tvdpid
Member
Anyone ever read "The ins and outs of focus" by Harold M. Merklinger?
This book rendered all DOF apps and theories obsolete to me.
Same experience?
Thanks,
Tom
This book rendered all DOF apps and theories obsolete to me.
Same experience?
Thanks,
Tom
Richard G
Veteran
Just read it. Very good. Why don't you keep the thread alive by summarising here his essential point.
bmattock
Veteran
It is very interesting, and I will be reading more of it and perhaps have more to comment. For the moment, I will say that the author seems to have come to the same conclusion about focus that I did about exposure. That is, the 'correct' exposure (or focus with depth-of-field) is the one you intend. Period.
It is one thing to say that correct focus meets certain rules, and quite another to say that focus is what you wish it to be.
This is most easily illustrated by the Bokeh Boys, who love that blurry creamy background to everything. I'm not knocking them, you understand. If that is the result they are after, then they are obviously doing it right - for them.
The point is that focus is and should be under creative control by the photographer if they want to control that aspect of their photography. No auto-focus, auto-exposure setting can read the photographer's mind and know what they want; only what is generally considered 'correct'.
Ultimately, every aspect of photography that can be controlled by the photographer is subject to creative control, and when done purposefully and the intent of the photographer is achieved, it cannot be said to be wrong.
oftheherd
Veteran
Well said.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Although I read the book many years ago, I have little recollection of it save that it contained many restatements of the bleedin' obvious, mixed with disputable opinions. I also vaguely recollect that focus was sometimes made more complicated than it needed to be, but I may be conflating that with his book on focusing the view camera.
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
Veteran
ellisson
Well-known
I read this in a series of Merklinger's articles published in Shutterbug in 1994, which are still available on the web. I found the series very well written and clear with excellent illustrations and examples. I highly recommend his overview and explanation of focus and depth of field.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry. Youtube will NEVER be a lantern to guide my way, as video is an abomination to me. I much prefer reading and writing, where I can proceed as my own pace. It's all a question of preferred media.
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
Veteran
How very bizarre! My sincere apologies, I thought I was posting THIS link:
http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf
I should have looked at the link after posting it - it apparently kept a previous link to a youtube video I enjoyed and ignore the one I meant to post. Again, sorry about that.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
What I Learned in School
What I Learned in School
Focus 1/3 in 2/3 out. The end.
What I Learned in School
Focus 1/3 in 2/3 out. The end.
Steve M.
Veteran
Perhaps I am just too dumb to understand all this (and there's a lot to be said for ignorance being bliss), but this all sounds like a solution to something that isn't a problem. I mean, the shot is eithet in focus or not in focus, right. Some things in life really are dualistic, either-or.
Bokeh is another subject, and unrelated to focus. If someone decides to make their photo out of focus, for whatever reason, that's fine. We can choose selective focus, lots of DOF (which again, is not about focus but DOF of focus), shallow DOF, etc. It's all OK. I have some Holga shots that are blurry and out of focus, yet they make a good image in my mind, even though nearly everyone I show them to fixates on the fact that it's out of focus and can't seem to get past that to, is this a good image or not?
Bokeh is another subject, and unrelated to focus. If someone decides to make their photo out of focus, for whatever reason, that's fine. We can choose selective focus, lots of DOF (which again, is not about focus but DOF of focus), shallow DOF, etc. It's all OK. I have some Holga shots that are blurry and out of focus, yet they make a good image in my mind, even though nearly everyone I show them to fixates on the fact that it's out of focus and can't seem to get past that to, is this a good image or not?
bmattock
Veteran
Not entirely.
Focus is dependent upon many things, and the desires of the photographer may be very different.
First, we must consider that not all cameras have the ability to focus through-the-lens (for example, rangefinders), which puts the burden on the photographer to understand and control focus through depth-of-focus understanding.
Second, one must consider that the zone of focus in front and back of the subject is a creative zone for the photographer if they wish to control it.
For example, in a portrait, do I wish to use a very open aperture and a longer focal length lens to completely isolate the subject's face, making the entire background a featureless blur, or do I wish to have some parts of the background (or foreground) in relatively clear focus? By experimenting with aperture, focal length, and distance from the subject, or even the formula for the lens itself (petzval, rapid-rectilinear, triplet, etc), I may produce many different kinds of portrait of the same person in the same pose in the same location, and each will impart a different feel to the resulting photograph.
So yes, focus is focus, but...what happens everywhere the focus is not sharp is also important - or it can be.
Bokeh is not unrelated to focus, as it is a reference to out-of-focus objects and how the lens renders them. It is focus plus many other aspects, but it relates primarily to focus.
As to whether or not people like a photograph and the way it might be rendered by a Holga, that's not really as important as how you prefer the photograph to appear. If the result is what you wanted, then it's fine. You can't control whether or not people have the same taste you do.
tvdpid
Member
@bmattock
Thank you for your replies. I have exactly the same idea. As I'm not a 'native speaker' I cannot express it better than you do.
What I learned from Mr. Merklinger are the tools (really easy to use formulas!) to control the DOF (or should I say 'the blur') you want.
If you just reduce DOF to certain CoC's you will never get the result you want. The 'rule' "Focus 1/3 in 2/3 out. The end." as stated by Dektol Dan is simply untrue and therefore dissappointing. Just test it and watch ...
Thank you for your replies. I have exactly the same idea. As I'm not a 'native speaker' I cannot express it better than you do.
What I learned from Mr. Merklinger are the tools (really easy to use formulas!) to control the DOF (or should I say 'the blur') you want.
If you just reduce DOF to certain CoC's you will never get the result you want. The 'rule' "Focus 1/3 in 2/3 out. The end." as stated by Dektol Dan is simply untrue and therefore dissappointing. Just test it and watch ...
bmattock
Veteran
It is true for him, perhaps, and if that works for him then I have no objection.
The entire point of any of this is that being able to control your tools to get the effect you want is important. Anything that gives a photographer more control over their tools is good. If they do not want that level of control, that's OK too.
tvdpid
Member
Of course you're right. If they are happy, it's OK. We are happy too.
tvdpid
Member
Wow Richard, this is not easy. Maybe I may tease people who haven't read Mr.Merklingers articles/book yet by asking the following:
If an object lies beyond the DOF boundaries given by the app you use or given by the marks on your lens, how blurry will that object be in the photograph?
For those who are not teased yet
:Why do I ask this? Maybe you don't want that object to be recognizable.
Richard G
Veteran
The single most important take home message I got from this book is what I'd worked out intuitively myself. If I want the buildings in the distance resolvable for texture, or labeling or whatever, don't use hyperfocal distance but focus on infinity. The very near would have been out of focus anyway by hf or infinity focus and the middle distance, depending a little on aperture will be acceptably sharp. This works even, or especially, for wide apertures like f1.4 and f2. I look back on slides I focused this way at dusk with very wide apertures in the '80s and I am amazed at how versatile a wide aperture can be at infinity.
This might have been f1.4 but probably f2 at 1/60th, from a boat, just on sunset, Kodachrome 64: the gondola and the gondolier are not in focus. Focusing on him would not have made a good photograph and scale focusing or hyperfocal focusing to include him in focus would have produced a totally out of focus picture. I focused in the left edge of the Doge's palace. It's thirty years since I projected this but it works on the 'big screen' too.
This might have been f1.4 but probably f2 at 1/60th, from a boat, just on sunset, Kodachrome 64: the gondola and the gondolier are not in focus. Focusing on him would not have made a good photograph and scale focusing or hyperfocal focusing to include him in focus would have produced a totally out of focus picture. I focused in the left edge of the Doge's palace. It's thirty years since I projected this but it works on the 'big screen' too.
Pioneer
Veteran
This will likely make more sense as I play with it. For me learning requires use, sometimes a lot of use, before what I am reading starts to make sense.
What Merklinger is saying in his articles makes a certain kind of sense but it is certainly unfamiliar enough to me at this point that I am not comfortable using the ideas yet.
What Merklinger is saying in his articles makes a certain kind of sense but it is certainly unfamiliar enough to me at this point that I am not comfortable using the ideas yet.