Depth of field can be a tricky nut to crack when you are first starting out. While portrait photographers are usually trying to work with the thinnest depth of field possible, landscape photographers – usually- need to have the foreground just as sharp as the background.
One common mistake when trying to get this “all over focus” is thinking that just stopping down to F10-F/22 and snapping a shot will work. That is simply not the case, at least not usually. Where you actually focus in the scene has an effect on how the depth of field covers your image. Focus too close to you and some of the background will not be sharp, and focus too far from the camera and the foreground will not be sharp.
[REWIND: Tips for Better Moon Photography]
This great video from the Professional Photography Tips YouTube channel explains the technique needed to get the best focus in your landscape images from front to back. It is really not all that difficult, but follow the steps in this video and you can really improve the focus in your landscape images.
19 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks for teaching me
We’ll explained
Unfortunately, all of this goes out the window once you start concerning yourself with edge DOF. Field curvature and stopping down are a huge PITA and many lenses, especially ultra-wide zooms, are just garbage WRT anything even remotely resembling “hyperfocal” methodology.
Anybody have any experience with this?
=Matt=
In 40 years in photography this has never been an issue. For the vast, vast majority of photographers this is never going to be an issue for them either.
Matt, I’ve just found a comment you made on my blog months ago. Sorry, I never made the connection, but many thanks for the feedback.
Hey Ian! I did indeed enjoy reading your site! Thanks…
Regarding hyperfocal methodology, and the last 40 years, well, yeah… Most photographers will never need to worry about this stuff. However, I’m OCD, and I know there are some out there who notice the same problems in their images. As lenses get more exotic, and as megapixels continue to grow, hyperfocal calculations are going to be less and less usable, and edge softness will become more and more of an issue. I’m just here to help other OCD photographers get sharp corners, near-to-far….
=Matt=
Hahaha – and my student think I’M OCD! :)
Not a landscape guy, but the few I’ve taken, I had my lens stopped down to f/22. I couldn’t, for the life of me, figure out why my image was still blurry. I also focused on the furthest subject from me, which was also blurry in the final image. I’ll have to try this, the next time I get my landscape on…
If you focussed on a distant point, and that was still blurry, then at F22, I’d suggest the exposure time was too long.
That sounds about right, because I left the shutter open as long as the camera allowed.
Eric, although it seems counter intuitive, the safest way to take landscapes (other than using a tripod) is to use shutter priority. Set the speed to either 1/60 or 1/focal length.
Does this also work at night?
At night you use a tripod.
Eric, f/22 is simply NOT your sharpest aperture, unfortunately. It would be, mechanically speaking, however there is much more involved. Simply put, an evil thing called diffraction causes images to get soft if you stop down too far. For most lenses, stopping down just 2-3 stops is where your most sharp images will be. Sensor size also plays into it a bit, as well as megapixels. On crop sensors, this is often somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8. On full-frame sensors, this is often between f/8 and f/11.
Don’t bother with shutter priority or aperture priority for landscapes, just shoot in manual and carefully pick your exposure.
And yes, a tripod is a must, even during the day, if you’re going to shot at f/11 or f/16… Even at 1/60 or so, most high-megapixel cameras these days can still introduce camera shake blur…
=Matt=
So, he tells us how to do it properly, then – he doesn’t do it properly. Ho hum.
I guess that depends on your definition of “properly” in regards to this. His tip was that using live view is quicker and easy to fine tune to get the desired depth of field coverage, so in that regard, he covered exactly what he wanted to. But, I assume you were hoping more for a greater demonstration of the “old film method” that he talks about?
Or why it works 1/3, 2/3’s up the frame. If you understand why it works, then all the rest is just window dressing.
And as for ‘old film method’, it’s not old, it’s physics.
Great advice, much needed! Thank you