Focus a 3rd into the frame

What is meant by this? A 3rd from the top of the image or is it INTO the image?

Assuming landscapes shots... https://improvephotogr​aphy.com …3-photo-deep-depth-field/

The theory is that Depth of Field is a bit shallower in front of the plane of focus, and a bit deeper in back of the plane of focus, so that if you have 4 rows of people in a group you would want to focus on the second row, and the DOF Zone would include the front row and also the back to rows as within the 'in focus' zone for the shot.

The reality is that DOF distribution is continuously variable,

• from about 50:50 at macro distances
  
• to about 0.1:99.9 at long distances (e.g. 50mm f/5.6 focused at 137' has 20/20 vision DOF Zone from 69' to 30781' or 0.1:99.9)
  
• and the 33.3:66.6 DOF Zone distribution is only at a single focus distance! ...for 50mm f/5.6 it must be focused at 47' to have 20/20 vision DOF Zone from 12' to 24.3' or a distribution of 33:67.
  

- See also "hyperfocal"

eg; https://photographylif​e.com …rfocal-distance-explained

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18720037
- See also "hyperfocal"

eg; https://photographylif​e.com …rfocal-distance-explained

and If we apply Hyperfocal Distance to theory vs. reality, use of 50mm f/5.6 the program for 20/20 vision says Hyperfocal Distance is at 137' for plane of focus, and
the DOF zone extends between 68' to 30780' or a distribution of

• 0.2% in front and
  
• 99.8% behind the plane of focus.
  
• 
  

there are several answers that are technically correct depending on subject(s) and composition.

in my mind, the "1/3 rule" serves well when composing a line of receding objects (flowers, trees, cars, people, anything) that fade from the camera toward the horizon. think "s curves" or single point perspectives.

at least it works for me.

ymmv.

I don't do the math (wrong or right) when composing a shot, I use guidelines, it works well enough, and if I take a few extra shots focused at different points to be safe, I should have what I need. Doing all the math takes something away from the experience IMO. I take pictures to get away from math. I have enough of that through the day as it is. Where should I move my 401k? What stock should I buy today? How much file space will our solutions eat up today at the rate they are logging? How many lines of code will I get rid of if I rewrite that person's solution? How much to tip for dinner? Arggggg it never ends...

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18720236
I don't do the math (wrong or right) when composing a shot, I use guidelines, it works well enough, and if I take a few extra shots focused at different points to be safe, I should have what I need. Doing all the math takes something away from the experience IMO. I take pictures to get away from math. I have enough of that through the day as it is. Where should I move my 401k? What stock should I buy today? How much file space will our solutions eat up today at the rate they are logging? How many lines of code will I get rid of if I rewrite that person's solution? How much to tip for dinner? Arggggg it never ends...

^
I have never used Hyperfocal Distance nor computations of DOF zones either. At most, with fixed focal length lenses that have DOF Scales on them, I pretend my f/stop is opened TWO f/stops larger than what is used to take the photo, and use THOSE markers on the DOF scale.
Today, with AF lenses, the distance scale is so compressed and has such a short distance for the max distance (before Infinity) that DOF computations and Hyperfocal computations are quite meaningless because of the lack of precision in any measurements of distance!

That is a nice way to do it, thanks! I will have to see which of my lenses have that, I never use it today. I suspect all of mine probably are compressed as you mention and about useless.

I just don't want to think when doing photography. Like many software architects and engineers, photography, cooking and carpentry are creative outlets from the mental gymnastics of the day. i do 8-10 hours for a career, consult for another couple hours, do my online business stuff, check stocks, kids events, yardwork, house stuff, and then photography. By time I get there, I am done thinking.

Hot non-photographic tip, I think GE has finally plateaued, and I put the equivalent of a 1DX2 into their stock. I expect it to recover about 20% of this year's losses by the end of the year. They took a beating! If that happens, GE will have paid for 1/2 an EOS-R.

The macro vs landscape ratios are good to keep in mind. 1/3 was likely derived as a "typical" shot, whatever that is. Having a hyperfocal calculator on a phone is a nice perk, but like the others, I just make it up as I go along, experience helps too.

One thing to keep in mind, and ill use the wife / monument example. "Typically" you'll want foreground subjects to appear a little sharper, or at least no less sharp than background objects. So when you are making up some random spot to focus on, make it closer to the camera than farther. With nothing to back me up, this is my own theory on why the "rule" says 1/3.


The other "rule" I learned in school was "don't waste infinity." With the idea being that focusing on a distant mountain just because it is your main subject might cause some mid ground stuff to be soft. That one is more vague and potentially useless than the 1/3 rule.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18720345
...

One thing to keep in mind, and ill use the wife / monument example. "Typically" you'll want foreground subjects to appear a little sharper, or at least no less sharp than background objects. So when you are making up some random spot to focus on, make it closer to the camera than farther. With nothing to back me up, this is my own theory on why the "rule" says 1/3.

As a modification to this, I will usually find a spot that I want to "anchor" the shot, which is normally my subject or foreground object and focus there; with it falling somewhere in the "front" 2/3 of the framing I'm going for. The larger the aperture, the closer I will land to the camera, generally.

I also have the guide lines turned on in the viewfinder or LCD, where they break the scene up into 1/3 blocks horizontally and vertically; which is where I base the 1/3, 2/3 etc measurement on. It's all just eyeballing and knowing how my current gear's rendering things. As mentioned by another poster, the distance measures on modern AF lenses is....vestigial at best.

I use to obsess over hyperfocal distance and depth of field calculations. Never again. Such contrivances only slow me down and cripple my creativity. Nowadays, I simply focus on the most important object in the scene and forget about it. It's ok for some areas of a landscape scene to fall out of focus, as long as the primary point of interest is very sharp. Trying to get everything "acceptably sharp" leaves you with nothing that is "tack sharp." And that's not good. If you need everything to be sharp, as is the case with ultra wide angles that include near and far objects of competing interest, then you really have no choice but to focus stack. Get use to it.

texshooter wrote in post #18720586
I use to obsess over hyperfocal distance and depth of field calculations. Never again. Such contrivances only slow me down and cripple my creativity. Nowadays, I simply focus on the most important object in the scene and forget about it. It's ok for some areas of a landscape scene to fall out of focus, as long as the primary point of interest is very sharp. Trying to get everything "acceptably sharp" leaves you with nothing that is "tack sharp." And that's not good. If you need everything to be sharp, as is the case with ultra wide angles that include near and far objects of competing interest, then you really have no choice but to focus stack. Get use to it.

^
Folks need to remember that 'in focus' only applies to things at the plane of focus...'Within the DOF zone' merely means 'NOT in focus perfectly but mostly 'good enough to fool your eye' (especially the viewers with the manufacturer substandard imperfect vision).

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18720286
Hot non-photographic tip, I think GE has finally plateaued, and I put the equivalent of a 1DX2 into their stock. I expect it to recover about 20% of this year's losses by the end of the year. They took a beating! If that happens, GE will have paid for 1/2 an EOS-R.

Well, GE is on its way. Bought last week and am up 13%. 1/5 of the EOS R is paid for right now!

Should have put a ton of money into though, the EOS R would have been paid for by now.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18720236
I don't do the math (wrong or right) when composing a shot, I use guidelines, it works well enough, and if I take a few extra shots focused at different points to be safe, I should have what I need. Doing all the math takes something away from the experience IMO.

Agreed, especially with rapidly changing light during the golden hours. You've got to get the shot or you lose the light.