr was bracketed at -2,0,+2. I tried multilple times but can't seem to get sharp focus thought my photo.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teethgator Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 <p>here is the photo</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teethgator Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 <p> file:///Users/paulbenjamin/Desktop/IMG_1495. jpgfile:///Users/paulbenjamin/Desktop/hyper.jpg </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teethgator Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 <p>the other photo</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teethgator Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 <p>forgot the caption so here is the 2nd photo</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybynum Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 couple of thoughts. first, you dont say what lens youre using, and a 13th of a second is the death zone for photos, also f22 might be too small. Looks like camera shake. 1/13 will offer you the best chance at a blurry image. . . the aperture is likely not causing the problem but i dont see where you need f22 for that image. I would shoot that scene at f18 focus on the trees get your shutter speed up and you should be fine. I think often people get too carried away with hyperfocal distances. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teethgator Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 <p>It is a canon 10- 22mm lens, Most of the landscape books I have read seem to use small aperture like f/22 so there is a greater DOF. This was just a test photo so I wasn't concerned about the the wind blowing thru the trees.I didn't use a remote so there may be some camera shake despite the tripod. Since I set this on aperture priority that is why 1/13 but if I step down to f/22 I would assume a slow shutter speed especially with low iso. But isn't this what is recommended for a sharp dof?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_meddaugh Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 <p>Check your DOF table. I don't think that you need to stop down to f/22 in this case. You pay a noticeable price in sharpness due to diffraction at small apertures. Also, hyper-focal focusing assures that objects will be in "acceptable" focus, not perfect pixel-sharp focus. Like just about everything else in photography, it's a tradeoff. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybynum Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 While craig is correct, shooting that at f22 is not necessary, it's also not going to offer that much loss in IQ... in other words, there is a diminishing return, but not as much as I see in that example. That said, shoot it at f16, I think your main issues is with your shutter speed. Here's the test, go out in full light, set your camera to f8 iso 200 and meter it, focus on the trees, shoot it and take look at the image. . . you'll figure out quickly where your problem(s) are. . . Get out of the 1/13th range, anything slower or faster is better. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teethgator Posted June 29, 2009 Author Share Posted June 29, 2009 <p>Thanks guys. I will try this out. As I said before all the books on landscape( like Shaw and Adams) seem to routinly stop down to f/22 or even more if you can. But since I am not happy with my results I will try to open up more and get a little faster shutter speed to.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybynum Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I dont think youre paying attention. It's NOT alone the aperture that's causing the problem. You could open up to f60 if you had it and still it would not be the aperture, it's something else causing your problems. I could show you 1000's of imags shot as f22 or more, but you need to get a handle on your issues before you throw the baby out with the bath water. Moreover why shoot a scene at a smaller aperture than you need if it means some loss in IQ? There are trade offs as someone pointed out. Dont disregard shaw, just focus first on your issues then deal with aperture. I could shoot that at f22 and get a much better image, in fact, you'd be better of shooting it at iso 400 or 800 and getting a sharp image over what you posted. Anchor your camera, and re shoot it, or get a fast shutter speed determine where things are going wrong then work toward your image goals. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_meddaugh Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 <p>Just a quick point, Adams was shooting larger formats than 35mm and hence needed to use smaller apertures to get the necessary DOF. Diffraction also kicks in at smaller apertures on larger formats. F/22 is pretty extreme on 35mm and many lens actually won't stop down any more. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
httpwww.letsplantrips.c Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 <p>I agree (sort of) with the folks that are saying to stay away from 1/13 second. If you NEED to use such shutter speeds , use the mirror lock-up function and a cable release along with your tripod. That of course assumes you have such a function. I shoot Nikon and it's call Mup...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_poseley Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 <p>Wait... 1/13 second shutter, windy, hdr. You have a solid recipe for blurry output.</p> <p>If using Photomatics or some similar program to build your hdr image and things are moving around in the wind you can not avoid blurry pics.</p> <p>The software will attempt to align your three pictures but if things are moving it is not going to work very well...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_hogg1 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 <p>Hi Paul,<br> If you use a crop sensor camera like a 20D, diffraction kicks in much earlier than full frame 35mm and I certainly wouldn't be using f22. Try the camera on a tripod, at f5.6 and use the remore release to avoid camera shake. Things should look clearer then.</p> <p>Alan</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrraz Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 <p>If you choose a spot approximately 1/3 of the distance from your closest point of acceptably sharp focus and the furthest point of desired acceptable focus, you should be able to pull the DOF you require. It might take a little experimentation to determine the correct f/stop, but I think you'll find the results satisfactory.</p> <p>This is one of tricks I learn while in Army Photo School way back in '64. Of course the name has changed from zone focus to hyper focus which really muddys the water for me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teethgator Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 <p>Thanks everyone for contuing to chime in. This has been a learning experience for me. Glenn I like the name zone focus too</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_keller3 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 <p>Besides what's been mentioned already, I think focusing as close as three feet is a little too close and the distanct part of the subject is going to be soft regardless of the aperture. Without a DOF scale I can't tell you what distance to focus at, but just off hand I'd say maybe about where the car is would be about right.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garydem Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 <p>paul b-you also are tossing the term hyperfocus out and i do not think you know what it really means or how to do it. what hyperF is determining is what the nearest object you want in focus, while the other end of your dof is infinity. you do not state what lens you are using. you are using a 20d canon. that is a 1.6crop factor.<br> you need to know what the near item is that you want in focus. for this i will assume a 20mm lens and the near object is 12ft away. for hyperF you could use f11, and everything from 6ft to infinity would be in focus. if you went to f16, then everything from 4.5ft to infinity is in focus. but at f16 you are already getting diffraction distorsion. this occurs with c sensor dslr at any fstop beyond f11.0 and just keeps getting worse the higher the fstop is. diffraction is what happens to light when it passes through a smal hole. you do get more dof with large fstops, but it is at the price of more distorsion. for myself, i do not use a fstop higher than f11.0 unless i really have to. your examples of adams and shaw are refering to large format camera or 35mm film or FF. diffraction occurs at a higher fstop the larger the recording medium is, be it digital or film.<br> also, keep your shutter speed at or above 1/60secx unless you have the rig on a tripod with a cable release. IS only goes so far, and should not used as a substitute for real steadyness on a tripod. if you have any intention of makes large prints(11x14 or 16x20 or 20x30inches) you need real steadyness. NOT IS bragging rights from someone who takes a pic a 1/10sec and only sees it on a monitor. this will not work for real steadyness. m reichman on his website luminouslandscape.com has stated that 90 some % of ALL his shots are on a tripod. me, if i have any possibility of making a large print the rig goes on tripod NO MATTER WHAT THE SHUTTER SPEED IS. and definately for all hdr and panorama work.<br> the following may prove helpfull-<br> <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</a><br> <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html">http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html</a><br> <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html">http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank uhlig Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 <p>ok: redo the photo: a wide angle lens is usefully sharp only at relatively larger apertures. At 12mm focal length as you say, the most appropriate lens opening for a wide range of sharpness is at about f/4 to f/5.6 (when the aperture diameter is about 2.5 mm, no smaller, please, or you get diffraction!).</p> <p>So set your wide lenses not too narrow! Then focus the shot at infinity, which is in the picture - realistically speaking - for the houses in the background. Then use the shutter speed you need.<br> Use a tripod anyway and bracket up and down two stops for HDR manipulation later.</p> <p>DO NOT USE hyperfocal distance scales ever. FOCUS at infinity with a lens opening of at least 2.5mm in any focal length and you will do well if infinity is in the picture. Otherwise focus on the farthest object. Look up Harold Merklinger's Shutterbug articles (google) if you care to learn.</p> <p>So, try to redo this shot and tell us if this works. All the old fashioned hyperfocal nonsense came about when lenses and films and sensors did not have the resolution ability they have now and it is highly obsolete - but only if you want good results today ... Your choice!</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teethgator Posted July 26, 2009 Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 <p><!--StartFragment--> <p >I left for the Canadian Rockies on July 2 so I missed some of your help. The reason for the original question was to get ready for this trip. I knew the type of photos I wanted but also knew my knowledge on this subject was weak. I have uploaded a few photos( more on my site) so you can judge my results.. I used a tripod , remote and sometimes a timer. Most photos were bracketed and merged in photomatix. I tried using my grad filters but I got better results do to the extreme contrast I encountered in the field.. I tried different apertures but seemed to get the best results with f/22. I am going to read the recommended articles because I spent too much time sometimes focusing 5 feet then 10 feet then in the middle of the lake and never feeling in control . I was hoping to use a full frame camera but that didn’t work out so I primarily used my 20D with a 10-22mm lens with polarizer. I wished a few of my foreground subjects were a little sharper but all in all for a rank amateur I think I did well. Again thanks for your suggestion.</p> Paul<!--EndFragment--> </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teethgator Posted July 26, 2009 Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 <p>Here is another photo:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teethgator Posted July 26, 2009 Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 <p>And 1 more:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now