Hyper Focal distance and landscapes - help my confusion!

[steveatesh]

In an effort to improve my landscape shots ( nothing special, just practicing on various views locally rather than ones of the seven wonders of the world for now) I came across the term "hyper focus distance". There is loads about it online, and even apps to help work out this mysterious beast in the field. It sounds very geeky at the moment!

My initial understanding is that when you are looking across a sweeping valley, you have to select an arbitrary "subject" in the foreground, middle ground or background, estimate the distance to that subject, select your aperature (8, 11,16, 22 or whatever but watch the defraction issue with your lens) and focal length then use an app which you input all this data to give you another distance from you - the hyper focal spot - that you should focus on?

The difficulty I'm having is how on earth can you accurately measure in your head the distance to this arbitrary subject you select and then of course the distance to the hyper focus spot, especially if the landscape does not have anything to reference or scale off ? Surely this is just massive guess work?

To add to my confusion I then came across an article stating that it's a concept that is best ignored as it's just too difficult to do with any accuracy so you might as well just take a few different exposures with different focal points, apertures etc as insurance.

So, hyper focal distance. Is my understanding correct and it involves lots of estimation, apps etc and that it should definitely be used and honed as a skill set, or can it be ignored in favor of trial an error.

Does anybody here actually use hyper focal distance with any tips you can share please?

[Simpo Two]

A lens is focused on a distance a certain way in front of it. It may be near, or far, depending on where the focus ring is set to. So if you have it set to (say) 10 feet, an object 10 feet away will be sharp.

But in addition to that there is also a thing called 'depth of field'. This refers to the zone in front of and behind the object which is 'acceptably sharp' - in the case above let us say roughly 9 feet to 11 feet. The larger the lens aperture the smaller/shallower this zone will be, and vice versa. The depth of this zone and how far in front of the lens it is depends therefore on two things: (1) distance setting (2) aperture setting.

The hyperfocal malarkey you refer to is about defining and placing the depth of this zone to suit the scene you wish to photograph. It is always there, whether important or not, and is roughly 65% ahead of the focal plane and 35% back from it (or thereabouts; I stand to be corrected). My advice is to concentrate on your subject, and take a photograph you like - adjusting settings as you go and assessing the result - and not worry too much about slide rules, mobile apps and other techy stuff. Be aware of the focal plane and the depth of field each side; that will suffice.

With reference to landscapes, awareness of this zone means that rather than focus simply on, say, 1 mile away, you can focus a little nearer and therefore get more foreground acceptably sharp for the same given aperture.

[strudel]

I think you're overcomplicating the issue - you don't need an arbitrary subject.

Wikipedia said:

The hyperfocal distance is the closest distance at which a lens can be focused while keeping objects at infinity acceptably sharp.

All you are doing is maximising your depth of field, so everything is in focus, and you don't need to aim at one particular spot. Stick your numbers in Here, and notice the hyperfocal distance doesn't change with subject distance. In reality if you're shooting landscapes the hyperfocal distance is so close you don't have to worry about it - you just need a lens that says what your focus distance is (and some have a dof gauge on), or be able to guess it well enough every time.

[DIW35]

Oh for the days of manual focus lenses that had hyperfocal settings engraved on the barrel. Shooting at f/11 - set the focus ring so the infinity marker was lined up with the f/11 mark and you were good to go. No juggling numbers, guessing distances or typing of figures into an app.

[LongQ]

DIW35 said:

Oh for the days of manual focus lenses that had hyperfocal settings engraved on the barrel. Shooting at f/11 - set the focus ring so the infinity marker was lined up with the f/11 mark and you were good to go. No juggling numbers, guessing distances or typing of figures into an app.

Ah yes. So much easier then - especially with consumer grade film and lenses where perfect sharpness was not altogether mandatory for a successful image.

Some guidance I recall for landscapes (in their most logical "photographing a a big wide scene" guise) was to focus on the farthest point (manually of course and typically infinity wherever that was on the lens in use ) and then pull the focus back a nadge. Normally that would be adequate given the constrains of affordable lenses and film grain size. Of course this assumed that a decent DoF was required for the subject. If there was little of no foreground interest infinity might well suffice for most people for most shots.

[andy-xr]

steveatesh said:

So, hyper focal distance. Is my understanding correct and it involves lots of estimation, apps etc and that it should definitely be used and honed as a skill set, or can it be ignored in favor of trial an error.

Does anybody here actually use hyper focal distance with any tips you can share please?

I have never paid any attention to it on a camera with autofocus and the ability to select aperture

I guess in a lot of cases with landscapes you're going to be using something under 50mm. So you've got a short lens and want to take pics of things far away and have everything in focus. Chances are, F11/F16'ish through F22-F32 will give you what you want. Everything you can see will be focussed and sharp.

[Mr Will]

The answer is a lens with a distance scale - autofocus on the thing you want to measure the distance of and then read what it says.

In practice though unless I'm using a traditional lens with a proper distance scale I don't bother. I just focus on something 1/3rd of the way in to the scene (DoF lies 1/3rd in front of the focal point, 2/3rds behind) and then use the largest aperture I can stomach. It's not pretty but it works.

[steveatesh]

Thanks for the insight everybody, I'm going to take the view I need not learn about hyper focus distance in any detail from what has been said here.

I went out and took some shots today using different apertures and focal points for comparison. Have not looked at them yet but I guess practice is the best way to learn.

I'm delighted with the comments, I'm only on the beginner slopes of what is a steep learning curve, especially taking into account post processing as well. Having to apply complex maths would not have been welcome!

[PBLP]

I think for the majority of shots when you want front to back sharpness, focusing one third into the frame is perfect. If your composing with a foreground object on the third, then focus on that.

I focused on the first block on the right hand side. This just happened to be one third into the shot.

Crocodilia by paulsflicker, on Flickr

This one I set my focus point to the first rock after the style, one third into the shot.

Windermere by paulsflicker, on Flickr

Even if you don't have a foreground object focus one third of the way in. Works for me anyway

[NJH]

Just to add that old manual focus lenses with the distance scales are typically calibrated to a very loose interpretation of what one would interpret as acceptable sharpness. Its safer to subtract one stop i.e. if one sets the aperture to F8 set the lens scale to F5.6 etc. This seems to work fine on all my M mount lenses but I only occasionally shoot like that anyway with wide angles as the depth of field is so great, safest scheme is to focus 1/3 in as the guys above show.

[Xerstead]

steveatesh said:

To add to my confusion I then came across an article stating that it's a concept that is best ignored as it's just too difficult to do with any accuracy so you might as well just take a few different exposures with different focal points, apertures etc as insurance.

So, hyper focal distance. Is my understanding correct and it involves lots of estimation, apps etc and that it should definitely be used and honed as a skill set, or can it be ignored in favor of trial an error.

Does anybody here actually use hyper focal distance with any tips you can share please?

I'd say it's a bit of both, it's a different route to the same results.
Taking several shots with different settings will eventually get you the shot you want. With practice it will take fewer shots. Eventually you will be able to look at a scene and just say 'Focus on that bush at f.10, 20mm.' Using the maths will remove the trial & error from the earlier attempts but you should get a feel for it with experience and 'just know' what settings to use.

[boxsternoob56]

focus one third into the scene, also having some regard to the specific items in the scene that may need to be in focus as well....smaller aperture to get more DOF front to back as well

[rottie102]

Am I the only one shooting landscape photos at f/1.8-2 very often? I like the way it looks!

[GetCarter]

You need to know as much about hyper focal distance when taking landscape photos as you do enharmonics when playing the guitar.

On the camera, use the stop down button (which I hope you have) to check what's going to be in focus, and when playing a guitar, see how many people leave before you finish.

[Simpo Two]

GetCarter said:

when playing a guitar, see how many people leave before you finish.

'Depth of audience preview'

[GetCarter]

Simpo Two said:

GetCarter said:

when playing a guitar, see how many people leave before you finish.

'Depth of audience preview'

[Turn7]

Very good SImpo!