PhotoLab 5, sharpness and focus

I remembered seeing a video on hyperfocale

Alternative technique at 6’44 : focus at infinity and check the nearest zone that is sharp then focus at that zone. And no complicated calculations.
It is in Belgian :wink:

2 Likes

Always good to have on the field fast approach.
And for those who don’t like their smartphone to be in the center of their life :wink:

1 Like

All explained in here

Wow, hard to keep up the pace here :sweat_smile:

Just saw something I did not know it existed… On Nikon Z cameras (maybe with other brands too ?) you can split the screen to see two parts in live view:
Split screen focusing, the benefits and setting: Nikon School’s Neil Freeman explains

Split screen focusing? Maybe a better choice in stead of how to do it, would be should you do it? As PhotoJoseph recently pointed out, it’s the photographer’s job to direct the viewer’s eye to the right place in the photo. Sharpness is one of those tools.

Not sure about others, but then I view a landscape, only a small area directly in front of my eyes is perfectly sharp. The eye is designed that way. I guess it comes down to how the photograph is going to be used. Much of my photography until now has been keeping part of the image as sharp as I know how, and making the rest of the image less so.

Yep, but it wouldn’t be Nikon if it was actually possible to split the screen in two orientations… once again, nice idea, half baken.

Here’s the definitive proof that DoF extends 1/3 in front of and 2/3 behind the focusing distance :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

At the exact settings given above, we get the mythical 1/2 front/aft ratio.
Change one thing and the myth is busted. The ratio can be anything between 1/1 and 1/∞.

Actually, it’s not a myth, it’s just not “universal”. Sometimes the DoF may be 1/3, 2/3, and probably sometimes at 1/2, 1/2, but that’s like saying a camera can focus at 10 feet, or at 25 feet. It can happen, but it’s not “universal”, as you wrote at the end of the post.

It varies, just like most things in photography.

It’s better to understand the theory, and then learn how to apply it in real life.

Even @Joanna’s suggestion to use f/10 - there are times when it is appropriate, and times when it isn’t. For people who take the trouble to understand what Joanna meant, this will be useful. For those who simply glue their aperture ring while it’s set to f/10, not so much. :slight_smile:

It’s a rule meant for landscape photography. So mostly a rather short focal length is used.
Using a 135mm lens focusing on a distance of 20m can’t be called landscape photography.

George

Which doesn’t mean that they don’t work to and teach guidelines, not rules and, unfortunately, too many photographers listen to such “advice” and turn it into a rule

The truth about DoF proportions is best summed up by this slide…

Depending on the distance, the focal length and the aperture, the proportions vary from approximately 1:1 at macro distances to an immeasurable ratio for hyperfocal distance situations.

You don’t always need to use an app to calculate hyperfocal distance for landscape work. You’re only really going to need it for landscape photography that involves the horizon in the distance and that needs a feature in the immediate foreground to be acceptably sharp. It is going to require a relatively short focal length - anywhere from 20mm to 50mm so, instead of using some vastly inaccurate and unreliable rule myth, I simply dialled the 3 focal lengths I use most into TrueDoF-Pro and memorised them. But, since I always have my phone with me (to use as a phone), it really isn’t any problem using it as a calculator should the need arise.

As to the idea of focusing at around ⅓ the height of the image, that could well mean that you get neither the foreground nor the horizon sharp if the aperture isn’t small enough.

So, how do you determine what is the correct aperture without a DoF calculator? According to most of the “advice” out there, you “guess”. That may be an “educated guess” but it is still a guess. Some people state that you should always use the “sweet spot” of the lens, which is usually reckoned to be around f/8, but that might not deliver enough DoF. So, folks start to stop down in attempt to cover enough ground, totally ignoring diffraction, which is going to take over from plain old out of focus and soften the entire image.

Exactly (if you’ll excuse the pun :wink:)

There is also the consideration that most calculators like the PhotoPills one don’t take diffraction into account, so gives wider DoF than would be otherwise be advised for sharper results. Which is the reason why I use TrueDoF-Pro, because it does take diffraction into account and, thus, the figures I give may be different to those other “generic” calculators.

I tend to create landscape images for printing at large sizes and so diffraction can make a lot of difference to how large I can print without starting to lose that “crispness” that says a print is fully in focus.

Thank you for pointing that out. Indeed, I do use f/10 most off the time, because that is the optimum aperture for the sensor in my camera if I am going to want to take and print big landscape images, most of the time, f/10 suits me fine. However, of course, I use much larger apertures for isolating subjects, like f/1.8 for portraits, and have been known to take the hit of a bit of diffraction for macro shots by going as small as f/22

You are absolutely right about the lens length, but I would be a little pedantic and repeat that it is not the hard and fast rule that some photography sites make it out to be.

1 Like

You can use whatever FL you wish and check results with different distance and aperture settings…and find that the 1/2 ratio is what you get at exactly one focusing distance.

1 Like

Landscapephotogaphy is about photographing landscapes.
Wide angle view or isolated shapes both are landscape…
And to keep perspective view right you will need to use a tele focallenght.
Take a tree on a hill.
Standing 2meters away with 15mm or say 15m and a 100mm, don’t kill me because i have the framing not comparabl it’s just a example, you may get the same DOF by opening 15mm and closing 100mm but the way it looks you can’t change in camera.
In post yes by push and pull.
I use a free app who tells me what to suspect if i want to know in front or in hindsight behind my screen wondering why it’s “off” i set exif numbers in the app and gues the focusdistance i took the shot.

But most of the time i just improvise. Take some different angles and apertures of the thing that catch’s my attention.
A hole forrest, or a single tree a flower a animal in the field.
Talking about theory is great to awaken awareness and interest of subject in technique but it’s like a good piece of meat: Smack it with a hamer to tender it more is fine smack it to often and it’s structure is gone and the taste and the bite. Your killed it twice over.:grin:
(don’t get me wrong i really like to talk about theory’s and possible solutions of use of gear in photography. But in the end it’s only a way to get in the car and start driving.:sunglasses:)

My thought is on my m43 sensor and body i only use.
-Lenzes, wide open til around f11 is usefull. They are quite well made.
F4, f5.6 sweetspot sharpnes or just 1 stop closed from wide open.
F8 difraction is peaking around the corner with one eye (you know some distraction in the corner of your eyesight waving for attention.) and starts blocking the view at f11-16.
-Body, Shutter speed, every lens has it’s own “shuttershockwindow” and even a 5stop dual is2 stabilisation can’t wipe that clean. Nor a tripod and IS off.
Case of testing and writing down. Or just accept it that it pops up now and then.
Iso, base 200, extended 120 for cases you need more DR(seldom i think of that in the field.) all the way up til 3200iso as auto select. 6400iso as emerency value.

  • My skills or habbits, Focus type, mostly halfpres bliep AFF easy focus reframe technique centre focus box. (beter then the shell i find the focus spots for you modes which infoke multiple halfpresses before it chooses the spot you wanted.)
    Or backbutton lock for presetting focus and exposure and wai t until the wanted action is there and lower the lens from your eye.
    Playing BIF shooter, yes target lock AFC. Seems to do well, better then the backbutton methode which is a pain in the nose for lefty’s😁
    Manual focus with nicely purple dot’s to show the edges of DoF in EVF works great in moments you take more time. Or AF zone and touch screen selection.
    Having fun with posibility’s and choices is the benefit of digital photography, it cost only time and some space on your harddrive. :blush:

Landscape i shoot every thing at ratio 4:3 and crop at home in post to 16:9 (base tvscreen ratio) or 3:2 or what ever i like.
So dropping DoF over the frame is more instinktive then calculated because i decide at home what part of the frame i like to keep. (yes i will never achieve the status of Photographer with a Star and will be a sergant or luitenant for life.)
Too much preparation can kill the buzz too little can leave you empty handed.

Most important keep enjoying yourself and don’t beat the fun of making mistakes and learn from it in to a pulp. (if your income isn’t depending of it ofcaorse.:grin:)

1 Like

I like this :blush:

1 Like

@platypus and others,


Another screenshot of my program. Writing withe the mouse. :yum:
The shape of the coc is solely depending on the focus distance. The max. coc is for a FF which is 0.03mm. The part of the coc line below the max. coc line is in focus. Changing the f-nr doesn’t change the coc line. This one is for f/4.

The screenshot below is with f/13. The shape of the coc line didn’t change, only the horizontal 0.03 line moved up. Since the shape before the focus distance is quite steep and after the focus distance is going horizontal the ratio dof before and after the focus distance is changing more to after the focus distance.

Pay also attention to the dof of the secon camera, a APS-C Canon.

George

1 Like

@Joanna
First of all, let me tell you I always appreciate your expertise and your wise advices.
And I like too to know how things work, before finding ways that fits me and allows me to be as fast as possible when on field. A need for what I generally shoot.
I don’t often shoot landscapes, even if countryside is my field but generally shoot animals in context.
My shortest lens is a second-hand sigma art 35 mm which I don’t like (I hoped it would have, but it’s not sharp enough for D850 - even when shooting inside - maybe it has a problem, I don’t know), so my shortest usable lens is 85 mm (which is tack sharp).

This is how I like to work. Having known settings to be able to react quickly.

For the shots I take, since the choice of focus point and focal length depends on the subject, its distance and its size, my reference is that beyond 100, 150 mm the depth of field is distributed approximately 1/2,1/2 around the focus point, and that when I decrease the focal length, or/when the subject is small and close it gets closer to 1/3, 2/3.
My choices always rely to the size of the subject and its relative size in the frame.
And I got used to “feel” the aperture according to the size/distance of my subjects (generaly - not always - trying to open as much as possible). I choose the shutter speed according to focal lenght and expected speed of the subject, and then, I adapt iso to lighting conditions. This how I shoot.
Sometime I’m wrong and still continue to try to be better, but this allows me to have as more keepers as possible when action is sudden and fast, and it is in these circumstances that I get my best pictures.
And I would add, iso having the last priority in my choices, I found photolab is the best demosaicer for this way of shooting (not saying it’s not the best in other way to shooting, but it’s the only way I really know).

1 Like

@Joanna
What do you think of the accuracy of this “when lost in field” method ?

It’s called french. :hushed:

George

2 Likes

Ou, au moins, il est un Belge francophone :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I don’t understand them both. :anguished:

George

1 Like

If it’s the Nikon 85mm f/1.4, it is indeed an amazing lens.

As I said previously, for the D850, I always calculate for a CoC of 20µm, to avoid diffract, so that makes my smallest aperture f/10. If I run that through TrueDoF-Pro for hyperfocal distance, that gives me 48.4m for the HFD and 24.2m for the nearest acceptably sharp subject without diffraction.

I just ran focusing at 20m and got a DoF split of 5.81m in front and 13.95 behind.

With the 85mm lens at f/10, the nearest I could get to ½ & ½ was focusing at 0.84m for a split of 12cm in front and behind. Which bears out the principle that you only really get ½ & ½ at macro distances. From then on, all you can say is that the proportions increase at <½ : >½.

Once again, with the 85mm lens at f/10, I can get a ⅓ & ⅔ split at 16.2m with 4.03 in front and 8.05 behind before diffraction kicks in.

Qu’il parle vite !

His numbers are near enough but let me tell you what I do. I can usually estimate or pace out the distance to the nearest subject I want acceptably sharp, so I just measure to that and double it to get the hyperfocal distance and then adjust the calculator to give me the required aperture that gives me that distance for my focale. As long as it is larger than f/10, I’m happy, but I know that, with a CoC of 30µm, I can get away with up to f/14 as long as I don’t plan open printing the image too big.

Does that help?

1 Like