Landscape Advice for optimum depth of field and sharpness.

[Keith Tapscott]

I am hoping to get some time this Christmas to take some landscape photographs around Dartmoor. I want to try out my Sinar Norma 8x10 with 240mm Nikkor-W lens which I have not yet used.
If I wanted to get optimum image quality from my Camera where any perspective control movements might be required such as the scene in the link below from a similar viewpoint, how would you go about it?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/terry-and- ... ifullight/

[IanG]

Just a little bit of front tilt to help bring the foreground into focus, then stop down to f32 or more.

Ian

[George Hart]

Front tilt with landscapes is the rule, but beware that in the scene you refer to, the top of the cairn may go out of focus! Focus at infinity and stop down as much as you need to. I have found Merklinger's writings to be helpful, if rather wordy. This article http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html is a good start.

[Keith Tapscott]

Thanks Ian and George, although I must confess that I don`t understand why I should focus at infinity. Surely I would do better focusing on the main point of interest such and the large mass of rock which is the main subject?

[Tom Perkins]

I think I would just experiment. Frame the shot, focus to where you think would be best, stop down and check if everything is sharp with your lupe. If not, keep trying different things until it is, or at least as close as possible. I think thats one of the great things about using a GG to focus, you can check most things before pressing the shutter.
Tom.

[George Hart]

Keith, if you have objects at infinity in your frame and you don't focus within that field of view (ie more than ~200x focal length), then what is at infinity will not be in perfect focus. All this is explained by Merklinger, but be aware that he can be wordy! He effectively disables the all too common notion of "hyperfocal distance" being good enough. I have done a few simple experiments and I have found what he says to be the case.

[IanG]

"Surely I would do better focusing on the main point of interest such and the large mass of rock which is the main subject? "

Keith, I'm not sure why George suggested you focus at infinity. Like you were thinking I'd focus on the rock using a bit of tilt to bring the foreground into focus, this would actually help the infinity focus at the same time, and with a little stopping down you'll have perfect sharpness through-out the image.

I've read Harold M. Merklinger's articles and they are a waste time. IMHO.
The type of image your talking about taking is simple and that touch of tilt will bring everything into focus aided by the additional depth of field from stopping down.

Ian

[Lynne Evans]

I was talking to David Ward about where to focus when not using any movements, and his advice was the same as has already been advised: to focus on the main point of interest and stop down. For that particular shot I would go with no movements and with a small aperture.

Lynne

[Ole Tjugen]

Keith, if you have objects at infinity in your frame and you don't focus within that field of view (ie more than ~200x focal length), then what is at infinity will not be in perfect focus. All this is explained by Merklinger, but be aware that he can be wordy! He effectively disables the all too common notion of "hyperfocal distance" being good enough. I have done a few simple experiments and I have found what he says to be the case.

I agree with that, but if the main subject is much closer I would focus on that and let the background go "properly" soft. An almost-sharp horizon can ruin a picture IMO.

http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html

I used infinity focus for that one since the foreground was less important than the distant "stuff". If I had used hyperfocal, nothing would have been really sharp and the impact would have been much less. This was also one of those cases where tilts don't really help any. A smidgeon of front rise was all the movement I used.

[Keith Tapscott]

There is some very interesting feedback from this thread, so I will try focusing on the rocks and shoot another at `infinity-focus` with the lens stopped down to around f/22-f/32 or so and see which works best. Also another with a touch of forward tilt.
The example that Ole has sent seems to be an infinity-focus type of image, thanks for the link to that.
Perhaps there may be a some photographs on this site where the photographer(s) discuss how they took the image(s) where choice of viewpoint, lens, composition and perspective movements etc were used, who have their images on this or another site?

[Apple]

Keith,

A couple that may help:

This one was taken using front tilt and placing the plane of focus through the flowers in the foreground, through halfway up the fountain and then it goes out to halfway up the trees in the background. Front tilt was used to keep the perspective normal and make it so that things don't look to be leaning over or drawn out...



This one was probably taken using rear tilt - there's nothing to prove you've tilted the rear (converging verticals don't exactly look out of place on the mountain ) and doing it this way can increase the prominence of the foreground details.



In both cases, the planes of focus are placed half way through the required points as the depth of field as you stop down the lens opens up the 'wedge' of acceptable sharpness to cover the top and bottom of the items - there's no point, for example, putting the plane through the top of the mountain as stopping down will increase the bits in focus but the wedge may not reach far enough down to touch the ground so the middle distance looks soft...

Andrew

[Keith Tapscott]

Andrew, thanks for those examples.