[stevebrot]

Hey Steve, see you at Burgerville 134th St over Christmas season...grew up across the fields from there and still visit ma...have to hang the big telephoto out the window at Ridgefield refuge in winter...there's a different dof issue with the big 600/4.

Sure thing. PM me and we can meet up.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I can honestly never remember seeing 'hyperfocal' used to refer to a setup without infinity involved in some way, so this is handy to know.

Me neither until just yesterday with the Wikipedia entry on "Hyperfocal distance". It has some strange properties including something called "incremental depths of field"...sort of a Fibonacci series of DoF based on the hyperfocal.


Steve

[normhead]

Send me OM-D mk2 and 75mm/1.8 Zuiko. I will be happy to show how it works wide open focus stacked against stopped down K-1 and 70-200 f/2.8 SDM AW (send these too). Olympus has its own PS mode too :]

Here is something to read for starters:
diglloyd blog: The Significance of Automated Focus Stepping for Focus Stacking (Nikon D850)
diglloyd blog: Scenes Where Focus Stacking Makes all the Difference

--

Here is practical example what focus stacking does with wide angle landscape photo.

Whole image as result:



100% unsharpened crop of dead swan's eye from full res image:


100% unsharpened crop from swan's wing feathers:


And finally, 100% crop from that far away island:


In the final image there are 9 frames starting from Loxia 21mm lens' minimum focusing distance all the way to infinity. You see, I get SHARP details from 25cm (Lox 21mm MFD) to infinity @ f/8. No way this would have been possible with conventional stopping down, not even f/256 would have worked (total diffraction mess). Canon 24mm TS-E mk2 could work but it is on the edge requiring huge tilt and thus dropping its resolving power considerably. I could have taken this with m4/3 and 75mm lens far away and by using focus stacking it would absolutely demolish stopped down FF setup with 150mm lens. This method is absolutely available to anyone, from beginner kits to $$$$$ setups. Fun things is, K-70 with kit lens will trash K-1 with 24-70 this way and anyone can do it. But those having K-1 and high IQ lenses can also use this. And why should they NOT? Live and learn.

You do realize you showed us an interesting picture but you didn't prove a thing. There's no comparison image taken same time and same light using a hyperlocal setting

100% unsharpened crop of dead swan's eye from full res image:

Ya, that's awful, do you have a better example? That low light capability just is bad. It does make the point however that you aren't going to be able to draw up shadow detail from a smaller sensor, stacking or not.

I notice your swan wing is taken from the centre of the frame, where any camera would be sharp.

The distance part of the image is not sharp at all, I'm really not sure what you are talking about here.

I never said there weren't uses for stacking. I said if you can do it with hyperlocal it isn't necessary. And I gave an example of an instance, (macro,) when stacking was your only option. SO, you're arguing points I'm not disputing, you're providing examples that aren't impressing me at all, and you've used an image that goes beyond the capability of hyperlocal focussing, and is therefore irrelevant to the conversation. But at least you got to show off your new toy. That's always a bonus.

Doesn't including a dead swan in your image make it a still life not a landscape? So, I'm also a little dubious of your photographic nomenclature. There's a lot to disagree with here.

I have many razor sharp hyperlocal images, I'm not going to mess up my flickr stream posting pixel peepers. Sorry.

You're acting like a bit of a hot shot here, I'm not seeing why. Was that supposed to impress me?


---------- Post added 12-04-17 at 08:39 PM ----------

Me neither until just yesterday with the Wikipedia entry on "Hyperfocal distance". It has some strange properties including something called "incremental depths of field"...sort of a Fibonacci series of DoF based on the hyperfocal.


Steve

We used to use "hyperlocal" in the studio all the time using the 1/3rd in front 2/3 behind metric to set our focal point and place an object correctly fully in focus in the frame. Using large format it's pretty critical concept for product photography.

[leekil]

Here is practical example what focus stacking does with wide angle landscape photo.

Does using focus stacking in this way change the lens' distortion and/or the wide-angle distortion of the image, compared to a single-frame shot? It seems somewhat unusual, and I can't tell if it's just the very deep focus, or something else. Can you post one of the individual shots from the focus stacking for comparison?

[BrianR]

Me neither until just yesterday with the Wikipedia entry on "Hyperfocal distance". It has some strange properties including something called "incremental depths of field"...sort of a Fibonacci series of DoF based on the hyperfocal.

I only see the two definitions on that page, both involving 'infinity'.

The 'consecutive depths of field' would be better termed a 'harmonic sequence' than Fibonacci. It does require some (pretty minor) approximations to justify, but it it is a nice observation and it's handy to illustrate how the ratio of "stuff in front that's in focus" to "stuff behind that's in focus" changes as you move the focal point closer to you- it passes through the oft repeated '1/3 in front and 2/3 behind' and down towards 'equal in front and behind' as you get near the macro regime. Using this simplified harmonic progression, you can approximate that the '1/3 in front and 2/3 behind' ratio will happen at 1/3 the hyperfocal distance.

There's a chart here with a specific example of how the front to rear ratio changes as the focusing distance changes, and over here you'll see how changing the focal length and moving to keep the framing the same changes the distribution of front to rear (under the "Clarification" heading).

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

What he said ^ ^ ^. Since the capture is APS-C, use the APS-C calculation.
Final viewing size, distance, and visual acuity are assumptions built into the calculations* and all discussions regarding DOF should proceed with those assumptions understood. Unfortunately, the various calculators (online and apps) often yield different numbers. The same is true for the DOF scales on lenses and the convention suggested by the cambridgeincolor.com link above. The reasons are complicated. Translation: There is no foolproof rule or calculation using DOF that will reliably assure acceptably sharp rendering for a specific distance range. What is "acceptable" is a fluid concept and unacceptable sharpness at infinity or near distance are more common than not.

One of the app I like to use is not a DOF calculator but one that calculates the combined effect of defocus blur and the effects of diffraction that a person would expect with the settings you select
After selecting your FL you can select the min and max distance you want to be in focus and the app calculates the f/stop and the blur spot dia. This gives you an idea the final image resolution and you can make adjustments to give you the best options

So if we look at this example if I am shooting FF 35mm and I want to have 6 feet to infinity I would need around f/16 with a blur spot of 30 microns. This way I have an idea what is being projected onto the sensor and then I can have a idea on how sharp the final image is going to be. I then can consider if I need everything in the DOF or relax some of the DOF in the foreground ( as you may not need all that detail in the grass at your feet) for more final resolution in the main subject further away.
Its not perfect but it gives you an idea what is being captured

I will add that I usually ignore the hyper focal distance and focus the image based on what is important for that scene and make sure both are equally sharp, this is more important if one of my objects falls near the corner of my frame and I will use that to focus and determine a midpoint to the best DOF that I can capture. This is very lens specific as they are all different.

---------- Post added 12-04-2017 at 10:56 PM ----------


Testing and predetermining how to focus
A lot of the time how you want to focus the camera can be predetermined prior and kept in your notes, for this lens I know where the focus gives me the best overall DOF and then from there I can fine tune it for the scene

[leekil]

One of the app I like to use is not a DOF calculator but one that calculates the combined effect of defocus blur and the effects of diffraction that a person would expect with the settings you select

What is that app called?

[stevebrot]

After selecting your FL you can select the min and max distance you want to be in focus and the app calculates the f/stop and the blur spot dia. This gives you an idea the final image resolution and you can make adjustments to give you the best options

Interesting


Steve

[normhead]

A lot of the time how you want to focus the camera can be predetermined prior and kept in your notes, for this lens I know where the focus gives me the best overall DOF and then from there I can fine tune it for the scene

A lot of us carry that information around in our heads, and totally don't need the app. As i said, a fraction of a second evaluating a scene using your experience saves hours of messing around with technology.

I'm not understanding why this has to be so complicated. I can only assume that when you don't use the app, you mess up a lot images. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth it.

That said, I do like your image, so no doubt it might be worth it for some folks, especially if they can't do that without the app.

No app required, Pixel Shift.

[MJKoski]

Ya, that's awful, do you have a better example?

It is as good as wide angle lenses get when focused at minimum focusing distance. Most are very blurry due to extreme aberrations focused this close (25cm).

I notice your swan wing is taken from the centre of the frame, where any camera would be sharp.

Yes, when focused to center of image. Swan is about a 1 meter or so from camera. Any wide angle lens can focus this close with acceptable quality.

The distance part of the image is not sharp at all, I'm really not sure what you are talking about here.

It is as good as the best wide angle lenses in FF format do when pointed at foggy horizon. And, island is at the very corner of the image. Closest performing Pentax branded lens is 15-30 WR which does not quite reach performance of Loxia @ 21mm setting.

Typical examples of hyperfocal focusing contain subjects so far that they will appear sharp without using focus stacking or other tools like camera movements. But, you get more drama by stuffing your lens right in front of a foreground object. And in the future when sensor resolution hits 100MP, diffraction barrier gets close to wide open setting of many lenses. Therefore, focus stacking will be more and more useful. Nikon and Olympus already have focus bracketing options in-camera. Other brands will follow. Magic lantern does this with some Canon cameras as well. But in any case, I recommend any K-1 owner trying out pixel shifted focus stacked images if there is a chance to do it.

Does using focus stacking in this way change the lens' distortion and/or the wide-angle distortion of the image, compared to a single-frame shot?

Some lenses may have different distortion profiles at different distances. Loxia like in this case only breathes a little when it comes to focal length. Helicon Focus handles this very well as does Zerene stacker.

[normhead]

It is as good as wide angle lenses get when focused at minimum focusing distance. Most are very blurry due to extreme aberrations focused this close (25cm).

I guess you don't understand what "acceptable focus" means. If it's blurry, it's not in acceptable focus. Hyeprfocal distance is dependant on positioning the nearest and furthest points in acceptable focus so that everything visible in the image is in acceptable focus. If part of it is blurry, you have't correctly applied a hyperlocal technique.

It is as good as the best wide angle lenses in FF format do when pointed at foggy horizon.

In your opinion, but, you don't really know. If you're going to make this point, how about using an image that has distinct features in distant areas. Arguing one fuzzy soft image is better than the fuzzy soft image you'd get from another camera is not productive.

There are times when stacking gives superior results (I'm getting really tired of repeating this). But if you can use hyperlocal instead, you get the same result with less time and effort. (I'm getting really tired of repeating that too.) That's all I'm saying here. Selecting an image that requires stacking doesn't address the point, it bypasses it altogether.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

What is that app called?

OptimumCS

What I like about it its not a DOF calculator, most DOF app's use the old way of knowing a predetermined CoC that is based on the old standard viewing conditions which gives you a CoC for FF of 0.03 +-. I find this of no use in the currently when we view our images today and even found that this was of no use for photographing with slides 20 years ago. Take for example if we want to use the image for larger resolution prints this CoC goes out the window, if we what to view the image diagonal twice as large as that 8x10 standard we need to be using a CoC 0.013. This lessens the DOF that will be found in that image and you will need to further stop down the lens.

Using the app and having a model that tell you where defocus blur and diffraction blur the same tell me more about what I need for a scene with a known DOF and telling you the amount of that blur ( how fine of a detail the image will capture). Sure its only a model but it give you a starting point and the true test is when the light hits the paper. Over time you can fine tune how you use it based on the lens and its attributes, log the findings for future reference when out in the field for quick setups.

---------- Post added 12-05-2017 at 10:34 PM ----------

A lot of us carry that information around in our heads,

wow your that good

and totally don't need the app.

If you don't need the app mind telling me at what viewing size does your image need to be viewed for everything to fall in the DOF for that given fstop you have decided? if you can answer that then also tell me what resolution will be capture?
This is what that app does

I'm not understanding why this has to be so complicated. I can only assume that when you don't use the app, you mess up a lot images.

No its when I want to capture images with greater resolution. Its relatively easy to compose an image and get the desired DOF when viewing 2mp images, Its altogether different story when you are trying to maximise captured resolution in larger images with an acceptable sharpness across the frame.

If you would be so kind as to show me the image you posted above at full resolution so we can see how good that information is in your head ? This way we can see how well you balance DOF and image sharpness across the frame

[MJKoski]

In your opinion, but, you don't really know.

Why are you constantly attacking a person? I said nothing about you or anyone else, just that hi-res digital camera is wrong instrument for applying 100 years old failure of acceptable mess. There are modern focusing aids, using them to maximize performance is clever. More resolution, less use for estimation. 12MP Nikon FF is very good instrument for using hyperfocal settings. D810 is not. Or K-1. If one prints 1.5 meter wide no hyperfocal rule will save the scene if subjects are scattered (too far) from each other and need to be sharp.

Inquisition ruled the world during the medieval times but things moved forward a bit. I find it very amusing having to use an app to be able to calculate precise values of settings used to estimate something while it takes 5 seconds to open liveview and check what is sharp and what is not. And besides, most modern lenses using AF motors for manual focus do not even have a focusing scale. Fuji APS-C cameras have calculated hyperfocal window shown on LCD/EVF but that is a gimmick and not even close in practice - the further the subjects are the worse the results appear. One can even focus beyond infinity and it still shows large DoF extending from like 1 meter to infinity with a wide angle. Results? BAD.

[photoptimist]

Why are you constantly attacking a person? I said nothing about you or anyone else, just that hi-res digital camera is wrong instrument for applying 100 years old failure of acceptable mess. There are modern focusing aids, using them to maximize performance is clever. More resolution, less use for estimation. 12MP Nikon FF is very good instrument for using hyperfocal settings. D810 is not. Or K-1. If one prints 1.5 meter wide no hyperfocal rule will save the scene if subjects are scattered (too far) from each other and need to be sharp.

Inquisition ruled the world during the medieval times but things moved forward a bit. I find it very amusing having to use an app to be able to calculate precise values of settings used to estimate something while it takes 5 seconds to open liveview and check what is sharp and what is not. And besides, most modern lenses using AF motors for manual focus do not even have a focusing scale. Fuji APS-C cameras have calculated hyperfocal window shown on LCD/EVF but that is a gimmick and not even close in practice - the further the subjects are the worse the results appear. One can even focus beyond infinity and it still shows large DoF extending from like 1 meter to infinity with a wide angle. Results? BAD.

It's only a mess if you don't understand hyperfocal or use the wrong CoC for your particular camera and printing conditions. The hyperfocal rule will tell you exactly how much scatter in objects you can have for a given focal length and aperture (or tell you the required aperture to get a certain scatter in focus).

That supposed "5 seconds of checking liveview" may mean the difference between getting and missing the shot in many wildlife, street, or candid photography situations. And many dynamic scenes are a nightmare or impossible to focus-stack.

Digital cameras are just as obedient to the laws of optical physics as film cameras. The only change between film and digital has been the numbers you put in the formulas.

[normhead]

If you don't need the app mind telling me at what viewing size does your image need to be viewed for everything to fall in the DOF for that given fstop you have decided? if you can answer that then also tell me what resolution will be capture?
This is what that app does

Shoot bracketed ƒ-stops, pick the best one. It works way better than fooling around with some app in that you have some playing room for miscalculation, selecting the wrong focal point or anything else. As for what resolution will be captured, I always go for the best possible. I don't need an app for that either.

The capability of the camera doesn't change because of your app. If you always go for the best, then you can't do any better than that. NO use cluttering your brain with useless information.

If you would be so kind as to show me the image you posted above at full resolution so we can see how good that information is in your head ? This way we can see how well you balance DOF and image sharpness across the frame

Ian, I shoot a K-1 and a K-3. It's really disrespectful to start telling me the difference between 2 MP and 36 MP cameras. You aren't the world's greatest expert on everything. And I'm not sure if you shoot APS-c but, 24 MP APSS-c is higher density than 36 MP or even 45 MP full frame. 36 MP FF is about the same density as a K-5. I've had 6 years to get used to that level of sensor resolution,, and actually 4 years I moved on to higher res. So any problem with resolution with your combination of lens and sensor issues you've had on an FF I've already dealt with on APS_c. I'm not sure why you want to make this so complicated, but to each his own. It's none of my business, until you start posting on the forum.

So what I'm looking for here is some practical examples showing me how you've improved your photography using this app. Something you couldn't have done without it.

You starting to remind me of the day I took my snowy owl images. There were a few guys there, they were there when I got there, they were there when I left, I have no idea what they were doing. But all that expensive camera gear wasn't getting them any images. I don't want to be those guys,