Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I'm not really a big fan of hyperfocal focusing.
Depth of field is not the range of distances where everything is in PERFECT focus, but rather the range of distances where things are in acceptable focus. Sometimes acceptable is not good enough.
Say that you focus on something 10 ft away and plan to shoot at f/8. Say that the depth of field is from 5 ft to infinity, meaning 10 ft is the lens' hyperfocal distance. When you take the shot, the object at 10 ft will be perfectly sharp. As you move away from 10 ft in either direction, either out towards infinity or inwards towards 5 ft, sharpness drops. Anything closer than 5 ft is considered "unacceptably sharp." An object at 5 ft is considered "acceptably sharp" but is still not as sharp as an object at 10 ft. Likewise, infinity is considered "acceptably sharp," but not as sharp as at 10 ft.
.......Unacceptably Sharp............|.........Acceptably Sharp........|Max Sharpness|...........................Acceptably Sharp.....................................
0 ft ........................................5 ft.................................................10ft............................50ft.............................................................Infinity
<----------Getting Even More Fuzzier <----------Getting Fuzzier----VERY SHARP-----Getting Fuzzier--------->Getting Even More Fuzzier--------->
But if your primary subject is at, say, infinity, there's no point in using the hyperfocal distance because then your primary subject at infinity will only be acceptably sharp rather than very sharp if you were to just focus at infinity. Likewise, if your primary subject is at 5 ft, there's no point in using the hyperfocal distance because then your primary subject at 5 ft will only be acceptably sharp rather than very sharp if you were to just focus at 5 ft instead of at 10ft.
The primary use of hyperfocal distance that I can think of is if you've got two primary subjects spaced very far away, such as a subject at 5ft and a subject at infinity. In this case you might have to just focus at 10 ft and get your 5 ft and infinity subjects in acceptable focus. A better alternative, although not always possible to do, is to take two shots, one focused at 5 ft and another at infinity, then use focus stacking software like Helicon or CombineZ to combine the two pictures so 5ft and infinity are both at max sharpness.
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
<snip>
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
<snip>
I honestly think you've missed the point of using the hyperfocal distance.
Not all of us can afford fancy programs to ah heck around with pictures, or indeed want to, and people have been using this technique to capture jaw-dropping landscapes for a very long time.
To dismiss it outright is sheer arrogance, not least because it works, and it works very well.
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
<snip>
I honestly think you've missed the point of using the hyperfocal distance.
Not all of us can afford fancy programs to ah heck around with pictures, or indeed want to, and people have been using this technique to capture jaw-dropping landscapes for a very long time.
To dismiss it outright is sheer arrogance, not least because it works, and it works very well.
Originally posted by: astroidea
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
<snip>
I honestly think you've missed the point of using the hyperfocal distance.
Not all of us can afford fancy programs to ah heck around with pictures, or indeed want to, and people have been using this technique to capture jaw-dropping landscapes for a very long time.
To dismiss it outright is sheer arrogance, not least because it works, and it works very well.
I think fuzzy was just pointing out the downsides of hyperfocal focusing, rather than outright dismissing it. I don't see anything wrong with that. I find his post very imformative. It let's people know both sides of hyperfocal focusing.
To not tolerate any other perspective towards hyperfocal focusing but your own is what's really outright sheer arrogance.
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
<snip>
I honestly think you've missed the point of using the hyperfocal distance.
Not all of us can afford fancy programs to ah heck around with pictures, or indeed want to, and people have been using this technique to capture jaw-dropping landscapes for a very long time.
To dismiss it outright is sheer arrogance, not least because it works, and it works very well.
CombineZ is a free program that works very well. The only reason I use the non-free Helicon Focus is because it supports 16-bit files while CombineZ only supports 8-bit files. But this is not an issue for the vast majority of shooters. People should really play around with CombineZ because it's quite cool and can yield virtually unlimited depth of field with excellent sharpness that would be physically unattainable in one shot.
Just because I'm not a big fan of hyperfocal focusing doesn't mean it doesn't have its uses. I even use it on occasion when I don't want to (or can't) implement focus stacking. In these cases hyperfocal focusing is essential. It's just important to note the drawbacks. Sure, you can get good results with this technique, but if I have the time I often prefer to achieve a more optimal result by doing focus stacking.
I also use hyperfocal focusing when I need to prefocus on something. It definitely has its uses. Just don't use it when you don't need to use it.
Originally posted by: dug777
While i can see where you are coming from, it does work very well for landscape work, and subsequently i'd suggest people used it for that very purpose
I'd be interested to see a few examples where the difference between stacking and properly using hyperfocal focusing with a decent lens made a significant differerence, if you have any?
I've seen many landscapes that looked as close as you could want to razor sharp throughout on a slide projector, that certainly weren't stacked, and from personal curiousity i'd love to see some comparisons
My apologies for coming out in such a combative fashion, you didn't seem to have anything positive to say about hyperfocal focusing, and it must have been a long day yesterday
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Originally posted by: dug777
While i can see where you are coming from, it does work very well for landscape work, and subsequently i'd suggest people used it for that very purpose
I'd be interested to see a few examples where the difference between stacking and properly using hyperfocal focusing with a decent lens made a significant differerence, if you have any?
I've seen many landscapes that looked as close as you could want to razor sharp throughout on a slide projector, that certainly weren't stacked, and from personal curiousity i'd love to see some comparisons
My apologies for coming out in such a combative fashion, you didn't seem to have anything positive to say about hyperfocal focusing, and it must have been a long day yesterday
My thoughts exactly. I was actually thinking about this the whole entire day. I assume that the difference gets more pronounced the less wide the lens gets. I've noted that hyperfocal focusing works quite well for ultrawides because the DOF on them is already so huge, and due to the wide nature a lot of the details don't really require tack sharpness to look really good. I'll get to it once my exams are done. I have a corporate finance exam in about 5 hours (3AM here). God help me.
My 10-20mm is currently being fixed after a date with concrete, so the 17-50mm is going to have to do for now.