Hyper Focal Distance Technique - do you use it?

[jespin00]

Hello people of RFF!
This is my first post and i'm excited to be in such an active community!
So my questiomn involves the hyper focal distance technique.
I was just curious as to how many people use it when shooting?
I find that with my Canon Canonet GL17, focus set on infinity and a Fstop at 11 that the image is self is focused.
This is a technique that promotes focus on the subject, whether it be fleeting or spontaneous, instead of fiddling with the focus ring when time is imparative.

I find that when i use this technique, i have to use a fairly slow shutter speed, especially in low lit areas.

Just curious as to see how many people use this technique and whether there are better methods as to use it?

thanks.

 

[Leighgion]

I'm meaning to start using it now that I (mostly) understand how to actually use it, but it's been a slow few weeks for going out to shoot with the weather still unfriendly. Hyperfocus isn't much of an option when the light is too dim.

 

[bmattock]

Hello people of RFF!
This is my first post and i'm excited to be in such an active community!
So my questiomn involves the hyper focal distance technique.
I was just curious as to how many people use it when shooting?
I find that with my Canon Canonet GL17, focus set on infinity and a Fstop at 11 that the image is self is focused.
This is a technique that promotes focus on the subject, whether it be fleeting or spontaneous, instead of fiddling with the focus ring when time is imparative.

I find that when i use this technique, i have to use a fairly slow shutter speed, especially in low lit areas.

Just curious as to see how many people use this technique and whether there are better methods as to use it?

thanks.

Welcome.

I suspect that you are not using hyperfocal focusing with what you describe. Hyperfocal focusing can be used at any f-stop.

You're describing infinity focusing. If your focus mark is on infinity, you're focused on infinity.

The advantage to hyperfocal focusing is that it can permit objects in the near distance, medium distance, and long distance to all be 'acceptably sharp' when used properly. It works by manipulating the 'depth of focus' (DoF) of a given f-stop to move it to where you want it. If you focus on infinity, only 1/3 or so of the DoF are actually in front of 'infinity' or the far distance. The rest is 'lost' so to speak. If you place your infinity mark on the f-stop you are using (say f/11) then you should be able to read another number from f/11 mark on the other side of the lens barrel (example follow link). That's the minimum focus distance. So, say from 8 feet to infinity, everything will be in 'acceptable' focus. That's the theory, anyway.

http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/focusing.html

If you have no objects in the near distance or medium distance that you wish to keep in 'acceptable' focus, then hyperfocal focusing doesn't really help you at all. And some people find that 'acceptable' focus is not the same as 'sharp' focus and so they don't care for hyperfocal focusing. It's all a matter of taste and what your needs are for a given photograph. It's another tool in your tool box that is worth mastering and understanding, however.

Hyperfocal focusing is one of those tools that really work best with a rangefinder camera - it is a tough technique to master on an SLR, since you 'see' and out-of-focus' image in your viewfinder, even if your lens has DOF marks on the lens barrel (most new ones don't).

Welcome again!

 

[Larky]

I set myself at f8, 2 meters and go. Use my shutter speed to set exposure, leave the aperture alone, always leave the focus at 2 meters - constantly check my hand for exposure readings. I always have the camera on a wrist strap, finger on the button.

 

[bmattock]

I set myself at f8, 2 meters and go. Use my shutter speed to set exposure, leave the aperture alone, always leave the focus at 2 meters - constantly check my hand for exposure readings. I always have the camera on a wrist strap, finger on the button.

That's cool, but that's not hyperfocal focusing either. That's scale focusing.

Depending upon your media size (say 35mm) and your lens focal length (say 35mm as well), then according to DOF Master:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Depth of field
Near limit 1.44 m
Far limit 3.25 m
Total 1.81 m

In front of subject 0.56 m (31%)
Behind subject 1.25 m (69%)

Now, if you wanted to use hyperfocal focusing (and I'm not saying you would), then using the above assumptions, you'd set your f/8 mark on the right of your lens barrel to roughly 5 meters. Then you'd be 'in focus' (more or less) from 2.57 meters to infinity.

That may not be what you want, but that would be using hyperfocal focusing.

Prefocus and scale focus are great - but they are not hyperfocal focusing.

 

[drewbarb]

Welcome! I use this technique with wider lenses in fast paced situations. When working indoors or in other situations where all the action is much closer than infinity, I'll set a closer maximum distance (maybe focus on the furthest point of interest, like maybe the back wall, and use that distance as my maximum D.O.F. point); this brings my closest in-focus point much closer, and makes it easy to just compose and shoot. I guess this is called zone focusing, but they are similar, and both work well, when used correctly. Ease of focusing techniques like this is one reason RF's can be faster than even AF.

 

[wolves3012]

I use it quite often, light-levels permitting. It gets you maximum depth of field. The way you have described it is wrong, however. You need to set the infinity mark against the far-depth-of-field scale for the aperture you're using.

Quick example: f/16 on a 50mm lens; set the infinity mark against the further-f/16 mark on the DOF scale. Hyperfocal distance is now read off as 4m and the near point is against the near-f/16 mark - it's 2m (and it's always half the hyperfocal distance).

 

[bmattock]

Welcome! I use this technique with wider lenses in fast paced situations. When working indoors or in other situations where all the action is much closer than infinity, I'll set a closer maximum distance (maybe focus on the furthest point of interest, like maybe the back wall, and use that distance as my maximum D.O.F. point); this brings my closest in-focus point much closer, and makes it easy to just compose and shoot. I guess this is called zone focusing, but they are similar, and both work well, when used correctly. Ease of focusing techniques like this is one reason RF's can be faster than even AF.

DOF tables are very useful - in the old days, photographers carried them with them or committed them to memory. If you understand how much depth-of-focus distance you will have at any given subject distance, for any given aperture and lens focal length, you can control it to your advantage if you wish.

Like exposure - there is no one correct way to do this. Understanding it puts it under your control if you decide you want to bother with it. Your way is perfectly acceptable and shows a clear understanding of using your optical properties to the advantage you wish to place them at. Well done.

 

[Peter_Jones]

I've been mainly experimenting with narrow DOF recently but with RFs (especially 35mm lenses) and fast film I often stop down and use the hyperfocal effect - the light's getting better now too so more chance to "hyperfocal it" f/11 or f/16

 

[Bas]

I use it when I have to shoot from my waist. The problem remains on keeping the camera at level... I have still not mastered shooting from the waist. Here's an example:

Taken with a Zorki 4 and Jupiter 8. If I remember correctly, Agfa APX 400, lens set at f/5.6 and focused at 3 something meters (so, more or less, acceptable focus goes from 2.7m to 6m). Anyway, the picture is tilted. I could straighten it, but I would cut his feet away. I prefer it this way, I found the position of his feet are very expressive for the whole picture.

Best,
Bas.

 

[Dogman]

Yes, I often use true hyperfocal distance focusing as well as scale focusing/guestimations. All time-honored techniques and all perfectly acceptable today.

 

[sirius]

I have read some convincing arguments that one should focus on your intended subject rather than using hyper focal distance.

I do like using scale focusing like Larky described. It feels very liberating and works very well for 50mm and wider.

 

[Larky]

I don't really get into learning all this technique speak, I just do what works.

Hyperfocal, infinity, scale etc mean nothing to me - seeing something great looking and pointing my lens at it makes sense to me.

 

[uhligfd]

No. I focus at infinity if infinity is in the picture and i want it sharp; otherwise I focus on the main subject, or at the furthest object I want sharp.

NEVER hyperfocal. It blurs the trees on the horizon too much and is not nice to have in landscape pics.

Of course the poster had no idea what hyperfocal focusing meant ... Now he knows, I hope. But, please do not use it for landscapes ... or at least try it against infinity focus (as you apparently have used for street shooting) with landscapes and decide by the results and your standards.

 

[bmattock]

I use it when I have to shoot from my waist. The problem remains on keeping the camera at level... I have still not mastered shooting from the waist. Here's an example:

Taken with a Zorki 4 and Jupiter 8. If I remember correctly, Agfa APX 400, lens set at f/5.6 and focused at 3 something meters (so, more or less, acceptable focus goes from 2.7m to 6m). Anyway, the picture is tilted. I could straighten it, but I would cut his feet away. I prefer it this way, I found the position of his feet are very expressive for the whole picture.

Best,
Bas.

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.

 

[Graham Line]

Bill's explanations are crystal clear.
A rough-and-ready way to use hyperfocal -- not the best way, but a workable one -- is to use that depth of field scale engraved on the lens.
Set your f-stop, line up the infinity mark with the proper mark, then look to see where the close focus mark falls. If that's acceptable, you're all set.
If the close focus mark is too great a distance for your purposes, try the next smallest f/stop (say f8 instead of f5.6) and adjust the marks.
You'll note from his comments that the zone of acceptable focus will be roughly 1/3 in front of the point of focus and 2/3 will be beyond it.
I agree it's important to make a distinction between zone focusing and setting the hyperfocal distance. They're two different techniques for two different situations.

 

[bmattock]

I don't really get into learning all this technique speak, I just do what works.

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.

 

[tripod]

There's zone focusing where you set your focus to a distance you expect your subject to be in and have the DOF take care of a discrepancy in this distance.

There's hyper-focal focusing when you want infinity to be in focus but also as much in front of infinity as possible. Instead of focusing at infinity and losing the DOF past infinity, you set the lens focus index closer than infinity, with the infinity mark to the far DOF mark of the aperture you have set. Then DOF takes care of infinity in focus (this is all with an arguable definition of acceptable focus) and you get much more in focus closer to the camera than you would have simply focusing at infinity. If you are more picky about acceptable focus (size of circle of confusion) then use the DOF mark one stop wider than the stop you're using, ie, infinity at f5.6 DOF mark instead of at the f8 DOF mark, when using an aperture of f8.

I wish that were clearer!

 

[bmattock]

No. I focus at infinity if infinity is in the picture and i want it sharp; otherwise I focus on the main subject, or at the furthest object I want sharp.

NEVER hyperfocal. It blurs the trees on the horizon too much and is not nice to have in landscape pics.

Of course the poster had no idea what hyperfocal focusing meant ... Now he knows, I hope. But, please do not use it for landscapes ... or at least try it against infinity focus (as you apparently have used for street shooting) with landscapes and decide by the results and your standards.

Many people criticize hyperfocal focusing these days, and perhaps with good reason - as you've said.

But consider that your judgment that distant trees being blurred is 'not nice' is perhaps not always true.

Hyperfocal focusing (and indeed, all focusing techniques that make use of anything other than 'focus on what you want to') to achieve a given result are valid in their place. If that's the result the photographer wants, then it is perfectly acceptable. If it isn't, then no.

Learning and using focus and depth-of-field to your advantage is merely adding another creative tool to your toolbox. Just like learning shutter speed and aperture differences and when to use one setting versus another. Just another tool. Use it if it works for you and not if it does not - but if you don't learn it, you can't use it. That's all I'm saying.

 

[bmattock]

There's zone focusing where you set your focus to a distance you expect your subject to be in and have the DOF take care of a discrepancy in this distance.

There's hyper-focal focusing when you want infinity to be in focus but also as much in front of infinity as possible. Instead of focusing at infinity and losing the DOF past infinity, you set the lens focus index closer than infinity, with the infinity mark to the far DOF mark of the aperture you have set. Then DOF takes care of infinity in focus (this is all with an arguable definition of acceptable focus) and you get much more in focus closer to the camera than you would have simply focusing at infinity. If you are more picky about acceptable focus (size of circle of confusion) then use the DOF mark one stop wider than the stop you're using, ie, infinity at f5.6 DOF mark instead of at the f8 DOF mark, when using an aperture of f8.

I wish that were clearer!

That is extremely clear and well said, too.