The dreamy hyperfocal look...

Ebino, I think you need to check your eyes. Furthermore, your examples are lost on me :eek:. And your premise about the dreamy hyperfocal look is a result of the lens signature, film type, processing /printing and PP - more than focus.
I think your lack of understanding of the basic photographic image chain is why you reached your conclusions.
I suggest if you really like that dreamy look, to smear Vaseline on your lens front filter. Then your images will be really dreamy :rolleyes:.
 
Last edited:
Double Negative said:
The term "scale focusing" is merely adjusting focus to either the actual or guesstimated distance to your subject. That is, without looking through the VF.

The "hyperfocal distance" is where you set your lens to ensure that for a given aperture, everything from infinity to a certain minimum distance will be in focus (that distance being determined by said aperture). Essentially expanding what's in focus (your DoF) to its maximum effect for a given aperture.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification, I was using Scale Focusing and Zone Focusing somewhat interchangeably, and also referring to the DOF markings as Hyperfocal Distance. I see now that Hyperfocal is a term specifically linked to having infinity in focus, but as you point out, expanding the focus range to its maximum effect.

DOF Master Site said:
When the lens is focused on the hyperfocal distance, the depth of field extends from half the hyperfocal distance to infinity.

Photography, Phil Davis, 1972.


The hyperfocal distance is the point of focus where everything from half that distance to infinity falls within the depth of field.

John Shaw's Landscape Photography, John Shaw, 1994.


... the hyperfocal distance setting ... is simply a fancy term that means the distance setting at any aperture that produces the greatest depth of field.

How to Use Your Camera, New York Institute of Photography, 2000.​
Click to expand...
 
I have to call foul too. Not on anything to do with the hyperfocal thing. Mostly on the fact that the few Winogrand photos I've seen would have earned a C- or D in just about any first year darkroom course. Contrast and grain to the max. I seem to recall that he used a Canon 25mm a lot. Speaking from experience, a 25mm lens at 10 feet and 2.8 or more will have just about the whole world in focus.
Dreamy and Winogrand does not compute.

Here are a few samples. Over exposed. Bad printing. Not bad photographs in context. Not dreamy.
http://www.glinnbridge.com/bbs/zboard.php?id=TOOLS&page=1&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=65
 
I disagree completely with ebino's supposition that "the dreamy look" is because of hyper-focusing. It's just my opinion, but I'd be willing to bet the farm if there were a way to "prove" this.

Hyper-focusing means that focus is set so that infinity is afforded adequate sharpness. Look at photos of the photographers named, and see if this is the case on a consistent enough basis to explain "the dreamy look" of photos from that time. Is infinity actually afforded adequate sharpness in these photos? Who knows how those photographers set their focus. I doubt that infinity sharpness was any consideration at all in most of these shots which "focus" on subject elements much closer than that.

The dreamy look is more likely attributable to the optics (human computed as opposed to computer computed) and the film (low ASA resulting in slower shutter speeds) of the time as well as the photographers' "focus" on composition and content rather than on technical perfection.

Also, when using hyper-focal distance to set focus, something is going to be in the true focus plane and should turn up perfectly sharp in these vintage photos if indeed the dreamy look was attributable to hyper focusing.

If this were a poker game and the cards talk, I'd be all in betting against the OP.
 
Last edited:
Blown highlights may have a lot to do with the "dreamy look" as well.

If anyone else on the planet had made this photograph it would be in the circular file bin right now.

winogrand_new_mexico.jpg
 
Last edited:
The concept that setting the infinity mark of the focussing ring to a certain f-stop has an important influence on the contrast of the final image is totally new to me.

I do control the contrast of my negs either by overexposing/underdeveloping ( for lower contrast) or underexposing/overdeveloping (for higher contast, steepening up that curve). The printing technique seems to be also very important (dodging/burning) for the final look (paper choice, etc.), but the focussing distance and the f-stop?

However, the only influence of the lens on contrast I could possibly imagine is the chosen f-stop. But that does not have to do anything with "hyperfocal distance", as you can set the infinity mark for f2 (small depth of field) all the way up to f16 (large depth of field), for example.

That setting the lens to achieve a certain depth of field is giving the final image a dreamy character is also something I yet have to observe. As far as I know, this technique (e.g. infinity on f11 with f11) was and is used in street photography to get an image with a reasonable depth of field . Things are happening quickly in the street (think decisive moment) and one has to be fast.

Sometimes, there is no time to focus -even with a fast autofocus-, so setting infinity to f8 of f11 comes in handy. As for dreamy, I think street photography is quite the opposite of dreamy as for example in pictorialism. The last issue of Camera Work comes to mind.

That Tri-X is a low contrast film per se is also new to me. In fact, most street photos I know have a quite contrasty and even grainy edge to them.

I guess mostly because the film was underexposed and overdeveloped to get a decent shutter speed at higher f-stops in low light. And as Tri-X has a high exposure latitude on the side of underexposure while maintaining a reasonable tonal range, it seems to be a good choice.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
In street photography, given the typical distance between camera and subject, zone focusing would be more useful than hyper focusing.
 
This is not really a theoretical thread. By giving it a shot and trying it, you'll find out for yourself what results you get.
 
back alley said:
i think it's time for the t word...troll!
Click to expand...

Well, OTOH he might be making an effort here.

And apart from correct nomenclature, I will give the f16.0-pre-focussing idea causing diffraction in pictures the benefit of the doubt. It might be what's happening indeed.

Trouble is, I'll have to shelve that idea until spring or summer before being able to test it since there's not much light in the air here 'round this time of year:(

Or maybe I can push a roll of Tmax400 two stops and shoot it as 1600... :)
 
Typical film speed of the time was ASA 25 or less. Shot at f16? Even on the sunniest day, that's a pretty slow shutter speed. Nothing here makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom