DOF Vs. Focus Stacking?

[N1kon1k]

Hey guys as I learn more about photography? The more demanding and critical of my shots I become... it's getting to the point that I almost forget to have fun with it and scrutinize every aspect of the shot lol...
I know I'm very meticulous and harsh on myself but lately I started struggling with sharpness on my photos...

Camera D750
Lens 24mm-120mm F4

The camera is great... lens is pretty sharp

But my struggle seems to whether I need to focus on the foreground? Or further up the foreground because depth of field will tend to extend both beyond and before the focus point?

I have been reading on front to back sharpness and a lot of people focus stack 4/5 images for better sharpness throughout?

My problem with this? Is that often times you're dealing with things in motion, and will make you spend more time in post and give you bad habits on site...

How do you guys normally deal with this in landscape?

 

[Ysarex]

Hyperfocal distance and small f/stop so tripod if necessary.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Focus where the composition NEEDS to be the sharpest! Sometimes the middle ground needs maximum clarity and sharpness; other times, the Infinty region must be sharpest; at times, it is the closer-in areas that need to be the sharpest. Compose photos as they need to be composed. If necessary, stop the lens down to f/8,f/9,f/10,/11, f/13, whatever aperture is needed, and do some focus bracketing if you are unsure. (Shoot multiple frames with altered focus points!)

Often times, a slight movement of the focus point can change the photo. MANY times, the far-far distance can be a little bit OOF, and we EXPECT that! Watch for areas of high-frequency detail: if those areas are soft, the entire image might seem "soft".

Learn how to focus "stopped down", the old way. Practice. Compose photos based on ideas of near/far relationships. Learn how to use an OOF foreground.

Or...focus stack and make everything look like a digital postcard.

There is no right or wrong answer; focus stacking was NEVER an option when I learned how to shoot photos; if we absolutely needed to, we could used a camera with movements to get extreme DOF, but for many,many,many images, the answer was a tripod, and carefully placing the focus point and whatever DOF band there was.

 

[petrochemist]

Focus stacking is a technique introduced for use with microscopes where the DOF often doesn't reach a thousandth of an inch. It gives a significant advantage in macro photography too, but is rarely needed in landscape work.

 

[jsecordphoto]

I focus stack often because I want tack sharp focus front to back in my scene. Shooting ultra wide (15mm), it's not needed as often because depth of field is quite large at f8-11, but depending on the scene and how close I am to foreground objects I'll still focus stack shooting ultra wide.

Some people will say hyperfocal will work fine, but that's to get "acceptable" focus from front to back. Printing large, I'd prefer to get everything tack sharp where anything even remotely close to out of focus will be apparent.

 

[pgriz]

Alternatively, get a view camera with adjustable bellows.

Focus stacking, at whatever focal length, is do-able with static scenes. Not so good with motion. Unless you take each shot using speedlights, which would "freeze" the motion, but you can't be sure the bits in motion will be in the same place on successive frames.

Technical stuff aside, when the hobby is no longer fun, I'd say you're overtraining. But that's for you to decide - are you doing it so that you can get a spectacular image that you're happy to show people, or are you doing it because you really, really like solving technical challenges (in which case, the photo is almost incidental). Most viewers will have no idea of what you set out to accomplish and will consider your photo to be good if they can relate to it.

 

[smoke665]

Or...focus stack and make everything look like a digital postcard.

There are those who I guess would like the hyper realistic look, but my personal opinion is that an image can portray so much more.

 

[smoke665]

Focus stacking, at whatever focal length, is do-able with static scenes. Not so good with motion.

Without a magic wand that can stop the wind from blowing, the birds from flying and everything else, there's no way to eliminate all the motion. Even when doing Pixel Shifts of landscapes, (which is 4 quick images in succession) if you take in a very large view, there's no way to completely overcome the motion blur.

 

[pgriz]

Keep in mind that sharpness is overrated. In certain cases, it adds to the image. In other cases, motion or focus blur, deliberate over/under exposure, and other techniques can do a better job of creating visually engaging images. I suspect that all photographers go through a seeking of maximum sharpness phase. However, if the image is about engaging the emotion of the viewer, then there are more effective tools - and deliberate lack of sharpness is one of them.

 

[jsecordphoto]

Focus stacking can be tough on windy days, but something like birds flying, which was mentioned above, won't matter at all. Your last frame for the sky will be at infinity anyway, and you'll only be using the last frame for your sky.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but having out of focus foregrounds looks unprofessional and weird to me. This is talking about for landscapes only obviously. I find that my print customers don't care at all what technical stuff I had to do in order to get a photo, but they'll definitely mention it looking weird if everything is sharp except for a key area in your shot (foreground). I don't see what's "hyper-realistic" about having the entire scene be sharp, the same way your eyes would see it (unless in person you held a leaf an inch away from your eye and expected something at 50ft away be in focus)

 

[The_Traveler]

Keep in mind that sharpness is overrated. In certain cases, it adds to the image. In other cases, motion or focus blur, deliberate over/under exposure, and other techniques can do a better job of creating visually engaging images. I suspect that all photographers go through a seeking of maximum sharpness phase. However, if the image is about engaging the emotion of the viewer, then there are more effective tools - and deliberate lack of sharpness is one of them.

I couldn't agree more. If you like the look of hyper-sharp and those kinds of images really turn you on, then go for it. I don't remember photographers because their images are sharp but because their images were emotionally or intellectually engaging.

I think that many people look at sharpness as an early goal because sharpness has a clear and defined end point; it is attainable. With all the very ambiguous goals in photography, sharpness stands out as understandable and achievable with technical means; sharpness doesn't seem to require enormous talent or taste.

Someone who values sharpness can buy stuff, learn techniques and his/her improvement is even measurable. That's comforting to new photographers.

 

[N1kon1k]

really appreciate everyone's input, I know this is not a thread to post photos but I'm just using this shot as an example... I struggled with the shot for like a Half hour and than waited for an hour until the sun finally dropped exactly where I wanted...

But in doing this obviously light became the next challenge because I ended up bracketing 5 shots in 5 different exposures... in my eyes I feel like the shot is not really tack sharp but just acceptably sharp...
In the end I ended up not happy with it... and I think also because composition is off too which I tend to struggle with...

 

[Ysarex]

View attachment 139330 really appreciate everyone's input, I know this is not a thread to post photos but I'm just using this shot as an example... I struggled with the shot for like a Half hour and than waited for an hour until the sun finally dropped exactly where I wanted...

But in doing this obviously light became the next challenge because I ended up bracketing 5 shots in 5 different exposures... in my eyes I feel like the shot is not really tack sharp but just acceptably sharp...
In the end I ended up not happy with it... and I think also because composition is off too which I tend to struggle with...

I think you're being over critical and expecting too much. I'd say the sharpness is appropriate given you're using a zoom lens and a camera with an AA filter. I think your focus placement is good. The photo can be rendered sharper with software if you like.

Joe

P.S. Here's a link to your photo with medium frequency separation sharpening: landscape

 

[greybeard]

What you are seeing is diffraction from using f/22 at 24mm. I don't know enough about diffraction to really explain it but, I do know that once you get past f/11 or so it starts giving everything a slight blur. Focus stacking at say f/8 will give you sharper results but, it has its pitfalls like anything else. I like your photo and if it were sharper, it would not heighten its' emotional impact for me and it may even detract from it.

 

[pgriz]

A graduated ND filter will help to decrease the difference in apparent brightness between the sky and the ground. In general, the brightness difference between the sky and the foreground will be in the 3-4 stop range. Having a 2 or 3 stop graduated ND filter with a hard transition (if the line separating the "bright" and "dark" is thin and straight) or a softer transition, will give you the ability to capture the scene with a minimum of shots (usually one for the foreground and one for the background will be enough). Something like the app The Photographer's Ephemeris (A shot planned with TPE) will help you figure out both your positioning and your timing. As for your shot being "tack sharp", it's sharp enough to my eyes on my screen.

Another thing to consider is having dramatic clouds in your images often takes a very good image to a completely different level. You can't control clouds, so it becomes a matter of anticipation, and being there at the right time.