View Full Version : The dreamy hyperfocal look...
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.
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.
I've never really noticed the dreamy, soft look in street photography, but the explanation makes sense to me.
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:
http://www.markushartel.com/tutorials/tutorials/hyperfocal.jpg
I hope thats clear.
You can also do this with any lens as long as it has distance marking.
nikon_sam
11-24-2010, 07:40
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
11-24-2010, 07:42
but isn't this cheating and dishonest and whatnot? as opposed to the honourable way of focusing through the viewfinder.
... :rolleyes:
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
11-24-2010, 07:48
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...
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
11-24-2010, 08:12
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...:D;)
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:
http://www.markushartel.com/tutorials/tutorials/hyperfocal.jpg
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
11-24-2010, 08:15
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.
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
11-24-2010, 08:47
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.
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
11-24-2010, 09:22
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
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).
C'mon, say the "b" word! You guys are just talking about the Bokeh effect:-)
Yefei
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
11-24-2010, 10:32
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
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.
No, I don't.
Nikkor AIS
11-24-2010, 11:39
Ebino, I think you need to check your eyes. Furthermore, your examples are lost on me :o. 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:.
Brian Legge
11-24-2010, 11:45
Any chance that is just older film/more grainy images? That would add a feeling of 'softness' despite everything being in focus.
Anyone have a bandaid I can have? I'm biting my tongue and I think its bleeding now.
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.
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.
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.
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
chris7521
11-24-2010, 12:49
I knew this was going to be a good thread.;) I also knew I should just watch. Good so far:p
I knew this was going to be a good thread.;) I also knew I should just watch. Good so far:p
Destine to be a classic. Maybe even a thread to be imortalized in the RFF hall-of-fame! :D
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.
Destine to be a classic. Maybe even a thread to be imortalized in the RFF hall-of-fame! :D
What more is there to say?
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.
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/winogrand/winogrand_new_mexico.jpg
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.
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
11-24-2010, 14:27
i think it's time for the t word...troll!
i think it's time for the t word...troll!
Whats the T word gangsta?
buzzardkid
11-24-2010, 14:43
i think it's time for the t word...troll!
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... :)
lol this is funny all around.
antiquark
11-24-2010, 14:48
Wouldn't the dreamy look be due to lens flare?
Anyways, this thread is useless without pictures!
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.
Duh. Here is the obvious rebuttal: If the dreamy look was contrived by using hyperfocusing and extremely small f stop which causes diffraction, surely not all photographers were utilizing this technique all the time. Where are the examples of modern looking images without the dreamy look of vintage photography?
ebino, are you being sincere or are you just tugging our legs?
charjohncarter
11-24-2010, 15:27
I knew this was going to be a good thread.;) I also knew I should just watch. Good so far:p
I'm watching too, Venchka gave an example, but I would like to see some more of the dreamy look. I went to the SFMOMA yesterday and there was a lot of out of focus stuff (but I wouldn't call it dreamy) by HCB and the sexism, surveillance and voyeur exhibitors.
Pic of the proud boy carrying wine bottles is one of my favourites. Definitely vintage looking but definitely not using hyper focusing. Check the sharpness of distant objects.
http://www.laurencemillergallery.com/Images/hcb_sbs2.jpg
Alpacaman
11-24-2010, 15:51
but isn't this cheating and dishonest and whatnot? as opposed to the honourable way of focusing through the viewfinder.
... :rolleyes:
:D:D:D I burst out laughing when I read that.
Also, Ebino, I can't recognize you anymore! What happened to the umbrella man?
Anyways, couldn't the whole hyperfocal = softness be a lens by lens thing? On most of my Nikon glass the image gets sharper when I stop down and go hyperfocal. P'rhaps what you see is simply a result of your modern Leica glass, which is designed to be used wide open, diffracting when stopped down?
I think the problem is the "dreamy" word in the title. I'll change it.
I think the problem is the "dreamy" word in the title. I'll change it to soft.
Yeah, word change in the title. Then it would all make perfect sense.
Edit: Not.
Yeah, word change in the title. Then it would all make perfect sense.
I tried it but it didn't work.
So people, please ignore the "dreamy" word in the title.
What shall we insert in its place?
http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/images/l/13575701.jpg
Blown highlights may have a lot to do with the "dreamy look" as well.
If anyone else on the palnet had made this photograph it would be in the circular file bin right now.
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/winogrand/winogrand_new_mexico.jpg
One of my favorite Winogrands
http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_423818140_203491_robert-frank.jpg
http://graememitchell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/robert_frank_the_americas.jpg
Jack Conrad
11-24-2010, 16:21
What shall we insert in its place?
I vote for "blurry." :)
Mark Schretlen
11-24-2010, 16:36
I think the look is easy to achieve - just put a tiny umbrella in your hot-shoe and shoot only on rainy days. :)
I am also of the opinion that this is a lens thing. Didn't Winogrand use a Canon 28/2.8 LTM? It's got a unique character at all f-stops.
One of my favorite Winogrands
Same here.
For the record, I too like the Winogrand photo of the Albuquerque G.I. Bill 'Burbs. I'm not sure why. I just do. It certainly falls short on technical levels. On the other hand, Garry wasn't about technical stuff. Perhaps we all should take note of that.
What shall we insert in its place?
"Half-baked"? :)
Duh. Here is the obvious rebuttal: If the dreamy look was contrived by using hyperfocusing and extremely small f stop which causes diffraction, surely not all photographers were utilizing this technique all the time. Where are the examples of modern looking images without the dreamy look of vintage photography?
ebino, are you being sincere or are you just tugging our legs?
What if the opposite is happening? Looks like these are shot at a large aperture and focus is missed. I went out a few days ago using ISO 400 film and still had to use f/1.4, not much was in focus. Yeah, I thought the images were quite dreamy.
Spontaneous. Candid. Dark & Brooding. Poor light-either too much or not enough. Rapid fire. Slow shutter speeds. Slow lenses. Slow film. All the street shooters of the 40s-50s-60s had to deal with these shortcomings. We are lucky they got any photos at all. By comparison, we are all spoiled by modern technology.
More Winogrand...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_G3RpygqImSg/SwgXvahkT_I/AAAAAAAAAU4/IrfzxhT6kGE/s1600/winogrand_worlds_fair.jpg
Awesome!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_G3RpygqImSg/SwgXSgPnjUI/AAAAAAAAAUg/FvrbiUoGlPo/s1600/winogrand_la_sidewalk.jpg
Color even.
http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/images/Winograndcolor.jpg
I'm going to set up Bigfoot and the 28 for "the Winogrand style." Actually, I'm half kidding.
For the record, I too like the Winogrand photo of the Albuquerque G.I. Bill 'Burbs. I'm not sure why. I just do. It certainly falls short on technical levels. On the other hand, Garry wasn't about technical stuff. Perhaps we all should take note of that.
It's a pretty trenchant criticism of America - there is a tension between the built environment (the house) and its surroundings (a desert wasteland), the lone toddler with no parent in sight, the overturned tricycle, the darkness of the garage...
I don't know about anyone else, but I regularly shoot in the 1/30 to 1/60 range -- even in broad daylight -- just to get a little bit of that slow shutter blur.
interesting comment, that one ...
but isn't this cheating and dishonest and whatnot? as opposed to the honourable way of focusing through the viewfinder.
... :rolleyes:
Lenses always look nice in the sweet spot.
daveywaugh
11-25-2010, 02:06
Interesting discussion. Maybe I have been sniffing too many chemicals too because I think the OP makes an interesting (and valid) point. Some posts here are incredible patronising BTW - maybe I am being too sensitive but RFF is getting a bit touchy of late...
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.
Hmm, you are right, why not turning this into a practical thread by trying it out and showing some pictures? :rolleyes:
This discussion has given me a new appreciation of Mr. Winogrand.
emraphoto
11-25-2010, 17:43
i zone focus a lot and actually like that 'look' i reckon ebino is trying to talk about. what is it? blurry? sometimes it is... sometimes the particular moment is a little blurry? a peek? i don't know how to define it really but it often is what i am after.
is it cheating? not so sure i buy into any of the rules and definitions really. i know what i want/like and thats all that matters.
This discussion has given me a new appreciation of Mr. Winogrand.
Same here! "Women are beautiful" can be seen here in Berlin until tomorrow. Without this thread I would not have noticed that.
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.
Very helpful.
Very helpful.
Good mel. One clarification later noted is a more proper term is "Zone Focusing", as Hyperfocal specifically relates to objects at Infinity being in focus.
The Depth of Field indicators are very helpful, and I often use them.
Sometimes when focused on objects relatively close, I'll then move the focus further away using the scale until the original focus distance is at the minimum of the DOF range, thus maximizing the distant objects that are in focus while keeping the subject acceptably sharp.
Here's an example, where the swans are the main subject, but I wanted to keep as much of the distant background in focus as possible. Given the available light, I could only go up to f2.8 or so, as ISO and shutter speed were already at their preferred limits. I focused on the swans first, then looked down at the lens and moved the focus out further using the scale, but still keeping the swans in focus (their distance then sitting at the minimum end of the DOF scale for that aperture setting). I wasn't as concerned with keeping anything closer than the swans in focus.
http://ederek.smugmug.com/photos/1089998543_vpzp2-M-3.jpg
Of course, I don't think any of the above comment relates to "The [choose your word] Hyperfocal Look..."
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.