[mee]

You are entirely right that there's no universal rule because there's no universal pattern to landscapes.

To me, the best landscapes often have nothing to focus on (or everything to focus on) in that they capture an entire world that one might walk into and explore. Everything in the landscape is equally pin-sharp -- the wild flowers in the foreground, the trees to the left, the stream to the right, the rugged mountains in the background, the brilliant marshmallow clouds on a deep azure sky. They can be a like a natural wheres-Waldo picture with interesting animals, rocks, plants, etc. found throughout the image. But that's me!

Of course, some landscape photos do literally blur into the genres of more specific subject photography (e.g., wildlife, wedding, trains, BIF, etc.) in having a specific focal subject with the surrounding landscape providing a supporting/complementary role.

haha that is why I like looking at large resolution images 1:1 on a smaller resolution screen.. it is like Where's Waldo.

I think TJ Drysdale is one of those photographers that blurs the line.. in his case I think it is between landscape and portraiture. He seems to really use the environment as a blanket, enveloping his subjects. I would post a link to his page but some of his images are sadly a bit nsfw.

[Fogel70]

You are entirely right that there's no universal rule because there's no universal pattern to landscapes.

To me, the best landscapes often have nothing to focus on (or everything to focus on) in that they capture an entire world that one might walk into and explore. Everything in the landscape is equally pin-sharp -- the wild flowers in the foreground, the trees to the left, the stream to the right, the rugged mountains in the background, the brilliant marshmallow clouds on a deep azure sky. They can be a like a natural wheres-Waldo picture with interesting animals, rocks, plants, etc. found throughout the image. But that's me!

Of course, some landscape photos do literally blur into the genres of more specific subject photography (e.g., wildlife, wedding, trains, BIF, etc.) in having a specific focal subject with the surrounding landscape providing a supporting/complementary role.

And sometimes the most interesting landscape photograph is the one where the whole image is blurred, without anything in focus, that looks more like a painting.

FI like some of these...
Steven Friedman Landscape Photography | The Abstract Landscape - Steven Friedman Landscape Photography

[civiletti]

Focus method depends on situation. What should be in focus? Can everything desired be in focus at a reasonable aperture? Sometimes setting the hyper focal distance is all that is needed. Sometimes near-focus and far-focus points should be determined to set a mid-point. Magnified live view is the most accurate way to do that.

[MJKoski]

Then there is a big but. Low MP bodies work reasonably fine using the hyperfocal concept. But when you do large print of a picture taken with something like K-1 (and higher res) the outcome will look messy due to nothing really being sharp (unless something hits the real focus point) or diffraction softening with small aperture.

Real solution is to use tilt effectively or focus stacking. That is the only way as MP count just seems to rise for no real reason.

[Gimbal]

Real solution is to use tilt effectively or focus stacking. That is the only way as MP count just seems to rise for no real reason.

If you don't need high MP you can always donwsample, problem solved.

[MJKoski]

Sure. It still does not remove the cause. Web galleries in general cause wrong impressions of sharpness and make people tend to forget The Big Picture.

[Digitalis]

Then there is a big but. Low MP bodies work reasonably fine using the hyperfocal concept. But when you do large print of a picture taken with something like K-1 (and higher res) the outcome will look messy due to nothing really being sharp (unless something hits the real focus point) or diffraction softening with small aperture.

While this is true when viewing your images at 1:1 pixel level, you're forgetting that in print, the diffraction softening can easily be countered to the point of being imperceptible in a 36X24 inch print. With some subjects Focus stacking can't always be used, and you have to work with just the one shot.

[MJKoski]

Yes there are sharpening methods. They also have their limits before the output starts to look artificial. I refuse to print smaller than 1.25 meters wide when dealing with base ISO images and 36MP is already at its limit here so I have just chosen to stay under diffraction barrier whenever possible.

[Digitalis]

I have just chosen to stay under diffraction barrier whenever possible.

chicken.

[MJKoski]

El Pollo Diablo.

[civiletti]

Yes there are sharpening methods. They also have their limits before the output starts to look artificial. I refuse to print smaller than 1.25 meters wide when dealing with base ISO images and 36MP is already at its limit here so I have just chosen to stay under diffraction barrier whenever possible.

Diffraction barrier is a term used in microscopy to note the limit of resolution in optical systems of about 1/2 wavelength of the light used. How does staying "under diffraction barrier" do anything for your images?

[Kerrowdown]

When I start missing focus on a regular basis rather just occasionally... I make an appointment for Specsavers (a retail optician), this usually resolves my issues.

[Digitalis]

How does staying "under diffraction barrier" do anything for your images?

If I had to hazard a guess it would increase accutance at the plane of immediate focus, making the rest of the images look soft by comparison.

[MJKoski]

Going smaller than f/11 is going to take away peak sharpness with K-1. Going smaller than f/16 starts to look like catastrophe. High IQ lens loses its advantage right there.

No rocket science needed. F/8 is "safe" and f5.6 ~optimal with K-1.

[photoptimist]

If I had to hazard a guess it would increase accutance at the plane of immediate focus, making the rest of the images look soft by comparison.

Exactly! And in leaving some of the image soft, one is accentuating the sharpness of the in-focus part and help draw the viewers eye to it.

With static focal-plane sensors, there are limits on the sharpness of images of non-coplanar subjects*.

Variation in subject depth forces trade-offs in the percentages of sharp, somewhat sharp, slight soft, soft, and extremely soft parts of the image -- a softness or circle-of-confusion histogram as it were with 0 softness (perfect sharpness) on the left and total softness (total uniform blur) on the right.

Wide-open, the image has a small % of somewhat sharp areas and a very large % tailing off into extremely soft -- most of the histogram is pushed to the extreme right in background/foreground blur.

At "sweet spot" apertures, there's a decent % of very sharp areas but still a high % tailing off into softness -- some of the histogram is as close to zero as possible, but there's still some % on the right.

Closed tight, there's much less softness overall but the sharpest areas are no longer sharp -- the histogram is clumped on the left but no where near the 0 softness lefthand edge.

It's up to the photographer to decide how they want to handle this trade-off and how they choose the focal length, framing, focus, and aperture within the constraints of optical physics. There are no bad apertures, except within the restricted confines of a specific subject and specific photographic goals. Every lens aperture has been used to make a great picture even if some apertures get more use than others.

*(coplanar subjects can always be brought into focus in large format by tilting the lens)