City-Data Forum Daily Random Photos - ONE PIX PER DAY (Canon, Kodak, picture)
 User Name Remember Me Password [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
 View detailed profile (Advanced) or searchsite with Search Forums  (Advanced)

11-10-2011, 09:04 AM
 Location: Barrow, Alaska 3,539 posts, read 6,285,141 times Reputation: 1818

Advertisements

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost Actually, you don't need to go f/8 unless you want something closer to you in focus as well. A larger aperture like f/5.6, at 37mm focal length (35mm equivalent) will deliver similar results as f/8, if the focus is set at (at least) 16 ft away compared to (at least) 12 ft for f/8. In other words, with f/5.6, if focus is set at a point on the fence assumed to be 16 ft away, the DOF will extend from 8 ft (from the camera) to infinity. Wheras, with f/8, you would need to set the focus at least 12 ft away, and the DOF will extend from 6 ft to infinity (so you gain 2 ft towards you, compared to f/5.6). You can accomplish an infinite DOF with f/5.6 as well, except that you must not r hyperfocal distance would increase with larger aperture. In case of f/5.6, you maintain the shutter speed but just need to set the focus at least 16 ft from the camera (and everything from about 8 ft to infinity can be expected to be sharp).
That's all true, but misses the point that the original question was whether the distant mountains could be sharper. If the discussion of a wider depth of field is intended to allow those mountains to be sharper there is the presumption that the plane of focus for that image was at less than the hyperfocal distance. Therefore the intent is not to include more of the foreground into the DOF, but to include more of the background.

If that's not what the point of your discussion is... then you're just needlessly confusing the OP with technical information that won't help him at all.

11-10-2011, 09:13 AM
 Location: Northglenn, CO 521 posts, read 668,455 times Reputation: 1141
Abandonded backhoe in Nederland, CO

Thanks for all the advice, guys. I'm soaking up every bit of info I can before purchasing my equipment in January.

11-10-2011, 09:15 AM
 Location: Dallas, TX 31,777 posts, read 23,179,372 times Reputation: 12078
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson That's all true, but misses the point that the original question was whether the distant mountains could be sharper. If the discussion of a wider depth of field is intended to allow those mountains to be sharper there is the presumption that the plane of focus for that image was at less than the hyperfocal distance. Therefore the intent is not to include more of the foreground into the DOF, but to include more of the background.
And you think it won't be possible with f/5.6 compared to f/8. I provided calculated numbers, about where the two would differ. If you've got a problem with that, bring it on. And in case you missed it, the difference will largely be on things closer to you, with the DOF extending from there to infinity. The picture I posted today (National Portrait Gallery, London) was taken using f/4.5 and still has a fairly deep DOF for that reason.

Quote:
 If that's not what the point of your discussion is... then you're just needlessly confusing the OP with technical information that won't help him at all.
Please explain why technical information on hyperfocal distance won't help him or anybody else.

11-10-2011, 09:46 AM
 Location: New Mexico U.S.A. 23,345 posts, read 36,946,117 times Reputation: 27203
For nearly 300 years, San Felipe de Neri Parish has provided a spiritual heart for Albuquerque,
New Mexico. Taken using a Canon PowerShot SX10 IS (http://www.flickr.com/photos/poncho_nm/3363555086/meta/in/set-72157626884057274 - broken link) :

Rich

11-10-2011, 10:46 AM
 Location: Bellingham, WA 9,745 posts, read 13,195,408 times Reputation: 14726

11-10-2011, 04:18 PM
 Location: Barrow, Alaska 3,539 posts, read 6,285,141 times Reputation: 1818
Quote:
 Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost And you think it won't be possible with f/5.6 compared to f/8. I provided calculated numbers, about where the two would differ. If you've got a problem with that, bring it on. And in case you missed it, the difference will largely be on things closer to you, with the DOF extending from there to infinity. The picture I posted today (National Portrait Gallery, London) was taken using f/4.5 and still has a fairly deep DOF for that reason. Please explain why technical information on hyperfocal distance won't help him or anybody else.
You didn't pay attention to what was said though. DOF and hyperfocal distance is not going to remove blur caused by haze.

Never mind the fact that sharpening that particular image was detrimental to the artistic quality of the picture anyway.

11-10-2011, 08:01 PM
 Location: Dallas, TX 31,777 posts, read 23,179,372 times Reputation: 12078
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson You didn't pay attention to what was said though. DOF and hyperfocal distance is not going to remove blur caused by haze.
Duh, different issue. That doesn't make use of hyperfocal distance as a technique useless as you suggested.

Quote:
 Never mind the fact that sharpening that particular image was detrimental to the artistic quality of the picture anyway.
Not necessarily. It is a good picture with blurred background and it would have been a good picture with an infinite DOF as well.

11-10-2011, 08:19 PM
 1,652 posts, read 2,997,977 times Reputation: 3907
The tanker Atlantic Lily departs from the Port of Anchorage this evening under a full moon.

11-10-2011, 09:28 PM
 Location: Bellingham, WA 9,745 posts, read 13,195,408 times Reputation: 14726
^I can't rep you again but that is quite a picture!

11-11-2011, 12:10 AM
 Location: Barrow, Alaska 3,539 posts, read 6,285,141 times Reputation: 1818
Quote:
 Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost Duh, different issue. That doesn't make use of hyperfocal distance as a technique useless as you suggested.
Sheesh. It does in that specific case. And clearly that is the only case I was referencing.
Quote:
 Not necessarily. It is a good picture with blurred background and it would have been a good picture with an infinite DOF as well.
The stated point was and is that it would not be improved by making that background sharper, particularly from greater DOF.

Stop moving the goal posts and trying to use context changes to re-target of remarks others have made. It's not at all polite to do that.
 Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over \$68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned. Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

 City-Data Forum
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

 City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top