Wiyum
Established
So I've been reading a bit about street photographers that pick an iris setting, focus to hyperfocal, and forget about focusing. The idea sounded great (and for small-sensor digital compects, still sounds ideal) until I checked the depth of field calculations.
A 35mm lens, for example, at 5.6 (optimum-ish), yields from 12 ft to infinity in focus. Stopping down to an 8.0 still only gives you from 8 1/3 ft to infinity. Neither of these seem terribly practical for a wide variety of street work. So how do those of you who use hyperfocal focusing do it? Do you set the iris nearer to the diffraction point of the lens? Do you only use it on even-wider lenses? Have I misunderstood the technique in some major way?
I've used hyperfocal for landscape work in the past, but for street work, it doesn't seem practical. Yet I continue to hear it mentioned. What am I missing?
Will
A 35mm lens, for example, at 5.6 (optimum-ish), yields from 12 ft to infinity in focus. Stopping down to an 8.0 still only gives you from 8 1/3 ft to infinity. Neither of these seem terribly practical for a wide variety of street work. So how do those of you who use hyperfocal focusing do it? Do you set the iris nearer to the diffraction point of the lens? Do you only use it on even-wider lenses? Have I misunderstood the technique in some major way?
I've used hyperfocal for landscape work in the past, but for street work, it doesn't seem practical. Yet I continue to hear it mentioned. What am I missing?
Will
Micky D
-
Working "in-close" on the street you won't need infinity very much, so it's not really hyperfocal. More a question of zone focussing.
bmattock
Veteran
Correct. Set the lens to the actual distance you think you will be shooting, say 20 feet. Then figure out (www.dofmaster.com) what your DoF will be for the aperture and distance you've selected. For 35mm film and a 35mm lens at f/5.6, the DoF is from 10.9 feet 124.7 feet. So you've got nearly 10 feet in front of the subject and gobs of space in back of the subject and you should get acceptable focus. Set your distance at 10 feet and note how much shorter the DoF available to play with is (just a side-note).
With a digital camera with a tiny sensor, it just doesn't matter. Sensor is so small that at anything other than macro, you've just got gobs and gobs of DoF.
Wiyum
Established
I'm up to snuff on DoF, I've just never experimented with prefocusing/zone focusing. Though now that you point out that I needn't use the hyperfocal setting, I feel foolish for not realizing that the same techniques could be used if I could reasonably expect my subjects to fall within a predetermined range of distances.
I've just always been a "focus the camera for every shot" kind of guy, and I've certainly found my spontaneity lacking for that. I've long manipulated depth of field to achieve a certain artistic goal (shallow or deep focus, depending), but had never considered using it to eliminate the need for refocusing.
I look forward to giving this a whirl.
Will
I've just always been a "focus the camera for every shot" kind of guy, and I've certainly found my spontaneity lacking for that. I've long manipulated depth of field to achieve a certain artistic goal (shallow or deep focus, depending), but had never considered using it to eliminate the need for refocusing.
I look forward to giving this a whirl.
Will
bmattock
Veteran
I think that part of the problem is that people tend to use the term 'hyperfocal focusing' when they mean both hyperfocal and scale focusing - I've done it myself.
However, this brings me to another topic - related to what you are saying. With scale focus being so useful for street shooting, why don't more people use a scale focus camera instead of a rangefinder? I have some dandy scale focus cameras that have fixed lenses and much better viewfinders than even the best rangefinder - like the Zeiss Ikon Continas, and others like it. Set that scale distance, set the f-stop, and you're golden! Plus an ultra-quiet shutter, what's not to like?
However, this brings me to another topic - related to what you are saying. With scale focus being so useful for street shooting, why don't more people use a scale focus camera instead of a rangefinder? I have some dandy scale focus cameras that have fixed lenses and much better viewfinders than even the best rangefinder - like the Zeiss Ikon Continas, and others like it. Set that scale distance, set the f-stop, and you're golden! Plus an ultra-quiet shutter, what's not to like?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think this is one of the reasons I like my 15mm Heliar so much ... even at it's widest aperture of f4.5 the depth of field makes it hard to go astray. 
As for a 35mm only having around eight feet to infinity at f8 and twelve feet at f5.6 it's no issue really. There's been some great street shots in the gallery that weren't in perfect focus that were fantastic shots none the less. Some times that 'grab of life' sensation is accentuated by a silghtly out of focus image.
As for a 35mm only having around eight feet to infinity at f8 and twelve feet at f5.6 it's no issue really. There's been some great street shots in the gallery that weren't in perfect focus that were fantastic shots none the less. Some times that 'grab of life' sensation is accentuated by a silghtly out of focus image.
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Yup, me 'n Keith got our 15mm Heliars on opposite sides of planet Earth, me in South Florida and he's in Australia. Just leave the focus set at one meter and not worry about focusing. Concentrate on catching the moment. Worry isn't productive. Concentration is.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Yep ... workin' on my 'do it like Al' technique! Maybe I need a Koala to take around and photograph with me as well?
And more hair!
edhohoho
Established
I'm a beginner, so can someone explain the difference between hyperfocal distance and scale focusing?
I am too slow and "chicken" to bring the camera to my eye, focus, and snap pictures of people for candids or close up work. So I just check the aperture with the desired shooting range I would like to be in focus, make final aperture adjustments with regard to shutter speed desired to "freeze" action, and then shoot away. Quite liberating to just "point and shoot," and certainly less stressful for both myself and the subject.
So far I've had decent success with a 28mm and 35mm on my R-D1, as I prefer to keep a little distance between myself and the subject. But framing is sometimes tricky since these lenses have the equivalent field of view of a 42mm and 53mm, respectively. Would love to try a super wide like 15mm or 21mm up close though...now that's true point and shoot.
I am too slow and "chicken" to bring the camera to my eye, focus, and snap pictures of people for candids or close up work. So I just check the aperture with the desired shooting range I would like to be in focus, make final aperture adjustments with regard to shutter speed desired to "freeze" action, and then shoot away. Quite liberating to just "point and shoot," and certainly less stressful for both myself and the subject.
So far I've had decent success with a 28mm and 35mm on my R-D1, as I prefer to keep a little distance between myself and the subject. But framing is sometimes tricky since these lenses have the equivalent field of view of a 42mm and 53mm, respectively. Would love to try a super wide like 15mm or 21mm up close though...now that's true point and shoot.
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Bend your wrist more! You're showing too much arm there, Keith!
I need that hair because I can't afford one of those Australian akabura (sp?) hats. Actually the hair is a side effect of a drug I've been taking for 17 years. I was in on the original study of Proscar, starting several years before it was first marketed to treat enlarged prostate. When the "horrible side effect" became obvious they started marketing a 1mg tablet (instead of 5mg) under the name Propecia. The generic version is Finasteride. Within months of starting to take it my receding hairline unreceded and it got a lot thicker. The women over 50 with bald husbands love it.
The toy monkey thing started as a joke on my blog http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com , but two years ago Monkette chaired a succesful re-election campaign for the mayor. The blog was getting more hits than the on-line edition of the Miami Herald's coverage of the campaign...LOL. Now North Miami has another May election coming up and Monkette is still undecided as to whether or not to get involved again, or just rest on her 100% success rate. All of the photos were shot with the 15mm Heliar, one blog post a day for several months. She still attends city council meetings and chamber of commerce luncheons with me. Hey! Life has to be fun, right? I still get appointed to city advisory boards. Everybody knows that I'm a nut. The women under 30 with uptight husbands love it.
You gotta be a bit of a nut to attend these meetings with a toy monkey perched on your shoulder while taking pictures with a 15mm lens.
EDHOHOHO ~ hyperfocal distance is when you set your infinty mark of the lens focusing ring on the mark with the f-stop you're going to be shooting with. With the 40mm Summicron on my Leica CL at f/16 you'll get from just under 5 feet to infinity in focus. With my LTM 85/2 Nikkor at f/16 you'llget from about 24 feet to infinity at f/16. The 15mm Heliar will give you from just under 1 foot to infinity.
I need that hair because I can't afford one of those Australian akabura (sp?) hats. Actually the hair is a side effect of a drug I've been taking for 17 years. I was in on the original study of Proscar, starting several years before it was first marketed to treat enlarged prostate. When the "horrible side effect" became obvious they started marketing a 1mg tablet (instead of 5mg) under the name Propecia. The generic version is Finasteride. Within months of starting to take it my receding hairline unreceded and it got a lot thicker. The women over 50 with bald husbands love it.
The toy monkey thing started as a joke on my blog http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com , but two years ago Monkette chaired a succesful re-election campaign for the mayor. The blog was getting more hits than the on-line edition of the Miami Herald's coverage of the campaign...LOL. Now North Miami has another May election coming up and Monkette is still undecided as to whether or not to get involved again, or just rest on her 100% success rate. All of the photos were shot with the 15mm Heliar, one blog post a day for several months. She still attends city council meetings and chamber of commerce luncheons with me. Hey! Life has to be fun, right? I still get appointed to city advisory boards. Everybody knows that I'm a nut. The women under 30 with uptight husbands love it.
You gotta be a bit of a nut to attend these meetings with a toy monkey perched on your shoulder while taking pictures with a 15mm lens.
EDHOHOHO ~ hyperfocal distance is when you set your infinty mark of the lens focusing ring on the mark with the f-stop you're going to be shooting with. With the 40mm Summicron on my Leica CL at f/16 you'll get from just under 5 feet to infinity in focus. With my LTM 85/2 Nikkor at f/16 you'llget from about 24 feet to infinity at f/16. The 15mm Heliar will give you from just under 1 foot to infinity.
Last edited:
Honus
carpe diem
When I grow up I want to be Al Kaplan.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
boy_lah
Discovering RF
Ah...I've been using my friend's CV 15mm trying to shoot up close portraits for a distorted look but were getting many out of focus. Just checked the dof scale and turns out anything less than 1m @ f4.5 (winter here, not a lot of light), the dof is actually VERY shallow. From 1m onwards, things start to change.
So...going to try setting it at 1m for close up and 2m for street. that should be well within my working distance.
So...going to try setting it at 1m for close up and 2m for street. that should be well within my working distance.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Ah...I've been using my friend's CV 15mm trying to shoot up close portraits for a distorted look but were getting many out of focus. Just checked the dof scale and turns out anything less than 1m @ f4.5 (winter here, not a lot of light), the dof is actually VERY shallow. From 1m onwards, things start to change.
So...going to try setting it at 1m for close up and 2m for street. that should be well within my working distance.
Nice pic .... I really like the look of the CV 15mm and have been using it a fair bit lately. I always expect it to distort perspective more than it actually does though!
From memory I always set mine on about one and a half meteres at f4.5 and that pretty well covers most situations.
dfoo
Well-known
If you want more distortion, start saving for the 12mm!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I've thought about the 12mm but it is kind of expensive for a lens with such limited application. Reading the specs the 15mm has a 110 degree field of view and the 12mm 121 degrees ... thats only eleven degrees difference but I'm sure the results would make it seem like more.
I've seen some shots with the 12mm a while ago and it was impressive!
dfoo
Well-known
I used to have the Canon 17-40L, and replaced it with the 16-35mm and I found a significant difference at the wide end with only 1mm. The 12mm must be truly wiiiiiiiiiidee! The problem I have with these really wide lenses is that the entire shot tends to become about being really wide, rather than the subject of the photograph itself. To me, it starts to become a gimmick.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The gimmick factor initially discouraged me from using my 15mm much because I didn't want to get hooked into that type of image perception. Now that I've started using it a lot more I don't feel that way about it at all. It's a great lens and once you understand it a little better and become familiar with it's field of view you just treat it like any other lens and use it where you feel it's appropriate. I've always thought it was surprisingly good as a people lens provided you keep your subjects reasonably central in the frame.
uhligfd
Well-known
So far thE discussion is all about subject distances from 1m to 5+- m. Ok with zone focusing then.
But for "landscapes" where you would like to have the horizon sharp: DO NOT use hyperfocal! Just set lens to infinity, close aperture for around 3mm opening (look into the lens; you have a rangefinder, yes?) and shoot.
If you doubt what I just said: taKE JUST ONE EXTRA SHOT WITH THAT DREADED HYPERFOCLA SETTING AND COMPARE THE RESULTS. iF YOU WANT MUSHY DISTANCE, HYPERFOCAL AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE. nOT MY KIND OF LANDSCAPE PIC, THOUGH.
iF YOU NEED TO LEARN THE WHY OF THIS INFINITY FOCUS, GOOGLE hARALD meRKLINGER AND READ ...
Sorry about the caps, I just can't see myself retyping it all. Darn cap locks ...
But for "landscapes" where you would like to have the horizon sharp: DO NOT use hyperfocal! Just set lens to infinity, close aperture for around 3mm opening (look into the lens; you have a rangefinder, yes?) and shoot.
If you doubt what I just said: taKE JUST ONE EXTRA SHOT WITH THAT DREADED HYPERFOCLA SETTING AND COMPARE THE RESULTS. iF YOU WANT MUSHY DISTANCE, HYPERFOCAL AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE. nOT MY KIND OF LANDSCAPE PIC, THOUGH.
iF YOU NEED TO LEARN THE WHY OF THIS INFINITY FOCUS, GOOGLE hARALD meRKLINGER AND READ ...
Sorry about the caps, I just can't see myself retyping it all. Darn cap locks ...
bmattock
Veteran
Hyperfocal focusing is all about 'acceptable sharpness'. Some will not find the zone described as 'acceptable' to be acceptable at all. Much depends on weird things that I frankly do not fully understand, like Circle of Confusion.
However, I do have practical experience doing what you describe. In some cases, yes, I agree, infinity focus gave me what I wanted and hyperfocal focusing was not acceptably sharp (to me). In other cases, however, I could not tell the difference between the two at infinity.
Why use hyperfocal focusing at all? Typically, it is used for landscapes, as you say, when the photographer wants to keep some level of focus on the foreground or the middle distance, while keeping the long distance in 'acceptable focus'. If that is important to you, then hyperfocal focusing is a valid option; if not, then not.
Naturally, much depends on the circumstances. I have found differences in various lenses as well as different focal lengths. I have found differences (besides just deeper or shallower DoF) in different f-stops. Some lenses still work reasonably well stopped down to f/16 or f/22 or even f/32. Some are beginning to suffer from noticeable diffraction effects (35mm film cameras).
So I would not say not to use hyperfocal focusing techniques, or to use them. The method is just another tool in your skill set. You have to experiment and practice and decide if it is something that works for you. If it does, use it when it seems appropriate. If not, then ignore it and focus at infinity.
And just to make things more complicated, remember that you don't have to use precise 'hyperfocal' instructions. You can choose to focus between the f-stop used and infinity, thus manipulating the beginning distance where 'acceptable focus' begins. If I'm going to try that, I generally 'bracket' my focused shots, since I don't have a good enough memory to keep those DoF distances in my head and I don't typically carry a DoF calculator or chart with me.