Using F11 for 100% of my Leica MDA Photos - Hyper Focal Focus Question

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Talking about 15mm,

in this case I can use f/8, then set the distance to 1m

everything must be in focus from 0.5m to infinity 😉

(in theory ...), to try out.

[M9reno]

35 minutes ago, i8z said:

Humm, so if I want to continue to use F11 I should put the infinity mark on F8?  Do I understand this correctly?  I will give it a chance next time I shoot.

Put the infinity mark at F11 if Leica’s calculated “circle of confusion” is acceptable to you.

Circle of confusion, basically, is the amount of deviation from perfect focus that you are able to get away with, when your photo is “properly” viewed.  In other words, it is a subjective measure: if you want to pixel-peep, dramatically crop or enlarge, etc., then deviation from focus will eventually become apparent.

For example, if you look at my photos from the fair on a small screen, e.g. a smart phone, you don’t notice the lack of focus at all, or as much.  The opposite is true if you look at them on a big screen, or a big print: there is obvious lack of focus.

I should have added that all of my photos above are half-frame, so are in effect doubly enlarged, making all my focusing errors, grain, motion blur, etc. more apparent than they would be at 24 x 36.  You won’t have such problems with the MDa.

If you have high standards and prefer a smaller circle of confusion than Leica’s, then feel free to put the infinity mark at f/8 or even f/5.6 marks on the mount.  On the other hand, if you like slumming it out and don’t mind a larger circle of confusion, try putting the infinity mark at f/16 - depending on what you intend to do with your photo, how small or from how far away you want to view it, you might get away with it! 🙂

Lots of good information on the technical side of all topics including circle of confusion here: https://pages.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/4500/EXPOSURE/EV-depth-of-field.html

Edited September 20, 2021 by M9reno

[kivis]

I hyperfocal with my 21mm all the time, hmmmm never tried a more narrow lens. But why not?

[grahamc]

7 hours ago, i8z said:

would the hard stop  be infinity?

Yes I guess so, so the focus point being infinity when at the hard stop (?), versus the focus point being the right distance for the hyper focal distance  when you set to ' oo ' .   I think this is correct - I used to think ' oo ' was infinity which is where I was confusing myself I think because I was then unsure what turning to the hard stop achieved. 

[M9reno]

Mathematically and visually, assuming aperture is at f/11, the difference between placing the oo mark or the hard stop of the focus helicoid on the f/11 mark of the focus mount will make negligible difference to depth of field.

[grahamc]

28 minutes ago, M9reno said:

Mathematically and visually, assuming aperture is at f/11, the difference between placing the oo mark or the hard stop of the focus helicoid on the f/11 mark of the focus mount will make negligible difference to depth of field.

Thanks .  I often use F8 as my standard Aperture on the street.  Generally speaking (not expecting you to go too far into the math) would you describe that as negligible also ?  In practice I set it to ' oo ' between shots or when something unexpected may happen, but of course may be easier to hit the hard stop . 

More often I set it to a tighter range eg 2m - 10m but sometimes work the way mentioned above between shots or when moving location 

Thanks @M9reno

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 9/20/2021 at 4:42 PM, M9reno said:

 

Another tip for zone-focus photography: use a fast film.  Using Kodak P3200 TMax at 1000 (or 2000) ISO, or pushing TriX, will let you keep very small apertures at decent shutter speeds, raising your zone-focus hit-rate. We are lucky to have films this good and this fast.

 

 

We are lucky here in Aus that most of the year conditions are bright and will allow F8-f11wth a standard film stock ...  the downside is pretty harsh light and lots of haze 

[250swb]

15 hours ago, Vlad Soare said:

I agree. 
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but in my opinion, if all you want are some blurry snapshots that look as if they were made with a Holga, then there's no need to spend thousands of dollars on Leica cameras and lenses. You might as well save the money and just use a Holga instead.
 

And I also agree.

There are some very good reasons to use hyperfocal focusing in the right circumstances, and a photographer like Garry Winogrand did use it with his 28mm lens. But taking his images as an example the first thing is that the primary subject of the image is still always sharp and through composition it isn't ambiguous what a viewer is supposed to be looking at. But if the image isn't sharp or lacking an obvious composition it is only the photographer who can remember what the point of the picture is, a casual viewer is left floundering. If photography is going to be more than just a process then the photographer has to use the visual language of photography to give some clues to a viewer, and while there are a multitude of famous images that are OOF the framing is invariably used to make it clear where to look and what to take from the image, but it's a tightrope act of skill to pull it off by the time it comes to the final print.

[M9reno]

19 minutes ago, grahamc said:

Thanks .  I often use F8 as my standard Aperture on the street.  Generally speaking (not expecting you to go too far into the math) would you describe that as negligible also ?  In practice I set it to ' oo ' between shots or when something unexpected may happen, but of course may be easier to hit the hard stop . 

More often I set it to a tighter range eg 2m - 10m but sometimes work the way mentioned above between shots or when moving location 

Thanks @M9reno

The difference of going for the hard stop (instead of the oo mark) will be to bring the limit of the depth of field closer than infinity. This will probably make no difference at all on the street, where your attention will presumably be on a person or action in the middle distance anyway, and most city-scapes will have pollution that will be affecting the impression of sharpness at infinity anyway.

(I am assuming that when you say “hit the hard stop” you don’t mean that you are placing focus on infinity.)

[M9reno]

5 minutes ago, 250swb said:

And I also agree.

There are some very good reasons to use hyperfocal focusing in the right circumstances, and a photographer like Garry Winogrand did use it with his 28mm lens. But taking his images as an example the first thing is that the primary subject of the image is still always sharp and through composition it isn't ambiguous what a viewer is supposed to be looking at. But if the image isn't sharp or lacking an obvious composition it is only the photographer who can remember what the point of the picture is, a casual viewer is left floundering. If photography is going to be more than just a process then the photographer has to use the visual language of photography to give some clues to a viewer, and while there are a multitude of famous images that are OOF the framing is invariably used to make it clear where to look and what to take from the image, but it's a tightrope act of skill to pull it off by the time it comes to the final print.

Thanks. I agree on visual language, yet - as with language - there are often times when other people just “don’t get it”.  That’s fine.

I don’t regret posting the pictures despite the flak.  The images are there as honest instances of zone focus, an attempt to be helpful, and to illustrate an answer to a question put by the OP, not to win prizes or praise, or to be told to go use a Holga, which I think Vlad meant as a joke.

It has been worthwhile, however, to reflect that, when using a half-frame camera, one can no longer rely on the inscribed dof marks on the lens.  A 50mm lens on a half-frame effectively becomes a longer focal length, with a much narrower dof limits.  We are all learning here.

[grahamc]

20 minutes ago, M9reno said:

The difference of going for the hard stop (instead of the oo mark) will be to bring the limit of the depth of field closer than infinity. This will probably make no difference at all on the street, where your attention will presumably be on a person or action in the middle distance anyway, and most city-scapes will have pollution that will be affecting the impression of sharpness at infinity anyway.

(I am assuming that when you say “hit the hard stop” you don’t mean that you are placing focus on infinity.)

Thanks, oh sorry I think I do mean focussing at infinity (turning the focus ring all the way until it won't turn any more) ... and yes this means the four point is infinity.    

The only lens I have to hand right now is a 40mm, and if the ' oo ' is moved to, say F8 then under that aperture everything from 3m to infinity (oo) would be the range (presuming one is happy with the subjective 'circle of confusion' you explained) 

If, however, I turn the focus ring all the way, and the lens is focused at infinity then at the same aperture - F8 - the range reduces to 5m to infinity (again, presuming one is happy with the circle of confusion) .  

I get it now , focussing at infinity is moving the near limit farther away from you versus the hyperlocal distance setting. Which of course makes complete sense 

[Vlad Soare]

12 minutes ago, M9reno said:

or to be told to go use a Holga, which I think Vlad meant as a joke.

Of course, I didn't mean that literally. No offence meant.
 

[grahamc]

7 minutes ago, M9reno said:

Thanks. I agree on visual language, yet - as with language - there are often times when other people just “don’t get it”.  That’s fine.

I don’t regret posting the pictures despite the flak.  The images are there as honest instances of zone focus, an attempt to be helpful, and to illustrate an answer to a question put by the OP, not to win prizes or praise, or to be told to go use a Holga, which I think Vlad meant as a joke.

It has been worthwhile, however, to reflect that, when using a half-frame camera, one can no longer rely on the inscribed dof marks on the lens.  A 50mm lens on a half-frame effectively becomes a longer focal length, with a much narrower dof limits.  We are all learning here.

It's still pretty obvious the elements or characters the viewer should be drawn to IMO with exception of the last one, and have been valuable conversation starters / maintainers on this particular topic.   I doubt anyone was under any illusions that you felt / feel they are masterpieces.    Some great insights in this thread all round 

[grahamc]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

.... taking his images as an example the first thing is that the primary subject of the image is still always sharp and through composition it isn't ambiguous what a viewer is supposed to be looking at. 

Serious question from a relative beginner (and GW fan) ... in your view would conveying motion of the primary subject be an acceptable exception to this (assuming it's obvious what/who they are).   I think that's covered off in the the second part of your post about famous OOF shots, so I assume so? 

The truth is I keep making rookie errors on shutter speed and hoping I can get away with it    Not ideal and safe to assume it's far more acceptable when done intentionally 

Edited September 21, 2021 by grahamc

[250swb]

2 hours ago, grahamc said:

Serious question from a relative beginner (and GW fan) ... in your view would conveying motion of the primary subject be an acceptable exception to this (assuming it's obvious what/who they are).   I think that's covered off in the the second part of your post about famous OOF shots, so I assume so? 

The truth is I keep making rookie errors on shutter speed and hoping I can get away with it    Not ideal and safe to assume it's far more acceptable when done intentionally 

There are all sorts of rules that can be broken accidentally or intentionally as long as they work together and add to a narrative. Consider this photo by William Klein, technically it's a dogs dinner of elements a photo club would mark down as faults, parts are vastly over exposed, there is motion blur, and the foreground people are out of focus. Yet in the visual chaos the eye is drawn to the old woman with crossed hands and the man wearing two hats. It's a photograph that isn't clear as to exactly what's happening, but the viewer isn't short of stories they can imagine.

https://www.michaelhoppengallery.com/artists/66-william-klein/overview/#/artworks/11698

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by 250swb

[Vlad Soare]

1 minute ago, 250swb said:

Yet in the visual chaos the eye is drawn to the old woman with crossed hands and the man wearing two hats.

Yes, but that's because both of them are sharp.

 

[250swb]

4 minutes ago, Vlad Soare said:

Yes, but that's because both of them are sharp.

 

Scroll seven images to the left and there is an inversion of the main subject being sharp, a photo of a woman, the main subject, completely blurred but all the more intriguing because of it. 

[wlaidlaw]

At f11 would not there be a considerable measure of diffraction softening? The old photographers using large plate cameras with a far larger COC, did not run into diffraction until much smaller apertures. I rarely use any of my Leica lenses at apertures smaller than F8. Really the only time I have to do this is on my LTM and M film cameras if I have ISO 400 film loaded and it is a bright sunny day and the max shutter speed is either 1/500 or 1/1000, camera dependant. That is why when going to tropical countries, I tend to take my R9 as a film camera, where its 1/8000 shutter speed can come in handy when wanting to use wide apertures to control DOF, in bright light. 

Wilson

[grahamc]

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

There are all sorts of rules that can be broken accidentally or intentionally as long as they work together and add to a narrative. Consider this photo by William Klein, technically it's a dogs dinner of elements a photo club would mark down as faults, parts are vastly over exposed, there is motion blur, and the foreground people are out of focus. Yet in the visual chaos the eye is drawn to the old woman with crossed hands and the man wearing two hats. It's a photograph that isn't clear as to exactly what's happening, but the viewer isn't short of stories they can imagine.

https://www.michaelhoppengallery.com/artists/66-william-klein/overview/#/artworks/11698

 

Fantastic. Thanks for sharing. love William Klein’s work and also his whole attitude.  He seems to maintains he wasn’t tremendously experienced from a technical point of view when he photographed New York the first time and welcomed imperfections, blur and even “accidents”. No doubt sheer talent, an amazing eye and connection with his subjects carried him through but it’s extremely inspiring nonetheless.  
 

There’s a part in “the many lives of William Klein” when asked his opinion on the fact that “everyone has a camera these days” where he seems to express a fondness for the Avant-Garde results that everyday people get when they don’t have a clue what they are doing, and that you would never see such images from pros.   Of course he could be joking but it’s a cool insight ha 

Intentional (creative) imperfections are probably more my goal right now but nonetheless it’s very motivating and inspiring to hear such stuff :)
 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[i8z]

11 hours ago, 250swb said:

And I also agree.

There are some very good reasons to use hyperfocal focusing in the right circumstances, and a photographer like Garry Winogrand did use it with his 28mm lens. But taking his images as an example the first thing is that the primary subject of the image is still always sharp and through composition it isn't ambiguous what a viewer is supposed to be looking at. But if the image isn't sharp or lacking an obvious composition it is only the photographer who can remember what the point of the picture is, a casual viewer is left floundering. If photography is going to be more than just a process then the photographer has to use the visual language of photography to give some clues to a viewer, and while there are a multitude of famous images that are OOF the framing is invariably used to make it clear where to look and what to take from the image, but it's a tightrope act of skill to pull it off by the time it comes to the final print.

I have studied Winogrand for years, his work is amazing and I frequently get lost in his photographs. I didn't realize he was using hyperfocal focusing, thank you.