Another hyperfocal distance question for landscape photography...

Started May 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
HEA-45
Regular MemberPosts: 241Gear list
Like?
Re: Another hyperfocal distance question for landscape photography...
In reply to dsjtecserv, May 28, 2013

Yes, that does make sense. A smaller aperture will provide greater depth of field both in front of and in back of the focus point. I was thinking of my experience using large apertures to photograph landscape objects (such as flower closeups) rather than sweeping vistas (like my scenario.) The former would always be taken with a large aperture purposely to blur the background and thus make the subject stand out. I thought the same blurred background would occur with my scenario.

My understanding is better, but I still wonder if the hyperfocal distance is practical. For instance, how do i measure the distance to a given object in the field...with yet another piece of equipment like a laser rangefinder or tape measure? Really? What if no object exists at the hyperfocal distance for any aperture? What then? Ahhh, my training as an engineer is now a burden.

 HEA-45's gear list:HEA-45's gear list
Nikon D300S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow