Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hyperfocal focus means putting everything in a zone of 'acceptable' sharpness between infinity and a given closer distance. The 'given closer distance' varies with (a) the aperture and (b) your definition of 'acceptable'.
Zone focusing -- http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps how zone focus.html -- is usually a MUCH better idea than hyperfocal distance. From the URL quoted: Focus is not an absolute. There is always a zone either side of the focused point that is acceptably sharp. The size of this zone will depend on how far away the subject is; the focal length and aperture of the lens; the size of the final picture; and what you regard as 'acceptable'.
Cheers,
R.
Zone focusing -- http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps how zone focus.html -- is usually a MUCH better idea than hyperfocal distance. From the URL quoted: Focus is not an absolute. There is always a zone either side of the focused point that is acceptably sharp. The size of this zone will depend on how far away the subject is; the focal length and aperture of the lens; the size of the final picture; and what you regard as 'acceptable'.
Cheers,
R.
Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
Thanks indeed Roger. The link was most helpful and made me realise that all this time I have been Zone Focussing. What a dumbo. 
The example picture for, err, example would have been f8 with the subject at a distance of about 3 meters and focus at a distance of about 3.5 - 4 meters, so he should be approximately in the middle of the 'sweet spot'.
The example picture for, err, example would have been f8 with the subject at a distance of about 3 meters and focus at a distance of about 3.5 - 4 meters, so he should be approximately in the middle of the 'sweet spot'.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You're welcome. Should be sharp, then. Other possible factors: camera shake, soft lens, focus error, scanner problem (if scanned). Test with static subject(s) & tripod? And magnifier on neg?Thanks indeed Roger. The link was most helpful and made me realise that all this time I have been Zone Focussing. What a dumbo.
The example picture for, err, example would have been f8 with the subject at a distance of about 3 meters and focus at a distance of about 3.5 - 4 meters, so he should be approximately in the middle of the 'sweet spot'.
Hard to judge sharpness from on-screen images.
Cheers,
R.
Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
I think part of the problem could be my poor distance estimating skills, compounded by myself being a metric guy and the lens (Serenar 50 1.8 ) being Imperial. It can be quite a pain in the proverbial carrying out 'on the fly' calculations in order to catch that unexpected opportunity.
I tried using this as an excuse for buying a CV 50 1.5, but the wife wasn't convinced.
I tried using this as an excuse for buying a CV 50 1.5, but the wife wasn't convinced.
gb hill
Veteran
Seems all my photos are soft. I blame it on my poor eyesight Ming I enjoyed looking & reading your blog...good stufff there!
Ming I enjoyed looking & reading your blog...good stufff there!Roger Hicks
Veteran
That is a bar steward. But if you reckon metres = yards, you're only 10% out (metre = 1.09 yards) and 3 feet/metre is OK. Better still 3.3 feet = 1 metre, i.e. feet divided by 3 and (if you have time) +10%. Thus 16 feet = near enough 5 metres.I think part of the problem could be my poor distance estimating skills, compounded by myself being a metric guy and the lens (Serenar 50 1.8 ) being Imperial. It can be quite a pain in the proverbial carrying out 'on the fly' calculations in order to catch that unexpected opportunity.
I tried using this as an excuse for buying a CV 50 1.5, but the wife wasn't convinced.
Old army training: visualize close distances in terms of 6-foot squaddies standing on one another's heads, or (more probably) lying down drunk head to foot. Or use 2m (VERY TALL) squaddies. For longer distances, use cricket pitches: near enough 20m (actually 20.12 m -- sorry, no help for colonials here).
Cheers,
R.
It is a lot harder to zone focus with 50mm lenses than with wide angles. May be an excuse to buy a 28mm or 35mm lens.
Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
Seems all my photos are soft. I blame it on my poor eyesight
Thanks gb Hill, that means a lot.
agricola
Well-known
Kevin - I second gb Hill. I like what you see and I like what you say about what you see. And I like the sound of your wife. The nearly perfect woman ...
And thanks to Roger for the tip about the cricket pitch. When I held a bat long ago it seemed the most terrifyingly short distance, but I think I can still guesstimate it and that should be a real help in setting the distance scale.
And thanks to Roger for the tip about the cricket pitch. When I held a bat long ago it seemed the most terrifyingly short distance, but I think I can still guesstimate it and that should be a real help in setting the distance scale.
btgc
Veteran
I can read all writings and recognize it's a man not woman - you call it soft? Not a problem as long as you aren't going to blow it up - but in normal cases blowups are seen from larger distance than small prints so total is the same.
willie_901
Veteran
What shutter speeds do you use most often?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
In the sample photo, your focus point is much closer than the primary subject.
What camera? If you're focusing by scale and the focusing scale is inaccurate, you need to determine how inaccurate and adjust your focus settings to compensate. You should run a set of measured tests to determine the focusing scale accuracy.
What camera? If you're focusing by scale and the focusing scale is inaccurate, you need to determine how inaccurate and adjust your focus settings to compensate. You should run a set of measured tests to determine the focusing scale accuracy.
Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
Agricola,
Thank you for your kind appraisal of the blog. I'm pleased you like my writings and pictures.
Yes, the Misses is 'almost' perfect. If it wasn't for her bloody horses, or the lack of a CV 50 1.5
Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
My favourite tends to be 125th if the light is typically British, or 250th if it's slightly less grey.
If I have time to focus for the shot, I can go up to 500th cos' I can use a wider aperture, like f2.8.
Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
Godfrey,
I use an M5 with a 50 1.8 all the time, so I should know the lens like the back of my hand. Unfortunately, I don't.
I will definately get the 30m tape measure out and do some test shots, but I really could do with a metric lens scale.
I wonder if there's a work around, like a quick reference chart taped to the top of the camera, showing metric converted to imperial to match the lens?
pvdhaar
Peter
Harold Merklinger has a compelling write-up about DOF: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html
Basically, for maximum perceived DOF, the rule of thumb is that you should focus at the furthest object in view. The result is that every detail larger than the physical aperture is resolved..
Basically, for maximum perceived DOF, the rule of thumb is that you should focus at the furthest object in view. The result is that every detail larger than the physical aperture is resolved..
mfogiel
Veteran
From my experience of street shooting results, that the shutter speed is far more important than accurate focusing, unless you are using really long lenses. Try to shoot at no less than 1/1000 and set the lens to infinity, then use whatever F stop is dictated by the light and see the results.
Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
No disrespect intended Mfogiel, but if we had 'Cote d'Azur' weather in the UK, 1000th would be a reality. Sadly, if I tried that shutter speed, 99% of the time my pic's would be pitch black.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This somewhat contradicts both common experience and common sense. WHY infinity? WHY 'no less than 1/1000'? I've never seen such advice from anyone else. There is probably a good reason for this.
Cheers,
R.