UKC

Anybody do this for landscape photography?

Got any tips?

In reply to The Lemming:

Not unless I really need "full" DoF. The most useful use for Hyperfocal distance is on manual lenses where you can set it and if you need to take a quick snap you don't have to bother with focussing. Not much of an issue with modern autofocus systems as they focus quickly enough in most situations.

If I really needed to have such a large DoF then I'd be more likely to set up a tripod and take two shots, one focussed on the foreground and one on the distance and merge them in Photoshop.

boB

In reply to Bob:


eeuuwww

what a horrible suggetion

In reply to diablo:

LOL, I thought that. Being a luddite I doubt I could work out how to do it, FFS I still have all my pics on this machine or CD as not managed to get them on the picture gallery and even one of the web picture gallery things stopped me putting them on a couple of years ago.

I do know about hyperfocal distance though, and the lemming could follow his nose to google and find out a lot about it there, or one of the sites I have put up about ten times already in the photography forum.

In reply to sutty:


I have indeed followed my nose and there is a very interesting article in a copy of Digital Photo which pops through my letterbox every month.

I've only had a trial run and was wondering if it was all worth the hassle.

Has Lens technology improved enough so that images are shapr at f32 or is Hyperfocusing the way forward even with a modern lens?

I only have one 50mm prime. Can this techneque be used for a 17-70 zoom lens?

In reply to The Lemming:

FFS, hyperfocal distance is what you use for a quick point and shoot snap when you need to get as much detail as possible in the picture as possible overall, but not bothered about arty shots. Save this site, read all the bits and you will learn how cameras work with film, digital is a bit different at times.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/fototech/htmls/depth.html

In reply to The Lemming: It used to be marked on lenses by being in a different colour, there is probably somewhere on the web that tells you. Like on my Autocord its 15 mts, on my Bronica its not marked, strange as they are both 75mm lenses?
The first definition: the hyperfocal distance is the closest distance at which a lens can be focused while keeping objects at infinity acceptably sharp; that is, the focus distance with the maximum depth of field. When the lens is focused at this distance, all objects at distances from half of the hyperfocal distance out to infinity will be acceptably sharp.

The second definition: the hyperfocal distance is the distance beyond which all objects are acceptably sharp, for a lens focused at infinity.

The distinction between the two meanings is rarely made, since they are interchangeable and have almost identical values. The value computed according to the first definition exceeds that from the second by just one focal length.

I think, generally speaking its a third the way back from infinity.

In reply to The Lemming:

OK, time for a stupid question.

My camera says that it can focus on infinity, is that the same thing?

nope :-P

In reply to The Lemming: I use the Scheimpflug technique.
It suits my needs entirely,
What is hyperfocal distance anyway?

In reply to Barry Chocolate:

Due to half a botle of rum I thought that you were extracting th urine.

But that was until I tried Mr Google and realised that it had something to do with the opening credits of "Star Wars"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle

In reply to The Lemming:

hhmm, interesting, mainly from the replies. My exerience of hyperfocal is when setting up wide angle landscape shots where a lead-in subject is close and the main interest is the whole of the frame or the distance.

The reason for this, the lead-in subject will generally be offset in frame and so getting a focus point to hit it and frame the shot at the same time is a fiddle. So it's far easier to manual it.

Many fine art landscape photographers use it and to great extent, for more detailed reasons than I.

Lemming, check out Mike McFarlane's site http://www.mikemcfarlane.co.uk , he uses it extensively and give tips on his site as well as explanations, links to charts etc.

In reply to The Lemming:
My understanding of it is that it allows you to use the full depth of field for your lens and still have the far distance in acceptable focus. If you focus on infinity then you are not using the depth of field that is lying beyond the point of focus, as approximately a third of the depth lies behind and and two thirds in front.
So yes is is usefull for landscapes if you want a large depth of field and still have the distance in focus.
Tripod,small aperture and focus two thirds into the scene.
HTH

In reply to The Lemming: Scheimpflug correction can only be done on a large format camera with front and back swings and vertical movement on both the lens and the back (film plane). Well not neccesserily the back. It is mostly used by architectural photogaphers to correct verticals, but it can be used to great effect to make a foreground object and infinity all perfectly sharp. I think, vaugely that once some roll film cameras had partial scheimpflug correction but realistically it is only available on plate/cut film cameras these days.

In reply to The Lemming:

Not having much sucess.

I've read a few articles, printed off some charts but I keep getting blurred images.

Very frustrating

what aperture are you using and what camera?

In reply to Richard Carter:

Hello

I'm using a Nikon D50 with a 17-70mm lens and I'm experimenting with different focal lengths.

Here's the lens

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06011802sigma17-70.asp

and here is the chart that I've been using

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/dof/wide_angle_tables.pdf


I also have a 50mm prime lens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lens_Nikkor_50mm.jpg



At the moment I am simply putting the camera into manual focus where I choose a focal length, apature setting and then spin the focus ring to the prescribed distance.

I would appreciate any advice.

Cheers

In reply to The Lemming:

Are you using a tripod?

In reply to DukeK:

Or any other support?

In reply to DukeK:

Yep, I'm using a tripod.

Cheap Jessops job

http://www.jessops.com/Store/s17694/0/Tripods/Jessops/Tripod-TP323/details....

In reply to The Lemming:
Firstly i would imagine that the table refers to prime lenses. Ignore the able and focus short of infinity. take shots until you are blurred in the background and note the closest focus you could attain at said aperture.
Have you used the DOF preview button? This is what it's primary use is for....
Photosig.com is very worthwhile looking at. there's some great images and good advice there....
Ignore the nikonians table and practise yourself using good old trial and error and the DOF preview button

In reply to Hix:

Sadly my camera does not have a DoF button

In reply to The Lemming:
Ooops sorry, thought the D50 had - inthat case get a D2xs [joking]
get your gnashers around this...
http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

In reply to The Lemming:

Can you write, and do you have a notebook and pencil? If so. do as Hix said, take a picture, note down the settings, do this for a series using a tripod and cable release or self timer so you do not shake the camera then download to computer and see what gives the best result for what you want, that will be your hyperfocal distance for YOUR COMBINATION OF LENSE AND CAMERA.

You have the complication of using a zoom, you need to do the same thing at various focal lengths, noting down what is the most satisfactory to you.

Once you have done this, set your camera at its hyperfocal length so it is ready for shooting almost as soon as you put it to your eye, or even hanging on its strap at waist level for that covert shot you take where the subject may object , or pose if they see the camera.

In reply to The Lemming:

In that case, set the lens to its minimum aperture(f22?), set the camera to auto, or aperture priority, and everything from the lens' minimum focusing distance to infinity will be sharp.

In reply to The Lemming:

Nice little tool here for confirming you hd calcualtions.

http://www.dofmaster.com/

what aparture are you using? Just digital cameras are limited by diffraction sooner than 35mm or larger cameras.

For example, on a d50 f22 wouldnt be that sharp due to diffraction.

In reply to Richard Carter:

My camera can go all the way up to F32.

What f stop would you or anybody recomend?

Would f16 be enough?

In reply to The Lemming:
Depends how close the foreground you want in focus is. Unless you've got something really close f8 f11 or f16 is a good place to start.

In reply to The Lemming:

What are you trying to achieve with your hd?

hd tells you how close you can focus while keeping the rest of the frame sharp[ish], based on focal length and aperture. If you wish to focus on a closer subject you tend to have a smaller aperture.

A common usage of hd will be to know your subject distance and focal range, using calculations or charts etc, you can calculate the optimum aperture for the shot.

What focal length are you using at f16?
Have you read the links I gave to Mike McFarlane's site or dof master. Both have information on the uses of hd. iirc the dof master has lots of info on all dof requirements.

Are you wanting to take a shot that would benefit from hd calculations or are you wanting to use hd to take a shot?

In reply to The Lemming:

the only solution is to come along on the 15th :-D

Ummmm, do you guys not just focus about a third of the way into the scene and let the aperture ensure everything is in focus?

I may just be lacking in knowledge, but this usually ensures front to back sharpness without resorting to maths.

I.E. Focus a third of the way into your shot, aperture f16, shoot......

Needs a tripod as the shutter speeds can get quite long, but it seems easier than calculating sums to me. I am probably missing the point due to not reading the thread properly, but I really cant see what all the technical discussion is about?

In reply to Dr Avid:

The Lemming is a gear junkie, all the gear, no idea at times.

You are right, adjust aperture and focus as you said and it should be good enough. I put a link to a website explaining things with drawings and coloured pictures but maybe he cannot read anything but this site.;-(

In reply to The Lemming:
Since you have attention of photographers here can I have some advice on taking pictures of dancers in low light.

We have a new slr digital camera at school but if we choose action mode there is not enough light and if we use auto the image is light enough but blurred. Any suggestions...they do love low light and spotlights for dance shows unfortunately.

In reply to Dr Avid:

True, but it all depends how exact your trying to be, hd is a tool of the fine art landscape photographer. If you sit you camera low down 6' from a rock wide a wide lens and want to isolate the rock from the area between the rock and camera you want to know the exact hd. Generally, it's not a concern.

In reply to sutty:

You and me both, the dofmaster site gives all the information and answers needed in layman's terms. Clearly unsought information. The Lemming had posted this question then left to post on other threads, maybe the beer got to him and thoughts involving calculations where no longer required

In reply to sutty:

You are a card.

However as a change to throwing sarcasim at me, which I note happens quite a lot, how about being a gentalman and either help me or keep your whitty comments to yourself?

In reply to cas smerdon:

Are you using a flash?

Action mode will be thinking your watching outdoor daytime sports.

Auto will set a lower shutter speed to help compensate for the lack of light.

The ideal will probably be an external flash unit (for extra oompf) and a wide lens, so fairly close to the subject and a second curtain sync. Try an choose moments with minimal movement. To achieve all this experiment experiment and experiment a bit more.

Also email Blue Straggler, as he is a low-light stage photography bon viveur if your lucky he may spot this.

In reply to The Lemming:

From my posting on the 25 August;
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/fototech/htmls/depth.html

Read that, and the other links on it to learn about photography, along with the links others have given you.

In reply to cas smerdon:

>.they do love low light and spotlights for dance shows unfortunately.

That is the problem, blue straggler has trouble coping with that and he takes shots of them all the time. There is a limit to lighting ranges in a photograph, expose for the lights and the background will be too dark, expose for the shadows and the highlights will burn out.

You have to decide which is most important, and try and expose for that, and try to recover detail of the rest in photoshop or the like.

unless you're using a fuji then the spotlights will be blown out or the lowlight black, your choice. Basically what you ideally want is to be on your highest iso and widest aperture then either manual focus or if it really is too dark still then you'll have get cracking with some flashes.

if its a nikon you can use wireless flashes pretty damn easy. for my low light stuff i take a couple of sb800's and leave them at suitable locations. then have a su800 on the camera to trigger them. if its a canon they will have some kind of equivalent i assume. hopefully if you're at your highest iso + widest aperture then the flashes won't totally ruin the atmosphere.

obviously flashless maintains the atmosphere but dancers dont usually stay still which can be a pain!

In reply to sutty:

I can "cope", it doesn't mean all (or any!) of my pics are "brilliant" admittedly

I've never shot a "dance show" though.

Cas you don't say whether or not you are permitted to use flash...

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I think you know what I mean, it is difficult trying to cover a huge range of lighting with moving subjects to complicate things means you would have to be a genius or damn lucky to get all your pictures to your satisfaction.

In reply to sutty:


I just lower my standards when I get the pics back

Or I call it "art"

In reply to Blue Straggler:

If you are like me a lot of your art collection gets stored in a box called rubbish bin. Sorting some photos the other week I think I threw out over 200 from the past that seemed worth keeping at the time. I think there will be a lot more stored then when I get round to it.

In reply to sutty:

It's not a rubbish bin, it's a macro 'art' gallery

btw, is this thread turning into the advice black hole. Where advice is sought and then the seeker disappears never to respond to clarification questions???

In reply to jools:

I donated my macro art gallery to some people who call every week with black bags, in fact I installed them in the black bags for protection.