The dreamy hyperfocal look...

[ebino]

Take a look at street photography work of Robert Frank and Winogrand and some other famous street shooters and you notice that they have a soft dreamy quality most of the time. A certain low contrast dreamy b&w that is the holy grail of street photography and almost loved by everyone even if they don't really know why.

How this look was achieved is not due to deliberation, its simply the consequence of the hyperfocal focus.

When you set the camera at hyperfocal focus, you get acceptability sharp images, and this look which is slightly soft makes for that dreamy quality especially with low contrast films such as Tri-X. But even if you shoot digital with hyperfocal focus you still get that soft dreamy look -of course the light is very important as with any photo.

This is of course my opinion, but i just wanted to share and put it to the test.

 

[ederek]

Not sure what you mean by "hyperfocal focus" as a look? Are you saying that the rendering of object within the "hyperfocal range" and not exactly at the precise focus spot have a softer, low contrast look?

If an image is low contrast it may be due to other factors..

I do think taking advantage of the hyperfocal distance (and use of scale focusing) is critical for street and many other styles of shooting.

Sometimes, when the primary subject is further away, I'll bring in my focus to where infinity is at the current f-stop, so I can maximize the foreground that is in focus as well. So let's say you focus on the subject and youre at f5.6, and then look at the Hyperfocal Scale and see Infinity is sitting at f8, I'll bring in my focus until Infinity is at f5.6. I know my center of focus range is now closer than the subject, but due to the Hyperfocal Range, I also know that my subject is still in the range that will be rendered acceptably sharp.

 

[Thardy]

I've never really noticed the dreamy, soft look in street photography, but the explanation makes sense to me.

 

[ebino]

With hyperfocal focus you set the focus in classic lenses such as the one below at one of those f stop number you're using and then you just shoot and forget about it:

I hope thats clear.

You can also do this with any lens as long as it has distance marking.

 

[nikon_sam]

If the whole picture has this dreamy effect due to your theory then what about the area in the photo that is in perfect focus...even if you're shooting in a hyperfocal fashion there will be something in the shot that's dead-on in focus...does that area lose it's dreaminess...

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

but isn't this cheating and dishonest and whatnot? as opposed to the honourable way of focusing through the viewfinder.
... 🙄

 

[ebino]

If the whole picture has this dreamy effect due to your theory then what about the area in the photo that is in perfect focus...even if you're shooting in a hyperfocal fashion there will be something in the shot that's dead-on in focus...does that area lose it's dreaminess...

The larger objects look sharp while smaller bits are not sharp. that is why the image overall looks normal to most people.

But then the best way to find out is try it.

 

[nikon_sam]

Another thought...if you're right then every photo taken should have this dreamy effect due to many parts of the picture not being in perfect focus...

 

[ebino]

Another thought...if you're right then every photo taken should have this dreamy effect due to parts of the picture not being in perfect focus...

there is certainly a charm in low contrast and soft images.

we're obsessed with sharpness while if you sharpen a b&w image you might just kill it, or turn a color photo into a garish abomination.

 

[nikon_sam]

It's all about the lenses (of the era) and the film/developing. Lenses weren't as sharp and contrasty (or multicoated) as they are today.

I would agree it has more to do with the design of the lens than the focusing of it...
I have an Olympus 35-S (circa 1957) with a fixed G. Zuiko 42mm 1.8 lens on it...that lens will render great images that are in focus but not in-your-face razor sharp (even when looking at the focus point)...the edges seem to flow smoother than other newer lenses...
Now the Takumar 50mm 1.4 is in-your-face sharp...😀😉

 

[ederek]

With hyperfocal focus you set the focus in classic lenses such as the one below at one of those f stop number you're using and then you just shoot and forget about it:

The term is "Scale Focusing", and the "Hyperfocal Distance" is the range that will be acceptably sharp (distance because it is a range defined as the max minus minimum for that lens, f-stop and focal setting).

In the example you provided at f16 on a 35mm, everything from 4 feet to infinity will be acceptably sharp. You might also scale focus a bit closer at 5' instead of 8' as shown, and then everything from 3' to 12' or so would be acceptably sharp.

 

[jsrockit]

I have to side with Ebino on this one... I notice a different look to my zone focused photos vs. my deliberately focused ones (on digital even). Generally speaking it is because nothing is exactly sharp, but is only kind of sharp. Sometimes you get lucky and the main part of the photo just happens to be at peak focus, but other times you don't and this gives a softer feel to the photo. Also, let's not forget slower handheld shutter speeds due to lower ASA films of the day as well.

 

[Thardy]

But it doesn't. A hyperfocal setting has nothing to do with "the look." It's no different than just lazily focusing on something in general (in the sense that true in-focus subjects can be hit or miss). The blurred background, etc. would happen one way or the other.

Well I thought the discussion was about hyperfocal focusing and why all those street images look soft.

I actually took a peek at some of the photographs from the photographers mentioned above.

It appears that there is just (barely) acceptable sharpness throughout the frame (in all planes front to back).

Wouldn't using hyperfocal distance at f/8 yield a totally different image than f/2?

 

[jsrockit]

It appears that there is just (barely) acceptable sharpness throughout the frame (in all planes front to back).

Exactly... and this is what the OP is trying to get across I believe.

 

[Paddy C]

Exactly... and this is what the OP is trying to get across I believe.

But it is not specifically the result of scale focusing or hyperfocal distance.

 

[jsrockit]

But it is not a result of scale focusing or hyperfocal distance.

It certainly does add to the effect... to me it is all of the following:

1) Lens Signature
2) Slow Shutter Speeds as a byproduct of slow film
3) Zone focusing
4) Film Choice
5) Darkroom choices

 

[Paddy C]

It certainly does add to the effect... to me it is all of the following:

1) Lens Signature
2) Slow Shutter Speeds as a byproduct of slow film
3) Zone focusing
4) Film Choice
5) Darkroom choices

Yes I would agree. But if you remove zone focusing from that list you already have a substantial number of variables in play. So many that the OP's conclusion is, IMO, incorrect.

For example:
My '57 Rigid Summicron is, from what I understand, razor sharp in the centre, but softer as you go out from centre. So let's say this lens was in use and the shooter was zone focusing and the subject of the photo is not at the centre of the frame. What you expect would be a bit of a softer rendering in the part of the photo where you are concentrating most of your viewing attention. And thus a "dreamy" look is your conclusion.

Repeat exactly the above with a modern Summicron, or Biogon, and you will not have that softness. These lenses are designed for edge-to-edge consistency.

That's why I'm saying I don't think it has anything to do directly with zone focusing (or hyperfocal distance).

 

[yefeihe]

C'mon, say the "b" word! You guys are just talking about the Bokeh effect🙂

Yefei

 

[kbg32]

I would say it is all due to the lens designs, coatings (if any), film of that period, chemistry, and the eyesight of the photographer. Hyperfocal focus has nothing to do with it.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

It's not bokeh. It's "anti-bokeh," I think he means.

Looking at that hyperfocal setting on the 35mm lens in the photo, he has it set to f/16. That "dreamy look" is called diffraction when it is created in the lens. If that's the way one shoots a Leica usually with an M9 and ASPH Lux or Cron, then you may want to save some money and get a better camera for point & shoot use as such. There is no substitute for accurate focus and shooting lenses that were corrected to be used in the wider f/stops like that isn't necessarily bad, it's just kind of like taking a few random spark plugs out of a smooth working motor.

You can cook your film different ways too, especially with D76. It can melt grain and give your negatives a lower microcontrast kind of effect. This isn't really good either.

As far as the "dreamy" look of older photos by legends of photography, they used older lenses such as the Elmars, early Summiluxes, fast Nikkors and the list goes on. Spherical aberration has a great effect on "dreamy" looks and in many lenses, even very good ones, you can find it in abundance. Everything has gotten better these days so we don't get "dreamy" unless we soup our film specifically tailored to what effect we want also.

Phil Forrest