Question Regarding Focal Point Setting-- Landscapes

Planning a trip back to Carrizo National Monument this coming week to shoot the superbloom going on there. Then at end of month I'll be traveling to Utah (Zion & surroundings) also for landscape photo's. I'll be using my 6D Mark II and have a question regarding to focus point settings:

Is the proper setting for landscapes "Zone AF"? Or something else?

I took this at Carrizo 2 years ago. Although it's OK there's something not right about it and I want to be able to improve upon that. Thank You.

The proper setting is Manual AF.

https://www.cambridgei​ncolour.com/tutorials/​depth-of-field.htm

If your lens doesn't have a distance scale, single point and good placement in the frame will get you there.

If you want everything "sharp" from foreground to background, the best approach is to understand the concept of hyperfocal distance, then "estimate" some point in your scene which is in this distance, focus there in whatever way which works for you and shoot.

I have put "sharp" in quotes because the concept of sharp is actually not trivial as the link provided by the Left Handed Brisket shows. I do not think, though, that you have to understand all of that to get a reasonably "sharp" image.

I have also put "estimate" in quotes because I am personally using pretty vague guessing which works well enough for me when I am using wide angle lenses stepped down in landscape shots.

Hugo Schnabel wrote in post #18841903
If you want everything "sharp" from foreground to background, the best approach is to understand the concept of hyperfocal distance, then "estimate" some point in your scene which is in this distance, focus there in whatever way which works for you and shoot. ....

Or focus stack. This image is perfect for focus stacking. There are several very good tutorials, like this one, out there showing the technique. Some cameras are now including this feature as well like the EOS-RP and the 5DIV is suppose to get the feature as well with a firmware upgrade. Hyperfocal will get you close in a single image, but stacking gets you perfect everywhere.

Hugo Schnabel wrote in post #18841903
I have put "sharp" in quotes because the concept of sharp is actually not trivial as the link provided by the Left Handed Brisket shows.

Article:

"Depth of field refers to the range of distance that appears acceptably sharp. It varies depending on camera type, aperture and focusing distance, although print size and viewing distance can also influence our perception of depth of field."

The article then goes on to mention an 8x10 print as a traditional standard, and as far as I know covers every relative factor at least in some detail.

I do agree that knowing every detail and having perfect technique is not as important as understanding the overall concept and having the experience to make an estimate to evaluate your best options.

gjl711 wrote in post #18841908
Or focus stack. This image is perfect for focus stacking. There are several very good tutorials, like this one, out there showing the technique. Some cameras are now including this feature as well like the EOS-RP and the 5DIV is suppose to get the feature as well with a firmware upgrade. Hyperfocal will get you close in a single image, but stacking gets you perfect everywhere.

Would you manually adjust focus between shots?

Is software good enough to do an automatic stack with potential camera movement?

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18841913
Would you manually adjust focus between shots?

Is software good enough to do an automatic stack with potential camera movement?

I've used both Photoshop stacking and Zerene Stacker and both do a fine job. Generally it's more useful when shooting macro where DOF can be a millimeter, but focus stacking can be used at any distance. There are also tools out there, like Magic Lantern, that will automate the collection process. Where there is a lot of movement or the camera is being handheld, focusing at the hyperfocal point is way easier and probably will get better results, but in instances where you have a tri-pod and can set things up, focus stacking delivers much better images.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …News-Post.aspx?News=21001 Worthwhile checking.

An old rule of thumb is to focus on a point about 1/3 into the scene. I tend to do this, unless there is a specific object in the scene I specifically want to be in focus. I usually stop down to f/11, sometimes f/16. I've always had good results doing this, and it's exactly what I would do with the scene you posted. And keep in mind a rule of thumb is just a guide, experience may tell you do do something differently, depending on the specific situation. BTW, for landscapes I focus manually in live view.

You didn't post which one of your lenses you were using. If you have a "soft" lens then you will be unable to achieve sharp photos. Care to share your lens choice with us?

Bogino wrote in post #18841852
Planning a trip back to Carrizo National Monument this coming week to shoot the superbloom going on there. Then at end of month I'll be traveling to Utah (Zion & surroundings) also for landscape photo's. I'll be using my 6D Mark II and have a question regarding to focus point settings:

Is the proper setting for landscapes "Zone AF"? Or something else?

I took this at Carrizo 2 years ago. Although it's OK there's something not right about it and I want to be able to improve upon that. Thank You.

Hosted photo: posted by Bogino in
./showthread.php?p=188​41852&i=i256708694
forum: Nature & Landscapes

At only 900px, it's really hard to tell what might be "not quite right" about that photo. It just looks extremely pixelated to me...

Zone AF is a focus point selection mode, where you're basically telling the camera to choose whichever focus point it thinks lies on the subject, from a possible 9 or so (depending on what zone you're using). I can't see any possible advantage to this for landscape- the camera will probably not pick the same point to focus on that you want it to focus on, and you'll get a lot of oddly-focused photos. Zone, Large Zone, and All-points are really best for tracking rapidly moving subjects, where it's impossible to keep a single point on the subject, and you let the camera "hand off" focus from one point to the next as it tracks a subject.

If you want to use AF, use single point. Or Spot (6Ds have spot, right?), for even more precise control. But as mentioned, I see no reason not to manually focus a landscape unless you're really running and gunning. Camera on tripod, 10x magnification in Live View, and focus where you want the focus. As to choosing where you want the focus, that's up to you as the photographer and what you want out of the image.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18841913
Would you manually adjust focus between shots?

Is software good enough to do an automatic stack with potential camera movement?

I usually don't even look at the image when I focus stack. I just move the focus ring in short increments and fire away. If anything I'm looking down at the distance scale on my lens (if on a tripod). I'd rather have too many shots than too few. I have also done handheld focus stacks too and Photoshop hasn't had any problems with it. The image the OP posted though wouldn't even come close to needing a stack as the closest foreground element would be measured in feet and not inches.

tomj wrote in post #18841995
An old rule of thumb is to focus on a point about 1/3 into the scene.

Ah, the old urban legend about DOF makes its appearance again. In this spreadsheet (assumption is that we are shooting at f/5.6) I provide evidence that the 33%:66% distribution is only at a SINGLE DISTANCE (see line 15, with 50mm FL focused at about 40'), and 33%/66% is not with lens focused at hyperfocal distance.

1. In the upper left, various FL lenses at proportional subject distances show the same DOF zone depth regardless of FL.
   
2. In the upper right, we have hyperfocal distance focusing for each of the above FL, and we see that as little as 0% is in the near field, and 100% in the far field!
   
3. In the lower left, we have 50mm at various focus distances, and we see that depending upon focus distance, the distribution is between 0%/100% to 50%/50% and all of the permutations between those two extremes
   

rwmson wrote in post #18842247
You didn't post which one of your lenses you were using. If you have a "soft" lens then you will be unable to achieve sharp photos. Care to share your lens choice with us?

I'll be taking with me the Tamron 24-70, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L II and probably take as well my Tokina wide angle lens.

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L II is definitely a sharp lens. Can't speak for the other 2 lenses.