UWA - how to push limits of foreground to horizon that's 'in focus' (FF) ona full fr

Hello zere.....

Ultra wide angles - 14 or 16 or 17 mm at the wide end (esp on a full frame camera}


what is the best practice for UWAs to get best possible foreground to horizon 'in focus'?
[APART from tilt shift lenses that is, and apart from focus staking which I hate due to focus shift, and alsoit's a given that a tripod is used]]

i.e. where's the extreme limits of the {hyperfocal} focus, that can be achieved when the lens i tilted so the horizon is tah the very top of the frame and the bottom of the frame has a closer subject/item (e.g. rock, flower etc) ?

Landscape photogs (like me) often shoot a scene where we want a very close foreground in focus and also want the horizon in focus, in one shot.

Normally we want to be using f11 because after that (f16 and f22 etc) the image starts to deteriorate (lose sharpness) due to thingamyjigwhatsit (aka diffraction)effect and that will give the best hyperfocal distance without suffering from the hoojamaflip effect (same as the tingamyjigwhatsit effect)

We also have to take into consideration that some leneses will allow a better Hyperfocal use than another, each is different

I am not asking here about DOF for a shot where the camera is 90 degrees to the ground-- what I am wondering is what do others find is the closest they can get in focus, if they can manage a good foreground to horizon...and how do they go about achieving that - Im looking for the extremes of whats possible not easy shots

One thing I have found is that my results are not entirely consistant although they are not bad, so for example I may find that the horizon is nearly in focus.

Practice I have used mostly is AF the nearest part of the scene and trust f11 to get you to the horizon , which , mostly, with the Canon 17-40 f4L , it did

However I have just got the 16-35f4L and now that you can actually see the edge details it matters more than before to get the edges (usually a close subject in there somewhere) as shaprp as possible and I find Im struggling to get it in one shot

your wisdom and examples please...


e.g. as seen here focussed manually set to 3ft the horizon is not in focus at f11 (first) and nor is it as f22 (second)

Focus stacking would be my first suggestion, but since you specifically have asked for techniques aside from that...

Tripod, liveview. That should be a given. I will usually liveview + 10x magnify at approx. 1/3 the way up into the scene. Use DOF preview in liveview and move the 10x magnifier around the screen, testing different parts of the frame for focus/sharpness.

If you have a very close foreground subject, e.g. around 1ft away, favor focus on that (as opposed to the extreme distance objects) as that is your primary subject matter.

Also try to compose as close to your final result as possible, i.e. avoid excessive cropping. That will help retain detail.

Also, do not be afraid to go to f/16 or f/22. Yes there are diffraction limits, but depending on the lens and camera, it might not be a real issue. I had great success on my 17-40/4L shooting at those apertures.

thanks - yes I do use smaller apertures when needed but even here (above) it isn't enough

I think I used to be able to get better results hyperfocally with the ame lens you're using but am struggling to achieve it with the new 16-35f4l

Also here's a link to a great thread here on POTN on the subject:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1190120

I was a fan of Phrasikleia's work before I found out she was a POTN member; that just made her that much cooler in my mind!

thanks for the link


even here with a flat plane (ie camera 90 degree to ground) im still not getting enough DOF froma close focus at f22, i.e. the wall with the paper on isnt in focus

I don't get why you reference hyperfocal distance and then absolutely ignore it in practice.

I also think that it's silly to assume that your results will be unacceptable due to diffraction beyond f/11. Sure, peak sharpness might be closer to f/8-f/11, but that doesn't mean that it's unusable beyond that - there's no question that I'll take adequate sharpness and the shot that I want vs peak sharpness and not getting the shot I want. Set up your tripod and take the 10 minutes to test your lenses through the aperture range/focal length

i have checked out and used this page for years but it is just dawning on me that isnt true in reality much of the time
http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html

WhyFi wrote in post #17030741
I don't get why you reference hyperfocal distance and then absolutely ignore it in practice.

Bill, please explain what you mean by that?

I HAVE been setting up shots on a tripod and HAVE been taking time ( over an hour actually) to try to find the answer to this question, I may not have explained myself well, perhaps you think my question is an idle one, but the patronising really isn't helpful.

The examples above are two of many many shots I have taken , and of those set at the HFD as marked on the lens I have not found satisfactory either , whilst they are ok for flat plane shots

but when the lens is tilted the challenge is much greater

I know I can use the smaller ftops but as above that sin't helping. I have taken a lot of shots trying to find the solution for the best balance betwen DOF and sharpness with my CURRENT set up 5D2 and 16-35f4L

I Simonius wrote in post #17030759
i have checked out and used this page for years but it is just dawning on me that isnt true in reality much of the time
http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html

I hope you realize that points in the scene which are at the limits of a depth of field (DOF) calculation are definitely NOT "in focus". This is something that many people seem to misunderstand.

The points in the scene which are at the DOF limits appear to be in focus when viewed on a standard sized print (typically 8x10 inches) held at a standard distance from the viewer who has a standard eyesight acuity.

If you produce a huge print (such as viewing a digital image at "100%" or more on your monitor), you will see that the points near the DOF limits are not perfectly in focus. This is absolutely expected by anyone who understands the calculations at even a basic level.

In order to improve the focus at extreme distance ranges, you will have to resort to "trick photography" as has been mentioned in a few posts here.

I Simonius wrote in post #17030771
Bill, please explain what you mean by that?

I HAVE been setting up shots on a tripod and HAVE been taking time ( over an hour actually) to try to find the answer to this question, I may not have explained myself well, but the patronising isn't really helpful.

You said that, in practice, you use AF and you "AF on the nearest part of the scene." Without going to far as having a hyperfocal chart printed out, you should at least know that the principle is to focus further in to the scene, not at front if it.

Now that you've added the examples in the first post:

- note that these are both at 35mm, so it's going to limit extreme foreground focus (while keeping infinity in focus) vs 16mm.

- that said, did you try focusing a little further in to the scene at all? Your f/22 result is not what I would expect. This is the most extreme foreground/background shot that I have at a moderately wide FL (40mm, f/22) and it seems to be sharper -

WhyFi wrote in post #17030779
You said that, in practice, you use AF and you "AF on the nearest part of the scene." Without going to far as having a hyperfocal chart printed out, you should at least know that the principle is to focus further in to the scene, not at front if it.

I missed that part. Definitely manual focus is the way to go. My "go to" setup is to MF at approx. 1/3 into the frame, use DOF preview, and go from there.

Sometimes I'll flip-flop between f/8 up to f/16, sometimes 22. As was mentioned, hyperfocal is surely a guideline at best. It is absolutely up to the photog to determine what is best to get the desired result.

As to your images above, I think part of the problem is the subject matter. I wouldn't expect your brick wall to be as sharp as the foreground, you really might be splitting hairs with that test shot. And with the difference being maybe only about 10ft between flower pot and brick wall, you could certainly focus stack and not worry about drift. In fact I wouldn't worry about drift at all in focus stacking, just make sure you have enough images to merge (5 is usually a good compromise)

WhyFi wrote in post #17030779
You said that, in practice, you use AF and you "AF on the nearest part of the scene." Without going to far as having a hyperfocal chart printed out, you should at least know that the principle is to focus further in to the scene, not at front if it.

sure but my understanding was that by using AF at say a distance ten feet into the scene you optimise your HFD , and as you get closer this continues to be true until you reacha point where the opposite starts to happen,


I had been referring to that DOF calculator and perhaps that is where I was making a mistake by believing it was accurate, andsd it does seem to suggest that you get higher apparent HFD by focussing slightly nearer than further, for this reason I was using the AF. and yet in the past with the 17-40 lens I had found that by focussing on the closest object of interest which I usually set at roughly a distanvce of 3 or four feet I was getting not bad HF range, I had experimented a fair bit to find jus how close was possible to still get a good sharpness at horizon. So working on the basis that 4 feet is better than 3 feet etc, but not entirely unworkable, and at f11, I had been using the AF to set the focus rather than manaully setting as I think the foreground suffers more for OOF than the distance- a simple strategy that had worked well for me to date until I got this new lens and it seems I have to start over again

Here's the most extreme fg/bg that I have at the wide end of the spectrum - at 17mm, f/22, it allows pretty wide range of acceptable focus (the crocus sprouts are probably 2"-3" tall, for reference). No, the bg isn't knife-edge sharp, but this is really extreme. Again, this is not with the focus on the crocus (nice rhyme), but beyond that clump a bit.

SkipD wrote in post #17030777
I hope you realize that points in the scene which are at the limits of a depth of field (DOF) calculation are definitely NOT "in focus". This is something that many people seem to misunderstand.

The points in the scene which are at the DOF limits appear to be in focus when viewed on a standard sized print (typically 8x10 inches) held at a standard distance from the viewer who has a standard eyesight acuity.

If you produce a huge print (such as viewing a digital image at "100%" or more on your monitor), you will see that the points near the DOF limits are not perfectly in focus. This is absolutely expected by anyone who understands the calculations at even a basic level.

In order to improve the focus at extreme distance ranges, you will have to resort to "trick photography" as has been mentioned in a few posts here.

yes thank you , I do understand the calculations at more than even a basic level - obviously I should have framed my question more precisely, I haven't posted here in quite some time and as it was jollier, less rigourous place when I did last.


Given that I'm averse to photoshopping any more than I have to I would nonetheless like to explore more where the acceptable and workable limits are of setting the HFD for the Canon 16-35f4L