Captain Kidd
Well-known
Thanks, I think for me, I prefer the entire image in focus, when im taking a picture all the elements have equal importance, foreground and background, so its why i rely on the hyperfocal. But you're right, when something isnt at infinity ill try to gauge better where to focus.
Captain Kidd
Well-known
Thanks Froyd, im definitely going to pay alot more attention to my shutter speeds, and possibly camera shake. And printing some is a good idea, the holder for my plustek scanner does possibly leave room for a slight bend in the negatives. They always come back from the developers quite concaved, this could add to the proble.
I really appreciate everyone help with this.
I really appreciate everyone help with this.
Captain Kidd
Well-known
As a matter of interest, i know it depends on preference but what shutter speed would you be most comfortable at, 125th ? as long as nothing is moving too fast. Or is that even too low?
Thanks
Thanks
michaelwj
----------------
A few thoughts to add.
1. If you want everything from near to far to be in focus, then maybe f/8 just isn't enough? Like fabberyman says, f/8 at 50mm and infinity will only get you from 15ft. I would generally buffer another stop, so at f/8 I would use the f/5.6 makings as "sharp", and f/8 markings as "okay". I suggest you think a bit more about what you want in focus and what aperture would be best suited. For instance, you could actually focus on the nearest and furthest subjects you want in focus, note their distances on the lens, and then see what aperture you would theoretically need to cover the range (Again I'd add a stop to buffer). Now, the lens probably has its sweet spot at about f/5.6, so going smaller will start to degrade sharpness and it's now an artistic decision over a smaller sharper plane of focus, or a wider less sharp plane of focus.
2. Do a tripod test at f/5.6 at both 2m and 5m focus distance to check the best case scenario. Use these negatives for #3. Keep in mind that exposure will influence sharpness (there was an article on rogerandfrances.com on the topic that I can't find, but basically overexposing gives you better shadow detail, but robs you of critical sharpness - another artistic decision).
3. Scanner. What resolution are you scanning at? I found with my Plustek 8100 that 3600 dpi is the best, going higher introduces artifacts that degrade sharpness. Use the negatives from #2 to find your sweet spot.
If after all that the sharpness is not acceptable (assuming the focus point is spot on) then try a slower film and see if that works. If not, try a different scanner.
By the way, I think the photos look fine. Did you actually scan them and then load them into an editing program and play with the sharpness?
1. If you want everything from near to far to be in focus, then maybe f/8 just isn't enough? Like fabberyman says, f/8 at 50mm and infinity will only get you from 15ft. I would generally buffer another stop, so at f/8 I would use the f/5.6 makings as "sharp", and f/8 markings as "okay". I suggest you think a bit more about what you want in focus and what aperture would be best suited. For instance, you could actually focus on the nearest and furthest subjects you want in focus, note their distances on the lens, and then see what aperture you would theoretically need to cover the range (Again I'd add a stop to buffer). Now, the lens probably has its sweet spot at about f/5.6, so going smaller will start to degrade sharpness and it's now an artistic decision over a smaller sharper plane of focus, or a wider less sharp plane of focus.
2. Do a tripod test at f/5.6 at both 2m and 5m focus distance to check the best case scenario. Use these negatives for #3. Keep in mind that exposure will influence sharpness (there was an article on rogerandfrances.com on the topic that I can't find, but basically overexposing gives you better shadow detail, but robs you of critical sharpness - another artistic decision).
3. Scanner. What resolution are you scanning at? I found with my Plustek 8100 that 3600 dpi is the best, going higher introduces artifacts that degrade sharpness. Use the negatives from #2 to find your sweet spot.
If after all that the sharpness is not acceptable (assuming the focus point is spot on) then try a slower film and see if that works. If not, try a different scanner.
By the way, I think the photos look fine. Did you actually scan them and then load them into an editing program and play with the sharpness?
Captain Kidd
Well-known
Thanks Michael, I really appreciate that and ill start those tests. To be honest I think they're close enough to fine too, Im not one to demand razor sharpness but they do seem a little less sharp than i would expect so thought id ask here. Some great feedback so I have a lot to consider.
I have actually began focusing on a few things in the foreground to get an idea of how close they are and then set the focus tab accordingly to keep it and the background in focus but I was probably keeping it too close to the actual distance as opposed to buffering a little as you mention.
Generally I find myself attracted to a scene with a layer of foreground so I am forced to use something like f11 or f16 if the foregound is 2-3 metres away, which is a difficult aperture in Ireland in January.
I think the scanner too is a slight issue, when apply a tiny bit of sharpness Im happy with them, so I think Ill get one or two printed to see how they come out.
Thanks again, and ill use that buffering tip and see how that goes,
David
I have actually began focusing on a few things in the foreground to get an idea of how close they are and then set the focus tab accordingly to keep it and the background in focus but I was probably keeping it too close to the actual distance as opposed to buffering a little as you mention.
Generally I find myself attracted to a scene with a layer of foreground so I am forced to use something like f11 or f16 if the foregound is 2-3 metres away, which is a difficult aperture in Ireland in January.
I think the scanner too is a slight issue, when apply a tiny bit of sharpness Im happy with them, so I think Ill get one or two printed to see how they come out.
Thanks again, and ill use that buffering tip and see how that goes,
David
Captain Kidd
Well-known
While on the subject, these examples, do you think the photographers took them using hyperfocal settings, or actually focused on a particular part of the photo, would that not just give the same result?
Harry Gruyaert
https://www.magnumphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/cortex/nn11428270-overlay.jpg
Harry Gruyaert
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d1/d6/88/d1d688bccccac8c564cbbe63e02aaa7a.jpg
Gueorgui Pinkhassov
https://i1.wp.com/www.pavelkosenko.com/lj/0101/018.jpg
David Alan Harvey
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/49/e2/58/49e258cb36fca290f1329e14fa69282e.jpg
Thanks
Harry Gruyaert
https://www.magnumphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/cortex/nn11428270-overlay.jpg
Harry Gruyaert
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d1/d6/88/d1d688bccccac8c564cbbe63e02aaa7a.jpg
Gueorgui Pinkhassov
https://i1.wp.com/www.pavelkosenko.com/lj/0101/018.jpg
David Alan Harvey
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/49/e2/58/49e258cb36fca290f1329e14fa69282e.jpg
Thanks
Captain Kidd
Well-known
The examples I gave earlier, no, no sharpness was applied at all.
retinax
Well-known
Right, applying a little digital sharpening will help a bit, your second picture for example is really sharp in the grass around the tree in the middle, but doesn't have a lot of micro contrast. That can be because of the lens, film, scanning, and notably lighting of the scene as well as the scene itself.
As has been mentioned, for more sharpness over a deep scene you might need to stop down further than f/8, but that depends on how large you want to display the image.
1 and 3 require a decision what you want in focus or stopping down more than would be good regarding diffraction I think. In 3, the plane of best sharpness might be behind the wall, where there isnt anything in the picture. Focus on the foreground wall or the horizon and live with the other being fuzzy?
I also struggle this in some with some scenes, especially foliage and grass (lots of fine detail) in scenes with "continous" depth rather than discrete planes, are problematic like that. Trying a different, less cluttered composition might be the best way at times (solution for picture 2?).
A while ago some article was discussed on this forum that essentially said that you need sharpness relative to the size of the objects/details in the scene, which tend to be larger in the foreground, and therefor one should focus to infinity rather than hyperfocal (which, as has been pointed out, brings only a certain degree of sharpness at the far distances). In other words, because the foreground subject tends to be large, we can live with less sharpness and still recognize it well.
There was a heated debate, and I think it really still depends on which details are important to you and what look you prefer. The take-away for me was that I consider focusing on the background if it has important fine detail and the foreground doesn't. Could work for your pictures.
As has been mentioned, for more sharpness over a deep scene you might need to stop down further than f/8, but that depends on how large you want to display the image.
1 and 3 require a decision what you want in focus or stopping down more than would be good regarding diffraction I think. In 3, the plane of best sharpness might be behind the wall, where there isnt anything in the picture. Focus on the foreground wall or the horizon and live with the other being fuzzy?
I also struggle this in some with some scenes, especially foliage and grass (lots of fine detail) in scenes with "continous" depth rather than discrete planes, are problematic like that. Trying a different, less cluttered composition might be the best way at times (solution for picture 2?).
A while ago some article was discussed on this forum that essentially said that you need sharpness relative to the size of the objects/details in the scene, which tend to be larger in the foreground, and therefor one should focus to infinity rather than hyperfocal (which, as has been pointed out, brings only a certain degree of sharpness at the far distances). In other words, because the foreground subject tends to be large, we can live with less sharpness and still recognize it well.
There was a heated debate, and I think it really still depends on which details are important to you and what look you prefer. The take-away for me was that I consider focusing on the background if it has important fine detail and the foreground doesn't. Could work for your pictures.
Last edited:
michaelwj
----------------
How they did it is not really important, you will find what works for you. But they are not dissimilar to your photos, They are not sharp from front to back, but they are sharp enough. I'm sure if you blew them up to 100% then you would see how unsharp they actually are.
Take the first example for example. The seated lady is not sharp, neither is the photographer on the hay. The "sharp enough" zone extends just a bit wider than the road, which looks to be a single lane so not that wide. The lady kneeling with the camera is probably sharp enough, and the front of the hay looks sharp, but nothing beyond that. If I were to guess, he focused on the nearest rider at f/8 or so.
I hate to say it, but you might be suffering from the disease known as "pixel-peeping". Try printing an 8x10 and see what you think, you'll be surprised happy you are with it.
One other thing, in the photos you point to by other photographers, they all have a strong subject/story which is in focus. If they were photos with nothing, you would see the unsharp areas much easier, but because they are good photos, and the subject is in focus, you don't notice the rest. You talk of shots by Parr and Webb, but if you look at their work you will find a main subject (despite the layers) which is always in focus, and then many supporting layers, some are more in focus than others. But the main layer is in sharpest focus. Also, there was a video on the web of Webb shooting, and he focused every shot. I'll try and dig it out.
Interesting discussion with excellent points... It seems to me that it's more disturbing to the viewer when nearby objects with detail are fuzzy. One doesn't expect things at a distance to be sharp... eyesight, atmospheric haze, sheer scale. So for landscapes I'll tend to try to bias focus to keep nearby items a bit sharper at the expense of being a bit off at distance.
Suggest you examine your negatives on a light table with magnification and compare with the scans as seen on the screen. You'll see where they're sharp or not... What you're seeing may or may not be a focus issue. You can use your 50mm lens reversed as a handy loupe!
And... isn't it normal practice and necessity to add moderate sharpening on scanner output files? Just in the nature of scanners?
Suggest you examine your negatives on a light table with magnification and compare with the scans as seen on the screen. You'll see where they're sharp or not... What you're seeing may or may not be a focus issue. You can use your 50mm lens reversed as a handy loupe!
And... isn't it normal practice and necessity to add moderate sharpening on scanner output files? Just in the nature of scanners?
michaelwj
----------------
______
Well-known
No amount of sharpening in software is going to sharpen an area which is out of focus. The blurs will simply be higher acutance.
BuzzyOne
Established
I would take a roll of 36 of your favorite film, a note book, a pen, and shoot some test shots. Take shots of the same scene critically focusing on a repeatable spot that you can see. Bracket your shutter speed and vary the aperture. Take good notes of each frame. Shoot as you normally would (hand-held, prone, tripod, whatever). Take your time and really think about the shot. Watch your shutter release, balance, breathing, bracing of the camera, stance, blah, blah, blah.
Then check out the results and see what you get.
Oh, and you might want to look into digitizing with a DSLR if you happen to have one with a macro lens handy. You can get superior results over cheap scanners.
Then check out the results and see what you get.
Oh, and you might want to look into digitizing with a DSLR if you happen to have one with a macro lens handy. You can get superior results over cheap scanners.
Richard G
Veteran
Captain, have a look at this site which quotes H Merklinger who has formula for doing something different to hyperlocal focussing.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/when-hyperfocal-focusing-is-no-good/
This site shows hover composites of the difference between HFD and infinity focus.
You can find a site to download Marklinger's book, but you certainly don't need to do that. You don't need to use the formulae or even strictly follow his rules, but the principle is that hyperlocal focussing may let you down and there are other ways to think about this as a lot of us have alluded to.
Hyperlocal focussing would the logical thing to use if you were in a sculpture park, with smaller sculptures near you and large ones further away and you wanted equivalent detail of most of them. That would be a very unusual photographic scenario. In my photograph above I didn't want a 'bokeh' shot, sharp flowers and blurry trees. And I knew that the effect of the flowers in the foreground would be good enough, whereas any blur of that central tree would have been unacceptable. On the run I'd have taken this at infinity. The older leica lenses with infinity locks were useful for this, and for rotating the lens just short of infinity, before the engagement of the lock, for far distant but not quite infinity focus. Hyperlocal might be the best thing for scale focus presets for street photography, but for many situations infinity focus or near infinity focus is better, because of the small size of the detail in the distance.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/when-hyperfocal-focusing-is-no-good/
This site shows hover composites of the difference between HFD and infinity focus.
You can find a site to download Marklinger's book, but you certainly don't need to do that. You don't need to use the formulae or even strictly follow his rules, but the principle is that hyperlocal focussing may let you down and there are other ways to think about this as a lot of us have alluded to.
Hyperlocal focussing would the logical thing to use if you were in a sculpture park, with smaller sculptures near you and large ones further away and you wanted equivalent detail of most of them. That would be a very unusual photographic scenario. In my photograph above I didn't want a 'bokeh' shot, sharp flowers and blurry trees. And I knew that the effect of the flowers in the foreground would be good enough, whereas any blur of that central tree would have been unacceptable. On the run I'd have taken this at infinity. The older leica lenses with infinity locks were useful for this, and for rotating the lens just short of infinity, before the engagement of the lock, for far distant but not quite infinity focus. Hyperlocal might be the best thing for scale focus presets for street photography, but for many situations infinity focus or near infinity focus is better, because of the small size of the detail in the distance.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I didn't read all the posts, but I find that I have to really try hard to get what I want in focus to be in focus. Sometimes, I'm all set the push the shutter button and I'm still not 100% sure I'm in focus. My best results for my old eye is with a traditional RF. SLRs are hopeless for me with non bright subjects; especially when it is a 28mm or wider lens. I bought a couple of AF boxes to help out with SLR lenses but even those are fooled at times.
retinax
Well-known
The piece by Merklinger that Richard G mentioned was what I also referred to earlier. also excellent application in the image you posted, Richard G!
One more thought on the subject: At times, opening up the aperture can also be a solution for these situations where dof isn't quite sufficient for the whole scene. Not what you want to hear I think. But especially small detail can look less silly if it's more than just very slightly defocused.
One more thought on the subject: At times, opening up the aperture can also be a solution for these situations where dof isn't quite sufficient for the whole scene. Not what you want to hear I think. But especially small detail can look less silly if it's more than just very slightly defocused.
Captain Kidd
Well-known
Thank you for all the great tips and for giving me some very interesting things to research. I've actually watched that Alex Webb video in the past and noticed that too. I did notice though that he had a habit of raising the camera to his eye, focused while facing one direction and then quickly changed his direction to face the actual scene he wanted to shoot. He was doing this because he didn't want the people that he wanted to shoot to pay any attention to him so he raised the camera focused while facing a different direction and then turned to them and shot in the last second. I'd imagine with him he can see a scene and focus without even looking through the viewfinder, he knows where 2m is by the placement of the tab on his lens.
I think my issue is that let's say I have a scene with mountains in the distance and lots of cows and in the foreground and 2.5 meters away from me is a cow which I want in focus (roughly), the only way I know how to take this picture is to look at the markings on the lens, which tell me f16, when setting the 16 indicator on the right to infinity the 16 marker on the left tells me that around 2m will give me reasonable focus. Basically it's what in the foreground that dictates what setting, if I was to focus on a cow 5metres into the picture that foreground cow would be too blurry.
So I'm just intrigued with the examples above because the foreground to me indicates that they didn't focus on what might be considered the main subject. The David alan harvey image I see now that if he focused on the man in the foreground then the background would be in reasonable focus too because of his distance to the subject. But the Harry Gruyaert shot of the flowers and the lady, there now way he focused on either the lady or the flowers to get that shot.
I think I have to learn when the nearest subject is at a safe distance to focus on, like the David alan Harvey, and when the nearest subject is too close to then resort to hyperfocal.
Sorry for rambling but a lot to consider, thanks again everyone.
I think my issue is that let's say I have a scene with mountains in the distance and lots of cows and in the foreground and 2.5 meters away from me is a cow which I want in focus (roughly), the only way I know how to take this picture is to look at the markings on the lens, which tell me f16, when setting the 16 indicator on the right to infinity the 16 marker on the left tells me that around 2m will give me reasonable focus. Basically it's what in the foreground that dictates what setting, if I was to focus on a cow 5metres into the picture that foreground cow would be too blurry.
So I'm just intrigued with the examples above because the foreground to me indicates that they didn't focus on what might be considered the main subject. The David alan harvey image I see now that if he focused on the man in the foreground then the background would be in reasonable focus too because of his distance to the subject. But the Harry Gruyaert shot of the flowers and the lady, there now way he focused on either the lady or the flowers to get that shot.
I think I have to learn when the nearest subject is at a safe distance to focus on, like the David alan Harvey, and when the nearest subject is too close to then resort to hyperfocal.
Sorry for rambling but a lot to consider, thanks again everyone.
Captain Kidd
Well-known
And thanks Richard for that link, very interesting and I'm going o have to do some tests as buzzy one recommends.
retinax
Well-known
I'm with you, it's a never ending issue. It occurs to me that both the Harvey and the Gruyaers shots are sharp almost to infinity. A quick approach for this type of scene might be to prefocus to near hyperfocal if one doesn't expect the far background to be important, and stop down as far as one can and shoot away. Maybe that's what they did.
We should also try to judge our own images at the same display size/resolution as those examples, then the issue gets a lot less dramatic. I need to remind myself sometimes that if it's a strong image, sharpness doesn't matter too much, and if it isn't, it doesn't matter either :-D
We should also try to judge our own images at the same display size/resolution as those examples, then the issue gets a lot less dramatic. I need to remind myself sometimes that if it's a strong image, sharpness doesn't matter too much, and if it isn't, it doesn't matter either :-D
Steve M.
Veteran
If you want everything in the shot to be sharp and in focus, then you're going to have to stop the lens down all the way, which means you may have to use a tripod for the slow shutter speeds you'll incur.