Hyper Focal Distance Technique - do you use it?

[jespin00]

Hello people of RFF!
This is my first post and i'm excited to be in such an active community!
So my questiomn involves the hyper focal distance technique.
I was just curious as to how many people use it when shooting?
I find that with my Canon Canonet GL17, focus set on infinity and a Fstop at 11 that the image is self is focused.
This is a technique that promotes focus on the subject, whether it be fleeting or spontaneous, instead of fiddling with the focus ring when time is imparative.

I find that when i use this technique, i have to use a fairly slow shutter speed, especially in low lit areas.

Just curious as to see how many people use this technique and whether there are better methods as to use it?

thanks.

[Leighgion]

I'm meaning to start using it now that I (mostly) understand how to actually use it, but it's been a slow few weeks for going out to shoot with the weather still unfriendly. Hyperfocus isn't much of an option when the light is too dim.

[bmattock]

Hello people of RFF!
This is my first post and i'm excited to be in such an active community!
So my questiomn involves the hyper focal distance technique.
I was just curious as to how many people use it when shooting?
I find that with my Canon Canonet GL17, focus set on infinity and a Fstop at 11 that the image is self is focused.
This is a technique that promotes focus on the subject, whether it be fleeting or spontaneous, instead of fiddling with the focus ring when time is imparative.

I find that when i use this technique, i have to use a fairly slow shutter speed, especially in low lit areas.

Just curious as to see how many people use this technique and whether there are better methods as to use it?

thanks.

Welcome.

I suspect that you are not using hyperfocal focusing with what you describe. Hyperfocal focusing can be used at any f-stop.

You're describing infinity focusing. If your focus mark is on infinity, you're focused on infinity.

The advantage to hyperfocal focusing is that it can permit objects in the near distance, medium distance, and long distance to all be 'acceptably sharp' when used properly. It works by manipulating the 'depth of focus' (DoF) of a given f-stop to move it to where you want it. If you focus on infinity, only 1/3 or so of the DoF are actually in front of 'infinity' or the far distance. The rest is 'lost' so to speak. If you place your infinity mark on the f-stop you are using (say f/11) then you should be able to read another number from f/11 mark on the other side of the lens barrel (example follow link). That's the minimum focus distance. So, say from 8 feet to infinity, everything will be in 'acceptable' focus. That's the theory, anyway.

http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/focusing.html

If you have no objects in the near distance or medium distance that you wish to keep in 'acceptable' focus, then hyperfocal focusing doesn't really help you at all. And some people find that 'acceptable' focus is not the same as 'sharp' focus and so they don't care for hyperfocal focusing. It's all a matter of taste and what your needs are for a given photograph. It's another tool in your tool box that is worth mastering and understanding, however.

Hyperfocal focusing is one of those tools that really work best with a rangefinder camera - it is a tough technique to master on an SLR, since you 'see' and out-of-focus' image in your viewfinder, even if your lens has DOF marks on the lens barrel (most new ones don't).

Welcome again!

[Larky]

I set myself at f8, 2 meters and go. Use my shutter speed to set exposure, leave the aperture alone, always leave the focus at 2 meters - constantly check my hand for exposure readings. I always have the camera on a wrist strap, finger on the button.

[bmattock]

I set myself at f8, 2 meters and go. Use my shutter speed to set exposure, leave the aperture alone, always leave the focus at 2 meters - constantly check my hand for exposure readings. I always have the camera on a wrist strap, finger on the button.

That's cool, but that's not hyperfocal focusing either. That's scale focusing.

Depending upon your media size (say 35mm) and your lens focal length (say 35mm as well), then according to DOF Master:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Depth of field
Near limit 1.44 m
Far limit 3.25 m
Total 1.81 m

In front of subject 0.56 m (31%)
Behind subject 1.25 m (69%)

Now, if you wanted to use hyperfocal focusing (and I'm not saying you would), then using the above assumptions, you'd set your f/8 mark on the right of your lens barrel to roughly 5 meters. Then you'd be 'in focus' (more or less) from 2.57 meters to infinity.

That may not be what you want, but that would be using hyperfocal focusing.

Prefocus and scale focus are great - but they are not hyperfocal focusing.

[drewbarb]

Welcome! I use this technique with wider lenses in fast paced situations. When working indoors or in other situations where all the action is much closer than infinity, I'll set a closer maximum distance (maybe focus on the furthest point of interest, like maybe the back wall, and use that distance as my maximum D.O.F. point); this brings my closest in-focus point much closer, and makes it easy to just compose and shoot. I guess this is called zone focusing, but they are similar, and both work well, when used correctly. Ease of focusing techniques like this is one reason RF's can be faster than even AF.

[wolves3012]

I use it quite often, light-levels permitting. It gets you maximum depth of field. The way you have described it is wrong, however. You need to set the infinity mark against the far-depth-of-field scale for the aperture you're using.

Quick example: f/16 on a 50mm lens; set the infinity mark against the further-f/16 mark on the DOF scale. Hyperfocal distance is now read off as 4m and the near point is against the near-f/16 mark - it's 2m (and it's always half the hyperfocal distance).

[bmattock]

Welcome! I use this technique with wider lenses in fast paced situations. When working indoors or in other situations where all the action is much closer than infinity, I'll set a closer maximum distance (maybe focus on the furthest point of interest, like maybe the back wall, and use that distance as my maximum D.O.F. point); this brings my closest in-focus point much closer, and makes it easy to just compose and shoot. I guess this is called zone focusing, but they are similar, and both work well, when used correctly. Ease of focusing techniques like this is one reason RF's can be faster than even AF.

DOF tables are very useful - in the old days, photographers carried them with them or committed them to memory. If you understand how much depth-of-focus distance you will have at any given subject distance, for any given aperture and lens focal length, you can control it to your advantage if you wish.

Like exposure - there is no one correct way to do this. Understanding it puts it under your control if you decide you want to bother with it. Your way is perfectly acceptable and shows a clear understanding of using your optical properties to the advantage you wish to place them at. Well done.

[Peter_Jones]

I've been mainly experimenting with narrow DOF recently but with RFs (especially 35mm lenses) and fast film I often stop down and use the hyperfocal effect - the light's getting better now too so more chance to "hyperfocal it" :) f/11 or f/16

[Bas]

I use it when I have to shoot from my waist. The problem remains on keeping the camera at level... I have still not mastered shooting from the waist. Here's an example:

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1755/bsas0601ux9.jpg


Taken with a Zorki 4 and Jupiter 8. If I remember correctly, Agfa APX 400, lens set at f/5.6 and focused at 3 something meters (so, more or less, acceptable focus goes from 2.7m to 6m). Anyway, the picture is tilted. I could straighten it, but I would cut his feet away. I prefer it this way, I found the position of his feet are very expressive for the whole picture.

Best,
Bas.

[Dogman]

Yes, I often use true hyperfocal distance focusing as well as scale focusing/guestimations. All time-honored techniques and all perfectly acceptable today.

[sirius]

I have read some convincing arguments that one should focus on your intended subject rather than using hyper focal distance.

I do like using scale focusing like Larky described. It feels very liberating and works very well for 50mm and wider.

[Larky]

I don't really get into learning all this technique speak, I just do what works.

Hyperfocal, infinity, scale etc mean nothing to me - seeing something great looking and pointing my lens at it makes sense to me.

[uhligfd]

No. I focus at infinity if infinity is in the picture and i want it sharp; otherwise I focus on the main subject, or at the furthest object I want sharp.

NEVER hyperfocal. It blurs the trees on the horizon too much and is not nice to have in landscape pics.

Of course the poster had no idea what hyperfocal focusing meant ... Now he knows, I hope. But, please do not use it for landscapes ... or at least try it against infinity focus (as you apparently have used for street shooting) with landscapes and decide by the results and your standards.

[bmattock]

I use it when I have to shoot from my waist. The problem remains on keeping the camera at level... I have still not mastered shooting from the waist. Here's an example:

Taken with a Zorki 4 and Jupiter 8. If I remember correctly, Agfa APX 400, lens set at f/5.6 and focused at 3 something meters (so, more or less, acceptable focus goes from 2.7m to 6m). Anyway, the picture is tilted. I could straighten it, but I would cut his feet away. I prefer it this way, I found the position of his feet are very expressive for the whole picture.

Best,
Bas.

That's terrific and the technique you're using is time-honored and tends to work well in your situation, but it is not hyperfocal focusing.

[Joe Brugger]

Bill's explanations are crystal clear.
A rough-and-ready way to use hyperfocal -- not the best way, but a workable one -- is to use that depth of field scale engraved on the lens.
Set your f-stop, line up the infinity mark with the proper mark, then look to see where the close focus mark falls. If that's acceptable, you're all set.
If the close focus mark is too great a distance for your purposes, try the next smallest f/stop (say f8 instead of f5.6) and adjust the marks.
You'll note from his comments that the zone of acceptable focus will be roughly 1/3 in front of the point of focus and 2/3 will be beyond it.
I agree it's important to make a distinction between zone focusing and setting the hyperfocal distance. They're two different techniques for two different situations.

[bmattock]

I don't really get into learning all this technique speak, I just do what works.

If you don't understand it, the fact that 'it works' for you is largely down to luck. When it works well, you're pleased, and when it does not, you scratch your head and walk away. If remaining ignorant is your choice, so mote it be.

[tripod]

There's zone focusing where you set your focus to a distance you expect your subject to be in and have the DOF take care of a discrepancy in this distance.

There's hyper-focal focusing when you want infinity to be in focus but also as much in front of infinity as possible. Instead of focusing at infinity and losing the DOF past infinity, you set the lens focus index closer than infinity, with the infinity mark to the far DOF mark of the aperture you have set. Then DOF takes care of infinity in focus (this is all with an arguable definition of acceptable focus) and you get much more in focus closer to the camera than you would have simply focusing at infinity. If you are more picky about acceptable focus (size of circle of confusion) then use the DOF mark one stop wider than the stop you're using, ie, infinity at f5.6 DOF mark instead of at the f8 DOF mark, when using an aperture of f8.

I wish that were clearer! :)

[bmattock]

No. I focus at infinity if infinity is in the picture and i want it sharp; otherwise I focus on the main subject, or at the furthest object I want sharp.

NEVER hyperfocal. It blurs the trees on the horizon too much and is not nice to have in landscape pics.

Of course the poster had no idea what hyperfocal focusing meant ... Now he knows, I hope. But, please do not use it for landscapes ... or at least try it against infinity focus (as you apparently have used for street shooting) with landscapes and decide by the results and your standards.

Many people criticize hyperfocal focusing these days, and perhaps with good reason - as you've said.

But consider that your judgment that distant trees being blurred is 'not nice' is perhaps not always true.

Hyperfocal focusing (and indeed, all focusing techniques that make use of anything other than 'focus on what you want to') to achieve a given result are valid in their place. If that's the result the photographer wants, then it is perfectly acceptable. If it isn't, then no.

Learning and using focus and depth-of-field to your advantage is merely adding another creative tool to your toolbox. Just like learning shutter speed and aperture differences and when to use one setting versus another. Just another tool. Use it if it works for you and not if it does not - but if you don't learn it, you can't use it. That's all I'm saying.

[bmattock]

There's zone focusing where you set your focus to a distance you expect your subject to be in and have the DOF take care of a discrepancy in this distance.

There's hyper-focal focusing when you want infinity to be in focus but also as much in front of infinity as possible. Instead of focusing at infinity and losing the DOF past infinity, you set the lens focus index closer than infinity, with the infinity mark to the far DOF mark of the aperture you have set. Then DOF takes care of infinity in focus (this is all with an arguable definition of acceptable focus) and you get much more in focus closer to the camera than you would have simply focusing at infinity. If you are more picky about acceptable focus (size of circle of confusion) then use the DOF mark one stop wider than the stop you're using, ie, infinity at f5.6 DOF mark instead of at the f8 DOF mark, when using an aperture of f8.

I wish that were clearer! :)

That is extremely clear and well said, too.

[Larky]

If you don't understand it, the fact that 'it works' for you is largely down to luck. When it works well, you're pleased, and when it does not, you scratch your head and walk away. If remaining ignorant is your choice, so mote it be.

Please note the word 'speak'. I learn the technique, but the words mean nothing. It's the same as you not having to know what a bi-directional inverse kinematic constraint is in terms of words, but fully understanding how to walk. ;)

It seems that people get too into words and forget what they are supposed to be doing.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Prefocus and scale focus are great - but they are not hyperfocal focusing.

Understanding hyper-focal distances just covers your butt when guessing pre-focus or (scale focus), unless you pre-focus though the rangefinder, or carry a tape measure.

I used to guess pre-focus most of the time, and it works very well when you get the hang of it.

It is of course not for those of you who shoot wide open, nobody can guess that well.

On of the all time great guesses using hyper-focal distance was the photo of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald.

[bmattock]

Please note the word 'speak'. I learn the technique, but the words mean nothing. It's the same as you not having to know what a bi-directional inverse kinematic constraint is in terms of words, but fully understanding how to walk. ;)

It seems that people get too into words and forget what they are supposed to be doing.

In that case, I beg your pardon.

However, I find it strange - odd - that you would refuse to learn the words, if you bother to learn the technique.

However would you communicate it to others, such as in this very forum?

Things have names for very good reasons - a common frame of reference, if nothing else. I could call fire 'ice cubes' and snow 'fire' if I wanted to, but my instructions to others to put fire in their cola and make a fireman by rolling up the fire on the ground outside might seem a bit odd.

[bmattock]

Understanding hyper-focal distances just covers your butt when guessing pre-focus or (scale focus), unless you pre-focus though the rangefinder, or carry a tape measure.

I think it is more useful than that.


I used to guess pre-focus most of the time, and it works very well when you get the hang of it.

Agreed.


It is of course not for those of you who shoot wide open, nobody can guess that well.

Depends on your subject - street photography or macro flower shots.


On of the all time great guesses using hyper-focal distance was the photo of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald.

Agreed.

But let's give an example. Say you want to shoot some flowers.

As you probably well know, DoF decreases when distance to the subject decreases, so a macro shot of a flower might well have only part of the flower in focus.

If you have a DoF table with you - and why not - the flower is not likely to escape and probably doesn't have a 'decisive moment' per se - then you can look up the DoF of any given f-stop, since you know the media size, the distance, and the focal length of your lens, as well as the distance to your subject.

You can then use that DoF to precisely control focus so that it extends from the nearest point of the flower to the farthest from your lens, and neither more nor less, to give that nice creamy OoF effect for object behind your flower.

You could just stop down and snap away, I suppose. You might get something quite nice - many people do. You could even bracket your focus like people bracket their exposure. But more control is just that - more control. It is there if you want it.

I won't get into camera movements to control focal plane, which can also be useful, but the point is this - shutter speed, aperture, and composition are only the basics of creative control. There are many other facets to mastering your camera and controlling, to the extent that you can, the results you get. Focus is a very interesting subject, and one which is very rarely exploited to the extent it can be, except among large format photographers.

It is there if you want it. If not, then no problem. But it does a lot more than just 'cover your butt'.

[nikonhswebmaster]

But let's give an example. Say you want to shoot some flowers.

[...]

It is there if you want it. If not, then no problem. But it does a lot more than just 'cover your butt'.

You could do that. :) I could not do that, it is just not in my DNA. I could not even read past your third paragraph.

[Larky]

Man, fire in a Coke? Would that make the sugar turn to caramel?

It's a great idea, I think we should start using the wrongs words every now and then, would make the world a more fun place to be. :)

[Bingley]

First of all, jespin00, welcome to the forum!

I enjoy street photography, and often use a 50mm lens for that purpose. I try to get fairly close to my subject, and shoot fast. In these circumstances, both techniques discussed above -- hyperfocal distance and scale (or zone) focusing -- work well. I tend to use hyperfocal distance focusing when I can shoot at f11 or f16 -- with the infinity mark set at either aperture, my usual shooting distance from the subject is acceptably in focus. When shooting in shadows or lower light situations, however, I shift to zone or scale focusing, usually setting the aperture to about six feet or 2 meters on the near side (sometimes even closer). Using zone focusing in these situations means that I can use a faster shutter speed. Of course, there are trade-offs in loss of depth of field. Using a 35mm or wider lens gives you more leeway there, but I happen to like the 50mm perspective so I live w/ the compromise.

[bmattock]

Man, fire in a Coke? Would that make the sugar turn to caramel?

It's a great idea, I think we should start using the wrongs words every now and then, would make the world a more fun place to be. :)

Three words - Mars Climate Orbiter.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/orbiter/

Likely Cause Of Orbiter Loss Found
The peer review preliminary findings indicate that one team used English units (e.g., inches, feet and pounds) while the other used metric units for a key spacecraft operation.

And *that* is why using the right words for things is generally useful.

[Larky]

That's not people using the wrong words, that's using the wrong type of measurement.

I think Metric was designed for people who don't know how to multiply.

[FrankS]

You could do that. :) I could not do that, it is just not in my DNA. I could not even read past your third paragraph.

Hi Fred. I've noticed recently that some technical aspects of photography are not your cup of tea.

The Ruby/Oswald shot was probably accomplished using zone focus (no infinity involved) and was made easy back in the day when PJs used BIG flash bulbs, allowing the use of small f-stops (with large DOF). :)

[Pistach]

I always considered hyperfocal distance largely a nonsense, like e.g. incident metering.
The problem might be that on one side we enjoy photography at user level (and rightfully so) on the other side there is optics and the intercommunication is not so good and the industry has no interest to raise the fog.
Hyperfocal distance depends on blur diameter. This is an rather arbitrary parameter. Also h. d. is based on incorrect assumptions because ignores aberration and stipulate that blurring is the same on both sides of focus (Smith, Modern optical Engineering)
On the other hand it is the break of common sense that is more concerning to me.
The idea is to make a horrible compromise: you give up sharp focus where you want it in change of a poor sharpness in a larger range.
How brilliant!
Forget it for me!
I do hope HCB never used it.
These seems to me the kind of topics to justify courses in photography.
But to understand the technical side what is needed is a degree in optics (alas I have taken another orientation. But as a mathematician I sometimes need to study a little piece of optics)
Cheers
Paul

[drewbarb]

I always considered hyperfocal distance largely a nonsense, like e.g. incident metering.

??
Troll?

[bmattock]

I always considered hyperfocal distance largely a nonsense, like e.g. incident metering.
The problem might be that on one side we enjoy photography at user level (and rightfully so) on the other side there is optics and the intercommunication is not so good and the industry has no interest to raise the fog.
Hyperfocal distance depends on blur diameter. This is an rather arbitrary parameter. Also h. d. is based on incorrect assumptions because ignores aberration and stipulate that blurring is the same on both sides of focus (Smith, Modern optical Engineering)
On the other hand it is the break of common sense that is more concerning to me.
The idea is to make a horrible compromise: you give up sharp focus where you want it in change of a poor sharpness in a larger range.
How brilliant!
Forget it for me!
I do hope HCB never used it.
These seems to me the kind of topics to justify courses in photography.
But to understand the technical side what is needed is a degree in optics (alas I have taken another orientation. But as a mathematician I sometimes need to study a little piece of optics)
Cheers
Paul

Paul, your points are valid and well-taken. Hyperfocal focusing, like anything else in photography, is a compromise.

I look at it like this - if I know about it, know how to use it, and know what results I am likely to get - then it is a tool to be used when I choose. If I decide that the results are not what I want, then I don't pull that tool out of my bag.

But if I don't know how hyperfocal focusing works, or don't care, then I don't have that tool, and can't use it whether or not it might be a good idea in any given situation.

It is like having a golf bag full of clubs. You can get by with one or two, most likely. And if you're really good with them, that may be all you want and all you need. And a bag full of extra clubs that you neither understand nor want isn't any help to you - they're just liable to get you into trouble. But if you have clubs you understand and know how to use, then they are there for you when and if you want them. If not, they stay in the bag - no harm done.

I understand having knowledge of a technique and choosing not to use it - after all, you're the one making the decisions regarding your own photographs, right?

But what I have never understood is people who are intentionally, gleefully, and elaborately ignorant - who run away from knowlege; becaus they are convinced it can do them (and by extension, the whole world) no good.

You clearly understand hyperfocal focusing and have decided it is not to your liking, and I completely understand that. It may have some valid uses for some people in some circumstances.

[Bas]

That's terrific and the technique you're using is time-honored and tends to work well in your situation, but it is not hyperfocal focusing.

Right, it's zone focusing :bang:

My mistake, sorry.

Best,
Bas.

[drewbarb]

Paul, your points are valid and well-taken. Hyperfocal focusing, like anything else in photography, is a compromise.

You clearly understand hyperfocal focusing and have decided it is not to your liking, and I completely understand that. It may have some valid uses for some people in some circumstances.
This is all well and good, and Paul may know plenty about optics and the mathematical theory that governs optical systems, but to lump this together with incident metering is weird. To call into question the validity of incident metering demonstrates that he doesn't know much about light meters or their application. Why throw that into this discussion? To me, it calls into question the validity of the rest of his contribution.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Hi Fred. I've noticed recently that some technical aspects of photography are not your cup of tea.

The Ruby/Oswald shot was probably accomplished using zone focus (no infinity involved) and was made easy back in the day when PJs used BIG flash bulbs, allowing the use of small f-stops (with large DOF). :)

Yes I am not much of a one camera fits all kind of user. I never even considered putting a 50 on a rangefinder, so much of what is talked about on the RFF is seems a s-t-r-e-t-c-h to me. See attached...

The Ruby photo might have used a flash, don't remember, but I know he did use an Nikon S3.

[FrankS]

Yes I am not much of a one camera fits all kind of user. I never even considered putting a 50 on a rangefinder, so much of what is talked about on the RFF is seems a s-t-r-e-t-c-h to me. See attached...

The Ruby photo might have used a flash, don't remember, but I know he did use an Nikon S3.


Oh sorry, my mistake then. I thought the photo was taken with a Graphic or Rolleiflex.

[FrankS]

Google is your friend. This website has some interesting info, and also mentions a TLR camera was used.

http://www.rense.com/general73/ruby.htm

edit - ah wait, it says there were 2 photogs.

[M. Valdemar]

Rense is a raving anti-semite moron and his website contains a concocted mix of hate material and almost juvenile doctored "conspiracy" stories for the gullible.

[Russ]

I sometimes use it when scenic shooting.

Russ

[Pistach]

An apology for having made my point with perhaps some overemphasys.
Since I was young I developed an certain anthipathy to the idea of h.d. reading in the photo magazines recurrent paper on the topic and the inevitable PopPhoto one, where the pros teach you how they use h.d.
I pay tribute to the answer of Bill (is that name the B stands for?) for a perfect example of how one can make his point in a more calm and polite way.
BTW I second your post Bill.
And, as I often repeat, photography for passion and for fun, and anybody must rightfully do it his own way.
On the practical side two more remarks.
The first is that the direct approach (decide where the focus should be, focus there (recompose if necessary) and shoot) is faster (at least I presume so - and even more with autofocus) and hence more adapt for quick reactions and decisive moments.
The second is that distance, as we all know blurrs on his own. There are cases in which a thick layer of air between the lens and the subject reduces substantially sharpness (e.g at the beach in summer).
This might be another good reason to stick with focusing at the the point intended for sharpest focus and in particular at infinity, if so dim fit.
Cheers
Paul
This myght be a good reason
I

[JoeV]

I once tried calculating the hyperfocal distance of a subject at infinity by dividing infinity in half, and the result was still infinity.

So I ended up focussing at the subject at infinity, but due to the inverse square law the light intensity reaching the camera was indeterminate. So I set the shutter to "B"; I'm still waiting for the results.

:)

~Joe

[Joe Brugger]

Trouble with hyperfocal is that well-meaning teachers end the lesson with "and everything will be in focus," which just isn't the case. :)

[bmattock]

Trouble with hyperfocal is that well-meaning teachers end the lesson with "and everything will be in focus," which just isn't the case. :)

They should end it with "and everything from your near focal point to infinity will be in acceptable focus," which is correct if one subscribes to CoC theories, and not correct if one doesn't. Well-meaning teachers should parse their terms correctly.