- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
the bottom line is the image in the eye of the beholder....does it look natural...as the eye sees it...or the camera is made to see it
Hyperfocal distance focusing
- Thread starter merv
- Start date
the bottom line is the image in the eye of the beholder....does it look natural...as the eye sees it...or the camera is made to see it
- Messages
- 12,584
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
the bottom line is the image in the eye of the beholder....does it look natural...as the eye sees it...or the camera is made to see it
but the eye doesn't do out of focus, does it?
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
nor does it focus on the whole scene at once...it builds up images in the brain...the brain then stores it into the picture you think you see in the camera
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 1,172
- Edit My Images
- Yes
+1Mine does
The morning after
I couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo without me bin's on 
- Messages
- 12,584
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 12,584
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
nor does it focus on the whole scene at once...it builds up images in the brain...the brain then stores it into the picture you think you see in the camera
Hmmmm..... a think we might be being a little..... erm.... pedantic here?
In my opinion, when taking a photograph the aim would normally be to get everything in focus, and using the hyperfocal distance is the way to do it. Either use tables as suggested or guess!
There may be exceptions - for example if you genuinely want the background to be OOF.
An image where either the foreground or background is not sharp because you missed the HFD is a miss. Its a skill all photographers should learn, and more difficult since the demise of DoF scales on lens barrels.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
why?...the result is a two dimesional image...out of focus and i dont mean the interesting part...tends to add perspective by association...
i am getting pedantic i know but as we were talking pedantries i couldnt resist..the hyperfocal distance is a mechanical point in a lenses focussing where etc etc...and i do tend to think in dof but not relative to a dessired point dictated by the lens manufacturers specifications..a catchall setting for general open views where one needs as much information as possible in sharpness...relatively speaking...any items not sharp are then rendered unacceptable unless a greater dof can be obtained...not speaking about macro lenses here
having said all that i am not disagreeing in principle just putting forward a point of view regarding the viewing of a shot as can be made by the lens settings...against a more natural perspective of what the eye may see in a relaxed and more artistic mode...even if one can suggest just gazing at the scenery and in particular certain parts of it...
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
Optics of the eye, retinas, blind spots, distribution of rods an cones, vision, optic pathways, chiasma, binocular vision - thats a great topic.. but nothing to do with HFD
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
exactly...so being humans why do we need HFD...its a moot scientific point
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
We need HFD to render an image as we see it. When I'm standing at the beach and I look out to the distant mountain, everything is in focus from a few feet away to the far mountain. If we want to translate that to an image we require HFD to ensure that the image is acceptably sharp from front to back, but ignoring HFD we could end up with an image with unacceptable amount of OOF in area's that fail to render the image as it was originally 'seen'.
Annoyingly, my Nikon D40 kit lens has absolute nothing on the barrel to help with this, so I focus using thirds, and assess in the LCD, more often than not I get it about right, but it would be much easier using a decent prime with a hypefocal distance chart.
Annoyingly, my Nikon D40 kit lens has absolute nothing on the barrel to help with this, so I focus using thirds, and assess in the LCD, more often than not I get it about right, but it would be much easier using a decent prime with a hypefocal distance chart.
- Messages
- 12,584
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Exactly!
You're confusing photographs with the eye, geoffrey.
It was the same with film as digital.
You just need to know how to get the maximum depth of field so that everything appears sharp on a flat piece of film or sensor. The way you do this is by carefully choosing the exact point of focus at the particular focal length and aperture that you are using.
You may believe that getting parts of the image out of focus adds some thing to your pictures, but most would disagree, because in most cases it just looks like a mistake.
Unless of course you are deliberately choosing a large aperture and using differential focus to blur the background, that is.
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
of which i am the chief offender...dohhhhregarding getting everything sharp on the shot...what can you do when you run out of the apparent sharpness of HFD setting...
i think at present this is what i am getting on my small camera f no and 36mm wide angle setting?
but...i also have no settings and as i stated earlier if i had them i would tend to use them and climb over the fence...as it is i must get along with selective focussing and suffering the loss?
this is the same type of thread we used to get on the bass forum about pickups and strings...the ears (eyes) have it!!
more later
Geoff - With the camera that you have, I think you will always find it a bit difficult to exploit the full gamut of hyperfocal distances as you just don't have the full choice of settings that you would have on an SLR
Going wide-angle will help maximise your DoF and setting as low aperture as you can (but this will also introduce the effects of diffraction). The other thing you can do is move further back and then crop the image, but then you lose precious pixels when you wish to enlarge.
The last option (assuming lack of DoF is enough of an issue to warrent it) is to upgrade to an SLR where you'll have more control and options. These days, there are plenty of cheap bargains to be had on ebay.
Going wide-angle will help maximise your DoF and setting as low aperture as you can (but this will also introduce the effects of diffraction). The other thing you can do is move further back and then crop the image, but then you lose precious pixels when you wish to enlarge.
The last option (assuming lack of DoF is enough of an issue to warrent it) is to upgrade to an SLR where you'll have more control and options. These days, there are plenty of cheap bargains to be had on ebay.
Geoff - I just ran some numbers on my DoF iphone app using your camera's settings, here something that might help.
Using your lens at its widest angle (36mm) and your widest aperture (f8) to get sharpness to infinity, the minimum close distance you will get sharp focus from is 4m (12ft) when you focus on an object at 8m (24ft). So, to get hyperfocal distance with your camera in future shots, walk forward or backwards until you can focus on a subject that is approx 24ft away, and then everything from 12ft to infinity should be in acceptable sharpness.
Hope that helps - at least it gives you a couple of numbers to keep in mind when framing future shots.
Using your lens at its widest angle (36mm) and your widest aperture (f8) to get sharpness to infinity, the minimum close distance you will get sharp focus from is 4m (12ft) when you focus on an object at 8m (24ft). So, to get hyperfocal distance with your camera in future shots, walk forward or backwards until you can focus on a subject that is approx 24ft away, and then everything from 12ft to infinity should be in acceptable sharpness.
Hope that helps - at least it gives you a couple of numbers to keep in mind when framing future shots.
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
WHOOPEE
that explains why my focussing on 1 metre gives me wonky backgrounds over 4 metres or so
looks like i will need to bite the bullet and go for a body lens combo soon
and i do know the bargains...i have been watching for a long time and yearning in a lot of respects...
now...i am not going to ask what maker i should choose...
again many thanks Colin
Geof
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
This is wrong. What is perplexing about Geof's point is that his camera is pretty much incapable of shooting without getting everything sharp. You just cannot get differential focus, or create shallow DoF effects with a compact.
With a Pano FZ7, set at max wide angle 6mm (36mm equivalent), even at f/4 everything is sharp from 3ft to infinity (when focused at 6ft) http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Goes to show then that my iPhone app must be wrong, unless I'm putting in the incorrect crop factor, as it requires the actual focal length and not an equivalent, it works that out by using the crop factor.
Edit: HoppyUK - thanks for the correction, it was my fault, I entered the wrong crop-factor, my numbers from 'Simple DoF' app are now the same as yours..
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
It doesn't.
Hyperfocal distance is the method for calculating maximum physical distance of depth of field. Which by definition must always include infinity as the furthest point and then the near point and the HFD itself are calculated back from that.
At anything less than infinity, there is the rule of thumb 'focus a third in' which works for general photography when there is usually a bit more depth of field behind the subject than in front of it.
But at close range, while there is always more depth of field behind the subject than in front, with macro it is close to 49-51%. So focus half way.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
yes you can...oops...this isnt wide angle
you are really encouraging hoppy...i can now get away from the idea that my toy isnt up to decent back to front shots...which i really like...when taken sensitively with all elements co-ordinating
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Nice shot Geof, but that's cheating! Shoot a pic at normal distance, a group say, and everything is perpetually sharp right from a few feet away to the horizon with a compact, whether you want it to be or not.
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
you mean at f8...what does your calculations give you for f2.8 which is the widest the lens goes...
cheers
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
They're not my figures Geof, they're from www.dofmaster.com
Like for like comparison, your Pano FZ7 compact at max wide 6mm (36mm FF equivalent), lowest aperture f/2.8, focus on a group 6ft away and you have depth of field from 3.5-21ft, total 17.5ft.
Frame up an identical group with a FF DSLR, and at 36mm, f/2.8 and 6ft, your DoF ranges from just 5.4-6.8ft, total 1.4ft.
Input a few figures yourself, and you'll see that with a compact at anything further than a few inches from the lens, depth of field tends to be measured in yards, whereas with a DSLR it will be inches.
This works both ways of course, but if you like shallow DoF, then a compact is not the weapon of choice.
Like for like comparison, your Pano FZ7 compact at max wide 6mm (36mm FF equivalent), lowest aperture f/2.8, focus on a group 6ft away and you have depth of field from 3.5-21ft, total 17.5ft.
Frame up an identical group with a FF DSLR, and at 36mm, f/2.8 and 6ft, your DoF ranges from just 5.4-6.8ft, total 1.4ft.
Input a few figures yourself, and you'll see that with a compact at anything further than a few inches from the lens, depth of field tends to be measured in yards, whereas with a DSLR it will be inches.
This works both ways of course, but if you like shallow DoF, then a compact is not the weapon of choice.
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
damn and blarst!! those dslr boogies are after me..
i will use that chart to see what a 1/1.7 sensor does..and thanks again..
cheers
geof
ps..not much difference on a 1.1.7...canon A650 i/s
good little site which i will keep to remind me i dont really know much about much except what i learn
Last edited:
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That DSLR is looking more and more like an inevitability Geof
yes...will have to do some back exercises again and get the billingham out of mothballs
by the way you know why moths do fly with their legs open...cryptic answer above
ps my daughter has a 4/3 olympus E420 she might surrender...she got it to photography her new baby but seems to use the pos she has most times