Where to focus in a landscape?

[steinzeug]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i know this might seem like a silly question, but what is the best aperture to use for landscapes on an M8 and where should one set the rangefinders focal point in the image?

[stunsworth]

There isn't a best aperture, and there isn't a best point to focus on. The decision is the photographer's depending on what he or she wants to record. It's an aesthetic decision that will vary from photographer to photographer, and from scene to scene.

[Ecar]

Try f/8-f/11. You may see diffraction if you stop further down.

Re focus: set to your lens hyperfocal distance.

Assuming of course you want maximum DOF, else it is indeed a matter of personal choice.

[jaapv]

Even f8 and certainly f11 will show diffraction. Imo it is a mistake to rely on zone focussing in landscape photography. The amount of detail is often so large that only maximum focus will do. I am influenced by Gunther Osterloh, who tells us: If you want the horizon sharp, set focus to infinity....

[Xmas]

And use a support like tripod, monopod or clamp, to avoid (i.e. minimise) shake.

 

If you want a large enlargement the depth of field scale is (may be) for 10x8 inch prints, the circular image (de-focused spot) is easier to detect at 20x16 or larger.

 

Focus on a part you must have sharp, e.g. like the human interest, or infinity if it is the horizion.

 

If you are getting ariel perspective e.g. mist, focus closer...

 

Noel

[Thomv]

Hyperfocal will certainly be a recipe for disappointment. The indicated 'sharp' area on the lens is not related to a digital, non full fame camera. But what keeps you from taking multiple pics and decide afterwards what suits you best?

I am inclined to support that this will be the (near) infinity shots, from experience.

[steinzeug]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for all the replies, i have been experimenting but not managed to get good sharp landscapes. However using cheap fully automatic digital cameras i can (even if image quality is inferior). So was wondering what causes the limitations with the M8?

[jaapv]

These are not M8 limitations - these are photograpical theory limitations.

[Xmas]

These are not M8 limitations - these are photograpical theory limitations.

 

I'd try a brick wall at 45 degrees large a stop as possible with a marker half way along focus on marker, if the bricks are fuzzy at the marker but sharper away you have a lens or camera problem.

 

Hold the camera steady as well...

 

Noel

[Jerry_R]

Thanks for all the replies, i have been experimenting but not managed to get good sharp landscapes. However using cheap fully automatic digital cameras i can (even if image quality is inferior). So was wondering what causes the limitations with the M8?

You realize, that with compact at f/4 you have DOF like with FF at f/22 or even more, don't you?

 

Anyway, if you need everyhing in focus, use f/16 and do not worry about diffraction. It is a balance.

You need to answer what you prefer only by yourself. You may have more in focus, but not optimally sharp.

[don_panko]

My favourite landscapes are shot with a wide lens (21mm) and there needs to be something in the foreground that leads the viewer into the scene. That means I need to focus just beyond the foreground object so that it remains in focus while the background scene is also in focus.

 

Perhaps this answers the OP's question.

[giordano]

Like most photography it's a battle against the laws of nature.

 

Almost always in a landscape the horizon needs to be "sharp" - which means you have to focus at or beyond the hyperfocal distance for the lens and aperture you're using.

 

Very often, the horizon needs to be really sharp - which means you have to calculate the hyperfocal distance using a much smaller circle of confusion than the one assumed by the DOF scale on the lens.

 

Then you have to work out the nearest object that you need to be "sharp" (and how sharp) and adjust the aperture so the depth of field is great enough to cover from this closest object to the horizon.

 

Then you find that this aperture needs a longer exposure than you can hand-hold - so you have to use a tripod.

 

Then you find that there's enough wind that you can't use the tripod at full extension so you have to change your viewpoint to get a decent composition with the camera closer to the ground.

 

And the wind is moving the foliage so it's going to be motion-blurred at the shutter speed you have to use to get the depth of field.

 

So you have to think again.

 

And by this time the clouds and shadows have moved anyway and the photograph you saw at first isn't there any longer.

[denoir]

Even f8 and certainly f11 will show diffraction. Imo it is a mistake to rely on zone focussing in landscape photography. The amount of detail is often so large that only maximum focus will do. I am influenced by Gunther Osterloh, who tells us: If you want the horizon sharp, set focus to infinity....

 

^^ What he says.

 

Focus on the thing you want in focus. If it's the horizon set it at infinity - but make sure beforehand that the mechanical infinity stop is actually at optical infinity (that's not always the case).

 

As for diffraction for most high end lenses up to f/8 should be safe, but no higher. At f/11 deterioration will be evident and at f/16 the deterioration is significant. If you primarily intend to use f/16 or smaller apertures, don't invest in good lenses, buy cheap ones - the expensive glass generally won't be any better at f/16 or above. Diffraction really kills image quality.

 

For adequate DOF use wide angles if you want to include foreground elements or make sure that the foreground elements are at a sufficient distance.

 

Example 1:

Tele with no foreground objects => infinity focus

 

Example 2:

Ultra wide angle with no foreground objects => infinity focus

 

Example 3:

Wide angle with relatively close foreground object => focus on the object

 

Example 4:

Tele with distant foreground objects => infinity focus

 

Example 5: The case for compromise, wide angle with a continuous plane that you want in focus. Focus in the lower third of the image.

 

By the way the admins of this forum really needs to realize that it is not the 1990's any more and that people have plenty of bandwidth and large monitors. The image posting restrictions are just ridiculous.

[denoir]

Speaking of diffraction here are two examples. They're 100% crops from test shots taken with a 90 Cron AA (and M9).

 

1) f/5.6 vs f/16

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

2) f/8 vs f/16

 

[mjh]

By the way the admins of this forum really needs to realize that it is not the 1990's any more and that people have plenty of bandwidth and large monitors.

As a matter of fact many people have neither, especially on the road. You don’t hook up a large monitor to your smartphone or netbook, as a rule. (And as I hate the rendering of a thread to be delayed due to huge images embedded, I’m in favor of these restrictions even when I’m using a large monitor and a reasonably fast connection to the internet.)

[denoir]

The consequence of that is that this board is exceptionally weak when it comes to members sharing images. The bulk of the best Leica photography can be found on other forums such as FM and GetDPI - mostly because people generally don't like looking at thumbnail sized images and do not like to mutilate their own work by either size or jpeg compression.

[stunsworth]

The consequence of that is that this board is exceptionally weak when it comes to members sharing images. The bulk of the best Leica photography can be found on other forums such as FM and GetDPI - mostly because people generally don't like looking at thumbnail sized images and do not like to mutilate their own work by either size or jpeg compression.

 

Just had a quick look at getdpi, and as far as I can see, unless you are a subscriber you are limited to a total of 20 mb for all your uploads. So that would appear to be 10 uploads if you upload 2 mb images. I can think of some people here who have uploaded hundreds, if not thousands, of 230k images here.

 

Also, if you subscribe here you are allowed to upload larger images.

 

Apologies if I've misread the rules there.

[stunsworth]

Andy, I only chose that file size as an example of how limited the upload allowance could be.

[denoir]

GetDPI and FM users use hot-linking as the primary way of posting images. There are no size restrictions. The requirement of uploading the images here are I'm sure another reason why people shun this board when it comes to posting images.

 

As many are members of multiple forums they don't want to be forced to create special versions of each image tailored to each forum. Furthermore many if not most serious photographers don't take their right to control their own work lightly. Here when you upload an image you've lost all control over it - you can't modify it or even remove it.

 

As for image size the standard in other photo forums today is usually between 1024 and 1600 pixels in width. Mine are 1300 pixels wide when in landscape orientation and 1020 in height when in portrait orientation and are on average ~1 Mb in size. By other forum standards it's pretty average - neither particularly small nor large.

 

I will do a poll, when I get the chance, to see how people respond to the question "How do you normally view the forum?" I am willing to bet that a significant number of people now do so via iPads and other similar devices.

 

There was a poll like that over at FM a while ago about the types of monitors people use to view the forums. In the alt gear forum where the Leica stuff can be found the vast majority had 1920x1600 or higher resolution. A majority had a hardware color calibrated monitor and quite a few were using wide gamut monitors. That was hardly a shocking discovery as we're talking about photographers here, not the general public.

 

I don't see why people on this forum would be any different. If anything given that Leica gear isn't exactly inexpensive you'd also expect to see more people with high end monitors. People buying $7,000 cameras and $4,000 lenses to view their photos on an iPad belong to the category that buy Leicas as jewelry, not as serious photo gear. There is perhaps an over representation of those on this board, but I've always assumed that it was a relatively small minority.

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to start this offtopic discussion, I was just venting my frustration. I know the rules are unlikely to change. Even if the sizes were increased the primary problem is that hot linking is not allowed - there's no way I'm handing over control over my photos.

 

Carry on..

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

There are occasions that I don't carry my Eizo screens. An I-phone or I-pad is slightly more practical then...