Hyperfocal Distance

garydem · December 30, 2009

what is my technique for using hyperfocal distance? answer i do not use it. hyperfocal technique has a place in some shots, but calculating the correct distance to use for your day to day travel landscape shots is not it. i spent 3 weeks in august see national parks in the american west never did i use hyperfocal or for that matter even think about. and all my landscape images came out sharp and clear.

what is needed is a basic understanding of dof. what fstops get a reasonably good dof and also deliver a sharp pic with good image quality. if a lens has a range from f1.4 to f22. then the user has to realize that all parts of that range and not going to used unless it is a special situation. anything over f11 is going to run into diffraction distorsion which reduces IQ. as you use any fstop under about f4.0 you are going to let a lot of light through but this not the best performing area of the lens. lenses perform their best between f5.6 and f11. during the august trip i simply made sure that i shot between f8-11 virtually all the time. the results were fine. all between the near objects in the scene to the horizon were in focus and this was with AF all the time. this i emphsis is real world use. not a discussion of theory.

hyperfocal technique can be used in certain situations but it should be said that taking a group of many pictures of yellowstone np from various locations is not the place or situation. use the following website-

<a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</a>

and enter distance of 100ft f8-11 lens 20-35mm with a crop dslr and see what actually comes into focus. i was shooting with a 12-24mm zoom on the majority of shots, but not really paying attention to the actual mm used. i was composing and framing the shot to what i wanted. when i got home and checked the exif i found that i was using a range of 20-24mm for the vast majority of the shots. thus with the above numbers i had a lot of dof in use for every shot. thus making hyperfocal shooting unneeded. with my pentax k20(1.5crop) 100ft f11 20mm my dof is 5.9ft(at f8 the distance is 7.58 to infinity) to infinity. in effect that is hyperfocal shooting, but without all the calculating and determining what to focus on.

danbliss · December 30, 2009

Ok. I am amused with the "I don't use it responses." If you don't need it, then great. If your scene doesn't have a significant range variation, then clearly any focusing approach works. However, a lot of interesting scenes have something near in the foreground and stuff out at infinity. I have certainly been in situations where at f/22, I could not get everything in focus. Even when using the best hyperfocal solution, my only choice was to recompose, sadly. Maybe I needed a tilt/shift lens to help. :-) I am still looking for a good enough excuse to get one of those.

jkaufman · December 30, 2009

Dave, I simply memorized the approximate hyperfocal distances for the most f/stops (f/8, f/11, f/16) I most commonly use on the lens I most commonly use (Tamron SP 11-18mm).

Regards, Jason

martin-s · December 30, 2009

"Maybe I needed a tilt/shift lens to help. :-) I am still looking for a good enough excuse to get one of those."

</blockquote>

You've answered your own question there.

By tilting the focal plane you can achieve sharpness from the extreme foreground to infinity. But TS lenses aren't a magic bullet either. As you tilt the lens the DOF space changes from a rectangular box to a wedge shape, so you could end up with detail above/ below or left/right of the focal plane being noticeably blurred. Seems a fashionable effect nowadays.

garydem · December 30, 2009

"Ok. I am amused with the "I don't use it responses." If you don't need it, then great. If your scene doesn't have a significant range variation, then clearly any focusing approach works. However, a lot of interesting scenes have something near in the foreground and stuff out at infinity. I have certainly been in situations where at f/22, I could not get everything in focus."

dan bliss- i am amused too. if i at f11 am getting everything from 5.9ft to infinity in focus without hyperfocus, what do i need it for? not to mention if your really shooting at f22 then you are getting an awful lot diffraction distorsion and loss of image quality that you are putting up with. we visited a lot of national pks amnd otjher sites and scenes during that august trip and i never had a problem gettimng what i wanted to infocus near to far. this includes some panoramas of grand canyon np glacier np yellowstone np meteor crater and petrified forest np. all the panos were shot at f8.0 for max IQ and all were in focus in all parts of the images.

just because a technique exists is no reason to just use it. especially when just using the proper fstop with a knowledge of the dof obtained will work just fine. i have used hyperfocus in the past with success. but just using it for travel scenes with the added difficulties is just not worth it. the difficulties be ing the fstop to use, and the distance to focus on with the current lenses not having the dof scales. the only alternative is to measure in some way a point from the shooter and focus on that. the big problem is that if this is messed up in any way then all the shots that are taken with that setup will be poor in the focus. instead of the current shot. no thanks, i am not going to spend 3 weeks and 6500 driving miles just to get home and find that the shots are poor. if you are fgoing to say that you can check the shots on the lcd, true. but only if you are shooting one at a time, if a group done hyperfocally then the whole group is gone. and you may not have all the elements of the scene to reshoot.

ty_mickan · December 30, 2009

hyperfocal distance is an outdated technique, and using it will usually yield mediocre results. it is a formula that was determined in the 20's by the company now known as Leica. It may have provided adequate results back then, with older uncoated spherical lenses, and 80 year old emulsions, but today it just doesn't cut it. We now use the latest emulsions and digital sensors, and normally now we discard the enlarger as well. All this adds up to a Circle of Confusion size that needs to be alot smaller than the 'international standard' of 1/30mm (for small format, and 1/1500 of the diagonal film/sensor size for anything larger). Usually , for landscapes, infinity focusing will provide the best compromise. And there is always going to be a compromise. A lens size of around 4mm (give or take 1mm) will usually give the best results, whilst taming diffraction limited spot size. This applies to small, medium or large format. Actually the easiest way to decide on aperture is to assess a scene, decide what the smallest item is in the scene that you want to render acceptably sharp, and adjust your aperture size to the same size. at inifinity, everything that is the size of the aperture will be rendered with the same resolution, diffraction aside. To simply focus half way between the closest and farthest points of required 'sharpness' is not the answer either.

Hyperfocal Scene

Infinity Scene

Hyperfocal Foreground

Infinity Foreground

Hyperfocal Mid

Infinity Mid

Hyperfocal Far

Infinity Far

It is hard to pickup on the original shots, and I haven't cropped in the far background, but the silo in either shot is rendered the same. Even though you may think that the inifity focus may render it sharper, diffraction has limited the spot size. The lens used here was a Leica-M Summilux 1.4/35mm ASPH @ F9.5, giving me a lens size of around 3.7mm. If I had have used F5.6, the diffraction limited spot size would have been smaller, however the foreground detail would have slightly suffered. The foreground was more important in this shot than the silo. I perhaps therefore could have used f11, which would have improved the foreground at the expense of the silo. If this were a critical shot, I may taken one shot at each of the two apertures.

danbliss · December 31, 2009

So Gary had some fun with my comments which is probably fair because I was being a bit of a smart aleck and because I may not have been clear about how I used the hyperfocal guides (I assume that this is the way that most people use it, but maybe I am wrong). I apologize if this obvious. So, here is the problem, you'd like to have the point spread function be as small as possible throughout the image. If you focus at infinity then the point spread function at the closest point in the scene is unnecessarily large. You can use the guides to minimize the maximum point spread function across the scene. In a perfect world, everything would be in focus with a shot at f/5.6, but it rarely works that way for me. So here is the procedure that I use: 1) Focus on the closest thing in the scene. The lens guide window will give the distance (this can be as close as a foot for me sometimes). I like to shoot low to the ground. 2) Focus on the furthest thing in the scene. This is typically infinity for landscapes. 3) Center the near-far region in the guide window on the lens. 4) Use the largest aperture that you can up to about a stop or two to the edges of the near-far distance region (this will minimize the effect of diffraction). If you got to an aperture larger f/8 then stay at f/8 because most lenses are their sharpest between f/5.6 and f/8. I usually give the edges near-far distance extra stop or two because I think the hyperfocal guides are typically a bit optimistic (as been mentioned a number of times in this thread). 5) Using aperture priority metering, take the photo. I usually get pretty good results from this. While not perfect, I think this procedure provides the minimum maximum-point-spread function given the information that I have available while taking the photo. I am not saying that this is the only way to focus. Whatever works for you is great.

jeff_conrad · December 31, 2009

I'm amused by those who insist that using the hyperfocal distance, or perhaps more generally, the harmonic mean of the near and far distances, is outdated. I have no disagreement whatsoever with Merklinger's theory, and if recognizability of objects at various distances from the camera, at high magnification, is the main objective, infinity focus may be the best approach. It certainly might have saved David Hemmings untold anguish. But I don't agree that infinity focus is always the best choice for practical photography; you improve infinity sharpness, but this comes at the cost of some foreground softness. Ty's images well illustrate both effects. Again, though, they're noticeable only at fairly high magnification.

Whether overall recognizability of objects is more important than optimal foreground sharpness is a matter of personal preference. A fellow by the name of Adams maintained precisely the opposite.

Calculating hyperfocal distance (or even the harmonic mean) is easy, but Dave Henderson noted, the calculations aren't much use unless there's a way to set those values reasonably accurately. That isn't the case with most AF lenses. More than once, I've half seriously thought of Harry Joseph's tongue-in-cheek suggestion to use an MF lens with a usable DoF scale.

Canon's defunct DEP mode did the same thing only much faster. I've beaten that issue to death and won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say that what for decades was a fast, deterministic process is now one of trial and error.

Getting back to the original question: absent DEP or a good DoF scale, the procedure Dan Mitchell described is probably the best bet. If time is of the essence, William W's “f/8 and be there” may be the best approach. Those concerned primarily with infinity sharpness can of course just focus there and use Live View to find the right aperture to get foreground objects acceptably sharp.

scott_murphy_photography · December 31, 2009

I would hardly call it outdated Ty, and a surprising number of us photographers still use enlargers. Not all of us are satisfied to sit behind computers and make "photographs". Some of us still hold onto that outdated notion of "zone focusing" too.

ty_mickan · December 31, 2009

Lol, I read this post while I'm in my darkroom waiting for temp adjustment. And I never doubted that people don't still use

hyperfocal.

anisshah · December 31, 2009

"20ft at F/11 is MY answer, for MY gear."

Thanks again, William, for the helpful explanation. I mostly use a 28-75 zoom or 35mm prime at f8 to f11 and hyperfocal distance (around 5m for the prime or 3-4m with the zoom at 28mm). Unfortunately, this hasn't always worked out well, probably because (as you and David have pointed out) it "leaves infinity on the boundary of acceptable and unacceptable sharpness".

Regards,Anis

g dan mitchell · December 31, 2009

Have only read the first page or two of comments in this thread, but having seen a few DOF discussions in the past, a few thoughts:

<ul>

<li>DOF is a relative thing, not an absolute thing. Although using a "DOF calculator" can make one feel like there is a binary answer to DOF issues (something is or is not in focus) it sure as heck isn't that simple.</li>

<li>The only subjects (more or less) in focus are those in the plane of focus. Everything in front of or behind (unless you focus on infinity) is less in focus. It is not the case that subjects inside the DOF zone are in focus while those outside the DOF zone are out of focus. </li>

<li>The calculators and even the lens scales were developed based on some assumptions about your photographs: you'll use film, you'll make prints of only a certain size based on the size of your film, a certain level of out of focus is "in focus enough" and so forth. These assumptions may not match yours.</li>

<li>If you make large prints today from full-frame or (especially!) crops sensor originals you are magnifying the original capture to much larger sizes (e.g. - larger degree of magnification) than was contemplated when the DOF tables were created. What was "sharp enough" for 35mm film enlarged to 11 x 14 is not sharp enough for APS-C enlarged to 16 x 24. (Follow the "f/8 at 20 feet" advice here and you will have a lot of very fuzzy prints.) </li>

<li>Conversely, since so many people almost exclusively share photographs in screen size or smaller jpg form, it might seem to them that the DOF calculations are conservative. (Here the "f/8 at 20 feet" advice might actually work.)</li>

</ul>

In most cases, if you are serious about reliable production of images that can be printed at large sizes, no marginal rule of thumb is going to be ideal. This is why I wrote my short post earlier in this thread, slightly reformatted here.

<ul>

<li>I either just use a really small aperture, or</li>

<li>check the DOF preview for a very general idea, </li>

<li>or if I want to be very precise about focus I use Live View and carefully inspect the image at 10X with the DOF preview button depressed.</li>

</ul>

If you are trying to push the boundaries of DOF you likely want to try the latter.

If you really want to understand how to use DOF in your photography, rather than relying on complex formulas, iPhone calculators, or carrying around a cheat sheet - or giving up and just shooting everything at f/8 and 20 feet - it pays to spend some time with your gear just making some test exposures. You can learn so much about how your gear works and learn it very quickly by doing this. You could spend the day looking at DOF posts on forum threads or fiddling with software designed to calculate it... or you could take you camera out and shoot a few subjects at different apertures and see what actually happens with your gear. The latter is very instructive.

Finally, about sharpness... I was fortunate to be able to spend the afternoon at the Irving Penn "Small Trades" show at the Getter yesterday. (Wish I had more time - there are a LOT of photographs in the show!) I thought about many things as I viewed the photographs, but down a ways on the list was - again - my observation about the "sharpness" of these wonderful photographs. I'm sure that if we looked at some of his best photographs in this collection at the equivalent of our 100% magnification tests many of you would be horrified at the "lack of sharpness" of these fine and effective images.

I think my point is obvious.

Dan

danbliss · December 31, 2009

Dan, I am with you there. There is no doubt sharper doesn't always mean better (for classic example: Stieglitz's pictorialists). Anyway, I certainly agree with your last bullet (I just take a photo and just zoom in to check). I should have added that as item 6) on my list.

jore_puusa · December 31, 2009

Why to use hyperfocal distance in real life? Street photographers and photojournalists use it all the time. But why should someone shooting portraits or landscapes bother? I see no reason. How I then use it?! If I shoot ( I´m a photojournalist) action and expect to see some politician at quite near sight- I take my old 24 mm lens and use 3 metres as the focus. Then I put some ducktape on the lens to lock the focus there. Then I measure the light and use such an F stop that everything is at least a little in focus from 1-5 etc metres. I know I`ll shoot at that range and for an action shot the frame ( between 1-5metres) is sharp enough. My friend is artist and shoots at the streets and he does the same, no time to focus, even autofocus - so hyperfocal distance, no AF, everything manual.

William Michael · January 1, 2010

“I mostly use a 28-75 zoom or 35mm prime at f8 to f11 and hyperfocal distance (around 5m for the prime or 3-4m with the zoom at 28mm). Unfortunately, this hasn't always worked out well, probably because (as you and David have pointed out) it "leaves infinity on the boundary of acceptable and unacceptable sharpness".

Yes.

I am very sure you have you answer as to why this procedure (“to set at the Hyperfocal”) is inefficient as a “one solution fits all situations”

However, you could consider adapting the technique to give yourself better leverage.

For example, with your 35 Prime, you could use F/11 and 30ft as your focus point (say 10 mtrs if you are more skilled with metric measure).

Focussing at 10 mtrs (instead of 5mtrs), you don’t really loose all that much on the short end of the DoF but I suspect that you will find that the Horizon will be much sharper.

But IMO always think about what technique you need to use – if you are in an hurry and need to grab a shot then it is good know where things will generally fall.

***

“But why should someone shooting portraits or landscapes bother? I see no reason.”

IMO there is one very good reason, just as an example – there are more but to me this is the most obvious:

Location Portraiture especially for holiday “Photosnaps” and similar Photographs . . .

The typical shot of the Family in the foreground and the Landmark Building or Geographic Feature in the Background – knowing the Hyperfocal distance at F/8 or F/11 can be very useful.

WW

Sign In

Hyperfocal Distance

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in