Playing around with depth of field and I think I finally get it?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
Mark Scott Abeln
Mark Scott Abeln Forum Pro • Posts: 16,771
Re: A way of thinking about it

bclaff wrote:

FWIW, your approach would imply equal distances behind and in front for Depth Of Field (DOF) and we know that definitely not so.

It would be the size of the blur as seen from the point of the view of the camera. So a blur of any given size will appear to be smaller the farther away it is.

And your approach can't explain how to get the hyperfocal distance when focused at infinity.

Merklinger recommends finding the closest significant detail in the scene and then adjusting the aperture width accordingly. If I recall, this leads to a one f/stop decrease in aperture width compared to hyperfocal focus (not when focusing to infinity) but with notionally better definition for distant subjects. The main problem with traditional hyperfocal focus is actually focusing at that distance: especially these days when lenses often don't have focus scales.

 Mark Scott Abeln's gear list:Mark Scott Abeln's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D7000 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Bob
Bob
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow