Hyperfocus. Do you?

[Shebang]

Frog, Greg and Roger: Just a quick post to let you know I see your posts - I will respond more fully asap - tomorrow hopefully. Thanks.

[w.slayman]

Paula,

As someone already said the subject of computing DOF and Hyperfocusing applies to us antiques who still use film, and have to get it right the first time. I use the scales on my lenses quite often, and the DOF preview button 90% of the time on non action shots.

I am no expert on digital (I can barely spell it) but I think if your lenses and body are properly adjusted your auto focus should give you sharp images. Further you really impress me with your determination to learn, most mere mortals would have given up by now. :lol:
2009 - 2010 FBS BOWL GAMES - BIG 12 = 8 WINS & OPPONENTS = 0
Yes I even hope the Sooners Win Big

[n8]

Man, this is starting to look like discussions on music theory that I've tried to wrap my head around in different forums. I know little theory, and know little about the science of photography, but find myself able to come up with good results anyway (usually).

[Shebang]

I haven't gone away -- I'm trying to come up with something to shoot so I can show you my best effort at sharpness.

I did shoot over 300 photos at a wedding (not THE photographer) with mostly less than satisfactory results -- but at least I think I know the problem -- 70-200 1:4 was too slow for light conditions. I also had a 50 prime that I think I was at the wrong distance -- (I'm going to the DOF calculator next) -- and I did not think to take my 17-24, which is probably the one that would have worked best.

Bill: Not sure if tenacity is a good trade-off for IQ points or not.....:cryin: Sometimes, you might be better off just knowing when to give it up:mad2:

thecounsel: I went to your gallery -- yes you do get good results -- you and a lot of others around here! Trying to wrap my head around this is most certainly challenging, to say the least. But, I don't know any other way to do it except just unpack it one element at a time until I can connect all the pixels -- um....dots.

I want results like megan's cars, jmk's featured boxing photo, allison and jetrim's portraits, loupey and eric's nature pics -- there are many, many more of you, so don't be offended that I can't name you all -- you know who you are -- that's the quality I want.

I think it was Roger who named off a long list (not exhaustive) of important factors -- knowing the right combo of tweaks is indeed hard.

[Shebang]

Nothing but gloom and rain around here...

[Dylan8i]

heres a good example of where i used my "un measured" hyperfocus.





instead of focusing on the bridge itself in the background, which would have left the leaves in the fore ground out of focus. so instead I focused on the tip of the rock in the stream (or slightly above it for the leaf covered rock on the far side of the stream- i can't quite remember) in order to get even more in focus ( and try to blurr the water movement some, i used f 22 and was at 18mm). now the focus point was the very top one i could select, but because the camera was pointed down, its still only about 1/3 of the total distance in to the frame (about 1/2 way to the covered bridge, and then distance behind the bridge).

so it may nto be a true hyperfocus... because a larger f stop or more calculated focus area might add alittle more focus area.... but it significantly helps from focusing on the bridge itself.


does that help some?

[Shebang]

Dylan: Yes, this helps a lot. The practical advice from you and Greg and others is exactly what I am looking for. Thank you. I wish the weather would cooperate as I really am anxious to get out and try again.

Your photo is stunning -- and yet another example of the sharp focus achieved by so many of you that I find so beautiful. Your skill level obviously is high -- and your subject matter sure didn't hurt anything! This spurs me on in my quest for this level of skill.

[CaptainPenguin]

As I do a lot of landscape work with manual lenses fitted to my DSLR I nearly always set the hyperfocal distance on the lens and always get pin sharp results

[Frog]

Nothing but gloom and rain around here...

What's that got to do with it?

[w.slayman]

Paula,

It must be my oldtimers disease kicking in, because I totaly forgot about it. But I my eyes are probabily not better than yours. (Using DOF button). I install a diopter correction lens on all my viewfinders, then never think about it. A lot of people so not even realize what they are but for those of us that require glasses, they sure help, with proper focusing.

[w.slayman]

Paula,

I just found out somethng very interesting. Most Canon EOS DSLR have a diopter adjustment wheel. Check your owners manual to make sure you are using yours, if you are not it will help.

Bill

[Shebang]

Here's a few. On this first one,I looked up the stats on the dofmaster beforehand and tried to eyeball the distances. I used a tripod but it was somewhat windy, and I did not weight it.




On this one, I couldn't eyeball the distance, but I did focus on the biggest rock in the center (which really probably wasn't a third into what ended up being my shot) and then composed and shot, using a tripod.




This one is handheld. I focused near but in front of the left utility pole (which really was about a third into my shot) and then composed and shot.




While my focus in these is better, it's still not the crystal clear focus that Dylan got. Is my biggest problem probably that my shutter speed is too slow? I was running out of sunlight and shooting on 800 ISO.

I took three lens with me - a 70-200 1:4; a 180mm; and a 17-40 1:4. Is the 180mm just an inappropriate lens to shoot anything in the distance? I did it but the photos were all terribly blurry. Probably a dumb question, but.....

Bill: Early on, I did discover what the diopter was for and where it was. I sat for a long time testing it to determine what seemed best, then painted on a spot so if it got bumped, I would know. When I adjusted my diopter, I was focusing on something close using my macro lens as I recall. Is that the way to do it? Do you have something "extra" that you have installed on yours?? Mine is what the camera had on it out of the box.

I do use the 2 second timer when I use a tripod, and sometimes handheld as well, depending on how much "wait time" I have.

One thing I know I must go back and read up on is the how-to on my particular 70-200 lens which has some settings that I don't really remember what they are for. Something about distance and movement (like panning) as I recall.

Hi, CaptainPenguin: Thanks for chiming in. I'm trying to understand how to use the scale on the lens I have, but my scales are not like the ones Greg has. (See his 15mm lens) And, from what I understand from Loupey, the newer lens just don't have all the info you need to effectively put it to use in the field. If I'm still missing something, somebody please speak up

It was in the 20's today without factoring in wind-chill, but I'm going back out tomorrow for another go at it.

Frog: The gloom and rain are more about "me" than "it!" Yuck.

Again, my thanks to all of you for your help. I really appreciate your time and expertise. I would have never even gotten this far "just reading a book" -- real people looking at real photos has been invaluable to me.

[w.slayman]

Boomer Paula,

Why are you asking us mere mortals anything? you have the sticky and the featured photo! :wink5: :lol:

OK, I'll play nice!:cryin:
1. When I get a new (to me) camera I install a dioptrip adjustment lens (on the older pre EOS cameras they are optional accessories), and check it through the viewfinder.
2. When looking through the viewfinder I do not use my glasses. The adantages of this are no optical distortion between the camera optics and my glasses, and when wearing sunglasses more light reaches the eye. Further the eyecup then can block light from the rear of the camera entering the viewfinder and eye.
3. When in fast moving conditions I try to prefocus, or using the marks on my (antique FD) lens hyperfocus, or just use the split image ring and shoot.
4. I have seen photographers using a dioprtic correction lens and their eyeglasses at the same time (the equivilant of wearing two pairs of glasses) complain that the stupid camera would not focus properly.

I hope this helps, and does not confuse you any more than writing it confused me.

[readingr]

While my focus in these is better, it's still not the crystal clear focus that Dylan got. Is my biggest problem probably that my shutter speed is too slow? I was running out of sunlight and shooting on 800 ISO.

I took three lens with me - a 70-200 1:4; a 180mm; and a 17-40 1:4. Is the 180mm just an inappropriate lens to shoot anything in the distance? I did it but the photos were all terribly blurry. Probably a dumb question, but.....

The lens you choose is dependant on what you want to capture. For landscapes I use anything from 24-200mm depending on how close I can get and what field of view I am trying to capture. So its down to composition.

Bill: Early on, I did discover what the diopter was for and where it was. I sat for a long time testing it to determine what seemed best, then painted on a spot so if it got bumped, I would know. When I adjusted my diopter, I was focusing on something close using my macro lens as I recall. Is that the way to do it? Do you have something "extra" that you have installed on yours?? Mine is what the camera had on it out of the box.

I use the diopter to make sure the text in the window is sharp not the picture through the lens. That way you know if the text is sharp then the picture in the viewfinder will be in focus, if you do what your doing, how do you know that the lens has focused properly?

I do use the 2 second timer when I use a tripod, and sometimes handheld as well, depending on how much "wait time" I have.

I never use the timer when hand held, not predictable enough, use your finger on the button.

One thing I know I must go back and read up on is the how-to on my particular 70-200 lens which has some settings that I don't really remember what they are for. Something about distance and movement (like panning) as I recall.

Sounds like you have a lens with IS, which is useful to have on in mode 1 if hand held. I turn it off when on the tripod.

As for the photo's the speed of the last photo is not fast enough for the focal length you used, use the following rule to guide you on speed, focal length = 1/focal length in speed, e.g. 200mm = 1/200s, 70mm = 1/70s. 20mm = 1/20s, etc I normally try and stay above 1/40s no matter what the focal length, but have successfully hand held at 1/8s so you have to try. Of course if your on a tripod then this does not matter unless your being buffeted.

One more thing, are you capturing the photo's in RAW and are you sharpening in PP before posting? If not then expect them to be soft as all RAW photos need sharpening using unsharp mask in photoshop, try the settings starting with number like
Amount =100
Radius= 0.7
Threshold=0 for landscapes and then play around with the number until you get what your happy with. DO NOT oversharpen! unless you want that effect.

I think all of the photo's could do with a touch of unsharp mask.

Roger R.

[dana m.]

haha Paula, you can't believe how close I was to taking pictures of the dam overflow when I was there at Thanksgiving.......drove right past it and didn't stop. Of course you would have put me to shame

[Frog]

Only pointers I have are what has been said and I'm not that up on using the diopter..I set mine and it works but I'm a Nikon guy.
The other thing that was said is to be sure to turn off your IS when using a tripod as Roger said.
Are you using the autofocus or manual focus? If auto, then how are you locking that focus before shooting?

[Shebang]

Boomer Paula,

Why are you asking us mere mortals anything? you have the sticky and the featured photo! :wink5: :lol:

OK, I'll play nice!:cryin:

I'm feeling very mere and very mortal in this, let me tell you

1. When I get a new (to me) camera I install a dioptrip adjustment lens (on the older pre EOS cameras they are optional accessories), and check it through the viewfinder.
2. When looking through the viewfinder I do not use my glasses. The adantages of this are no optical distortion between the camera optics and my glasses, and when wearing sunglasses more light reaches the eye. Further the eyecup then can block light from the rear of the camera entering the viewfinder and eye.

Without glasses, I could not see the camera, let alone the diopter or anything in any degree looking through it. Seriously. I am checking into this accessory thing possibility you speak of. Wouldn't that be a hoot -- of course it's not in focus, silly -- you can't see. ("You" being me, of course.)

3. When in fast moving conditions I try to prefocus, or using the marks on my (antique FD) lens hyperfocus, or just use the split image ring and shoot.

A split image ring WHAT?? This is another new thing to me.

4. I have seen photographers using a dioprtic correction lens and their eyeglasses at the same time (the equivilant of wearing two pairs of glasses) complain that the stupid camera would not focus properly.

I hope this helps, and does not confuse you any more than writing it confused me.

This is beginning to feel like a blindfolded pin-the-tail-on-something game -- that's not fun. There are so many "well, it could be this" factors in this, it's overwhelming -- diopters, split ring image, hyperfocus, blah, blah blah.

So, again, thank you for your patience and willingness to help as I try to fight my way through this. Okay, going to get camera and book....

[Shebang]

The lens you choose is dependant on what you want to capture. For landscapes I use anything from 24-200mm depending on how close I can get and what field of view I am trying to capture. So its down to composition.

Thank you. This is practical advice that I can understand.

I use the diopter to make sure the text in the window is sharp not the picture through the lens. That way you know if the text is sharp then the picture in the viewfinder will be in focus, if you do what your doing, how do you know that the lens has focused properly?

I'm sorry, but I lost you here. I'm getting the feeling that you have discovered a problem I have, but I don't know that I really understand what you are saying. When you say "text," what text are you talking about?

Sounds like you have a lens with IS, which is useful to have on in mode 1 if hand held. I turn it off when on the tripod.

I do have the IS. I am digging up info on it to try to better understand it.

As for the photo's the speed of the last photo is not fast enough for the focal length you used, use the following rule to guide you on speed, focal length = 1/focal length in speed, e.g. 200mm = 1/200s, 70mm = 1/70s. 20mm = 1/20s, etc I normally try and stay above 1/40s no matter what the focal length, but have successfully hand held at 1/8s so you have to try. Of course if your on a tripod then this does not matter unless your being buffeted.

Again, this is practical advice that would probably make a lot of sense -- if I really understood the actual speed that the shutter speed number designates. It's kind of embarrassing to internationally air one's ignorance -- but, I've gone too far to stop now:blush2: ...........

My camera's shutter speeds go from bulb (I know what that does - shutter stays open as long as you determine) to the next selection which is 30" on to 1" (with various stops in between) on to 0"8 (with various stops in between) on to 0"3 (ditto) on to 4 (ditto) and ends with the fastest speed of 8000 (ditto the stops in between).

So what does all that mean?? When you say 1/200 - does that mean I park on the "200" number, or does that mean "2000" or 2" or 0"2? Common sense tells me 1/200 probably means 200, but I don't get what all these numbers really represent.

One more thing, are you capturing the photo's in RAW and are you sharpening in PP before posting? If not then expect them to be soft as all RAW photos need sharpening using unsharp mask in photoshop, try the settings starting with number like
Amount =100
Radius= 0.7
Threshold=0 for landscapes and then play around with the number until you get what your happy with. DO NOT oversharpen! unless you want that effect.

I think all of the photo's could do with a touch of unsharp mask.

Roger R.

My camera will shoot in Raw or Raw AND Jpeg either L, M, or S, or Jpeg alone in L, M or S. I shoot in L Jpeg alone. I do not have Photoshop and can only do the bare, and I mean bare minimum of PP with Picasa 3, or the software that came with my Canon 40D -- and it's kind of the shotgun approach - I don't have much, if any, real understanding or skill in the world of PP.

Again, my profuse appreciation to you for your time, trouble, and expertise.

[Shebang]

Only pointers I have are what has been said and I'm not that up on using the diopter..I set mine and it works but I'm a Nikon guy.
The other thing that was said is to be sure to turn off your IS when using a tripod as Roger said.
Are you using the autofocus or manual focus? If auto, then how are you locking that focus before shooting?

I did learn enough about the IS lens to turn off the IS while on a tripod. And I did learn enough, I think, to understand about "One Shot" "AI-Focus" and "AI-Servo" to know when to use what -- though, I think I better go back and re-read to check myself.

As far as autofocus and manual focus go, I did use manual focus for my three previous shots. To manual focus, I select one of the nine focal squares based on my composition; turn the manual focus ring on the lens, try to keep the square blinking as fast as possible, holding the shutter button halfway down, recompose if necessary and shoot.

As far as locking my AF. Here's what I do: I will find some stationary thing to shoot and decide on my composition. Then I will select one of the nine focus points available which most closely lands on my focal point, focus, hold the shutter halfway down, recompose slightly if necessary and shoot. This focal point square will blink once or so and a green light comes on, indicating it's focused -- at least that's what I understand it is doing.


With Canon, I understand that even if you are on AutoFocus, if you turn the manual focus ring, then it will override AF. And I very recently discovered this camera has a Auto back button they called it, that somehow enhances your AF by allowing better tracking of a moving object or something - I obviously have more to learn there.

Frog: Thank you again for your help. I am totally impressed with the patience and willingness and expertise of the PR members here. And I will say it again -- I would have given up long ago if it weren't for you all. I am determined to get this thing figured out -- if nothing else so you all don't feel like you just wasted your time on me! =)

[Shebang]

haha Paula, you can't believe how close I was to taking pictures of the dam overflow when I was there at Thanksgiving.......drove right past it and didn't stop. Of course you would have put me to shame

Oh, I doubt my pics would put yours to shame -- and your philosophy would just be appropriate here on this "dam":wink5: picture! LOL.........

[OldClicker]

I think this thread has gone in way too many directions to actually make sense out of it. Diopters, old manual lenses, circle of confusion, hyperfocus, auto/manual focus, post process sharpening, with/without glasses, iPhone apps, macro-photography, ancient film lenses and on and on - many of which don't really apply or are contradictory.

To get a sharp image, simpilify everything as much as you can and get a good image. Then change ONE thing at a time. Are you satisfied with any of your images? Is it just the landscapes your are having trouble with?

TF

[Shebang]

I think this thread has gone in way too many directions to actually make sense out of it. Diopters, old manual lenses, circle of confusion, hyperfocus, auto/manual focus, post process sharpening, with/without glasses, iPhone apps, macro-photography, ancient film lenses and on and on - many of which don't really apply or are contradictory.

To get a sharp image, simpilify everything as much as you can and get a good image. Then change ONE thing at a time. Are you satisfied with any of your images? Is it just the landscapes your are having trouble with?

TF

The thread certainly does have many facets. And, as I have mentioned, all the different elements that necessarily must be right to produce a really good image are fascinating and frustrating all at the same time. If this is off but that is right, you don't get a good photo. And, likewise, if this is right but that is off, still, you don't get a good photo. Where does one start?? Focus seemed the obvious answer. I thought I had the diopter issue solved long ago, but now I'm not so sure. I buy a lens that I can't really afford, thinking that will result in great photos, and I find out about the precarious balancing act between shutter speed, iso, focal length, aperture, etc. -- that's a lot of balls in the air.

Your advice is good. You all have certainly given me much to think about and to practice. And, the best thing is that my photos are better because of this thread -- not where I aim to be -- but better. For now, better is good. And, yes, landscapes are my biggest issue, but I strive for better use of DOF and focus in all my photos.

I got a landscape image this a.m. that I think is in better focus, but again, composition and subject matter have so much to do with the true success of a photo, that I can't say I'm happy with the photo -- but it's what I could do today. Photos like Dylans' have ruined me. Mine isn't the quality his is.

Thanks for truly good advice -- work on the basics till you get that right! -- there's just so many "basics."

[Dylan8i]

make sure you check out the thread that photo came from...

Covered Bridge in fall

the un edited version of that photo is in that thread, and then the edited version ( also posted here ). it make a HUGE difference. the original version focus is muddy and colors are alittle dull.


as far as getting colors to pop, and seeing compositions i think you just learn that as you go. the covered bridge photo posted here, it was a completely overcast day, with light rain, the entire time i was there, and i went on purpose knowing that. i knew that the colors would pop alittle more being wet and that the overcast would help and also make it darker so i could use a larger f stop and blurr the water.

[Shebang]

As an afterthought..............

Of course, I appreciate and welcome any further advice or thoughts any of you may have, but if I have worn you all out, I certainly understand that. I'll keep practicing and digesting what you have posted here and come back and show you what I get.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shebang]

make sure you check out the thread that photo came from...

Covered Bridge in fall

the un edited version of that photo is in that thread, and then the edited version ( also posted here ). it make a HUGE difference. the original version focus is muddy and colors are alittle dull.

Thanks. I did keep up with your thread, but I had forgotten that you did start out with something different than what you ended up with -- and this is another thing that I am trying to learn -- just what can you realistically expect SOOC. I don't do PP (yet!), so that's an issue.

...as far as getting colors to pop, and seeing compositions i think you just learn that as you go. the covered bridge photo posted here, it was a completely overcast day, with light rain, the entire time i was there, and i went on purpose knowing that. i knew that the colors would pop alittle more being wet and that the overcast would help and also make it darker so i could use a larger f stop and blurr the water.

It's advice like this that is so helpful. When you say this, I see what you are saying and why -- but I would not have come up with this on my own -- and certainly not any time soon.

Thanks!