Struggling still with Landscape clarity and sharpness!

[Ceejay]

Having had a look at your Flicka acc. pics in the larger sizes, you do appear to have dirty sensor, there is no way you could focus on a filter and a distant landscape at the same time.
Polarising filters do not just give nice blue skies, they can remove sheen from a lot of surfaces (leaves etc.) to intensify colours. You could try when using a polariser just holding it in front of your eye, then attaching it at the same angle to your camera. Though not easy lining it up if it is a screw in one.
If you have a Lee holder and polariser it is fairly easy.
C

 

[blue max]

A polariser is another piece of glass to shoot through. Another chance to degrade the image. It further lengthens the exposure allowing a greater chance of camera movement. And removing light reflections from say foliage is not always a nice effect. It can make them look 'flat'.

Use with consideration.

Personally, if I have gone to great lengths to shoot a landscape with a tripod etc, I would bracket my exposure (say at least three shots at +1stop, normal and -1 stop). Then create a single file in photoshop merging the best of the three shots. This is called HDR (high dynamic range). I feel more confident on the computer than fiddling around with neutral grad filters in the field. I am not limited to a horizontal cut off either.

Just some thoughts.

Graham

 

[captures.in.time]

Having had a look at your Flicka acc. pics in the larger sizes, you do appear to have dirty sensor, there is no way you could focus on a filter and a distant landscape at the same time.
Polarising filters do not just give nice blue skies, they can remove sheen from a lot of surfaces (leaves etc.) to intensify colours. You could try when using a polariser just holding it in front of your eye, then attaching it at the same angle to your camera. Though not easy lining it up if it is a screw in one.
If you have a Lee holder and polariser it is fairly easy.
C

I'll def look into cleaning my sensor... however im not sure that is a huge problem... not many of my shots on my flickr are actually taken with my current camera... only the most recent.... like in the last two months... I've been going through the backlog of my old film stuff and scanning the best of it.

Mark

 

[captures.in.time]

A polariser is another piece of glass to shoot through. Another chance to degrade the image. It further lengthens the exposure allowing a greater chance of camera movement. And removing light reflections from say foliage is not always a nice effect. It can make them look 'flat'.

Use with consideration.

Personally, if I have gone to great lengths to shoot a landscape with a tripod etc, I would bracket my exposure (say at least three shots at +1stop, normal and -1 stop). Then create a single file in photoshop merging the best of the three shots. This is called HDR (high dynamic range). I feel more confident on the computer than fiddling around with neutral grad filters in the field. I am not limited to a horizontal cut off either.

Just some thoughts.

Graham

HDR... I like some of the images I see... but I would not know where to start... and I think it's something i'll def leave off just now... I'd rather concentrate on improving my basic landscape shots without adding to my thoughts.

Bracketing is something however I do allot.... although more than often wander why as I always find the metering on my 5d to be fairly accurate... I know what compensation to dial in for certain scenes also... however I guess taking more shots with digital does not cost as it did when I used film.

Good point about the polariser and lengthening shutter speed hence more movement... I knew that and am just struggling to master a simple set of rules I should adopt when taking landscape...

I spent allot of time last night looking into hyperfocal distance... I thought I understood it... but I know I def do now... going to print off tables to suit me using the On Line dof calc and keep them in my bag.

The other thing I simply need to do is find more time to get out there and experiment!

M

 

[captures.in.time]

My understanding is that if using a digital SLR it is unlikely that even when using the hyperfocal distance and shooting from close to infinity it is not expected that everything will be pin sharp. This is one reason why the big names use large format cameras as they can focus at different parts in the image. Also perhaps more relevant for the rest of us is not to get too close to the photo..I have just seen a famous Bill Brandt photo which from 10 feet looks great - if you get within a foot it is not sharp...perhaps we look to closely. If you stand say 6 feet away from your screen how does it look? Pixel peeping makes us too critical in many instances...

Possibly a good point too and something im guilty off... that and being over critical!

 

[Steve Smith]

I spent allot of time last night looking into hyperfocal distance...

I assume you mean a lot.

Also do some research on zone focusing. the principle is basically the same as hyperfocal except that with hyperfocal focusing, infinity is always the maximum distance.

With zone focusing you decide what range you want things to be in focus, e.g. from 6' to 30' and work out where to focus the lens and what aperture to use.


Steve.

 

[captures.in.time]

I assume you mean a lot.

Also do some research on zone focusing. the principle is basically the same as hyperfocal except that with hyperfocal focusing, infinity is always the maximum distance.

With zone focusing you decide what range you want things to be in focus, e.g. from 6' to 30' and work out where to focus the lens and what aperture to use.


Steve.

Is that not basically what a depth of field table tells you anyway?

 

[blue max]

Bracketing is something however I do allot.... although more than often wander why as I always find the metering on my 5d to be fairly accurate... I know what compensation to dial in for certain scenes also... however I guess taking more shots with digital does not cost as it did when I used film.
M

I think you have a slight misapprehension here. It is not to get the exposure 'right'. In fact it is to record MORE than the camera is capable of. There is no way a camera can record highlight detail and shadow detail when they are extreme, you have to pick a compromise. With HDR, you can have shadow detail AND highlight detail in a high contrast scene.

Graham

 

[captures.in.time]

I think you have a slight misapprehension here. It is not to get the exposure 'right'. In fact it is to record MORE than the camera is capable of. There is no way a camera can record highlight detail and shadow detail when they are extreme, you have to pick a compromise. With HDR, you can have shadow detail AND highlight detail in a high contrast scene.

Graham

I realise that... however I just feel that for me HDR would be a jump too far at the moment... I want to work on what I can at the moment... I'll maybe play when I have time... I would need to spend ages on photoshop initially to work out what I was doing and for me that's not much fun... I prefer to be out and about taking pics which I have little time as it is for... I guess I sort of see HDR as a wee bit of a cheat in a way... not that im saying it's wrong in any way... and no doubt the really good darkroom boffins could have done something similar with film... And I know anything goes in photography... I just dont think it's for me just now... however I think I will start to bracket more again.

Mark

 

[jerry12953]

Can someone coment on weather using a polariser on landscapes almost full time is a good idea... as all the things it does can only really enhance any landscape shot really?

M

I have to admit that I use a polariser most of the time. It's on the lens more often than not, and I often plan my shoots with that in mind. Some people may scoff but there we are.

It is most effective at right angles to the angle of the sun.

I have also found that - all other things being equal - the most pleasing results are obtained about 2-3 hours after sunrise, and 2-3 hours before sunset. That's through most of the "picture-taking season". It must be something to do with the height of the sun in the sky, so in winter when the sun is always low, this doesn't apply.

When the sun is high in the sky (10 am - 4pm from, say, May - August) it is too high. While the polariser may still work, other factors come into play which will spoil your image., notably poor "modelling" of the landscape, little or no shadow, and generally harsh, flat lighting.

Imagine your living room lit by one powerful bulb hanging from the ceiling in the middle of the room, then change the lighting to a single bulb low down and to one side. What a difference that makes.

In my experience using a polariser near to sunrise or sunset doesn't enhance a picture at all.

Having said all that, always be ready to remove the polariser, for example when shooting into the light ("contre-jour").

Edit: Still being at heart a film user I also bracket as well, 1/3 stop either side of "correct". Highlights are tricky things to get right even (or perhaps more so) than with film. If you want to prevent your highlights from blowing 1/3 stop makes a lot of difference. You can always delete the dupes.

And I'm with you all the way on trying to get as much right as possible in camera!

 

[Steve Smith]

Is that not basically what a depth of field table tells you anyway?

A table usually just gives you close focus distance to infinity for each aperture setting and the distance you need to set the lens to in order to achieve it.

Older lenses had depth of field markings on them so it was easy to see what the range of focus was at each setting.

But yes, it is more or less the same thing but with the far distance being a variable too.


Steve.

 

[blue max]

Sorry if it sounds like I'm teaching you to suck eggs - but just wanted to make sure you knew why it was used. If you have the shots, you can always come back to them at a later date

The way I see it is that the camera is an imperfect tool. If it could record all the detail it wouldn't be necessary. It's just a compromise because of technical issues really.

I don't really do landscape, so I have no room to talk!

Graham

I realise that... however I just feel that for me HDR would be a jump too far at the moment... I want to work on what I can at the moment... I'll maybe play when I have time... I would need to spend ages on photoshop initially to work out what I was doing and for me that's not much fun... I prefer to be out and about taking pics which I have little time as it is for... I guess I sort of see HDR as a wee bit of a cheat in a way... not that im saying it's wrong in any way... and no doubt the really good darkroom boffins could have done something similar with film... And I know anything goes in photography... I just dont think it's for me just now... however I think I will start to bracket more again.

Mark

 

[foodpoison]

Atmospheric haze is a biatch.

 

[captures.in.time]

Sorry if it sounds like I'm teaching you to suck eggs - but just wanted to make sure you knew why it was used. If you have the shots, you can always come back to them at a later date

The way I see it is that the camera is an imperfect tool. If it could record all the detail it wouldn't be necessary. It's just a compromise because of technical issues really.

I don't really do landscape, so I have no room to talk!

Graham

Hey its ok.... no offence taken at all!

 

[captures.in.time]

I have to admit that I use a polariser most of the time. It's on the lens more often than not, and I often plan my shoots with that in mind. Some people may scoff but there we are.

It is most effective at right angles to the angle of the sun.

I have also found that - all other things being equal - the most pleasing results are obtained about 2-3 hours after sunrise, and 2-3 hours before sunset. That's through most of the "picture-taking season". It must be something to do with the height of the sun in the sky, so in winter when the sun is always low, this doesn't apply.

When the sun is high in the sky (10 am - 4pm from, say, May - August) it is too high. While the polariser may still work, other factors come into play which will spoil your image., notably poor "modelling" of the landscape, little or no shadow, and generally harsh, flat lighting.

Imagine your living room lit by one powerful bulb hanging from the ceiling in the middle of the room, then change the lighting to a single bulb low down and to one side. What a difference that makes.

In my experience using a polariser near to sunrise or sunset doesn't enhance a picture at all.

Having said all that, always be ready to remove the polariser, for example when shooting into the light ("contre-jour").

Edit: Still being at heart a film user I also bracket as well, 1/3 stop either side of "correct". Highlights are tricky things to get right even (or perhaps more so) than with film. If you want to prevent your highlights from blowing 1/3 stop makes a lot of difference. You can always delete the dupes.

And I'm with you all the way on trying to get as much right as possible in camera!

So now im a little confused as you say you use a poleriser for most shots... its best to shoot at sunrise and sunset...but then go onto say at sunrise and sunset it makes no real dif at all if using it?

 

[Steve Smith]

No, he said 2-3 hours after sunrise or before sunset. Not at sunrise or sunset.


Steve.

 

[captures.in.time]

No, he said 2-3 hours after sunrise or before sunset. Not at sunrise or sunset.


Steve.

Ah right... I was assuming he meant that 2-3 hour period ... rather than the actual 15min spell of actual rise and fall!

ME needs to learn to read!!!!

M

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

The effects a polariser are controlled by the position of the sun relative to you (have a look here) - You may want to look at using ND grads to help balance the exposure between the sky / Ground as this may help the precivied sharpness of the image.

 

[DizMatt]

It's a cokin one I have and just hand hold it in front of the lens... not used it much but def see the benefits of it... however that actually wont improve the sharpness of my shots...

I've heard the cokins aren't the best on a budget, but I have nothing much to base that on.
I've gone for the hitech ones.
Hand held???? a cokin holder is about £4 on ebay

 

[captures.in.time]

I've heard the cokins aren't the best on a budget, but I have nothing much to base that on.
I've gone for the hitech ones.
Hand held???? a cokin holder is about £4 on ebay

Yes Hi Tech filters and a holder are next on my purchase list... the cokin filter was just one I aquired!

M

 

[RobertP]

If I use a ND grad (which is rare) I normally just hold it in front of the lens instead of bothering with the holder.

I've not read all the polariser stuff above. I use one mainly morning and afternoons - if I'm shooting in the right direction. Sun to left or right of you and it has a strong effect. Sun behind, in front or overhead to you and it does next to nothing apart from slow your shutter speed and maybe remove a little reflection from water.

 

[jerry12953]

So now im a little confused as you say you use a poleriser for most shots... its best to shoot at sunrise and sunset...but then go onto say at sunrise and sunset it makes no real dif at all if using it?

No, that's not what I'm saying, Mark!

Use a polariser about 2-3 hours from sunrise/sunset for the most pleasing results. The closer to sunrise /sunset you get, the less pleasing the results are to my eye.

There are definitely two periods during the day when the light is at its sparkling best when using a polariser. One about 2-3 hours after sunrise and the other about 2-3 hours before sunset during the "mid-summer" period. All other things being equal.

When the days are shorter, the sun is lower, and those periods eventually merge into one around mid-day in mid-winter.

 

[jerry12953]

No, he said 2-3 hours after sunrise or before sunset. Not at sunrise or sunset.


Steve.

Right...... it did make sense then...

 

[Steve Smith]

Polarisers can be useful in bright sun in the middle of the day.

If you look at a scene with a lot of foliage in bright sunlight, although you think it's all green, if you look carefully you will see that there is a lot of reflected light off of leaves and grass which actually appears white.

A polariser will get rid of that for you, rendering the foliage closer to its real green colour.


Steve.

 

[jerry12953]

Polarisers can be useful in bright sun in the middle of the day.

If you look at a scene with a lot of foliage in bright sunlight, although you think it's all green, if you look carefully you will see that there is a lot of reflected light off of leaves and grass which actually appears white.

A polariser will get rid of that for you, rendering the foliage closer to its real green colour.


Steve.

Agreed. But you still get the other disadvantages of shooting when the sun is high.

 

[captures.in.time]

this post has def moved on from the original topic but to me it is all relavent. I'm going to try and sumerise my thoughts or getting sharp pics and if any are wrong can someone point them out.

1. Always try and use a tripod and cable release... or if shooting hand held make sure the shutter speed is at least the equivalent of the focal length of the lens... eg 30mm dist = 1/30 shutter speed.

2. The best light tends to be the three hours after sunrise and the three hours before sunset.

3. You can only get your shot as clear as the sceene you see... you can do little to make a hazy scene clearer than it is.

4. Hyperfocal focus to maximise sharpness... know the hyperfocal distances for your appature and lens zoom settings and work within these boundaries. Everything will be in focus from half the hyperfocal distance to infinaty so make sure all you want sharp is within this field.

5. Use filters... but only when required. The ND grad is prob the best filter for any landscape tog to have. A polariser is a close second. Use it to make skys bluer at 90 deg to the sun if poss... and cut down on reflected light.

6. Try to shoot at the sweet spot of your lens... this is normally f8 or f11.

7. Make sure you make the effort to be at the right place at the right time to get the best light.

I think that is about it!

And if you do that on the field you will get the sharpest landscapes you can with the equipment you have!

M

 

[Steve Smith]

That's about right.

3. A UV filter will remove a bit of haze.

If I use black and white film, a yellow filter will remove even more.


Steve.

 

[captures.in.time]

I've never been a huge fan of UV filters... never seen much use for them and putting one on the front of the lens for protection seems a little ott for me I think as im never really anywhere where my lenses are at risk.... and if i felt they where i'd prob just use the hood.

I think a more sturdy tripod than my velbon sherpa is maybe a good idea... and one with spiked feet for soft ground.... oh and mirror lock up.... I experimented with that last night in the house... It takes almost 30 secs to take every shot! obviously not in shutter time but mirror time... Is there any way of reducing that time a little?

 

[jerry12953]

Mark,

I've not looked at your pics, so you may do this anyway, but try climbing a hill.

As you climb your perspectives change and everything looks more and more different. It's quite an eye-opener. And it gets you fit.

Filter-wise I'd put polariser first, by the way - absolutely indispensible - followed by ND grads. You can get great skies using both together.

From your list it sounds like you've got the hang of it. Now to put it into practice......

 

[captures.in.time]

Mark,

I've not looked at your pics, so you may do this anyway, but try climbing a hill.

As you climb your perspectives change and everything looks more and more different. It's quite an eye-opener. And it gets you fit.

Filter-wise I'd put polariser first, by the way - absolutely indispensible - followed by ND grads. You can get great skies using both together.

From your list it sounds like you've got the hang of it. Now to put it into practice......

Jerry... Hillwalking is my other hobby apart from photography...

 

[HoppyUK]

this post has def moved on from the original topic but to me it is all relavent. I'm going to try and sumerise my thoughts or getting sharp pics and if any are wrong can someone point them out.

1. Always try and use a tripod and cable release... or if shooting hand held make sure the shutter speed is at least the equivalent of the focal length of the lens... eg 30mm dist = 1/30 shutter speed.

It's only a very rough guide. Camera shake never goes away, it is only reduced to an acceptable level. The rule is 1/focal length x crop format = shutter speed.

2. The best light tends to be the three hours after sunrise and the three hours before sunset.

Dawn is light clearest, as all the dust settles over night and there's less heat haze.

3. You can only get your shot as clear as the sceene you see... you can do little to make a hazy scene clearer than it is.

A polariser reduces haze. It works just as in the example given above when photographing a tree - swap the leaves for specs of dust which polarise the light and the effect is similar. But there's a let more to haze than dust, eg heat distortion mirage through the atmosphere. I've never seen a UV filter do anything with digital - there's a strong UV filter over the sensor anyway.

4. Hyperfocal focus to maximise sharpness... know the hyperfocal distances for your appature and lens zoom settings and work within these boundaries. Everything will be in focus from half the hyperfocal distance to infinaty so make sure all you want sharp is within this field.

Hyperfocal distance is not critical enough for most people. Add one stop to be really sharp.

5. Use filters... but only when required. The ND grad is prob the best filter for any landscape tog to have. A polariser is a close second. Use it to make skys bluer at 90 deg to the sun if poss... and cut down on reflected light.

HDR technique is also handy for holding bright skies.

6. Try to shoot at the sweet spot of your lens... this is normally f8 or f11.

With the smaller format of digital bringing diffraction to lower f/numbers, f/5.6 is often sharpest, through to f/11 max.

7. Make sure you make the effort to be at the right place at the right time to get the best light.

A sun compass is handy.

 

[Ceejay]

Mark,

I've not looked at your pics, so you may do this anyway, but try climbing a hill.

As you climb your perspectives change and everything looks more and more different. It's quite an eye-opener. And it gets you fit.

Filter-wise I'd put polariser first, by the way - absolutely indispensible - followed by ND grads. You can get great skies using both together.

From your list it sounds like you've got the hang of it. Now to put it into practice......

Must agree on that re Pol and N/D grads, and get a better tripod, you dont need spiked feet though.
C

 

[Gandhi]

Mark,

One thing I found above all others that helped the clarity and sharpness of my work was that I used Nikon capture NX to process my RAW files. I have tried literally every single other option for processing them, but ultimately, nikon know the best way to get the best results from their sensors. I suspect this will also be true of canons own processing software. Something to do with bayer de-mosaicing or some other such i have never bothered to learn about.

The other thing is sharpening. you need to sharpen at 2 or 3 stages during processing.

1) Post capture sharpening; (Done before any Editing) Sharpen at 20%, 30px and 0 threshold. This will help remove some of the 'haze' induced by the anti-alias filter every digital camera has!

2) Final sharpening; (When you've finished processing) keep this very light and sometimes you can skip this stage completely depending on the sharpness of the original image.

3) Output sharpening; (When you are ready to display) This is the most important stage and depends on your intended usage.

For screen display on TP, using photoshop, re-size the image to 800px using the NORMAL BICUBIC OPTION, Don't use Bicubic sharper, it introduces nasty halos if you are not exceedingly careful with the previous stages. Then sharpen at 100% 0.3px and 0 threshold.

You will need to play around with settings for print. Every printer and every file is different.

Finally, Try not to confuse resolution with sharpness and dont pixel peep. Unless you are printing 4 foot prints then you will only get caught up in the whole sharpness/clarity thing.

I cant really see any problem with the shot you have placed on here, looks plenty good enough to me.

 

[Suvv]

I have read all the answers but no one has suggested shooting at f16.

I know that it is not the sweet point of your lens and I know about Airy discs and diffraction but the extra DoF from f16 may make all the difference to your shots. Have a look at a DoF or Hyperfocal distance calculator and see the difference.

Try it next time, just bracket a few exposures.

 

[pauld]

HDR is Ok as long as there is no wind--it is surprising how quickly clouds move so bracket and shoot quickly. I am not quite sure of the physics but as I said before even with hyperfocal distance and f16 not everything will be pin sharp due to light diffraction...light enters through a small whole and then spreads leading to some softness. We need to stand back from these images ...they are landscapes after all it is not macro!

 

[captures.in.time]

Mark,

One thing I found above all others that helped the clarity and sharpness of my work was that I used Nikon capture NX to process my RAW files. I have tried literally every single other option for processing them, but ultimately, nikon know the best way to get the best results from their sensors. I suspect this will also be true of canons own processing software. Something to do with bayer de-mosaicing or some other such i have never bothered to learn about.

The other thing is sharpening. you need to sharpen at 2 or 3 stages during processing.

1) Post capture sharpening; (Done before any Editing) Sharpen at 20%, 30px and 0 threshold. This will help remove some of the 'haze' induced by the anti-alias filter every digital camera has!

2) Final sharpening; (When you've finished processing) keep this very light and sometimes you can skip this stage completely depending on the sharpness of the original image.

3) Output sharpening; (When you are ready to display) This is the most important stage and depends on your intended usage.

For screen display on TP, using photoshop, re-size the image to 800px using the NORMAL BICUBIC OPTION, Don't use Bicubic sharper, it introduces nasty halos if you are not exceedingly careful with the previous stages. Then sharpen at 100% 0.3px and 0 threshold.

You will need to play around with settings for print. Every printer and every file is different.

Finally, Try not to confuse resolution with sharpness and dont pixel peep. Unless you are printing 4 foot prints then you will only get caught up in the whole sharpness/clarity thing.

I cant really see any problem with the shot you have placed on here, looks plenty good enough to me.

I use the canon software as a raw editor... so thats a good start.

I tend to just apply the sharpness slider right away and just do it once... It's on a scale of 0 to 10.... so what your saying is I should initially slide to 2 and then PP... then sharpen it a little at the end...

I'll need to look at how I save photos for the web to... I just normally use the save photos for the web function or the batch process... not done it for a while though and now cant actually remeber off the top of my head what I actually do... that's worrying!

Thanks for your comments... had a look at your landscapes and really like them.... def what i am trying to achieve.... a bit of me thinks im getting a little bogged down though!

 

[jerry12953]

A polariser reduces haze. It works just as in the example given above when photographing a tree - swap the leaves for specs of dust which polarise the light and the effect is similar. But there's a let more to haze than dust, eg heat distortion mirage through the atmosphere. I've never seen a UV filter do anything with digital - there's a strong UV filter over the sensor anyway.

Hyperfocal distance is not critical enough for most people. Add one stop to be really sharp.

HDR technique is also handy for holding bright skies.

With the smaller format of digital bringing diffraction to lower f/numbers, f/5.6 is often sharpest, through to f/11 max.

A sun compass is handy.

Strictly speaking I don't think a polariser does cut thro' haze. Haze is actually dirt/dust particles in the air - you get it generally during anti-cyclonic conditions, especially with east winds in the UK - and a polariser can't help. Haze is an absolute killer for long distance subject matter. What I think a polariser does is to cut out the scattered light which is present in an otherwise clear atmosphere.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that it' isn't worth using hyperfocal distance. It's very useful technique when you need a very large depth of field. It's probably good enough for most situations to know the general principles.

A sun compass is handy but not absolutely necessary. If you remember that the sun is due south at 12 noon (GMT), due west at 6 pm (GMT) and due east at 6 am (GMT), you can work out when it will be at any time of the day. It moves around in a clockwise direction by 15 degrees every hour in the northern hemisphere.

I hope you don't think I'm nit-picking but this thread is progressing towards a kind of checklist for the landscape photographer, and it's worth getting everything correct.

jerry

 

[tdodd]

There is another school of thought that backs away from the hyperfocal distance concept for establishing appropriate aperture and focus distance. I'm not saying either one is right or wrong but here is the alternative approach described....

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

 

[jerry12953]

There is another school of thought that backs away from the hyperfocal distance concept for establishing appropriate aperture and focus distance. I'm not saying either one is right or wrong but here is the alternative approach described....

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

eek!

Having had a closer look, and found a sentence I could understand, it was this -

The general rule for scenic photographs, where one wishes to maximize the depth of field, is as follows. Set the focus at the distance of the most distant object. Then set the lens opening to the size of the smallest object to be resolved in the foreground. No calculations needed!

Now, to me that looks like "Focus at infinity and use f32", which I don't think we would recommend, would we?

Then there's this, where he refers to the pic with the cannon and the town -

Had I focused at the hyperfocal distance the telephone poles in the village would have been almost erased, and windows in buildings would have been just blurs.

That would not be what I call using hyperfocal distance. Perhaps it is, and what we understand by the term has changed since them days (1992)?

 

[tdodd]

Jerry, it appears you've grasped perfectly what he is going on about, but if you are shooting with a 35mm lens, for example, f/32 would give you (theoretically) the power to resolve details as small as 1mm, give or take. In a landscape scene, is that the level of detail you need to resolve? Do you need to resolve the veins in an individual leaf, for example? Surely it is enough to be able to resolve blades of grass, about 4mm across, so 35mm/4 = f/9.

If you're shooting with an APS-C sensor you might be using a 10mm lens. f/10 would give you your 1mm resolution, if you really need it, but it would appear you hardly need to stop down more than that and f/8 is probably ample.

He does also mention diffraction, and clearly there is a point of diminishing returns, so I guess some common sense needs to be applied. Nonetheless, if we are aware of diffraction limits with aperture and sensor size then at least his formula gives us a very easy way to figure out what sort of aperture we should be using - whether f/8 is enough, or f/11 is more than enough. It's at least worth having a dabble.

He goes on to create one really small digest of the whole caboodle....

As a general rule, lens aperture diameters of 3 to 5 mm are often the optimum for scenic purposes. Blades of grass and small branches are resolved, and resolution of distant objects is about equal to that allowed by the majority of modern films and lenses. This rule applies to all formats.

Now, whether what he says is merely opinion, or actual fact, I do not know, but it is a guideline to experiment with. It does imply that there is little point in stopping down smaller than f/7.1 when using a lens around the 20mm range and at 10mm even f/4 should be plenty. I shall go and experiment