Hyperfocal and selective focus

[marco_landini]

<p>Hi. I' m thinking about this topic. I' ve always taken my landscapes, scenaries and streets photographs using the hyperfocal tecnique. My reasons for this : in landscapes, to be able to obtain the greatest depth of field and the most details in focus. In street photography to obtain the most thing in focus in a easy and safe way, rather than aestetic aspects. But the opposite situation, selective focus, could be interesting too : the selective focus can concentrate the attention in a certain zone of depth, so it coud enhance the feeling of depth and the 3d look, despite the loss of right focused details at all distances. What do you think ?</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>I think you've summed up the relative merits of both. I'd be inclined to include advantage of faster shutter speed with wider apertures too - though the same advantages of wide aperture can apply to slower shutter speed in isolating subjects if non-subject areas are moving.</p>

[david_rosenthal1]

<p>I was using hyperfocal for high school baseball coverage for the local papers. Positioned equidistantly betwwen 3rd & Home Plate, I could cover 1st & 2nd base with equal sharpness. This was my first experience with hyperfocal, circa 1977.</p>

<p>Since then, I've used the DOF scale and focusing ring to get "acceptable sharpness" doing what you're doing. For landscapes, I tend to focus where my eye stays within the viewfinder's frame lines. Infinity is sometimes too soft to make big prints, so be careful!</p>

<p>Selective focus is a technique that I've used for decades. It works really well to enhance the feeling or emotion in a photograph.</p>

<p>They both have their place in good photography IMHO, and I enjoy seeing younger photogs experimenting with these techniques!</p>

<p>Dave</p>