Slightly confused about hyperfocal distance

[dmunsie]

I'm "almost" there, but a couple of things still confuse me, is the calculated "hyperfocal distance" where you should actually aim & focus your camera at?

For example, if I'm taking a picture of a city landscape from very far away (1000ft) according to my depth of field calculator: f-stop:11, focal length: 10mm, distance to subject (the city) is 1000ft; it says my hyperfocal distance is only 1.6ft, so I'm supposed to focus on 1.6ft from me?

I've also read you just focus on aprox 1/3 of the distance into the frame, but that would come out to much greater than 1.6ft?

Slightly confused obviously, thanks for any clarity you can provide.

 

[Buckster]

This should answer all your questions and clear things up nicely for you: Online Depth of Field Calculator

 

[Derrel]

Yes, according to the depth of field calculator at the link from Buckster, the hyperfocal distance is 1.48 feet, when using a 1.6x digital slr (like a Canon 7D for example), when calculating DOF using a circle of confusion size of 0.02mm.

The thing is...in actual photography, the distance actually focused upon is *the* sharpest distance; if creating a large, high-magnification landscape shot, focusing at 1.48 feet on a 1,000 foot distant landscape is not the best practice approach if you want an ultra-sharp landscape rendering that can be seen large and examined critically. Sure, the depth of field will be "acceptable", but with today's ultra-high resolution cameras, when making BIG images, focusing at 1.48 feet with a 10mm ultra-wide-angle lens on a 1,000 foot distant cityscape is simply not as good as focusing at around 1,000 feet...

Now, if the image is seen smallish, then yeah, it'd pass muster. You can try this type of scenario out using your own equipment. Focus at 2 feet, focus at 10 meters, focus at just inside infinity. Look at the images critically. See what YOU think!!!!

 

[KmH]

Hyperfocal distance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definition 1: The hyperfocal distance is the closest distance at which a lens can be focused while keeping objects at infinity acceptably sharp. When the lens is focused at this distance, all objects at distances from half of the hyperfocal distance out to infinity will be acceptably sharp.Definition 2: The hyperfocal distance is the distance beyond which all objects are acceptably sharp, for a lens focused at infinity.
The distinction between the two meanings is rarely made, since they have almost identical values. The value computed according to the first definition exceeds that from the second by just one focal length.

 

[dmunsie]

Thank you for the comments. @Derrel - Your comment is very similar to my current style of taking landscapes, focusing on the furthest object in the frame. But it seems that is pretty much the opposite of "hyperfocal distance" line of thinking. Granted, taking photos at varying focus lengths is ideal for comparison, but for now just trying to understand hyperfocal distance and if that is always the best scenario for taking landscape shots.

 

[amolitor]

Hyperfocal distance is just a special case of depth of field. In the hyperfocal distance case, you have a Very Large region which is in "acceptable focus".

If you don't actually need all the available depth of field, you might well make some other choices about where to focus. With a 10mm lens at f/11 the answer is pretty much gonna be "everything is acceptably sharp" so you should focus on whatever you want to be sharpest.

 

[TCampbell]

Older manual-focus lenses used to include depth of field marks. Notice, for example, that the following image of a lens has the center mark (the focused distance) which we can read by looking at the numbers above (green for feet and white for meters), but also includes a pair of marks labeled with a "4" (one left and one right of the center mark). Those are the depth of field marks for f/4. If we were using f/4 then all the distances between the two "4" marks would be in acceptable focus.

This first image shows the lens using f/22, but focused to "infinity". We know this because the infinity symbol is located above the center focus mark.


The "problem" with focusing to infinity is that we deprive ourselves of a lot of focused distance. In the image above, everything from from the "22" on the left to the "22" on the right is in acceptable focus. The "22" on the left is at roughly 11 or 12'. But on the right... we'll that's just distance in focus which is "beyond infinity" and since nothing is "beyond infinity", it's just a waste of half of our depth of field.

SO... we can claim more focused area by adjusting the lens light the camera below. In this (lower) image, I've aligned the "infinity" mark with the "22" on the right (because the aperture ring is set for f/22. If we were using f/16 then I'd align the infinity mark to the "16" on the right.

The affect this has on our depth of field is that everything between the two depth of field marks is still focused, but now the left mark is at roughly 6' (instead of 11 or 12') and we are STILL focused all the way out to infinity.



On a modern DSLR, they often don't bother to include depth of field marks anymore. I generally never see them on zoom lenses and only some prime lenses include them. Instead, you have to calculate the hyper-focal distance using a website such as DOFmaster.com. There are also apps that you can download if you own a smartphone (that way you have a DoF calculator with you when you're out shooting landscapes.) Some are free, but even the non-free ones are very inexpensive. I use the DOFmaster app on my phone.

 

[dmunsie]

Here is a full, (but attached in low res) photo I took. I've highlighted a white square area which in the next photo is at full resolution so you can see the detail of the furthest part of the image.



Here is the full resolution section of the furthest distance in the picture. The images are hdr btw, hence the painterly look.



Here is the photo settings:
Lens: Tamron 10-24
Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/25
Av( Aperture Value ) 20.0
Metering Mode Center-Weighted Average Metering
Exposure Compensation 0
Autoexposure Bracketing 0
ISO Speed 100
Auto ISO Speed OFF
Lens 10-24mm
Focal Length 10.0mm
Image Size 5184x3456
Image Quality Normal
Flash Off
FE lock OFF
White Balance Mode Auto
AF Mode One-Shot AF
AF area select mode Automatic selection (Focused on the center of the image.)
Picture Style Landscape

The entire image seems to be in decent focus. My question is, is the level of detail in the full res photo which is the furthest distance in the image, acceptable, good or bad? I've been told Aperture 11 provides the best sharpness for this lens so I will be experimenting with that setting soon.

 

[greybeard]

Older manual-focus lenses used to include depth of field marks. Notice, for example, that the following image of a lens has the center mark (the focused distance) which we can read by looking at the numbers above (green for feet and white for meters), but also includes a pair of marks labeled with a "4" (one left and one right of the center mark). Those are the depth of field marks for f/4. If we were using f/4 then all the distances between the two "4" marks would be in acceptable focus.

This first image shows the lens using f/22, but focused to "infinity". We know this because the infinity symbol is located above the center focus mark.

View attachment 32322
The "problem" with focusing to infinity is that we deprive ourselves of a lot of focused distance. In the image above, everything from from the "22" on the left to the "22" on the right is in acceptable focus. The "22" on the left is at roughly 11 or 12'. But on the right... we'll that's just distance in focus which is "beyond infinity" and since nothing is "beyond infinity", it's just a waste of half of our depth of field.

SO... we can claim more focused area by adjusting the lens light the camera below. In this (lower) image, I've aligned the "infinity" mark with the "22" on the right (because the aperture ring is set for f/22. If we were using f/16 then I'd align the infinity mark to the "16" on the right.

The affect this has on our depth of field is that everything between the two depth of field marks is still focused, but now the left mark is at roughly 6' (instead of 11 or 12') and we are STILL focused all the way out to infinity.

View attachment 32323

On a modern DSLR, they often don't bother to include depth of field marks anymore. I generally never see them on zoom lenses and only some prime lenses include them. Instead, you have to calculate the hyper-focal distance using a website such as DOFmaster.com. There are also apps that you can download if you own a smartphone (that way you have a DoF calculator with you when you're out shooting landscapes.) Some are free, but even the non-free ones are very inexpensive. I use the DOFmaster app on my phone.

This simple feature is one of the things I miss the most with modern equipment. This is the way I shot my landscape pictures back in the day. I always used my Minolta SRT 201, Kodachrome 25, and my Rokkor 28mm f/2.8 at f/11-16-22 (depending) on a tripod. Everything was always razor sharp.

 

[dmunsie]

...if creating a large, high-magnification landscape shot, focusing at 1.48 feet on a 1,000 foot distant landscape is not the best practice approach if you want an ultra-sharp landscape rendering that can be seen large and examined critically. Sure, the depth of field will be "acceptable", but with today's ultra-high resolution cameras, when making BIG images, focusing at 1.48 feet with a 10mm ultra-wide-angle lens on a 1,000 foot distant cityscape is simply not as good as focusing at around 1,000 feet...

This is EXTREMELY good advice. Echos what I have been finding out via research the past day or so. Thanks!