Hyperfocal

[Giang Son]

Has anyone have extensive experiences with hyperfocal? I am having a problem with sharp images corner to corner?

 

[Ido Scharf]

What lens are you using, and what aperture?

 

[darklamp]

It's worth saying that getting pin sharp edge-to-edge images from hyperfocal is not what it's intended to do.

What you get when you use hyperfocal distances is limited :

• It's defined for images viewed as 8"x10" prints hand-held, not pixel peeped on screen.
• It promises only that everything will be in focus in a narrow technical definition, but that's not the same as very sharp edge-to-edge. They should stand up to a casual visual inspection of an 8x10 hand-help but not necessarily a magnified view on screen.
• You still need to use a fast enough shutter speed to avoid both motion blur and shake blur.
• If the optics are poor at the edges then this will impact the result a great deal.
• As it typically requires you to use a high f-number ( narrow aperture ) a physical effect that is unavoidable called diffraction will degrade the optical performance of your system. So while it may be "in focus" in a technical sense, thats nowhere near as sharp as it would be at a moderate aperture like f5.6 or f8.

 

[Giang Son]

I am using 16-35 f/2.8 II USM for landscapes. I did calculate the hyperfocal but the the results are just miss and hit. I just wanna know a way to focus so that I can have sharp pictures every time.

Thank you.

 

[Ido Scharf]

I am using 16-35 f/2.8 II USM for landscapes. I did calculate the hyperfocal but the the results are just miss and hit. I just wanna know a way to focus so that I can have sharp pictures every time.

Thank you.

And what aperture did you use? If it's f/22, for example, it may be diffraction causing softness.

 

[Giang Son]

Thank you for your response. It may be the case. When I shot landscapes I normally use f/11-f/20, on a tripod and remote shutter release. I will try f/5.6 - f/8.0 for the next few shots and compare them to the f/11.0-f/16.0.

 

[Giang Son]

Yes...I normally shot at f/16. Will try f/8.0 for the next few shots to compare. Thank you for your response

 

[Giang Son]

660090[/ATTACH]
iSO 500 - f/16 - 1/25 - Focal length 16mm - Spot metering - Hand held


ISO 500 - f/16 - 13s - Focal length 142mm - Evaluative metering - Tridpod


iSO 500 - f/16 - 1/25 - Focal length 35mm - Spot metering - Hand held

darklamp, post: 53857237, member: 1230126"]
It's worth saying that getting pin sharp edge-to-edge images from hyperfocal is not what it's intended to do.

What you get when you use hyperfocal distances is limited :

• It's defined for images viewed as 8"x10" prints hand-held, not pixel peeped on screen.
• It promises only that everything will be in focus in a narrow technical definition, but that's not the same as very sharp edge-to-edge. They should stand up to a casual visual inspection of an 8x10 hand-help but not necessarily a magnified view on screen.
• You still need to use a fast enough shutter speed to avoid both motion blur and shake blur.
• If the optics are poor at the edges then this will impact the result a great deal.
• As it typically requires you to use a high f-number ( narrow aperture ) a physical effect that is unavoidable called diffraction will degrade the optical performance of your system. So while it may be "in focus" in a technical sense, thats nowhere near as sharp as it would be at a moderate aperture like f5.6 or f8.

 

[darklamp]

I don't see an issue with sharpness at all. I do see extreme contrast and over-saturation a a result - both of which can lead to loss of detail.

So the first thing you need to check your display calibration :

• http://www.lagom.nl.lcd-test
• http://www.displaycalibration.com

I suspect you'll find that your display is not well calibrated for photo editing.

It would be interesting to see a RAW or JPEG straight from camera.

The nest thing to do do is look at shutter speeds. You're simply not going to get sharp shots hand-help at 1/25th even at 35mm focal length.

To avoid shake blur you need to either raise ISO and trade that for faster shutter speeds ( e.g. say 1/50th at 35mm ) or you need to use a tripod.

However at such slow shutter speeds you are completely at the mercy of motion blur. Stuff moves and if there's wind you won't freeze the motion of leave and branches at slow speeds. You either accept that or greatly increase ISO and trade for a lot more shutter speed.

 

[hotdog321]

You already have some good suggestions and tips, but here's a rough rule of thumb for landscape photography: focus 1/3 into the frame and stop down enough that everything will be sharp. With a lens like the 16-35, f/8 or /11 should give tons of depth of field so everything is tack.

Also pay attention to your shutter speed. For daylight photography, you should be able to handhold the camera without a tripod and get beautiful results. Avoid using filters unless they are to perform a specific task like CP or ND.

Finally, I've found I need to add a good slug of post processing sharpening with this lens. I'm using the 16-35 version 1, which is very, very similar, and I routinely have to sharpen the results.

Looking forward to seeing the new Canon 16-35 f/4 IS lens, personally.

 

[Leon Wittwer]

Are your images adequately sharp in the center? If so, then your expectations for the lens may be too high particularly with a FF camera. The 16-35 lens is a good lens but as with many bright lenses, there are compromises.

 

[TTMartin]

Thank you for your response. It may be the case. When I shot landscapes I normally use f/11-f/20, on a tripod and remote shutter release. I will try f/5.6 - f/8.0 for the next few shots and compare them to the f/11.0-f/16.0.

On a full frame camera like your 5D Mk III diffraction isn't an issue until stopping down beyond f/16 so your current technique of f/11 to f/16 is fine.

With APS-C cameras diffraction becomes an issue at f/11 and for m4/3 cameras at f/8. That is why you are getting some of the advice saying to use a wider aperture.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

ISO 500 - f/16 - 1/25 - Focal length 16mm - Spot metering - Hand held

As darklamp said, there seems to be nothing wrong with sharpness here, as far as we can see through the extreme saturation. Not only that but there's very visible graininess (I can't decide if it's noise or artificial grain) that erodes resolution. But there's also a lot of chromatic aberration, which doesn't directly affect resolution but does make it harder to make out details so it looks like softness.

ISO 500 - f/16 - 1/25 - Focal length 35mm - Spot metering - Hand held

And this one also shows a hint of camera movement. The CAs seem worse here too, but that might be because the movement has stretched the fringes. Although it's nothing to do with sharpness, the horizon is tilted.

As far as I can see the problems with these shots are nothing to do with your method of focusing.



--
---
Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006

Galleries by Gerry Winterbourne

www.pbase.com

[email protected]

 

[Giang Son]

ISO 500 - f/16 - 1/25 - Focal length 16mm - Spot metering - Hand held

As darklamp said, there seems to be nothing wrong with sharpness here, as far as we can see through the extreme saturation. Not only that but there's very visible graininess (I can't decide if it's noise or artificial grain) that erodes resolution. But there's also a lot of chromatic aberration, which doesn't directly affect resolution but does make it harder to make out details so it looks like softness.

ISO 500 - f/16 - 1/25 - Focal length 35mm - Spot metering - Hand held

And this one also shows a hint of camera movement. The CAs seem worse here too, but that might be because the movement has stretched the fringes. Although it's nothing to do with sharpness, the horizon is tilted.

As far as I can see the problems with these shots are nothing to do with your method of focusing.

--
---
Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]

Thank you all for your contribution and advices to my question. I do appreciate the time and effort you guys have put in to share your experiences which are not always available in books and the internet.

Thank you and regards,

Sonny Nguyen

 

[TTMartin]

And this one also shows a hint of camera movement. The CAs seem worse here too, but that might be because the movement has stretched the fringes. Although it's nothing to do with sharpness, the horizon is tilted.

As far as I can see the problems with these shots are nothing to do with your method of focusing.

Thank you all for your contribution and advices to my question. I do appreciate the time and effort you guys have put in to share your experiences which are not always available in books and the internet.

To fix the issues Gerry pointed out you might want to try using Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer on your RAW file.