Hyper Focal Distance Technique - do you use it?

bmattock said:
If you don't understand it, the fact that 'it works' for you is largely down to luck. When it works well, you're pleased, and when it does not, you scratch your head and walk away. If remaining ignorant is your choice, so mote it be.
Click to expand...

Please note the word 'speak'. I learn the technique, but the words mean nothing. It's the same as you not having to know what a bi-directional inverse kinematic constraint is in terms of words, but fully understanding how to walk. ;)

It seems that people get too into words and forget what they are supposed to be doing.
 
Larky said:
Please note the word 'speak'. I learn the technique, but the words mean nothing. It's the same as you not having to know what a bi-directional inverse kinematic constraint is in terms of words, but fully understanding how to walk. ;)

It seems that people get too into words and forget what they are supposed to be doing.
Click to expand...

In that case, I beg your pardon.

However, I find it strange - odd - that you would refuse to learn the words, if you bother to learn the technique.

However would you communicate it to others, such as in this very forum?

Things have names for very good reasons - a common frame of reference, if nothing else. I could call fire 'ice cubes' and snow 'fire' if I wanted to, but my instructions to others to put fire in their cola and make a fireman by rolling up the fire on the ground outside might seem a bit odd.
 
Man, fire in a Coke? Would that make the sugar turn to caramel?

It's a great idea, I think we should start using the wrongs words every now and then, would make the world a more fun place to be. :)
 
First of all, jespin00, welcome to the forum!

I enjoy street photography, and often use a 50mm lens for that purpose. I try to get fairly close to my subject, and shoot fast. In these circumstances, both techniques discussed above -- hyperfocal distance and scale (or zone) focusing -- work well. I tend to use hyperfocal distance focusing when I can shoot at f11 or f16 -- with the infinity mark set at either aperture, my usual shooting distance from the subject is acceptably in focus. When shooting in shadows or lower light situations, however, I shift to zone or scale focusing, usually setting the aperture to about six feet or 2 meters on the near side (sometimes even closer). Using zone focusing in these situations means that I can use a faster shutter speed. Of course, there are trade-offs in loss of depth of field. Using a 35mm or wider lens gives you more leeway there, but I happen to like the 50mm perspective so I live w/ the compromise.
 
Larky said:
Man, fire in a Coke? Would that make the sugar turn to caramel?

It's a great idea, I think we should start using the wrongs words every now and then, would make the world a more fun place to be. :)
Click to expand...

Three words - Mars Climate Orbiter.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/orbiter/

Likely Cause Of Orbiter Loss Found
The peer review preliminary findings indicate that one team used English units (e.g., inches, feet and pounds) while the other used metric units for a key spacecraft operation.
Click to expand...

And *that* is why using the right words for things is generally useful.
 
That's not people using the wrong words, that's using the wrong type of measurement.

I think Metric was designed for people who don't know how to multiply.
 
I always considered hyperfocal distance largely a nonsense, like e.g. incident metering.
The problem might be that on one side we enjoy photography at user level (and rightfully so) on the other side there is optics and the intercommunication is not so good and the industry has no interest to raise the fog.
Hyperfocal distance depends on blur diameter. This is an rather arbitrary parameter. Also h. d. is based on incorrect assumptions because ignores aberration and stipulate that blurring is the same on both sides of focus (Smith, Modern optical Engineering)
On the other hand it is the break of common sense that is more concerning to me.
The idea is to make a horrible compromise: you give up sharp focus where you want it in change of a poor sharpness in a larger range.
How brilliant!
Forget it for me!
I do hope HCB never used it.
These seems to me the kind of topics to justify courses in photography.
But to understand the technical side what is needed is a degree in optics (alas I have taken another orientation. But as a mathematician I sometimes need to study a little piece of optics)
Cheers
Paul
 
Pistach said:
I always considered hyperfocal distance largely a nonsense, like e.g. incident metering.
The problem might be that on one side we enjoy photography at user level (and rightfully so) on the other side there is optics and the intercommunication is not so good and the industry has no interest to raise the fog.
Hyperfocal distance depends on blur diameter. This is an rather arbitrary parameter. Also h. d. is based on incorrect assumptions because ignores aberration and stipulate that blurring is the same on both sides of focus (Smith, Modern optical Engineering)
On the other hand it is the break of common sense that is more concerning to me.
The idea is to make a horrible compromise: you give up sharp focus where you want it in change of a poor sharpness in a larger range.
How brilliant!
Forget it for me!
I do hope HCB never used it.
These seems to me the kind of topics to justify courses in photography.
But to understand the technical side what is needed is a degree in optics (alas I have taken another orientation. But as a mathematician I sometimes need to study a little piece of optics)
Cheers
Paul
Click to expand...

Paul, your points are valid and well-taken. Hyperfocal focusing, like anything else in photography, is a compromise.

I look at it like this - if I know about it, know how to use it, and know what results I am likely to get - then it is a tool to be used when I choose. If I decide that the results are not what I want, then I don't pull that tool out of my bag.

But if I don't know how hyperfocal focusing works, or don't care, then I don't have that tool, and can't use it whether or not it might be a good idea in any given situation.

It is like having a golf bag full of clubs. You can get by with one or two, most likely. And if you're really good with them, that may be all you want and all you need. And a bag full of extra clubs that you neither understand nor want isn't any help to you - they're just liable to get you into trouble. But if you have clubs you understand and know how to use, then they are there for you when and if you want them. If not, they stay in the bag - no harm done.

I understand having knowledge of a technique and choosing not to use it - after all, you're the one making the decisions regarding your own photographs, right?

But what I have never understood is people who are intentionally, gleefully, and elaborately ignorant - who run away from knowlege; becaus they are convinced it can do them (and by extension, the whole world) no good.

You clearly understand hyperfocal focusing and have decided it is not to your liking, and I completely understand that. It may have some valid uses for some people in some circumstances.
 
bmattock said:
That's terrific and the technique you're using is time-honored and tends to work well in your situation, but it is not hyperfocal focusing.
Click to expand...

Right, it's zone focusing :bang:

My mistake, sorry.

Best,
Bas.
 
bmattock said:
Paul, your points are valid and well-taken. Hyperfocal focusing, like anything else in photography, is a compromise.

You clearly understand hyperfocal focusing and have decided it is not to your liking, and I completely understand that. It may have some valid uses for some people in some circumstances.
Click to expand...
This is all well and good, and Paul may know plenty about optics and the mathematical theory that governs optical systems, but to lump this together with incident metering is weird. To call into question the validity of incident metering demonstrates that he doesn't know much about light meters or their application. Why throw that into this discussion? To me, it calls into question the validity of the rest of his contribution.
 
Rense is a raving anti-semite moron and his website contains a concocted mix of hate material and almost juvenile doctored "conspiracy" stories for the gullible.
 
An apology for having made my point with perhaps some overemphasys.
Since I was young I developed an certain anthipathy to the idea of h.d. reading in the photo magazines recurrent paper on the topic and the inevitable PopPhoto one, where the pros teach you how they use h.d.
I pay tribute to the answer of Bill (is that name the B stands for?) for a perfect example of how one can make his point in a more calm and polite way.
BTW I second your post Bill.
And, as I often repeat, photography for passion and for fun, and anybody must rightfully do it his own way.
On the practical side two more remarks.
The first is that the direct approach (decide where the focus should be, focus there (recompose if necessary) and shoot) is faster (at least I presume so - and even more with autofocus) and hence more adapt for quick reactions and decisive moments.
The second is that distance, as we all know blurrs on his own. There are cases in which a thick layer of air between the lens and the subject reduces substantially sharpness (e.g at the beach in summer).
This might be another good reason to stick with focusing at the the point intended for sharpest focus and in particular at infinity, if so dim fit.
Cheers
Paul
This myght be a good reason
I
 
I once tried calculating the hyperfocal distance of a subject at infinity by dividing infinity in half, and the result was still infinity.

So I ended up focussing at the subject at infinity, but due to the inverse square law the light intensity reaching the camera was indeterminate. So I set the shutter to "B"; I'm still waiting for the results.

:)

~Joe
 
Trouble with hyperfocal is that well-meaning teachers end the lesson with "and everything will be in focus," which just isn't the case. :)
 
Joe Brugger said:
Trouble with hyperfocal is that well-meaning teachers end the lesson with "and everything will be in focus," which just isn't the case. :)
Click to expand...

They should end it with "and everything from your near focal point to infinity will be in acceptable focus," which is correct if one subscribes to CoC theories, and not correct if one doesn't. Well-meaning teachers should parse their terms correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom