Calculating HFD

[Karl Johnston]

How do you guys go about calculating the Hyper focal distance of your subjects when shooting landscape?

I understand the theory, I can apply it sometimes when I remember it for select lenses..but for some reason my judgement on distance really stinks.

I was wishing for a little pen laser or something like that where I could point it at my subject and get the exact distance from myself and it.

Is there anything like that or is it all estimation?

[jrader]

Funny, I was totally hoping that Canon would either integrate a rangefinder into a lens so I can do my own HFD calculation, or would have a rangefinder and an HFD button on a lens to automatically do it. Call me "wishful".

I think your best bet is estimation. Or, you can download charts for the exact lens and camera and already have it predetermined for you, that way you have it in the field. There's also an app you can download for your phone, last time I heard.

What's funny is that as a landscape shooter, I only use HFD focusing when I do night photography. Otherwise, I just let the autofocus handle it.

Best of luck. I'll be watching this forum.

John

[troutfisher]

You can find an app for a pocket pc and an Ipod/Iphone,dont know about palm or any other sort of phone.

[Karl Johnston]

Theres an application that calculates the exact distance between you and your subject available on the iphone? How does it do that? Satellites?

[coralnutz]

Theres an application that calculates the exact distance between you and your subject available on the iphone? How does it do that? Satellites?

You wouldn't need to know the distance to the subject to determine what the hfd is on a particular lens/focal length.

Here is a good link if you haven't read it already.

http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html

[Karl Johnston]

I've read it, but I've got to say I don't really understand it now !:lol:

[WaltA]

Wouldn't it be the same as those devices that tell you how far you are from the pin on a golf course? They don't use satellites.

They use triangulation.

[Zephyrize]

Well,
I just started reading about this yesterday on the same website (thx coralnutz)
and I used the little software to print out a pocket size HFD chart for both of my lenses:
(download it here: http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html)

10-20 & 50mm

You just set your lens to the desired focal length and aperture,
let's say 20 mm at f/8
you look at the x-axis on the chart and move up until you reach f/8,
then look at the corresponding HFD on the y-axis (in this case, ~2.7m)
Switch to manual focus, turn the focus ring until you line up with approx, 2.7m
take the shot.

That's what I understood from the readings, someone please confirm?
and also, on my 50mm I don't have any distance readings....whatdoIdo?

I would also read this awesome tutorial : http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm
it really helps to know how to estimate the HFD, and how to adjust it depending the context

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/myself-44/HFD1.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/myself-44/HFD2.jpg

[argyle]

You're really overcomplicating the issue. When you think about it, its really quite simple. First, compose your shot at the desired focal length. Make a mental note of the nearest object in the frame that you want to keep in focus (primary foreground element). Second, estimate its distance from your film plane (can be as simple as eyeballing or counting the paces). Third, double that distance...this is the hyperfocal distance (HFD). Fourth, set your camera's focus to an object at this distance (if your camera has live view, just go to 10x and use the joystick to scroll around the frame until the object at the HFD is in focus. If you don't have live view, simply focus and recompose). Finally, check your HFD chart for the required aperture at the HFD, set it, and snap the shutter.

If there isn't an object available in the frame at the HFD (for example, a canoe on a beach, with only water behind it), you can always aim your camera elsewhere and pick an object at the HFD to set focus. Then, re-aim your camera at the original scene and snap away after setting the aperture that corresponds to that HFD. The thing to remember is that you are not necessarily focusing on an object when using HFD...you are focusing on a distance...having an object at that distance just makes it easier to get a sharp focus. If you tried to get a focus on the water behind the canoe, you'd have a difficult time. But if there were an object sticking out of the water at that distance (such as a tree stump), you'd have a much easier time (which makes aiming elsewhere at an object at the HFD completely valid).

For example, in the shot below, the nearest object that needed to be in focus was the rock on the left edge. Once I estimated its distance (about 15 feet), it just happened to work out that the rock at the center of the lower falls appeared to be double that distance, meaning it was at the HFD (about 30 feet). I just focused on that rock, set the aperture that corresponded to the HFD (f/22), and took the picture. As you can see, its very sharp throughout the frame, from front to back and edge to edge. HFD will take a bit of practice, but after a little bit it'll become second nature.

With a wide angle to short telephoto, it should be relatively easy to estimate the distance of the nearest foreground object that needs to be in focus since it will generally be fairly close (especially when using a wide angle). Just double that distance and that's your HFD...nothing more complicated than that.

http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/570200088_zPcVs-L.jpg

[Zephyrize]

^ nice advice , ill try that one day

I guess using chart is just a faster way of determining directly the right HFD without having to eye-estimate and guess.

[argyle]

The chart may be fine if you're using older MF lenses that have accurate distance scales. But if you're using modern-day AF lenses, you're kinda stuck when it comes to setting the HFD in the tiny distance window, especially since most lenses go from 5 feet to infinity in about a 1/4-inch of travel. In the chart above, the HFD for 50mm at f/8 is approximately 16 feet...looking at my 17-40L distance window, the scale jumps from 3 feet to infinity within a very short distance...no way to even come close to setting the HFD accurately...so you're down to estimating the distance anyway. This is why I just base everything off my foreground element, then double that distance. I also shoot older MF lenses as well...these all have distance scales that makes things much easier. Just takes a bit of practice...

[tigerotor77w]

You're really overcomplicating the issue.

Beautiful picture, by the way!

A few questions linger.

1) How much worse would the picture have been if you had the exact same composition; set your aperture to, say, an arbitary f/11; and then focused somewhere (using the distance scale on the lens) to something like 3 meters (again, an arbitrary number but one that's still on the distance scale and nothing so close that would cause the background to cream away)?

2) For those of us shooting APS-C, doesn't a suggested f/22 (even f/16) go past the diffraction limits of our sensor/lens combination?

and a corollary...

3) Which is the worse trade-off -- losing sharpness to diffraction or not being exact on the HFD method?

[argyle]

Beautiful picture, by the way!

A few questions linger.

1) How much worse would the picture have been if you had the exact same composition; set your aperture to, say, an arbitary f/11; and then focused somewhere (using the distance scale on the lens) to something like 3 meters (again, an arbitrary number but one that's still on the distance scale and nothing so close that would cause the background to cream away)?

2) For those of us shooting APS-C, doesn't a suggested f/22 (even f/16) go past the diffraction limits of our sensor/lens combination?

and a corollary...

3) Which is the worse trade-off -- losing sharpness to diffraction or not being exact on the HFD method?

1.) The focal length for that shot was 80mm, if I recall. If I were to do as you suggested and focus at 9 feet and f/11, my depth of field would drop considerably and the HFD would nearly double. You can plug those numbers into any DOF calculator and see the results. I may pick up some closer focusing ability, but at the same time the DOF would drop to under 3 feet.

2.) I tend not to worry about diffraction...if I need the shot, I take it at the settings I need and deal with it later. F/22 is "not supposed" to be workable on a 17-40L with a full frame camera because of diffraction, loss of edge sharpness, etc. but I've always gotten good results. The below pic was shot at f/22 with the 17-40L on my 5D2...looks sharp enough to me from front to back (but damn those two water spots).

3.) You can fix some diffraction effects in post, especially with a good sharpening program/plug-in. As far as being exact on HFD, I always bracket my shots to begin with ...this way, I can correct for errors in distance as well as for exposure.

http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/562053243_237Q6-L.jpg

[tigerotor77w]

1.) The focal length for that shot was 80mm, if I recall. If I were to do as you suggested and focus at 9 feet and f/11, my depth of field would drop considerably and the HFD would nearly double. You can plug those numbers into any DOF calculator and see the results. I may pick up some closer focusing ability, but at the same time the DOF would drop to under 3 feet.

2.) I tend not to worry about diffraction...if I need the shot, I take it at the settings I need and deal with it later. F/22 is "not supposed" to be workable on a 17-40L with a full frame camera because of diffraction, loss of edge sharpness, etc. but I've always gotten good results. The below pic was shot at f/22 with the 17-40L on my 5D2...looks sharp enough to me from front to back (but damn those two water spots).

3.) You can fix some diffraction effects in post, especially with a good sharpening program/plug-in. As far as being exact on HFD, I always bracket my shots to begin with ...this way, I can correct for errors in distance as well as for exposure.

Awesome photo, again... sorry about the water droplets! I can imagine how that must feel. I've committed even stupider mistakes and can empathize with the "Drat!" feeling afterwords.

1) At what print size would you not be able to tell that you're no longer within the DOF?

2) This is a same sort of question, I suppose, because in the end, what I see on web pages isn't really doing the actual picture any justice. The flip side of the coin is to ask how bad something has to get before printing it at, say, 8x12 or 16x24 is visible.

3) Gotcha. Focus and exposure bracketing?

The thing about printing (points 1 and 2 summarized): if I can't tell at up to 16x24, then for me, I don't know if either HFD or diffraction is going to matter; that is, if I can't see a sharpness difference, I wouldn't worry about HFD. If I can't see diffraction effects, then I won't care about stopping down to f22. If I can see either -- easily -- then I will.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but not making my money off my photos and being able to enjoy them as they are, do I need to squeeze that last bit of detail out?

[argyle]

Awesome photo, again... sorry about the water droplets! I can imagine how that must feel. I've committed even stupider mistakes and can empathize with the "Drat!" feeling afterwords.

1) At what print size would you not be able to tell that you're no longer within the DOF?

2) This is a same sort of question, I suppose, because in the end, what I see on web pages isn't really doing the actual picture any justice. The flip side of the coin is to ask how bad something has to get before printing it at, say, 8x12 or 16x24 is visible.

3) Gotcha. Focus and exposure bracketing?

The thing about printing (points 1 and 2 summarized): if I can't tell at up to 16x24, then for me, I don't know if either HFD or diffraction is going to matter; that is, if I can't see a sharpness difference, I wouldn't worry about HFD. If I can't see diffraction effects, then I won't care about stopping down to f22. If I can see either -- easily -- then I will.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but not making my money off my photos and being able to enjoy them as they are, do I need to squeeze that last bit of detail out?

Can't answer that for you...that's for you to decide. If you're satisfied with your present method of shooting, that's all well and good too. Personally, I like to capture as much detail as possible.

[tigerotor77w]

Can't answer that for you...that's for you to decide. If you're satisfied with your present method of shooting, that's all well and good too. Personally, I like to capture as much detail as possible.

Understood.

It's still something I'd like to learn (and your technique seems pretty simple to follow... even if I would be well into my diffraction-limited apertures), and there's nothing wrong with getting technique down and learning more. At the same time, I doubt I'll ever be a Marc Adamus or Ansel Adams... :p

[argyle]

Understood.

It's still something I'd like to learn (and your technique seems pretty simple to follow... even if I would be well into my diffraction-limited apertures), and there's nothing wrong with getting technique down and learning more. At the same time, I doubt I'll ever be a Marc Adamus or Ansel Adams... :p

Well, they all had to start somewhere, too. :D I was introduced to HFD several years by a friend who happens to be a pro shooter for National Geographic and Arizona Highways, among others. Really opened my eyes to the "big picture", so to speak.

[samueli]

I'm going to add on to this thread. I'm having a hell of a time understanding HFD.

First a quick question: what is the film plane?? I'm guessing it's the bottom of my composition.

I printed out charts from Dofmaster that encompass my lenses, but they lack a variable or something. Let's say I arbitrarily pick f/16 and I have a 50mm lens. That puts me at about 17ft. So according to the chart, 17ft is HFD at f/16 for whatever I shoot that I want everything in focus with my 50mm. Yes?

I understood this much better until I printed out the charts and recieved a fixed number by f-stop and focal length.

But then you pick the nearest object that needs to be in focus, estimate distance from film plane (bottom of composition), then double that to find HFD. Does f-stop play a part in this calculation?

The two approaches are drastically different; one is variable on composition, the other is fixed based on focal length and aperture.

The reason I'm posting is a problem I'm having with a certain scene. The composition requires I use my 90mm lens. The subject is probably 60ft away. I want the whole scene in focus. So do I focus at the very bottom of my scene and everything else will be in focus, no matter the f-stop?

I hope to understand this a bit better by this weekend. I did some landscape shots on vacation this past spring, and I didn't do bad, but infinity was never in focus. I'm not sure if my cheap tripod played a part, but I focused near into the scene (2-4 feet) with my 11-16. According to the chart, you almost can't lose focusing that close with the 11-16 when there is no discernable subject.

You're really overcomplicating the issue. When you think about it, its really quite simple. First, compose your shot at the desired focal length. Make a mental note of the nearest object in the frame that you want to keep in focus (primary foreground element). Second, estimate its distance from your film plane (can be as simple as eyeballing or counting the paces). Third, double that distance...this is the hyperfocal distance (HFD). Fourth, set your camera's focus to an object at this distance (if your camera has live view, just go to 10x and use the joystick to scroll around the frame until the object at the HFD is in focus. If you don't have live view, simply focus and recompose). Finally, check your HFD chart for the required aperture at the HFD, set it, and snap the shutter.

If there isn't an object available in the frame at the HFD (for example, a canoe on a beach, with only water behind it), you can always aim your camera elsewhere and pick an object at the HFD to set focus. Then, re-aim your camera at the original scene and snap away after setting the aperture that corresponds to that HFD. The thing to remember is that you are not necessarily focusing on an object when using HFD...you are focusing on a distance...having an object at that distance just makes it easier to get a sharp focus. If you tried to get a focus on the water behind the canoe, you'd have a difficult time. But if there were an object sticking out of the water at that distance (such as a tree stump), you'd have a much easier time (which makes aiming elsewhere at an object at the HFD completely valid).

For example, in the shot below, the nearest object that needed to be in focus was the rock on the left edge. Once I estimated its distance (about 15 feet), it just happened to work out that the rock at the center of the lower falls appeared to be double that distance, meaning it was at the HFD (about 30 feet). I just focused on that rock, set the aperture that corresponded to the HFD (f/22), and took the picture. As you can see, its very sharp throughout the frame, from front to back and edge to edge. HFD will take a bit of practice, but after a little bit it'll become second nature.

With a wide angle to short telephoto, it should be relatively easy to estimate the distance of the nearest foreground object that needs to be in focus since it will generally be fairly close (especially when using a wide angle). Just double that distance and that's your HFD...nothing more complicated than that.

http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/570200088_zPcVs-L.jpg

[Mike-DT6]

You're really overcomplicating the issue. When you think about it, its really quite simple. First, compose your shot at the desired focal length. Make a mental note of the nearest object in the frame that you want to keep in focus (primary foreground element). Second, estimate its distance from your film plane (can be as simple as eyeballing or counting the paces). Third, double that distance...this is the hyperfocal distance (HFD). Fourth, set your camera's focus to an object at this distance (if your camera has live view, just go to 10x and use the joystick to scroll around the frame until the object at the HFD is in focus. If you don't have live view, simply focus and recompose). Finally, check your HFD chart for the required aperture at the HFD, set it, and snap the shutter.



This is incorrect. The hyperfocal distance is predetermined by the focal length and aperture, not where any objects happen to be in the frame. Doubling the distance of the nearest object in your frame doesn't give you the hyperfocal distance.

For example, if you are using a focal length of 17mm on your 5D, and your nearest object is 8' away, it doesn't mean that the hyperfocal distance is 16'. The hyperfocal distance will be 7' 11.5" (for f/4), 5' 7.7" (for f/5.6), 4' 0.1" (for f/8 ), 2' 10.2" (for f/11) and so on for the other apertures at 17mm. Those distances are predetermined and not dictated by what is in your frame.

If it so happens that you can get everything in your scene into focus by then choosing a small enough aperture (in this example f/4 would do it), that's all well and good, but it isn't an example of using the hyperfocal distance.

An example of using the hyperfocal distance is to focus at the distance where everything from half that distance to infinity is acceptably sharp (and that distance being the one that yields the greatest depth of field), having first selected the focal length and aperture to suit your subject distances.

Mike

:-)

[Mike-DT6]

First a quick question: what is the film plane?? I'm guessing it's the bottom of my composition.

The film or sensor plane is inside your camera at the point where the sensor or film is, and is on a plane that is at a right angle to the lens axis (assuming it's not a tilting lens or anything exotic!)


I printed out charts from Dofmaster that encompass my lenses, but they lack a variable or something. Let's say I arbitrarily pick f/16 and I have a 50mm lens. That puts me at about 17ft. So according to the chart, 17ft is HFD at f/16 for whatever I shoot that I want everything in focus with my 50mm. Yes?Using a 5D for example, for 50mm and f/16 your hyperfocal distance is 17' 3". If you want as much in focus as possible with your 50mm lens and f/16, then you have to focus to 17'3".


I understood this much better until I printed out the charts and recieved a fixed number by f-stop and focal length.
You were previously confused. The fixed number by f-stop and focal length is exactly what the hyperfocal distance is. There is only one distance for any given aperture and focal length (assuming the camera body remains the same regarding its circle of confusion).



But then you pick the nearest object that needs to be in focus, estimate distance from film plane (bottom of composition), then double that to find HFD. Does f-stop play a part in this calculation?
This is incorrect and the bit that was confusing you. The hyperfocal distance isn't decided by anything other than the focal length and the aperture (assuming the same camera body) and there is only one hyperfocal distance for any given focal length and aperture, for example 17' 3" for 50mm and f/16.



The reason I'm posting is a problem I'm having with a certain scene. The composition requires I use my 90mm lens. The subject is probably 60ft away. I want the whole scene in focus. So do I focus at the very bottom of my scene and everything else will be in focus, no matter the f-stop?
It depends on where the nearest subject is. If the nearest is 60' away then for 90mm (on a 5D), then f/8 would do it. At f/8 and 90mm, the hyperfocal distance is 111', so everything from 55' 6" to infinity would be in focus.



I hope to understand this a bit better by this weekend. I did some landscape shots on vacation this past spring, and I didn't do bad, but infinity was never in focus. I'm not sure if my cheap tripod played a part, but I focused near into the scene (2-4 feet) with my 11-16. According to the chart, you almost can't lose focusing that close with the 11-16 when there is no discernable subject.At 11mm and f/8 for example, focusing on anything right down to 11" or so should give you acceptably sharp focus to infinity. There may have been other factors contributing to the lack of sharpness.

Mike

:-)

[argyle]

This is incorrect. The hyperfocal distance is predetermined by the focal length and aperture, not where any objects happen to be in the frame. Doubling the distance of the nearest object in your frame doesn't give you the hyperfocal distance.

For example, if you are using a focal length of 17mm on your 5D, and your nearest object is 8' away, it doesn't mean that the hyperfocal distance is 16'. The hyperfocal distance will be 7' 11.5" (for f/4), 5' 7.7" (for f/5.6), 4' 0.1" (for f/8), 2' 10.2" (for f/11) and so on for the other apertures at 17mm. Those distances are predetermined and not dictated by what is in your frame.

If it so happens that you can get everything in your scene into focus by then choosing a small enough aperture (in this example f/4 would do it), that's all well and good, but it isn't an example of using the hyperfocal distance.

An example of using the hyperfocal distance is to focus at the distance where everything from half that distance to infinity is acceptably sharp, having first selected the focal length and aperture to suit your subject distances.

Mike

:-)

Sorry, but you obviously misunderstood my post, are overcomplicating the process, and really getting hung up on the mathematics. Maybe I left a step out because my intent wasn't to give a long-winded lesson on HFD. Doubling the distance of the nearest foreground object that you wish to keep in focus will be the focusing distance, period. Remember, when you focus at the hyperfocal distance, everything from half that distance to infinity will be acceptably sharp. What I'm doing is the same, only in reverse...I am determining the HFD based on my composition, not the lens. Basically, as I stated, I'm starting with my closest foreground object and then doubling that distance. I'm not letting any preconceived notion of aperture determine my HFD because the numbers may not align with what I have in mind for the shot. I simply start with the foreground object and work from there after I double that distance. The next thing to do, using that HFD distance, is to consult one's chart (or whatever method one is using for HFD) and select the aperture that corresponds to that particular combination of HFD and focal length. If you think about, you'll see that it works. Give it a try.

[Mike-DT6]

I haven't misunderstood your post and I'm not getting hung up on anything. :-)

You said that the hyperfocal distance is double the distance from your nearest object, which isn't the case. Doubling that distance is completely arbitrary. Yes, it is the focusing distance by virtue of the fact that you focused there, but it isn't the hyperfocal distance.

When you focus at the hyperfocal distance, everything from half that distance to infinity will be acceptably sharp and it is the distance that will give you the greatest depth of field for the aperture and focal length. Any point of focus other than that point will give you a shallower depth of field.

You can't determine the hyperfocal distance based on what is in your composition. The hyperfocal distance exists regardless of any fact outside the focal length, aperture and camera's circle of confusion. There isn't a preconceived notion regarding aperture, it's fundamental to the calculation.

Your method achieves a suitable depth of field by means other than focusing at the hyperfocal distance, unless by chance your chosen focal point coincides with the hyperfocal distance for that focal length and aperture.

At the end of your stated method, with your chosen aperture and focal length, if you are focusing at any point other than the hyperfocal distance for that focal length and aperture, then you aren't focusing at the hyperfocal distance.

Doubling the distance of something in your frame won't ever give you the hyperfocal distance unless the nearest object happens to be at exactly half the hyperfocal distance.

Mike

:-)

[argyle]

I'm not going to get in a pissing match about it. ;) It works, and that's basically it. You can take my word for it or not, it really doesn't matter. But before you shoot the methodology down, try it. My results speak for themselves. I can either sell prints, or I can argue about the nuances of HFD until the cows come home. I prefer selling... :D

[Mike-DT6]

I'm not going to get in a pissing match about it. ;) It works, and that's basically it. You can take my word for it or not, it really doesn't matter. But before you shoot the methodology down, try it. My results speak for themselves. I can either sell prints, or I can argue about the nuances of HFD until the cows come home. I prefer selling... :D



It's not a pissing match. I'm simply pointing out that it's incorrect to say that the hyperfocal distance is determined by doubling the distance of your nearest object. That has caused some confusion and is why Samueli was getting mixed up.

Yes, your method works, but it's not an example of focusing at the hyperfocal distance. You are choosing an aperture to give you a suitable depth of field for your chosen focal point.

You are selecting an aperture after you have focused on something. That choice of focal point isn't the hyperfocal distance, unless by coincidence. Once you have chosen your aperture then that is the final requirement from which to calculate the hyperfocal distance.

If the hyperfocal distance for that aperture and focal length is anywhere other than where you chose to focus in the first place then you're not using the hyperfocal distance. If by chance your focal point is at the hyperfocal distance it would be by coincidence, rather than arrived at by your method. :-)

There aren't any nuances with hyperfocal distances. They are absolute.

Mike

[coralnutz]

Mike is correct, any lens at a given focal length and aperture has a specific hfd, the distance to the subjects/objects in your photo have nothing to do with it.


You may be getting good results with what your doing, but your confusing people that are trying to understand what hfd actually is.

[versedmb]

...You may be getting good results with what your doing, but your confusing people that are trying to understand what hfd actually is.

But how the hell does the HFD help me? Its not like I'm going to get out a giant tape measure and figure out the HFD for my next landscape shot! I need a technique that will actually work in the real world.

[Mike-DT6]

It helps you by being the focus point at which you get the greatest depth of field for that focal length and aperture.

In most cases you can judge it, if not measure it physically. If ever you are unsure you can add a margin of error by stopping the lens down slightly from the aperture used for your calculation. You can also bracket your focusing, just to make sure.

Mike

[coralnutz]

But how the hell does the HFD help me? Its not like I'm going to get out a giant tape measure and figure out the HFD for my next landscape shot! I need a technique that will actually work in the real world.


I'm not trying to tell anyone it's going to help them or not, I don't even use the technique... I have, but I usually just focus on the closest object in my forgrount and call it good.

I'm simply pointing out that hfd is a specific number based on a given focal length and aperture and is not dependent of any of the objects in your shot.

[argyle]

Mike is correct, any lens at a given focal length and aperture has a specific hfd, the distance to the subjects/objects in your photo have nothing to do with it.


You may be getting good results with what your doing, but your confusing people that are trying to understand what hfd actually is.

What I'm describing, and what has worked for me for many years, is a quick and easy way to get landscape shots that are sharp from front to back using HFD principles. I'm not going to get hung up, down to the fraction of an inch, on what is and isn't HFD. And I'm not going to get into the physics behind it when I'm trying to get a good shot and the light is starting to take a turn for the worse. Y'all are getting too hung up on the science behind HFD as opposed to simplicity.

Again, to refresh, by definition, when shooting at the HFD everything from one-half the HFD through to infinity will be in the "acceptably sharp" range. Can we agree that this is correct? So, by extension, selecting the foreground object that I want to be in focus and determining/guesstimating that distance, I am thereby setting my composition to the object that I want to be at the one-half HFD distance. I then double that distance and consult my HFD chart, which then tells me the proper aperture for that distance at my selected focal length. Logically, what is incorrect about this method? Absolutely nothing. What all of you are continuing to overlook is that I refer this distance to my handy HFD chart, look for the HFD that matches my 2x foreground distance at the focal length, and determine the necessary aperture from the chart. This is shooting at HFD, the only difference being that I'm starting with the composition of the final image first and basing my aperture on that, rather than having a chart tell me the distance that I need based on a pre-shoot determination of aperture and then picking a composition from that information.

By doing it this way, I'm letting my composition dictate my HFD (let's call it 'focus distance' for sake of argument). We can go back and forth on it, but again, give it a try and tell me that it doesn't work.

I find it interesting, after doing a Google search, that one of the HFD websites actually describes the method that I've been using for years. Here's what it has to say:

"Example. You want some flowers 3 feet away to be sharp in the final photo. If the closest object is 3 feet away, the hyperfocal distance will be 6 feet. Let's say that you want to use a 20mm wide angle lens. On the chart above, look under the 20mm lens column until you find a hyperfocal distance of 6 feet. Look to the left to find the aperture of f/16. Focus at 6 feet, set your 20mm lens at f/16 and everything from 3 feet (1/2 the hyperfocal distance) to infinity will appear sharp in the final print."

It really can't be any more simpler than this, which is also what I have been espousing and trying to explain in this thread...forget the science mumbo-jumbo. I'm having a hard time understanding why the HFD concept, when broken down into its most simplest terms, is hard to grasp.


But how the hell does the HFD help me? Its not like I'm going to get out a giant tape measure and figure out the HFD for my next landscape shot! I need a technique that will actually work in the real world.

HFD principles work in the "real world", and have worked for many, many years at that. Depending on the situation, you can either pace off the distance, measure it, or take a pretty accurate guesstimate...its not that difficult. Hell, golfers do this all the time when estimating the distance from fairway to green. For example. If my ball happens to be somewhere inside the 150-yd marker, I'll count the paces from the marker to my ball (because I'm too poor to have a caddy do this for me), subtract that distance from 150, then select the proper iron to reach the green for that particular yardage. Its the same in photography. If you just want to set up, depress the shutter, and hope for the best, more often than not you will end up with an okay image, as opposed to a stellar image. Nothing comes easy...you get out of it what you put into it. Becoming a good photographer takes time and effort, just like anything else. But we seem to in an "instant gratification" world nowadays...

My advice would be to read up and practice. You can get hung up on the details and minutiae of HFD, or you can try the method that I described throughout this thread, and as mentioned in the above reference. If you decide to try the method that I've been using, remember one thing: do not focus on the foreground object...set the focus at twice that distance.

Time to go...gotta hit the "honey-do" list today.

[coralnutz]

I think your just missing the point. I'm not arguing with what your doing, I'm just pointing out that the hyperfocal distance is the specific focusing distance at any given focal length and aperture in which you will have the greatest depth of field. There is a formula for it, it's not some number that's based of any object in your photo. So again, I'm glad that you've found something that works for you, but what your doing is not shooting at the hyperfocal distance. (unless like mike suggested you just happen to land on it based on your method, but that would be totally random) Since this thread was titled calculating hyperfocal distance, I thought it was important to make the point.


If anyone would like to verify this information it's quite simple... do a google search for hyperfocal distance calculator and you will find many.

Most of them are dual hyperfocal distance and dof calculators. Go ahead and enter in your focal length and aperture and no matter what focusing distance you enter in, the hyperfocal distance does not change. This is because the formula to determine the hfd involves focal length, aperture and circle of confusion. While it is true that objects half the distance of the hfd and beyond should be in "acceptable" focus, that doesn't mean you use the distance of the objects in your photo to determine the hfd.

[argyle]

I fully understand that there's a formula for HFD...its already embedded in the myriad of HFD charts that you can download from the internet. I'm sure that the OP doesn't want to perform any calculations on the scene...he just wants to shoot. To summarize for the OP:

1.) Set your composition and obtain the distance to the camera from your nearest foreground object that you want to remain in focus (in the image, this will be at the one-half HFD point)
2.) Double that distance...this will become the HFD for your particular composition
3.) Consult your HFD chart and determine the aperture based on the HFD obtained in #2 for your chosen focal length
4.) Set your aperture based on the HFD chart
5.) Set your focus to the HFD distance obtained in #2
6.) Press the shutter...you're finished

Again, you all are overcomplicating a very simple issue. Of course the HFD will vary by aperture for a any given focal length, that's a given, and nothing that I have posted violates that given. I am simply reversing the process by selecting the aperture (from an established HFD chart) based on my needed HFD (2x the one-half distance), versus picking my HFD based on a pre-shoot, pre-determined aperture. Doing it in this fashion will ensure that my main objects will remain in focus from front to back. Doing it the other way will dictate the composition. I would much prefer to have my composition dictate the HFD, versus having the HFD determine the composition. Why some of you are having a hard time grasping this concept is really beyond me. It has nothing to do with "getting lucky", or just happening to "land it", as you so state.

For the final time, by definition, using hyperfocal distance ensures that all objects in the frame, from half that distance to infinity, will remain in focus. I simply choose to start the process from the "one-half distance" mark, that's all there is to it. I guess the actual practice is just too easy to come to grips with...I really can't make this concept any more simpler than I already have. :rolleyes:

Rather than shoot down what I've been trying to pass on, put down the charts, disregard the complicated formulae for an instant, and compare my method to the definition of the HFD principle...its one and the same in practice. If some of you simply choose to get bogged down in the minutiae of HFD, that's fine too.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state the following: the most important distance when shooting with hyperfocal distance is the distance from the camera to the nearest foreground object that you wish to remain in complete focus. Since the definition of HFD dictates that anything from one-half the HFD to infinity will be in focus, the distance to the nearest object is, naturally, the one-half HFD distance. And by extension (and again, definition), 2x the one-half distance is the HFD, no matter which focal length you are using. Simply refer to the appropriate HFD chart and pick the aperture at that focal length and distance.

I'm finished. Y'all can continue to mis-read this methodology, keep quoting the science behind it, etc. This method simply puts the HFD definition into practice...nothing more, nothing less. Those that shoot with this methodology will be rewarded with super-sharp images...those that don't see the logic in the methodology can continue to perform calculations. :D

[Mike-DT6]

What I'm describing, and what has worked for me for many years, is a quick and easy way to get landscape shots that are sharp from front to back using HFD principles.


No one is doubting that it works, but it isn't an example of using the hyperfocal distance. What you are doing is selecting an aperture suitable to get everything in your frame acceptably sharp after you have focused on something that has been dictated by what is in your frame. That won't ever be at the hyperfocal distance, unless by coincidence, which wouldn't have been arrived at by virtue of your method.



I'm not going to get hung up, down to the fraction of an inch, on what is and isn't HFD. And I'm not going to get into the physics behind it when I'm trying to get a good shot and the light is starting to take a turn for the worse. Y'all are getting too hung up on the science behind HFD as opposed to simplicity.
No, you have misunderstood the whole concept and are confusing a method that achieves a suitable depth of field for your scene with a one that uses the hyperfocal distance.



Again, to refresh, by definition, when shooting at the HFD everything from one-half the HFD through to infinity will be in the "acceptably sharp" range. Can we agree that this is correct?
Correct! :-)


So, by extension, selecting the foreground object that I want to be in focus and determining/guesstimating that distance, I am thereby setting my composition to the object that I want to be at the one-half HFD distance. I then double that distance and consult my HFD chart, which then tells me the proper aperture for that distance at my selected focal length.
This is incorrect, with regard to focusing at the hyperfocal distance. What you are doing there is selecting an aperture that gives you a suitable depth of field your your scene. This isn't focusing at the hyperfocal distance. Your method for achieving what you call the hyperfocal distance is incorrect.

Doubling the distance from your nearest object does not, as you say, give you the hyperfocal distance. The hyperfocal distance isn't variable and isn't ever dictated by what is in your frame. You can't ever arrive at the hyperfocal distance via your method except by coincidence.

When you consult your HFD chart, there will only be one hyperfocal distance per aperture and focal length. Unless your nearest foreground object happens to fall at exactly half the hyperfocal distance, you won't have arrived at the hyperfocal distance by doubling that distance. You can't position your subjects and then arrive at the hyperfocal distance by doing any calculations based on their position.

The hyperfocal distance exists as a function of aperture and focal length. It's that simple. You choose your focal length and aperture, and only then will it be possible to calculate the hyperfocal distance.

You can't calculate a hyperfocal distance by focusing on something that you have decided is the hyperfocal distance, then select an aperture to bring everything into focus. That isn't focusing at the hyperfocal distance. Unless by coincidence that is simply selecting an aperture to bring everything in your scene into focus for your chosen focal point.

It may well be (and probably is in most cases) close to the real hyperfocal distance, but it isn't an example of focusing at the hyperfocal distance, nor is your method an example of calculating the hyperfocal distance.

Again, the hyperfocal distance exists as a function of aperture and focal length. There is only one hyperfocal distance per aperture and focal length and it exists completely independently of anything you do.


Logically, what is incorrect about this method? Absolutely nothing. What is incorrect about this method is that it isn't an example of focusing at the hyperfocal distance, which you claim it is.

You are causing a confusion when you say that you determine the hyperfocal distance by doubling the distance of your nearest object. It doesn't work like that.

What all of you are continuing to overlook is that I refer this distance to my handy HFD chart, look for the HFD that matches my 2x foreground distance at the focal length, and determine the necessary aperture from the chart. This is shooting at HFD, the only difference being that I'm starting with the composition of the final image first and basing my aperture on that, rather than having a chart tell me the distance that I need based on a pre-shoot determination of aperture and then picking a composition from that information.
This would only ever be correct if there was a hyperfocal distance that happened to match exactly where you had decided to focus, and as has been said already, that would by by coincidence.

You can't focus somewhere and make that the hyperfocal distance by saying it's double the distance to your nearest object.



By doing it this way, I'm letting my composition dictate my HFD (let's call it 'focus distance' for sake of argument). We can go back and forth on it, but again, give it a try and tell me that it doesn't work.
This is the absolute essence of your confusion. You can't do that. 'Your' hyperfocal distance as you call it isn't the hyperfocal distance, unless by coincidence.

Yes, calling it the 'focus distance' is absolutely correct and doesn't constitute the hyperfocal distance unless by coincidence that it happens to be there once you have selected your aperture.



I find it interesting, after doing a Google search, that one of the HFD websites actually describes the method that I've been using for years. Here's what it has to say:

"Example. You want some flowers 3 feet away to be sharp in the final photo. If the closest object is 3 feet away, the hyperfocal distance will be 6 feet. Let's say that you want to use a 20mm wide angle lens. On the chart above, look under the 20mm lens column until you find a hyperfocal distance of 6 feet. Look to the left to find the aperture of f/16. Focus at 6 feet, set your 20mm lens at f/16 and everything from 3 feet (1/2 the hyperfocal distance) to infinity will appear sharp in the final print."
That's all wrong. The hyperfocal distance won't be 6'. You want it to be 6', but it won't be anything until you have selected an aperture, and it still won't be 6' unless by coincidence.

Once you have selected an aperture the hyperfocal distance will exist. Unless there is a hyperfocal distance of exactly 6' for an aperture at 20mm then you won't be focusing at the hyperfocal distance.

As it happens there is no hyperfocal distance of 6' for any of the Canon camera bodies at any aperture. The nearest is 6'2", which is arrived at by using f/11 on any of the crop sensor bodies (20D, 30D etc etc).



It really can't be any more simpler than this, which is also what I have been espousing and trying to explain in this thread...forget the science mumbo-jumbo. I'm having a hard time understanding why the HFD concept, when broken down into its most simplest terms, is hard to grasp.
Yes it can be simpler than that. It's this simple:

1) Select focal length
2) Select aperture
3) Look up the hyperfocal distance for that focal length and aperture

The hyperfocal distance for any focal length and aperture is one exact distance and one exact distance only. That is the hyperfocal distance and it is the only distance that you can focus at and claim correctly that you are focusing at the hyperfocal distance.



My advice would be to read up and practice.
My advice would be to learn exactly what constitutes the hyperfocal distance (as explained) and not to confuse that with your method, which isn't an example of focusing at the hyperfocal distance (unless by coincidence).


You can get hung up on the details and minutiae of HFD, or you can try the method that I described throughout this thread, and as mentioned in the above reference.
There's nothing to get hung up on. The hyperfocal distance is one distance and one distance only, per aperture and focal length.

The above reference that you refer to is incorrect.



If you decide to try the method that I've been using, remember one thing: do not focus on the foreground object...set the focus at twice that distance.
I don't doubt for a moment that this gives you the depth of field that you require, but it isn't an example of focusing at the hyperfocal distance.

It's incorrect to say that double the distance of your nearest object is the hyperfocal distance. That is where you start to go wrong.


Mike

:-)

[Mike-DT6]

I fully understand that there's a formula for HFD...its already embedded in the myriad of HFD charts that you can download from the internet. I'm sure that the OP doesn't want to perform any calculations on the scene...he just wants to shoot. To summarize for the OP:

1.) Set your composition and obtain the distance to the camera from your nearest foreground object that you want to remain in focus (in the image, this will be at the one-half HFD point)
2.) Double that distance...this will become the HFD for your particular composition
3.) Consult your HFD chart and determine the aperture based on the HFD obtained in #2 for your chosen focal length
4.) Set your aperture based on the HFD chart
5.) Set your focus to the HFD distance obtained in #2
6.) Press the shutter...you're finished




I'm sorry but this is wrong. This is not an example of focusing at the hyperfocal distance.

It is incorrect to say that doubling the distance of your nearest object will be the hyperfocal distance. That's completely wrong.

That guide you are referring to is wrong too, which is why you are wrong, and I don't want that to sound rude in any way, but I'm pointing it out as it's causing confusion.

:-)


Here is how to focus at the hyperfocal distance (as I have already said):

1) Select focal length.
2) Select aperture.
3) Look up the hyperfocal distance for that focal length and aperture. This will be one distance and one distance only.
4) Focus to that distance.

The hyperfocal distance for any focal length and aperture is one exact distance and one exact distance only. That is the hyperfocal distance and it is the only distance that you can focus at and claim correctly that you are focusing at the hyperfocal distance.



Mike

:-)

[argyle]

:rolleyes::D:D:D No confusion on this end. You're obviously missing the connection between the HFD definition and the actual practice that proves it. Last time, and I gotta drop outta this thread...its almost to the point where its a complete waste of my time. Y'all keep shooting your way, and I'll stick to mine. FWIW, I'm simply measuring a distance (1/2 HFD, and then doubling that). Nowhere does this distance measurement have anything to do with an aperture or focal length at all until I choose a particular focal length for the shot. Its strictly a distance measurement, that's all. But since I know that if I focus at that distance, anything at 1/2 that distance and greater will be in focus provided I choose the proper aperture for my focal length and that distance, aka the HFD. Its a reverse way of doing things, but its entirely valid since the final exposure is based not only on the needed distance, but also on the exposure data from an HFD chart for that needed distance. Again, give it a try before telling me that I'm wrong. Adios.

[Mike-DT6]

I'm not missing anything. Hyperfocal distance is absolute and is not in any event dictated by calculations made by someone on the basis of where something happens to appear in their frame. :-)

Your method, despite arriving at apparent validity by other means, isn't using the hyperfocal distance. The hyperfocal distance is never arrived at by using something in your frame and doubling the distance. It is arrived at purely by taking the focal length and the aperture (with your chosen camera body). Any distance that doesn't coincide with the hyperfocal distance for that focal length and aperture on your camera body doesn't constitute the hyperfocal distance. :-)

Like I have said several times, your method may well (and apparently does) arrive at a suitable depth of field for your scene, but it is not an example of focusing at the hyperfocal distance.

And taking your comment before you edited it about your print sales proving your point, unfortunately factors such as print sales aren't capable of altering the laws of physics, which dictate unequivocally the hyperfocal distance.

Mike

:-)

[samueli]

Thanks for all the replies on this! I'm sorry my question in this thread attributed to some heat. I understand HFD better from both of your perspectives and found both practical in application, so thank you!

I did a few shots just from the chart, and then I picked an aperture/hfd based on what I framed up, and tried closest object and double distance.

I suppose I still need more practice. I'm finding the farthest distances in my photos to still be a bit soft, no matter the lens. I did ok getting everything from close to better than half way in pretty good focus though. I also had a good tripod and no wind. So maybe my limitation is quality of lenses, since I have no L glass yet. My judgement on these shots are also straight out of the camera, so no size reduction or sharpening. Maybe I'll post a couple later for "troubleshooting".

Thanks again, I appreciate the responses!

[Mike-DT6]

Samueli

If you try to understand hyperfocal distance from the Argyle's perspective then you are going to get confused. That isn't an example of using the hyperfocal distance. It's important to realize that the hyperfocal distance is not created by taking the nearest object and doubling it. That's incorrect.

The hyperfocal distance, as mentioned several times, only exists as one distance per aperture and focal length, and it is calculated from the focal length and aperture used (taking into account your camera body) and those factors only.

Once you have selected the focal length and aperture you can then look up the hyperfocal distance (these distances are listed across the bottom lines of all the charts on the DOF Master website).

Taking the hyperfocal distance for your focal length and aperture, that you have just looked up, you can then judge its suitability for what is in your frame.

Mike

:-)

[samueli]

Samueli (taking into account your camera body)
:-)

So I made ths mistake of not accounting for the crop factor of my 50D when plugging in my lenses...

[Mike-DT6]

Indirectly, yes (or maybe yes, if you calculated for the wrong body). The aptly-named 'circle of confusion' forms part of the equation and it is specific to camera bodies, according to their format. The circle of confusion for a crop sensor body is different from that of a full frame body, so it has a bearing on the calculated distances.

You don't really need to know anything other than remembering to select the correct camera body when using the charts on the DOF Master site!

Mike

:-)

[samueli]

I picked the CoC for a 50D and printed, so sounds like I had the correct info. One of my shots came out perfect so far.

[Mike-DT6]

Unless you are measuring everything to the nth degree I expect you have introduced some error with the focusing. The way to use this in practice is to work with a margin of error, such as stopping down your lens slightly from the aperture used for calculation.

If you think that your foreground subject might be too close to the foreground limit, then you can move slightly, relative to your subjects. It could well be that your foreground subject is too close relative to the hyperfocal distance and by ensuring that is in focus you have fallen short for the more distant objects.

As mentioned before, you can bracket your focus too, so you have a few frames to inspect later, which will help you decide where the problem is.

Mike

[samueli]

I was a bit hurried for the practice shots I made. Next oppourtunity I'm going to make sure I can take my time. Definatly a lot of setup involved to make it right.

[Methodical]

Argle, I like and understand this method - simple and to the point; it's all mathematical, you just simply backed into a number on the HFD chart as opposed to pulling a number off the chart and being forced to find an object to focus on based on the chart number; I get it now...thanks.

Question:s

1. which chart do you use....can you post a link?
2. What parameters do you use for viewing distance and eyesight and the others for that matter? Here's the chart I found: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm
3. Is it best or easiest to use the backbutton focus for landscape shots using this method?

Thanks
Al

I fully understand that there's a formula for HFD...its already embedded in the myriad of HFD charts that you can download from the internet. I'm sure that the OP doesn't want to perform any calculations on the scene...he just wants to shoot. To summarize for the OP:

1.) Set your composition and obtain the distance to the camera from your nearest foreground object that you want to remain in focus (in the image, this will be at the one-half HFD point)
2.) Double that distance...this will become the HFD for your particular composition
3.) Consult your HFD chart and determine the aperture based on the HFD obtained in #2 for your chosen focal length
4.) Set your aperture based on the HFD chart
5.) Set your focus to the HFD distance obtained in #2
6.) Press the shutter...you're finished

Again, you all are overcomplicating a very simple issue. Of course the HFD will vary by aperture for a any given focal length, that's a given, and nothing that I have posted violates that given. I am simply reversing the process by selecting the aperture (from an established HFD chart) based on my needed HFD (2x the one-half distance), versus picking my HFD based on a pre-shoot, pre-determined aperture. Doing it in this fashion will ensure that my main objects will remain in focus from front to back. Doing it the other way will dictate the composition. I would much prefer to have my composition dictate the HFD, versus having the HFD determine the composition. Why some of you are having a hard time grasping this concept is really beyond me. It has nothing to do with "getting lucky", or just happening to "land it", as you so state.

For the final time, by definition, using hyperfocal distance ensures that all objects in the frame, from half that distance to infinity, will remain in focus. I simply choose to start the process from the "one-half distance" mark, that's all there is to it. I guess the actual practice is just too easy to come to grips with...I really can't make this concept any more simpler than I already have. :rolleyes:

Rather than shoot down what I've been trying to pass on, put down the charts, disregard the complicated formulae for an instant, and compare my method to the definition of the HFD principle...its one and the same in practice. If some of you simply choose to get bogged down in the minutiae of HFD, that's fine too.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state the following: the most important distance when shooting with hyperfocal distance is the distance from the camera to the nearest foreground object that you wish to remain in complete focus. Since the definition of HFD dictates that anything from one-half the HFD to infinity will be in focus, the distance to the nearest object is, naturally, the one-half HFD distance. And by extension (and again, definition), 2x the one-half distance is the HFD, no matter which focal length you are using. Simply refer to the appropriate HFD chart and pick the aperture at that focal length and distance.

I'm finished. Y'all can continue to mis-read this methodology, keep quoting the science behind it, etc. This method simply puts the HFD definition into practice...nothing more, nothing less. Those that shoot with this methodology will be rewarded with super-sharp images...those that don't see the logic in the methodology can continue to perform calculations. :D

[argyle]

Argle, I like and understand this method - simple and to the point; it's all mathematical, you just simply backed into a number on the HFD chart as opposed to pulling a number off the chart and being forced to find an object to focus on based on the chart number; I get it now...thanks.

Question:s

1. which chart do you use....can you post a link?
2. What parameters do you use for viewing distance and eyesight and the others for that matter? Here's the chart I found: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm
3. Is it best or easiest to use the backbutton focus for landscape shots using this method?

Thanks
Al

You're welcome, Al. Finally somebody gets it! Well actually I did have a few PMs from other expressing the same thoughts. Glad that I was able to get through about HFD without all of the techno jargon.

I use my own charts that I put together with an Excel spreadsheet. I shoot primarily FF, and use a CoC of 0.025 as opposed to 0.030. Take a look in the Accessories forum for a DOF chart thread...it's current so you should find it easily. There's a post by Lowner with actual pics of his charts to give you an idea. If I stated the wrong forum, just do a search for Lowner and it'll come up. I'd link it for you, but I'm on an iPhone and my fingers are getting tired.

[Mike-DT6]

Regardless of how many PMs you got, what you were describing as a way of determining the hyperfocal distance was incorrect, and remains so. Anyone who is in agreement with your information is mistaken.

[Daniel Browning]

How do you guys go about calculating the Hyper focal distance of your subjects when shooting landscape?


There are two general techniques. Method "A":

Download dozens of charts and graphs from various web sites and print them out.
Spend weeks shooting tests, printing various sizes, analyzing the accuracy of the witness marks.
Try various methods of focusing including new viewfinder screens, tape measures, guestimates.
Give up from exhaustion and frustration.Method "B":

Use liveview.

[argyle]

Regardless of how many PMs you got, what you were describing as a way of determining the hyperfocal distance was incorrect, and remains so. Anyone who is in agreement with your information is mistaken.

Einstein...would you give it a rest already for crying out loud? Just because you can't grasp the simplicity of the process doesn't mean that it's incorrect. Get out from under your rock and just try to read and comprehend. One question...do you do any shooting or do you just troll through forums, look for trouble, and spout techno-babble? I purposely stayed out of this thread for a few weeks to avoid any more of your nonsense, but you just can't let it go. Really, get a life...

Oh, and try this link. Go ahead and post in that thread and tell everyone they're mistaken too:

Are DOF Charts Necessary? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=742703)

[wickerprints]

Einstein...would you give it a rest already for crying out loud? Just because you can't grasp the simplicity of the process doesn't mean that it's incorrect. Get out from under your rock and just try to read and comprehend. One question...do you do any shooting or do you just troll through forums, look for trouble, and spout techno-babble? I purposely stayed out of this thread for a few weeks to avoid any more of your nonsense, but you just can't let it go. Really, get a life...

Oh, and try this link. Go ahead and post in that thread and tell everyone they're mistaken too:

Are DOF Charts Necessary? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=742703)


First of all, ease up on the personal attacks.

Second of all, Mike-DT6 is correct.

Third of all, you are misunderstanding what he has been trying to tell you all this time. Your process is not wrong. He's not criticizing the validity of your method. He is criticizing your description of it, what you are calling it, because you are calling it something that it is not, and for some people, precision of language and terminology is very important.

Your method is probably better characterized as "maximizing DOF for a desired subject." What you are basically doing is saying, "Okay, instead of focusing naively on the subject I want in focus, I focus behind it so that I can capture more rear distance in focus at the expense of losing some front distance in focus, which I wasn't using anyway." In certain special situations, your method could lead to capturing infinite DOF; this happens when the subject is positioned at or beyond the hyperfocal distance. But if the subject is very close--macro distances, for example--there is no way you could achieve infinite DOF. You could, however, use your method to try to get as much of the subject in focus as possible.

For example, if you are taking a photo of an insect, and the center of the insect's eye is the closest part of the body to your lens, then you might naively focus on that closest point, but you have now wasted the entire front DOF. Your method would correctly maximize DOF by focusing behind that point a tiny bit, so that you use up that front DOF to still capture sharpness on the eye. But that calculation does not employ the hyperfocal distance.

[Mike-DT6]

Einstein...would you give it a rest already for crying out loud? Just because you can't grasp the simplicity of the process doesn't mean that it's incorrect. Get out from under your rock and just try to read and comprehend. One question...do you do any shooting or do you just troll through forums, look for trouble, and spout techno-babble? I purposely stayed out of this thread for a few weeks to avoid any more of your nonsense, but you just can't let it go. Really, get a life...

Oh, and try this link. Go ahead and post in that thread and tell everyone they're mistaken too:

Are DOF Charts Necessary? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=742703)


As I have already said, I don't wish to sound rude (unlike yourself, apparently), but the reason why I was posting is because what you were saying was incorrect. I was merely pointing that out. Nothing has changed since then.

The reason why I have posted repeatedly is because you have repeatedly re-posted with your incorrect theory and method. There are a lot of beginners using these forums and I think it's important to avoid perpetuating erroneous information.

I can't quite fathom how you can be talking down to me as if I'm some sort of idiot whilst being still being oblivious to the errors in your own knowledge of the subject.

Far from spouting techno-babble, what I was saying is extremely simple. It's you that is apparently unable to grasp the simplicity of the subject.

I think the way you have behaved in this thread is shameful.

Mike

[Mike-DT6]

First of all, ease up on the personal attacks.

Second of all, Mike-DT6 is correct.

Third of all, you are misunderstanding what he has been trying to tell you all this time. Your process is not wrong. He's not criticizing the validity of your method. He is criticizing your description of it, what you are calling it, because you are calling it something that it is not, and for some people, precision of language and terminology is very important.


Thank you. I was beginning to lose faith in this forum.

Mike

[realitysays]

Ok enough of the arguments, i know its hard to give up what you know works but whatever ok, we are all photographers, what works for you works and thats all that matters ok?

Now onto my question :)

I have been trying to grasp calculating the HFD for a long time. I've tried everything but for me, the results just don't seem to speak for themselves, no matter who's method i try.

Now here are my questions:

1. I own a 50D so the CoC is 0.019 because it is APS-C correct?
2. I own a 10-22mm Canon lens. If i shoot at 14mm at F/11 the HFD is 3.04ft correct?
3. If I put this in MF and turn it to 3ft (as far as it goes before infinity) should this not in turn make everything sharp as this is the correct HFD? Or is there something wrong i am doing here?

Also, when you say to use live view. What do you use it for? To determine if everything remains sharp?? Even if i focus on a specific subject with the centre point, and then zoom in to it at 10x on live-view it still doesn't look as sharp as i have seen pictures here, it could be the lens front/back focusing, but this is not my concern.

Can anybody elaborate without giving me crazy explanations that i have seen here, just a simple way to get everything in focus at 14mm at f/11. do i point the camera down, and focus on something 3 ft away then recompose and shoot?

Thankyou for your advice and reading this has given me many ideas!

Yours sincerely!!!!!
n00b landscape shooter.

[wickerprints]

Ok enough of the arguments, i know its hard to give up what you know works but whatever ok, we are all photographers, what works for you works and thats all that matters ok?

Now onto my question :)

I have been trying to grasp calculating the HFD for a long time. I've tried everything but for me, the results just don't seem to speak for themselves, no matter who's method i try.

Now here are my questions:

1. I own a 50D so the CoC is 0.019 because it is APS-C correct?


Well, CoC depends on a number of factors, one of which is your print magnification. So if you are viewing at 100% crop, you might find that 0.019mm figure to be too large.

2. I own a 10-22mm Canon lens. If i shoot at 14mm at F/11 the HFD is 3.04ft correct?

I obtained 3.1227 feet, not 3.04 feet. The formula I used is:

HFD = f^2 / (Nc) + f,

where f = focal length = 14mm, N = f-number = 11, and c = CoC = 0.019. Again, because of what I mentioned above, this 3.1227' figure may be acceptable at a modest print size, but might be unacceptable if viewing the image at 100% crop.

3. If I put this in MF and turn it to 3ft (as far as it goes before infinity) should this not in turn make everything sharp as this is the correct HFD? Or is there something wrong i am doing here?

It should make everything beyond the HFD sharp. There is additional front DOF but a precise calculation of this depends on the particular lens design and is beyond the scope of my response. This is because the focal length here is extremely short, and the usual DOF formulas do not properly account for this, nor the fact that we are talking about very short distances from the lens. It is best determined empirically. Not everything will be sharp--objects extremely close to the lens could be out of focus.

[realitysays]

Hhhmm does that mean i have been focusing on the incorrect HFD the whole time? Because i checked on my iPhone and it is 3.04ft and the same at the online DOF calculator at www.dofmaster.com (http://www.dofmaster.com)

So my technique is correct, but i just need to fine-tune it, that is basically what you just said to sum up all the mathematics:D

Also, is this link of any fact as i have never tried it before and would like too!
http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html
Seems to confuse me a bit more than it being as simple as it says.

Thanks for the info! Really appreciate the input!

[Mike-DT6]

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize there was a response, which was posted when I was typing.


Now here are my questions:

1. I own a 50D so the CoC is 0.019 because it is APS-C correct?
2. I own a 10-22mm Canon lens. If i shoot at 14mm at F/11 the HFD is 3.04ft correct?
3. If I put this in MF and turn it to 3ft (as far as it goes before infinity) should this not in turn make everything sharp as this is the correct HFD? Or is there something wrong i am doing here?


Correct for 1 and correct for 2 if you meant 3' 0.4", rather than 3.04'. It won't make any difference in the real world (it's only just over 2mm between the two), but seeing as we are quoting specific figures from charts then it's a good idea to acknowledge the difference.

Regarding your last point, it's very hard to determine exactly where you are setting your focus on a lot of lenses as the distance scales are a bit vague. There's a good chance that you aren't getting things spot-on here, but it's not your fault.

Having said that, at 14mm and f/11 you have a huge depth of field (effectively from 18" to infinity), so there shouldn't be any problems. If you are finding that your distant objects aren't acceptably sharp, maybe you are focusing short of the hyperfocal distance.



Also, when you say to use live view. What do you use it for? To determine if everything remains sharp?? Even if i focus on a specific subject with the centre point, and then zoom in to it at 10x on live-view it still doesn't look as sharp as i have seen pictures here, it could be the lens front/back focusing, but this is not my concern.

Can anybody elaborate without giving me crazy explanations that i have seen here, just a simple way to get everything in focus at 14mm at f/11. do i point the camera down, and focus on something 3 ft away then recompose and shoot?
If you are pointing your camera down and focusing before re-composing, you may be introducing an error at that stage, due to the unequal distances. That would tend to cause you to focus further into your scene though, so if you have been doing it, it suggests you might not be falling short of the hyperfocal distance.

I would approach it in this way: With it in mind that your hyperfocal distance is 3' away for your chosen aperture and focal length, simply work in a margin of error.

Estimate your focus (based on your known hyperfocal distance), then stop down your lens slightly to increase the depth of field. Another way to do it is avoid positioning your camera so that your nearest object is right on the limit. Move back slightly so it is a couple of feet away, rather than 18". Also, as mentioned previously, you can bracket your focus, so take a few frames at slightly different focus distances.

By observing the results and seeing where the error is (foreground or distant) you should be able to work out what is wrong.


Mike

:-)

[realitysays]

Thanks a bunch Mike as well as Wickerprints! Appreciate it!

If i have any more trouble i will create a new topic. Really appreciate the input as landscape is not my field!

Thankyou very much again:D

[Mike-DT6]

Just to add: All this would make much more sense as a working method if you were using a prime lens - especially if designed for manual focus. In that event the lens would have an excellent distance scale, which will actually show you the hyperfocal distance.

This is achieved by turning the focus adjustment to align the correct aperture scale markers (your chosen aperture) with the infinity marker. The hyperfocal distance is then indicated by a second marker, which points to part of your distance scale!

That's not much help unless you have one of those lenses though.

[realitysays]

Oh awesome! Thanks for the advice about a MF prime lens. Any good ones you can recommend for Canon mounts?

[wickerprints]

Hhhmm does that mean i have been focusing on the incorrect HFD the whole time? Because i checked on my iPhone and it is 3.04ft and the same at the online DOF calculator at www.dofmaster.com (http://www.dofmaster.com)

Part of the discrepancy between our calculations is due to the fact that I have used an added term f. The approximate formula is

HFD ~ f^2 / (Nc),

which, if f^2 / (Nc) >> f, is appropriate. However, when N is very large or f is small, this approximation becomes less accurate--in your case, a small aperture (large f-number), and a very short focal length (14mm), the result should be more precisely stated using the formula I provided.

So my technique is correct, but i just need to fine-tune it, that is basically what you just said to sum up all the mathematics:D

Sort of. I must impress upon you the importance of choosing the correct CoC. Even small differences can lead to dramatically different calculated HFD; e.g., if we use a CoC = 0.015mm, we find

HFD = 3.94 feet.

That's nearly a whole foot farther away than what was calculated using 0.019mm. This makes the use of hyperfocal technique difficult because one must understand that the notion of "acceptably sharp" depends on how much magnification of the image you intend to use.

[Methodical]

Question: If I use, say 8x10 print size, in generating the HFD will all print sizes smaller be sharp or sharper since they are smaller. If yes, then would it make since to always use the largest print size to generate the HFD?

Thanks

Al

[wickerprints]

Question: If I use, say 8x10 print size, in generating the HFD will all print sizes smaller be sharp or sharper since they are smaller. If yes, then would it make since to always use the largest print size to generate the HFD?

Thanks

Al

All else being equal, the smaller the reproduction size, the more of the resulting print will appear to be "acceptably sharp." Similarly, all else being equal, the longer your viewing distance to the print, the more the print will appear "acceptably sharp."

As I wrote in another thread recently, the reproduction magnification and the display distance combined together might be called the "inspectability" of the image. That is to say, how closely can you inspect the print? Sure, there are extreme situations where no printer can print the image with any reasonable fidelity on, say, the head of a pin. But if we ignore printer device limitations, this is a good model for how we view prints in real life, across many different scenarios.

However, your suggestion to use the largest anticipated print size to calculate CoC is missing the other half--how closely you expect someone to view a print of that size. If I think I will only ever want to print up to, say, 40x60", I also need to specify how closely I expect someone to view that size print. The combination of these two factors for a variety of situations is what one needs to use to determine a conservative CoC, and in turn, compute the HFD that ensures sharp results across all those situations.

It sounds complex, I realize. But you generally don't want to be unnecessarily conservative, either, because then you may discover that the calculated HFD is too far and gives an unsatisfactory front DOF. Often, the goal is not to obtain the "maximum" possible DOF, but rather, a DOF that encompasses as much of the subject of interest as possible. And sometimes, that may mean not getting infinity in focus.

[mobl1ejunkie]

Just to add: All this would make much more sense as a working method if you were using a prime lens - especially if designed for manual focus. In that event the lens would have an excellent distance scale, which will actually show you the hyperfocal distance.

Are there any Wide Angle lens that have distance scale? Thanks.

[mobl1ejunkie]

Method "B":
Use liveview.

How can you use LiveView for hyper focal distance calculation? Thanks.

[Daniel Browning]

How can you use LiveView for hyper focal distance calculation? Thanks.

There is no need to calculate the hyperfocal distance when you can just achieve perfection directly.

Activate 10X live view in stopped down aperture mode.
Focus on infinity, then pull focus until it is almost out of focus.
Find something to do with all the time you saved.The stopped-down-aperture mode on my 5D2 is called "movie" mode. Another alternative is to hold down the DOF preview button.

If you are not sure about what f-number to use, just repeat the method and move the 10X selection to the foreground object that you are interested in keeping in your DOF.

Obviously, this method only works with a CoC based on the raw file, not the conditions of the display (size/rez/distance/etc.). If you're certain you would rather limit the CoC to smaller resolutions (small prints only, web display only, etc.), then this technique will not apply.

(Ostensibly, you could use the 5X magnification to simulate bigger CoC, but it does not use a good resampling algorithm, so it will alias high frequency detail, making it appear more out of focus than it is.)

HTH HAND BBQ

[samueli]

Have you run into situations where live view isn't all that viewable? I have and I know I can't rely on it, so it's important to be able to do things long form.

[Daniel Browning]

Have you run into situations where live view isn't all that viewable?

Yes. I got hoodman shades and viewers for my older cameras to alleviate the problem, but I'm finding that unnecessary on the 5D2.

Another time when I avoid liveview is at a star party (http://www.oregonstarparty.org). The other astronomers would kill me for ruining their night vision. :) There, I have to cover myself and the LCD with a black shroud. You could try that, but people might think you are using a camera from the 1800's and ask you where the magnesium flash powder is.

[C2S]

The stopped-down-aperture mode on my 5D2 is called "movie" mode. Another alternative is to hold down the DOF preview button.

Interesting idea. But I'd prefer if they just made the DoF preview button toggleable, or at least offered an option to make it so.

Customized firmware, wheeeereeee aaaareeee yoooouuuu?

[samueli]

Ok, now how do we relate a CoC to a specific print size and still consider the camera sensor?

I'm trying to tie in the concept of shooting from the hip and managing your FoV based on whatever numbers and markings may or may not be left on lenses these days.

[jkurkjia]

If you are lousy at estimating distance then purchase a range-finder; golfers use them all the time. Below is a link to Golfsmith's line-up of range-finders; BTW, they are a very reliable on-line retailer "and" it's entirely possible there is a retail store in your city that will allow you to actually try out various range-finder models.

Note, I just noticed Golfsmith has a Labor Day sale in progress ... 15% off and free shipping.

http://www.golfsmith.com/browse.php?Ntt=range+finder&N=0&Nty=1&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ntk=All&lcode=expps

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

[Fretless Pete]

Some printable charts here for FF /35mm / + 1.3 1.5 1.6 crop cams

http://pjmorley.com/blog/2008/02/20/hyperfocal-distance-made-easy/

[samueli]

My landscape shots are still not getting everything in focus. Nearsest is sharp, but furthest out is still a bit soft. I have my printed charts and I usually focus my HFD on the ring/focus window of the lens. Regardless of how I focus to HFD, if the farthest is soft, where do I adjust? Just focus my HFD out a bit further? I'm mostly using my 11-16, so the difference is only going to be one foot or less.

[MNUplander]

I hate to even resurrect this battle, but it seems to me like you're both doing the same thing - just going about it differently.

Argyle's Method -

1. Compose your scene.
2. Estimate distance of nearest foreground object you want in focus.
3. Double this distance and focus on this spot.
4. Find where this distance line intersects that of your focal length on the HFD chart.
5. Set your aperture to the nearest f/stop indicated by the diagonal lines.

This does in fact get you to A hyperfocal distance, only the variable you change is your aperture, not your focus.

Benefit 1 - You get to estimate distances in your scene, not on the distance window. Estimating distance in feet to an object in the foreground is easier than estimate 3 ft - infinity on a 1/2 inch focus window.

Benefit 2 - Photographer gets to choose exactly what is in focus in the scene.



Mike's Method

1. Compose your scene.
2. Select your aperture.
3. Find where your aperture intersects your focal length on the HFD chart.
4. Estimate where this spot is on your focus distance window.

Mike's method also gets you to A hyperfocal distance, only the variable he changes is the focus distance, not the aperture.

Benefit 1 - Photographer has control over the aperture they want to use. The difference between using f/8 and f/11 might be the difference between being able to hand hold and requiring a monopod. f/11 and f/16 might be the difference between needing a monopod vs a tripod.

Benefit 2 - The required shutter speed will be too long or not long enough unless you get to choose the aperture yourself.


In short, you two will each come to the hyperfocal distance for a given focal length and aperture combination - you may just reach a different combination.

[Mike-DT6]

Oh no, not this again! :lol:

My method (which isn't my method, rather that it is an example) simplified, is to focus to the hyperfocal distance, as given in the various charts, using an aperture suitable for what's in your scene and positioning yourself accordingly. That's the way to use the charts.

Argyle's method is incorrect at the very point he says that the hyperfocal distance is double the distance from your nearest object. It's not, and never will be, except by coincidence. Everything he does from that point onwards, working backwards from that point, trying to find an aperture on the charts to prove the distance as correct is a complete waste of time because all you end up doing is selecting the nearest aperture with a suitable depth of field for where you've focused.

If you've focused beforehand then unless by complete coincidence you've almost certainly focused past the hyperfocal distance and selected an aperture to cover yourself. That is precisely why his method isn't an example of focusing at the hyperfocal distance.

My example is an example of focusing to the hyperfocal distance by virtue of the fact that you've looked up the damned hyperfocal distances beforehand and know what they are. You then focus accordingly, using the hyperfocal distance of your choice.

Mike

[Mike-DT6]

Are there any Wide Angle lens that have distance scale? Thanks.

Sorry I missed your question as I didn't get an e-mail notification.

Yes, many (if not all) of the manual focus lenses provide an accurate way of focusing to the hyperfocal distance for each aperture because they are indicated on the distance scales.

You align the infinity marker with the appropriate marker for the aperture you have used and the lens will then be focused to the hyperfocal distance for that aperture.

Mike

[WaltA]

:cry:

Some things just shouldn't be resurrected.

[MNUplander]

Oh no, not this again! :lol:
Argyle's method is incorrect at the very point he says that the hyperfocal distance is double the distance from your nearest object. It's not, and never will be, except by coincidence.
Mike

Darn newcomers always resurrecting things that should have died a long time ago...I hate that...maybe Ill go comment on that 1600mm tele in the BH used department next! :)

Maybe Im reading his theory incorrectly, but I dont think Argyle is saying the hyperfocal distance is only the hyperfocal distance simply because it is twice as far away as his nearest foreground object. He is making it be so by adjusting another variable.

There are 3 variables (aperture, focal length, and focus distance) that will bring you to the hyperfocal distance for any given combination and if you have two of them, you can always find the third by looking at the charts.

Mike, in your example, the hyperfocal distance is found by setting your aperture and focal length, and finding where those two lines intersect for the focus distance.

In Argyles example, he is selecting his focal length and the focus distance, and finding where these lines intersect the diagonal aperture lines for the aperture.

Although far less usable of a method, another person could argue that you can find the hyperfocal distance by setting your aperture and focus distance and consulting the chart for the focal length at which these three variable intersect.

Im certainly not the most knowledgable photographer around, and I have a lot to learn, but both of your lines of thinking make sense to me and it becomes a personal preference.

Am I off base here? Maybe we should PM Argyle to join back up...:)

[Mike-DT6]

Maybe Im reading his theory incorrectly, but I dont think Argyle is saying the hyperfocal distance is only the hyperfocal distance simply because it is twice as far away as his nearest foreground object.

Yes he is. Refer to line three of post #9. This is the whole basis of my disagreement with his method, and every single aspect of my argument stems from that claim.


There are 3 variables (aperture, focal length, and focus distance) that will bring you to the hyperfocal distance for any given combination and if you have two of them, you can always find the third by looking at the charts.



That's not quite correct in practice because the charts list hyperfocal distances for whole f-stops, and of course we're discussing using hyperfocal distances as presented to photographers.

Work backwards from an arbitrarily-chosen focus distance and you'll hardly ever arrive at a listed hyperfocal distance that agrees with where you have focused. That could also dictate that you use an aperture not available with your equipment, which is nonsense.

If you think about it, what you want to know is the hyperfocal distance, in order to give yourself the maximum depth of field for that focal length and aperture. Argyle's whole method is negated simply by the fact that you can look up a precise value for the hyperfocal distances, via the charts.



Mike, in your example, the hyperfocal distance is found by setting your aperture and focal length, and finding where those two lines intersect for the focus distance.


Yes, aperture and focal length on whatever camera body you are using will yield a precise hyperfocal distance, via the charts or via some mathematics if you're that way inclined.

By knowing the aperture and focal length you can look up the precise hyperfocal distance. There is no argument as to whether that constitutes the hyperfocal distance because it is the hyperfocal distance. So, focusing to that distance is an example of using the hyperfocal distance.



In Argyles example, he is selecting his focal length and the focus distance, and finding where these lines intersect the diagonal aperture lines for the aperture.


Yes, he's selecting the focal length and focal distance, then calls that distance the hyperfocal distance regardless of anything else. That's wrong!

He then checks the charts to find a distance that matches (which unless by coincidence it never will), then chooses the nearest hyperfocal distance from the chart. The very act of choosing the nearest aperture is a perfect example of why he isn't focused at the hyperfocal distance in the first place, and is almost certainly focused past that point and wasting depth of field.

As to whether the lost depth of field is significant in any particular scene is beside the point. The fact that the hyperfocal distance has not been focused to (unless by coincidence) is a perfect example of why it is not a method for finding the hyperfocal distance, and consequently why it is not an example of how to focus to the hyperfocal distance.

The way you focus to the hyperfocal distance is to look it up! Then you know that for your aperture and focal length you will be giving yourself the maximum depth of field - which is the whole point of using the hyperfocal distance in the first place!

The only variable that you need to use is where you position yourself - and that is infinitely adjustable for the purpose of using hyperfocal distances.




Although far less usable of a method, another person could argue that you can find the hyperfocal distance by setting your aperture and focus distance and consulting the chart for the focal length at which these three variable intersect.


Then they would be arguing over the theory regardless of its practical application and therefore missing the point completely. Considering that the point is to focus to the hyperfocal distance, all the distances are listed conveniently for us in the charts, without us having to try to do things arse-about-face and arrive at a compromise due to inadequate variables in the equipment.

If they want to do it back to front and find that they need a certain focal length that they haven't got, or arrive at an aperture they haven't got then that's up to them, but it would be a rather silly way of approaching it when the purpose of the exercise is to focus to a hyperfocal distance. Those distances are listed in the charts and can be determined exactly by using values (focal lengths and apertures) available from the equipment you have at your disposal, with absolutely no possibility of inaccuracies presented by working back to front for the sake of it.




Im certainly not the most knowledgable photographer around, and I have a lot to learn, but both of your lines of thinking make sense to me and it becomes a personal preference.


No, nor am I, and so have I. :lol:

I'm really surprised that you can't see the futility of working back to front when the values (HFD) you are really trying to find are listed for you.

It might be an interesting technical exercise to find the variable in whatever fractional value it presents itself, but the whole point is using the hyperfocal distance and that is so damned easy to look up and apply.

The other method is like building a house from the roof downwards and hoping that it reaches the ground at the right point.

Am I off base here? Maybe we should PM Argyle to join back up...:)

Yes, I'm sure he would love that! :lol:

Mike

[WaltA]

Here we go ........

[MNUplander]

Although he has to select the nearest aperture, he isnt doing it arbitrarily, if your camera has the ability to change your aperture in the amounts of 1/3 of a stop, is there not as much of a margin for error as there is in picking a focus distance from a wheel that goes from 10 feet to infinity within half an inch?

Admittedly, Argyles method involves two estimations - estimating the focus distance he has selected by reading his focus distance window (again, going from say 10 ft to infinity very quickly), and then estimating again at what 1/3 aperture stop in between those on the chart he should select.

Your example only involves one estimation, and that would be ensuring you have entered the correct focus distance based on your focal length and aperture.

I think that with no matter what method you use, you can only get so close because there is some estimation involved. Thats why focus bracketing is helpful. Or old manual focus lenses that actually have a useful guide on them...

It appears that each method holds its own judging by the work you have each displayed on your web sites. There may be a margin of error with either way, but if a chart is valid working in one direction, so must it be working back the other.

[Mike-DT6]

Although he has to select the nearest aperture, he isnt doing it arbitrarily, if your camera has the ability to change your aperture in the amounts of 1/3 of a stop, is there not as much of a margin for error as there is in picking a focus distance from a wheel that goes from 10 feet to infinity within half an inch?


He is doing it arbitrarily because the distance that he decides upon (and wrongly labels the hyperfocal distance) is chosen in advance, before even looking at the charts. Selecting the nearest aperture is a compromise, when compared with starting with a known hyperfocal distance.

Remember that you aren't limited to guesswork with the rather vague distance scales on some lenses. It's not a great problem to note where the distance scale stops on auto-focus lenses when they are focused to known hyperfocal distances. I've done this with my 17-40mm using measured distances. That's assuming you aren't using a manual focus lens that has the hyperfocal distances marked on it.


Admittedly, Argyles method involves two estimations - estimating the focus distance he has selected by reading his focus distance window (again, going from say 10 ft to infinity very quickly), and then estimating again at what 1/3 aperture stop in between those on the chart he should select.


This is the essence of the flaw in the method. If you work backwards from some distance you have chosen in advance (and wrongly labelled the hyperfocal distance before you know if it is one) you stand the chance of arriving at settings that aren't available to you, or at best making an unnecessary compromise.

If you start from what you know you have available to you (the available settings with your equipment) then you can look up a precise value for a hyperfocal distance and work from there.


Your example only involves one estimation, and that would be ensuring you have entered the correct focus distance based on your focal length and aperture.


Yes, it involves one estimation, based on a known value for a hyperfocal distance, which has been looked up. From that point it's up to the photographer to focus accurately, the point here being that the hyperfocal distance is known. Focusing can be very precise with a suitable lens, or with a more vague distance scale lens that you've taken the trouble to note the position of at measured distances.


I think that with no matter what method you use, you can only get so close because there is some estimation involved. Thats why focus bracketing is helpful. Or old manual focus lenses that actually have a useful guide on them...


Yes, I agree. My argument stems from calling something the hyperfocal distance when it's not known to be one. Considering that most questions from beginners regarding hyperfocal distance (and its usage) are because they're stuck on the very basics of the concept, then it's really confusing to introduce some method that works back to front, having first called something a hyperfocal distance based purely on what's in your scene.


It appears that each method holds its own judging by the work you have each displayed on your web sites. There may be a margin of error with either way, but if a chart is valid working in one direction, so must it be working back the other.

The chart isn't necessarily valid working backwards because you can quite easily arrive at an aperture or focal length you don't have, simply by dictating the distance you have chosen beforehand. Working forwards is accurate because you start with settings you have available with your equipment, then look up the hyperfocal distance and work from there. The variable is where you position yourself, which is infinite.

Working backwards establishes the distance you have focused to as non-variable (based on what's in your scene and where you have planted the camera), which then forces the aperture and focal length to try to be infinitely variable when they can't be to the same degree of accuracy as the other method.

Mike

[realitysays]

Will this argument ever end?????

Who cares! This is about the 5th thread i have read with at least 2 pages of arguing.

Both Argyle and Mike are great shooters, have stunning images to show from it, BOTH methods work and thats it.
I understand your trying to say that argyles method works and is a calculation of HFD and that Mike is correct in saying his way (the so called "proper" way is correct) but really, who cares.
I don't judge images based on if the correct method was used. I judge the image for the image.

Can we please let this be the end of these damn HFD arguments?? It seems like it's all that is talked/argued about in here.

/End Rant.

[Mike-DT6]

Who cares!


Me and Argyle. :lol:



Can we please let this be the end of these damn HFD arguments?? It seems like it's all that is talked/argued about in here.


You don't have to read all the posts! ;) Even though it's a bit of an argument I reckon it's a good technical subject, which has also been thought-provoking.

Mike

[tigerotor77w]

Even though it's a bit of an argument I reckon it's a good technical subject, which has also been thought-provoking.

Mike

I'm not annoyed with this thread by any means, but no one has come to either yours or Argyle's defense, so it's hard for a newbie to figure out who is right. People looking for a thread on HFD may come here, but then see the technical side and just dismiss it for another thread that's more "practical."

Personally, I'd want to figure out who's correct, but frankly I don't shoot often enough as it is, and my skillset is good enough for my untrained eye. Once I get more time (i.e. graduate college), maybe I'll be able to look at the math and figure it out. Until then, this thread isn't all that useful in teaching me *the* correct way to calculate HFD.

[Mike-DT6]

I'm not annoyed with this thread by any means, but no one has come to either yours or Argyle's defense, so it's hard for a newbie to figure out who is right. People looking for a thread on HFD may come here, but then see the technical side and just dismiss it for another thread that's more "practical."

Personally, I'd want to figure out who's correct, but frankly I don't shoot often enough as it is, and my skillset is good enough for my untrained eye. Once I get more time (i.e. graduate college), maybe I'll be able to look at the math and figure it out. Until then, this thread isn't all that useful in teaching me *the* correct way to calculate HFD.

Yes, I agree about it being hard for beginners to work out, and that was one of the reasons for me posting my views in the first place. I've stated that more than once.

I think you can't go wrong if you go to the DOFMaster website (http://www.dofmaster.com/) and read the information there. I think a lot of beginners get stuck at a very early stage and just need to grasp the concept. Once they get their head round exactly what the hyperfocal distance is, they can put that to good use with the help of the various charts and tables.

If you're interested specifically in calculating the hyperfocal distance then the DOFMaster site has the formula, but also a calculator that can do it for you, plus the charts and tables if you prefer. Those are all ways of arriving at a precise value for a hyperfocal distance.

Mike

[MNUplander]

I'm not annoyed with this thread by any means, but no one has come to either yours or Argyle's defense, so it's hard for a newbie to figure out who is right. People looking for a thread on HFD may come here, but then see the technical side and just dismiss it for another thread that's more "practical."

Personally, I'd want to figure out who's correct, but frankly I don't shoot often enough as it is, and my skillset is good enough for my untrained eye. Once I get more time (i.e. graduate college), maybe I'll be able to look at the math and figure it out. Until then, this thread isn't all that useful in teaching me *the* correct way to calculate HFD.

Well, it is useful to me - Ive been shooting my 40D for a bit over a year now and this is relevant information. The reason the issue comes up so often is that it is important for a landscape shooter to know and not everyone joined the forum at the same time you did - I appreciate the fact that knowledgeable individuals such as Mike still care to comment about this.

After thinking about this, I have come to the conclusion that Mike is in fact correct about which method is actually hyperfocusing. His method will always bring as much of the scene as possible into reasonably acceptable sharpness, which is the intent of hyperfocusing.

Argyle's method is more like "creative" focusing than it is a lesson on hyperfocusing, although some of the same principles are used. Argyle wants his nearest foreground object and everything else in focus, so he uses the chart to find out how to do this - and it obviously works for him.

Where this method strays from text book hyperfocusing is that not all of the scene is in reasonably acceptable sharpness because he has chosen to make it so. In an extreme example, his nearest foreground object could be 50 ft away and everything from that object to infinity would be in focus. His method will not bring those first 50 feet of the scene into focus, not because his method is wrong, but because he has made an artistic choice to make it that way.

[luigis]

The reason why nobody has defended Argyle is very simple: he is wrong.
We are lucky Mike (mainly) and others have explained the subject to avoid confusion.
In terms of the concept of definition of HFD you can read what Mike posted and you'll have the theory right.

In terms of practical application I think that what Mr Browning has said is spot-on, using live-view is an effective way to get rid of all the HFD calculations. We just don't need them anymore.

Luigi

[weeatmice]

I use my phone app to get the HFD for the settings that I want (usually f8 @ 17mm). I use MF and the lens distance scale to enter that distance.

Then I tweak the manual focus while holding the DOF preview button with liveview x10 active, to actually see what the focus will be like across the frame - keeping an eye on the distance scale on the lens too make sure it is allways greater than the HFD my phone tells me.

So I dont actually work out the distance to near stuff, I just try to make sure I am using the full dof available. Get the near stuff in focus in live view then check i am still above the HFD according to the distance scale.

[motleypixel]

Okay, sorry, but I couldn't read the entire thread, after about page 3 it got a little argumentative, but I did see the point about HFD and its definition.

Any way, quick question, on my 24-105L there's and L indicator with the infinity sign towards the right. I know this is infinity focus, but I noticed just below it there are ticks for 24, mid-range focal length (forgot the mm stated) and 105 where you line up those ticks to the left most L on the infinity focus. Just curious, when composing for landscapes when I often have foreground subjects (usually just 5-10' w/in range to the camera) do I need to be concerned with these infinity marks or just use the "pure mathematical" HFD practice or the rule of thumb or what works best for you? I shoot with a 5DMK2 and I've really become comfortable with f/14.

Thanks!

[Mike-DT6]

Are you referring to the markers in red, to the right of the white focus mark? If so, those are specifically for infrared photography, which necessitates focusing to a different point. Don't use those for non-infrared photography!

As acknowledged previously, the distance scales with these types of lenses aren't a great help. I wouldn't necessarily recommend always focusing to the infinity mark as you'll be losing depth of field (focusing past the hyperfocal distance). A lot of time you'll probably get away with it, but if you have critical items close to the camera (as in your example) and also want acceptable sharpness in the distance then I would certainly work with the available hyperfocal distance information, applying that to your particular circumstance.

With your camera you have the added benefit of the live view, so that really can save a lot of messing about, allowing you to experiment with focus distances and double-checking the results.

Mike

[motleypixel]

Thanks Mike...I'll need to comfirm those markings with the lens manual...just didn't have it with me, but the reply certainly helps.