Hyperfocal distance

[RoySmith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jaap, CS5 has focus stacking as an automatic function, feed in your selections and they are churned out as sharp pictures. You start the process by going to the 'Stacks' menu in Bridge.

 

Steve

 

I love reading this forum as I keep learning new things.

 

Thank-you Steve

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Clive Murray-White]

01af - all very concise though the comment about 50mm lens on an M8 somewhat unnecessary.

 

Here's an example of the kind of "landscape" that I'm attracted to - ones that don't really have one or several subjects but a whole scene with engaging things of interest randomly dotted from near to far.

 

 

and those things that are in the kinds of places that would define them as being subjects aren't interesting enough to hold ones attention.

[01af]

... though the comment about 50 mm lens on an M8 somewhat unnecessary.

Sorry, but—I consider it essential. For many, a statement like, "a 50 mm lens on an M8 becomes 67 mm" apparently is the most natural way to say what's happening ... until you start trying to understand slightly advanced things like depth-of-field with different-format cameras. Then, comprehension will suffer with all that wrong thinking in your head. So—no, a 50 mm lens will not become a 67 mm lens on an M8. A 50 mm lens will always be nothing but a 50 mm lens ... on any camera. The angle of view may change—the focal length won't.

 

 

Here's an example of the kind of "landscape" that I'm attracted to ...

Okay ... here, hyperfocal focusing will work pretty well indeed, for two reasons. First, the main subjects of interest—the group of trees in the foreground—happen to be at the hyperfocal distance basically. So setting the lens to the hyperfocal distance effectively focuses somewhere right in the middle of the group of trees. Second, the sharpness at infinity proper is of secondary importance here. The bushes in the background are farther away than the trees but still not at infinity, so at f/8 or f/11 they will get rendered sharp enough. After all, they're backdrop, not main subject.

 

And oh, by the way: I like the picture very much! The landscape looks very primeval to me ... as if the first lungfish is just about to creep on the shore of those calm waters, to start the evolution of the dinosaurs. The laid-back colours and the slightly over-the-top sharpening support this impression—it almost looks like a scene from a 1950's monster movie, and a creature animated by Ray Harryhausen is about to appear.

[Clive Murray-White]

Point taken, precision of language becomes of paramount importance in issues such as this, my first digital camera was a Leica Digilux 3 (fourth thirds format) and using expressions such as 35mm equiv became almost habitual ie, 25 = 50.

 

Experience has shown just what you say, at f8 the 45mm lens on the Hasselblad Xpan will give me the most DoF, the 90mm on the Fuji MF the least and in terms of field of view the 50 on the M8 will be more tele than the others.

 

My art background, may be a hindrance in how I describe space and subject, backdrop would not be a word that I could use for the bushes you mention as it implies a spacial hierarchy. But that's all another topic and not really much to do with hyperfocal distance.

[MarkP]

Clive,

 

I recognised the Australian bush before I had seen who had posted. It's always interesting to see how non-Australians perceive it as the flora and the light are so different.

 

By the way, I very much like your sculpture. Are you branching out into photography as more than a hobby?

 

Although it is another topic please expand on your thoughts on 'spatial hierarchy'. We can always start another thread on it.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

ps: as mentioned before, putting the lens infinity setting over the f-stop DOF index line to the right of the lens (when looking from above) will not 'guarantee' that infinity will be in focus. You really need one to two stops leeway to be safe.

[Clive Murray-White]

No Mark, I'm not really branching out into photography, as I said somewhere before on this forum I had to find a way of taking effective pictures of my sculptures and rather like the art school courses my minor or elective would be photography these days, what interests me is that age old Australian question of how to "represent" the bush and rather than trying to find nicely organised patches of it that match what I'll call conventional composition I get excited by the messier examples.

 

I sort of subscribe to the school of thought that says that what makes many of our landscapes so different is that in a European sense they can appear quite featureless but within a few seconds of being in the middle of one, lots of very interesting "details" start to present themselves and these tend to be very randomly placed throughout any scene, and are not comfortably contained in the middle ground but in all layers of space. Hence my mention of hierarchy, probably getting too arty here but I like the idea that you could democratise space by allowing each zone equal rights to participate in the picture, rather than subjugating various parts to support the "main" item/point of interest/central image.

 

01af: I just saw your new additions - thanks glad you like it, the sharpening is a problem but thankfully only related to crunching the pics down for the net and trying to have the pic read so all the little details still pop out.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Clive,

 

Nice photo. Very 3 dimensional.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[MarkP]

I sort of subscribe to the school of thought that says that what makes many of our landscapes so different is that in a European sense they can appear quite featureless but within a few seconds of being in the middle of one, lots of very interesting "details" start to present themselves and these tend to be very randomly placed throughout any scene, and are not comfortably contained in the middle ground but in all layers of space. Hence my mention of hierarchy, probably getting too arty here but I like the idea that you could democratise space by allowing each zone equal rights to participate in the picture, rather than subjugating various parts to support the "main" item/point of interest/central image.

 

A sort-of photographic equivalent to twelve-tone technique in music - all parts are of equal importance. An interesting idea that would certainly lend itself to the disorganisation of the Australian bush. Like twelve-tone it is challenging to the composer and listener/observer.

 

Have you tried this approach in black and white (with a little less sharpening: the over-sharpening can make it appear way too cluttered because of the impression of too much detail and there is enough already in the subject matter)? Using B&W may allow the observer to be able to concentrate more on the subject matter, and using texture & tone to differentiate between different components of the image. If I'm interpreting your use of your primary medium (stone) correctly you work in 3D monochrome and texture and light, so it might fit in nicely with how you think.

 

Regards,

Mark

[Chuck Albertson]

To answer the original post, for current Leica lenses download the tech leaflet for the lens(es) in question from the Leica Web site--the last two or three pages of each are DOF graphics for all apertures. Zeiss might do the same.

[jaapv]

This is a very interesting idea, for our landscapes tend to be sweeping, wide open fields wide far horizons, which make for empty spaced with a few details. I never looked at it this way. Thanks.

 

 

As for sharpening and detail, the sharpening is not so much controlled by the amount slider, but by the radius. High frequency images like Clive's here need a low radius setting, something like 0.5, whereas low frequency ones need a high setting like 1.5. I have put a long post on sharpening in the M9 FAQ, which is based on the books by Schewe and Fraser and by Martin Evening.

A sort-of photographic equivalent to twelve-tone technique in music - all parts are of equal importance. An interesting idea that would certainly lend itself to the disorganisation of the Australian bush. Like twelve-tone it is challenging to the composer and listener/observer.

 

Have you tried this approach in black and white (with a little less sharpening: the over-sharpening can make it appear way too cluttered because of the impression of too much detail and there is enough already in the subject matter)? Using B&W may allow the observer to be able to concentrate more on the subject matter, and using texture & tone to differentiate between different components of the image. If I'm interpreting your use of your primary medium (stone) correctly you work in 3D monochrome and texture and light, so it might fit in nicely with how you think.

 

Regards,

Mark

[MarkP]

Jaap,

 

much of the Australian landscape is indeed expansive and empty. Very different to the lush and formal European landscapes and forests. Europeans who fly over central Australia are always astounded at the extraordinary distances one can fly with no sight of civilisation other than perhaps an endless straight dirt road.

 

However, Clive has shown another side of the Australian landscape - the Australian bush. Disorganised, cluttered, random, leaf litter everywhere. As Clive wrote it is dIfficult to photograph and maintain interest in the image within a standard compositional structure.

However, I think to appreciate such cluttered and detailed images they should be displayed as reasonably sized prints.

 

I also hadn't really thought of it that way until I pressed Clive on his 'spatial hierarchy' or the lack thereof.

I'm waiting for Clive's next post on this topic.

 

 

My last attempt of photographing this subject, though I must admit with some 'spatial hierarchy', demonstrates the clutter of the bush:

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!

 

 

 

Regards,

Mark

 

ps: thanks for the very useful information on sharpening and radius settings, and directing me to the FAQ on this..

[250swb]

A sort-of photographic equivalent to twelve-tone technique in music - all parts are of equal importance. An interesting idea that would certainly lend itself to the disorganisation of the Australian bush. Like twelve-tone it is challenging to the composer and listener/observer.

 

 

It is perhaps similar to the series I have been working on for some time, working title 'Woodland', but based very much on a European landscape. You can see some of the work on my Flickr pages in the collection called 'woodland'. The significant images are the ones where the background is obscured by the foreground, often with strong colour coming through to suggest that the main subject is being obscured or obliterated. Everything is sharp front to back to further emphasise the cloaking by trees and branches.

 

In many ways I think it is a theme that Lee Freidlander has used throughout his career, instead of a 'wall of sound' it is a 'wall of detail', particularly his latest landscape images where the fine view is often masked by a tree or bush.

 

 

Steve

[MarkP]

Steve,

nice set of photos.

[jaapv]

It is indeed excellent work, but please start linking instead of embedding, otherwise I'll have to start movung the lot to the photoforums...

[stunsworth]

It is indeed excellent work, but please start linking instead of embedding, otherwise I'll have to start movung the lot to the photoforums...

 

Why only linking? Photos are allowed in the non-photo forums provided they are provided as an example of the subject under discussion. There's no requirement to only provide links - unless the rules have changed.

[jaapv]

Note I did not delete or move, but there is a line between illustrating and photothread. These threads have a habit of crossing that rather intangible divide and as I am a lazy person I prefer pointing out the rules to moving phtographs.

[Clive Murray-White]

Who'd be a moderator? tough job, I don't envy you at all for that.

 

Steve's right on the money with his pic and mention of Lee Freidlander re: non hierarchical space or in terms of this thread hyperfocal distance as a very useful tool.

 

I'm not sure that starting a new thread is really the way to go partly because I'm a great believer that parties often die when you try to move them to a new location.

 

I don't think this kind of composition is quite as dissonant as 12 tone in music, in fact we are very used to it in much abstract painting where instead of there being a background, middle ground and foreground with a subject located purposefully in one of them, there is a sense that a picture starts somewhere around half way up on the left hand side with an element that invites you to start a journey across and around the whole picture surface. In Steve's case this the bare branches of a tree that has a beautifully drawn (as in pencil) character. The fact that the cliff behind the tree/s has cracks in it that have a similar drawing style means that both foreground and background visually become one another.

 

Another feature of this approach is that the edge of the picture is as useful as the middle, again Steve has chosen to compose with the tree on the right hand side holding the viewer's attention in a way that makes them follow more "drawn lines" all through his scene.

 

The other spacial element at work here is colour which tends to be perceived as coming forward or receding, so in this case the yellow plays with our brains and sort of pops the "background" forward in and out of the zone occupied by the tree drawing. This effect along with the others makes us get much more involved in the process of looking than usual.

 

Enough for now - Season's greeting to all - Clive

[250swb]

I appreciate what you are saying Jaap, but as far as I can see it is the Photoforum itself that kills any spark of an interesting debate. The ground covered in the last page has been fascinating (for me at least) and very thought provoking. And it comes about because there is some context in the discussion, and all of a sudden people are finding they have some similar ideas and goals. Would that little spark have flourished in the Photoforum considering it is about more than the usual banalities of 'great B&W' or 'nice colour' or 'great capture'?

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[MarkP]

We clearly need a balance here but I fully agree with Steve.

 

This discussion has made me think outside my compositional square and has been most interesting, especially with Clive's input as he being an extra-ordinarlly accomplished artist.

 

The posted photographs have been directly relevant to aspects of the conversation, all of us have only posted one image each (with Steve's link to the others) which have enhanced the discussion - "a picture saves a thousand words". There has been no wholesale display of photographs.

 

How can we discuss aspects of photography, especially of composition and not illustrate the discussion where appropriate?

 

All the best for the festive season to you all.

Mark

[lars_bergquist]

They say that 'a picture is worth more than a thousand words'. Well, maybe, sometimes.

 

But what is certain is that a picture with words can be worth more than a thousand without.

 

And 'pictures with words' has been what my entire life's work in publishing has been about.

 

The old man from the Gutenberg Age