focusing in Landscape Photography

[Soheil]

Hi Everybody,
I am new to this forum and would like to ask experts in this forum a question regarding focusing techniques in landscape photography.
What i've read in different web sites state that we have to use hyperfocal distances to get tack sharp pictures of a landscape. i tried to do so and calculated the Hyperfocal disances for my EF 24-70mm L; but the results were not satisfactory ( I mean compared to what we see from the professional landscape photographers). i tried another method read somewhere saying that to shoot landscapes you have to focus your lens on infinity, I did so but with the same result. another recommendation was to focus somewhere in 1/3 rd of the compsed image, I did but with the same results. Among all these methods the Hyperfocal distance was the best deal and resulted the best but as i am trying to catch up with the professional landscape photographers i am looking for a way that i can capture as crisp and sharp as what the pro's do.
any help and recommendation with this is greatly appreciated.

Regards.
Soheil

[paulnj]

I am definately not a landscape photog, but yesterday I found a scene that inspired me to put my 28-70 F2.8 on ;)

This is a very quick edit of a file I took yesterday.

F10, 63MM, 1/125TH, ISO 200 and focused at infinity(the monument). I think I needed to focus a little closer and open up to F11 maybe?

[SmartWombat]

Hyperfocal is definitely the way to calculate the focus.
But you may find your lens distance scale is only an approximation.

I assume you're using a tripod, low ISO speed, and long exposure.
Although the 24-70 will stop down below f22, it may be that stopping down too far is a problem
I haven't tested it, but you can stop down to the point where the image gets softer again because the hole in the diaphragm is so small you get diffraction effects.

My guess is that the pros are probably not using zoom lenses.
Even though it's an L series lens, at the ends of the zoom range it's likely that it's worse (relatively, it's still a good lens) than a similar length prime lens.
But I don't have any primes to back that up with practical experience.

I tried to read the MTF charts on the Canon website to give some idea of lens quality comparisons. But it's too technical for me at the moment, I've got to do some research until I understand the charts.

[another view]

focus somewhere in 1/3 rd of the compsed image, I did but with the same results. Among all these methods the Hyperfocal distance was the best deal and resulted the best

This is the right approach. Using hyperfocal focusing has to do with "acceptable sharpness". If you have any prime (non-zoom) lenses, they may have hyperfocal markings on the focus scale. Basically, the smaller the aperture the larger the depth of field (DOF). For landscape, you'd probably set the infinity mark right on one of these marks, and everything inside the marks (say 3' to infinity, just for example) will be in focus.

Again, in focus and sharpness having what they determine to be at an acceptable sharpness. It's not a black and white issue - your acceptable sharpness and theirs might not be the same, and the only way to know this is to try it out yourself. Galen Rowell used the hyperfocal marks for the aperture one stop larger than what he was using because he thought the marks on the lens were a little optimistic. As it was mentioned, once you get to a certain point the smaller the aperture the more softness you'll get from distortion. The last stop on a lens isn't something I usually use; f8 or maybe f11 is generally all I'll use. And, it's kind of a compromise - maybe you need the depth of field or the shot won't work so you use f16 or f22 and have something not razor sharp, which may possibly be able to be improved by sharpening in Photoshop.

It boils down to a series of compromises. I think you're on the right track with the quote above, and I wonder if maybe there's another problem. Digital images are usually a little soft right out of the camera. I've heard that Nik Sharpener Pro is really good for making an image snap, but I don't have it personally. Are you using a heavy tripod and a cable release? John Shaw's books are really good at explaining some of these techniques.

[walterick]

Paul and Steve have it right. For distant landscapes, focus your lens to infinity.

The only reason you hyper-focus is when there are foreground elements you want in focus too! For instance: You're shooting a mountain range with tree branches in the foreground. If you want the branches in the foreground blurred, focus on infinity and use a large (f4 or whatever) aperature. If you want the tree branches a bit sharper, focus on infinity and use f16 or so. If you really want the mountains and those branches to be in focus, you hyper-focus. What this means is you use either the lens's hyperfocal scale (if it has one, not all lenses do) or your mathematical computations to focus on a point between you and the mountains. Using a small enough aperature (f16) you will have both foreground elements and distant elements in focus at the same time.

Paul and Steve also have it right when they say that lenses do not have the same sharpness at all aperatures. In other words, a lens is softest both wide open and stopped all the way down. The sharpest aperatures are in the middle; usually f8 and f11. Lens sharpness follows a normal curve.

Focusing 1/3 of the way into the image is another technique. This is practice is based on the fact that depth of field extends twice as far behind the focal point as it does in front of it. If you focus on something 10 feet away, the objects 5 feet (eg) behind it might also be in focus. But, the objects only 2.5 feet in front of it will be in focus. So by focusing 1/3 of the way into the scene - given the proper aperature - you will have your whole subject in focus.

One other issue that comes to mind when you are comparing your images to pro images - a lot of landscape photogs still use large format cameras. These cameras offer an advantage over 35mm and medium format in that the film plane can be tilted. This allows the film plane to closely parallel the plane your subject lies on. In other words, if you're shooting inside a canyon and want a shot close to the canyon wall leading into the distance, and want the whole thing in focus, what a large format camera allows you to do, in addition to stopping down and hyperfocusing, is twist the film plane so it runs parallel to that canyon wall, giving even greater depth of field.

I know there's a lot to digest here. I recommend googeling for more information, but that should get you started.

Good luck!

Rick

[drg]

For what focal length did you compute the hyperfocus? What COF (circle of confusion) did you want to acheive?

Hyperfocal distance is to get the maximum portion of the photograph in focus by acheiving the greatest depth of field from foreground to background. Some lens, particularly zooms, are not terribly great with this technique for a couple of reasons. The markings on the lens are not really accurate and haven't been for a looooonnngggg time. In fact most zooms don't really have a 'mark' on them any more to put you in the ballpark. Another reasons is that with temperature your infinity will change rather considerably. You may have noticed that your AF lens can go beyond the infinity mark in manual mode. This is to allow for expansion/contraction of the elements and barrel due to temp fluctuation. It's not as big a problem with smaller len's but it is very visible at times. I've had that very lens you are using play horrible tricks with AF going from shade to sunlight on a moderate 75-85F day.

The zooms are not consistent in their important optical factors throughout the range of zoom. If you have looked at the MTF charts for your lens you'll note the curves have different 'profiles' for the different levels of zoom. This is because they have different levels of performance at different focal lengths and across the frame. The falloff of sharpness from center too edge may be what you are having occur and if so that is unavoidable.

If you want to experiment and see what really happens, get a 50/1.8 or 50/1.4, put it on a tripod and shoot down a street and look at houses, cars, traffic signs and signals. Then do the same thing with a zoom, any zoom. You will see immediately the difference. And the 50 1.8 is not an 'L'.

Post some examples of what problem you are having as well. There are some reference that you can be pointed towards if this is an are you want to pursue. When I shoot in MF or LF I use a custom program running on a Palm to setup the shots. Use to carry a calculator and tables. The third front and 2/3's back isn't entirely wrong, it just how far away those numbers are! Also, the size of the sensor (or frame) figures into the calculation. The rules of thumb are usually based on the the 35x24mm frame size and about a 42mm focal length (I think I remember correctly). There are two or three factors that can mess up this formula.
Or you can pick the central sensor for AF(supposed to be the most accurate for lots of optical reasons!) and find a well detailed distant point to focus on and then lock the focus.

For serious landscape photography think about investing in a fixed focal length like a 35/1.4 one of the 20-28mm focal lenths or even a fisheye. Your best zoom lens, when possible, will always be your feet!

If you want more I'll dig out the books and check the website sources as well.

Best of luck!

[another view]

Focusing 1/3 of the way into the image is another technique.

Actually I tend to think of it as basically the same thing; focusing in 1/3 of the way is kind of a quick and dirty way of using the benefits of hyperfocal focusing. If you set a prime lens using the markers I mentioned in my other post, you'll see that the focus point is about 1/3 in from the DOF area. It's more exact to do the math, but again that's assuming that you're confident in the sharpness you'll get by doing the math. You may figure it out and be technically correct but not happy with the sharpness (as I mentioned Galen Rowell above).

And to throw another variable in, that one-stop smaller aperture will give you one stop less shutter speed so maybe wind blowing stuff around in the foreground is more of a problem than DOF was (doesn't matter if the grass in the foreground is within the DOF if it's blurred because of a slow shutter speed!).

[another view]

Your best zoom lens, when possible, will always be your feet!

I sorta agree with this... I think it's best to look at something you want to photograph and first decide what lens you want to use to do it. Maybe you want the perspective distortion of a really wide lens, or maybe you want to compress distances with a telephoto lens. Pick the focal length, and set that on your zoom. Then use your feet to make the shot happen the way you want it.

I don't think you were saying this, but I've heard a lot of people explain it like everything can be photographed with one focal length or another, and great results can be had simply by repositioning yourself. I don't believe that, myself.

[Peter_AUS]

Isn't there a sort of L mark lying down the other way that is the hyperfocal distance on the L lenses where the sideways 8 lying down is. I think I remember reading about that mark and what is was for. The Infinity focusing mark. Is that it.

[Soheil]

Dear All,
First of all i would like to thank you for your kind and professional replies to my post. To answer some of your questions here are my explanations:

Quote from Paul: "I assume you're using a tripod, low ISO speed, and long exposure.
" .

The answer is yes i use a tripod but not a heavy one, I normally use f22 or f16 to get the maximum DOF but as i understand from your replies this is not a good idea. Perhaps i have to switch to my lens sweet spot which is 2 stops below the max and min apertures available.I always shoot at ISO 100 to avaoid noise.

Quote from Walter: "The only reason you hyper-focus is when there are foreground elements you want in focus too".

Definitely, this is the philosophy for landscape photography (at least in my opinion). the hyperfocal distance says that when you focus on this distance everything from half the HFD to infinity will be in focus. for instance for my EF 24-70L lens when at F22 and 24mm Focal length this distance will be about 1.5 m and as a result logically all objects from 75cm from the camera to infinity must be in focus.

Quote from DRG: "For what focal length did you compute the hyperfocus? "

I calculated the HFD for all main focal lenghts provided with my lens i mean 24,...., 50, 70
i used information in this fabulous document by Douglas A. Kerr. where you can find in the following address:
http://doug.kerr.home.att.net/pumpki...h_of_Field.pdf
he also has a very good document about format sizes and their effects on the final shot results.
What i am not 100% sure is that when calculating the Hyperfocal distance should we use real lens focal lengths or the 35mm Equivalent? i mean for Canon EOS 20D with crop facor of 1.6, to calc HFD for 24mm Focal lenght should we use 24mm or (1.6*24=38.4mm) in the formulas. but before answering this question please read the document i just gave the address and then answer based on what you infer from the text.

I am really eager to send some samples in this forum but 640X480 is not a good size to analyse landscape shots and sort the problems out correctly, is there any other way so that i can send the RAW version of the shots for proper analysis?

once again i thank all of you reading and answering my posts.

Best of lucks.

Soheil

[Peter_AUS]

Soheil, you can't post up RAW images, they have to be converted first. If you post an image to another website that you might have, alot of people have personal websites, you can make an image link of the link where the image is stored, so if you put say your images in a virtual directory online in your website, called www.whateveryoucallit.whateverextension\images and you file was named landscape1.jpg for instance, then you post up the link at www.whateveryoucallit.whateverextension\images\lan dscape1.jpg and then people will be able to view your image. Having file sizes that are two big, not just in dimension but in the actual file size isn't good, as there are still many that use dialup as their internet connections that is why there is a file size and dimension limit on the forums, it also slows the forums down something bad as well.

Have you tried using the little discussed on page E-6 of lens manual

[another view]

A RAW file will be way too big and the wrong format to post here. I think you're limited to 100k jpegs (couple other file types too, but not RAW). Even if you could post a RAW file, a lot of people wouldn't be able to view it - it takes software to even see it.

You could post a 100% crop from a detailed area of the shot. I've done this before, and all I do is view the image at 100% size in Photoshop (it will be way to big to see the whole thing on the screen at this point). Select the crop tool and don't put any size info in it (at the top by the tool bar, where you might select pixel dimensions and resolution). Make a rectangle that you guess is fairly close to 600x400 which is how a lot of images are posted here, doesn't matter if it's exact.

[drg]

You can also post an image in the gallery to get a bigger file size.

For focus problems the suggestion to crop a section from a full size image is probably good. Choose a photo that is of particular conceren and crop out two or three 200x200 section (or say up to 400x400) and post those along with a resized version of the original that is 600pixel along its long edge. When saving save them all at the same quality but aim to keep each below 100k. Else the server may balk at letting you upload them to the forum. If you load one up to the galleries, a 1.5 - 2 Meg files size should be more than ample.

The crops should be of areas where it looks like the focus is off or varies.

I'll dig through the Kerr article, quickly browsing he describes the relevant info but not all of this is needed for every calculation.

Focal length does not change. The multiplier is a cropping circle, but it can affect some calculations.

Let's start though with a sample or two if you wish. Do you have Auto Focus generated photos that are acceptable? They might tell us if the lens is focusing properly to start.

Oh, one more thing, leave the EXIF data intact for the samples.

[Kaelastreet]

My First Post.

Reading above, I see disharmony. What size is the best size to post here. I understand sometypes may have powerful 14.4 Kilo bytes Demodulator and it can take a couple of hours to downlink a large 100 Kilo byte image, yet, some are on Broad Bands and claim down link speeds of hundreds of kilo bytes. I am on broad band and can down link pages very very quickly. What would you say is the best format for pictures, that is, if I could share them, and what format.

Does PNG carry value, or should the older Bit Mapped president be survived? Is it legal to share JPEG from Joint Photographic?. What size? What Type?

Is it fair to share a link say, to another website that I can use to uplink my pictures to, and maybe post a mere thumbnail (smaller image representing a much larger image) here, would that be a way to go?
I have some pictures that I have taken and would love to gain the insight from more advanced photographers than I.

Looking forward to a reply.

Kaela

kaela.street@btinternet.com

[paulnj]

Kaela,

Welcome abourd!

You can upload images here that are 192kb at 640x640 I do believe. the formats are usually JPEG, but some others are accepted too. You can also link them, added them to the gallery or whatever you choose. Some of us are on dialup, while most are on broudband or even T1 lines. I am on dialup though ;)