Hyperfocal distance - focusing 1/3 of the way in?

When photographing landscapes, people often talk about focusing 1/3 of the way in to the scene in order to achieve maximum depth of field. I assume this gives a focusing distance which is fairly close to the hyperfocal distance?

My question is, do they really mean 1/3 of the way "in" to the scene, or do they mean 1/3 of the way up the viewfinder? For example, if you were shooting a scene that extends from a flower, 2 meters from the camera, up to some distant mountain, 1/3 of the way into the scene, could be quite some distance away!?

Any thoughts on this?

Typically, when you're focused on a point at any appreciable distance from you, about 1/3 of your DoF is in front of that point and 2/3 behind it. So if you focus at a point "1/3 of the way in" between the nearest and furthest points you want in focus and select an appropriate aperture, you'll have the entire area of interest in focus, and everything else blurred to a greater or lesser degree.

Caveat - extent of your DoF in front of and behind the point of focus varies from about 50/50 at extreme close distances to this 1/3 - 2/3 relation as you approach infinity.

Consultation with a DOF program will show that DOF distribution is 50:50 at macro distances, but continuously varies...the 33:66 is only at one specific distance! For example, 50mm lens on APS-C body, at f/5.6 has DOF of 46' - 2855' when focused at 90', or about 2% in front!

Wilt kinda neglected to provide a link, he's always better than that.
http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html

You can find formulas for hyperfocal distance by doing searches here and on google. Usually these are static scenes so you have time to do a little math. I wrote a program for my calculator to do it. I'd give you a link but I have changed computers since.

You can also do two exposures. Focus 4 feet in for one exposure. Focus to infinity on the other. Combine in Photoshop.

Combine how?

At a guess, layer mask and gradient tool?

I never bother with hyperfocal distance since switching to digital...it was much easier to work with it during film days with MF lenses. The AF range of modern lenses is extremely short...when the lens distance scale goes from 5 ft right to infinity, there's just no way to accurately set the hyperfocal distance within that limited range. Where's 22 feet, for example, when the lens travel from 5 ft to infinity is only about one-quarter of an inch? For landscapes, I just pretty much select my composition, include a foreground object, and stop the lens down...for me, I just don't see a need for hyperfocal distance.

You can measure or guesstimate the distance and focus on an object at that distance. You then turn off AF, recompose and shoot.

poloman wrote in post #5477432
You can measure or guesstimate the distance and focus on an object at that distance. You then turn off AF, recompose and shoot.

Ah, now there is a photographic purpose to purchasing a laser rangefinder!

is dat da same ting i used when i went huntng?