If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
What next when the hyperfocal is wrong?
Dmac wrote: Scott W wrote: Dmac wrote: Annika1980 wrote: Like I told ya the other day, D-Mac. The problem with being self-taught is the teacher! Douglas J MacDonald, BE. BA, Hon. Indentured Tradesman Photographer, 1964. Melbourne, Victoria Australia Mentored by Malcolm Campbell at his St Kilda Studio, Melbourne, 1962 - 1974, R.I.P. Sorry I don't have any Photoshop qualifications to crop my pics so they can only be used for postcards the way yours are ...and unlike you, don't have any experience using freeze spray to stop the action. I am (for what it's worth - which is basically nothing) a member of WIPM. For a backwoods boy that's; World Institute of Photographic Masters. A shonky effort to provide wannabe Photographers with a $30 membership certificate I could have made for the cost of the paper. So much for modern day "qualifications". I am however far more qualified than you and probably the only working photographer in Australia who qualified under the Apprenticeship Commission and has indentures to prove I can legally claim to be a qualified tradesman Photographer. With all of that you have not yet learned to focus you camera correctly? Scott Really? If you think this discussion is about my inability, you are a bigger ****** than Bret. If the shot was critical would not three different focus points via bracketing, have resulted in one more acceptable than the others? I checked my English Websters College Dictionary and it ain't there, whats a ******? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
What next when the hyperfocal is wrong?
http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html
The moderately entertaining program - http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
What next when the hyperfocal is wrong?
Dmac wrote:
FYI I didn't "blow the Hyperfocal distance completely". I calculated it correctly and obtained the picture I needed using my 5D. My question is all about hyperfocal and a crop factor camera, not my ability or lack of it. Well no there is also the fact that after calculating the hyperfocal distance you then focused on the near point, 25ft, and not at 50ft as you should have. If you had focused at 50 ft then the people and church would have been blurred equally. But what you said you got was the people in focus and the church out so it sounds like you simple focused on the people. At f/11 on a 20D this blurring would be more then what most people would find acceptable for anything larger then a 4 x 6 print. There are a large number of web sites where you can read up on this stuff, might be worth you time to do so. It might also be a good idea to practice sometime when you are not doing a paying job and get a feeling for what works and what does not. As others have pointed out there is not hard limits on what CoC to use and so some experimentation is called for. Scott |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
What next when the hyperfocal is wrong?
C J Donoghue wrote:
Dmac wrote: According the Lord of math, the hyperfocal distance of my 50mm lens is 25 feet at F/11. Supposedly everything from 25 feet to infinity will be in focus. Unfortunately you can't tell if this is the case until you examine the image on a computer. Last week, I shot a wedding where I wanted the couple at about 25 feet and a church at infinity plus all in between to be focused. I didn't get the measuring tape out but I have a fair idea of how far away 25 feet is. The picture is OK. The foreground is sharp but the church in the distance is not as sharp as I'd have thought it would be considering the maths of the matter. I reasoned any smaller than F/11 and the image would start to lose sharpness and produce vignetting. Anyway... Can someone offer a suggestion as to why the technical details were right and the results with my 20D off? The same image from my 5D was spot on. Have I missed something with the crop factor or are there other considerations when the lens is on 1.6 crop camera? Douglas Presuming your couple were at 25 feet and the church was near enough to infinity, then the hyperfocal distance - your focus point - should be 50 feet. Focus on 50 feet and the dof will extend from half the HD, i.e. 25 ft to infinity, at the correct stop, of course. If you focused on 25 feet then there's your problem. Dof when focused at 25 ft and f/11 extends from 13.5 ft to 174 ft, so the foreground and couple will be sharp, but the church will probably be outside the 174 ft limit (from Dofmaster calculator). From the DofMaster website calculator for APS-sized sensors with a CoC of 0.025mm, focusing on 50 ft at f/8 will give a dof of 22.6 feet to infinity. If you focused directly on the couple for maximum sharpness (which is what I would do), and wanted the church in as well, then your HD is 25 ft, the point you focused on, and the aperture to extend the dof to infinity will be f/13.5. This would also extend the dof in front of the couple to 12.4 feet - so your total dof would be 12.4 ft to infinity when focused on 25 ft, which obeys the rule of acceptable sharpness from half the HD to infinity. But, as I well know, doing this in your head while shooting a wedding is all but impossible. Did you not think of using the 'A-dep' function on the camera? Colin D. There is a presumption in your post Colin that the CoC is 0.025 when in fact it could be anywhere between 0.025 and 0.035 for a FF camera, producing widely varying HF distances. Add to this the varying opinion of what CoC of a 20D actually is and you can see my confusion on the issue. Add to that the idiots whose numbers are growing by the minute, chiming in with their barbs aimed at getting their rocks off at my expense, and you must surely ask: Why bother? The answer will never come from this bunch of rabble. Crop factor cameras are here to stay. Unfortunately the technical information we used to be able to rely on, now cannot be relied on. Worse than this is that none of the self proclaimed "experts" here can agree on what the CoC for a 20D actually is and you have a classic Usenet situation where no one knows the answer but everyone wants a piece of the action anyway. 'A-dep' is not practical for me in this situation. Thanks anyway. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
What next when the hyperfocal is wrong?
uw wayne wrote:
Dmac wrote: Scott W wrote: Dmac wrote: Annika1980 wrote: Like I told ya the other day, D-Mac. The problem with being self-taught is the teacher! Douglas J MacDonald, BE. BA, Hon. Indentured Tradesman Photographer, 1964. Melbourne, Victoria Australia Mentored by Malcolm Campbell at his St Kilda Studio, Melbourne, 1962 - 1974, R.I.P. Sorry I don't have any Photoshop qualifications to crop my pics so they can only be used for postcards the way yours are ...and unlike you, don't have any experience using freeze spray to stop the action. I am (for what it's worth - which is basically nothing) a member of WIPM. For a backwoods boy that's; World Institute of Photographic Masters. A shonky effort to provide wannabe Photographers with a $30 membership certificate I could have made for the cost of the paper. So much for modern day "qualifications". I am however far more qualified than you and probably the only working photographer in Australia who qualified under the Apprenticeship Commission and has indentures to prove I can legally claim to be a qualified tradesman Photographer. With all of that you have not yet learned to focus you camera correctly? Scott Really? If you think this discussion is about my inability, you are a bigger ****** than Bret. If the shot was critical would not three different focus points via bracketing, have resulted in one more acceptable than the others? I checked my English Websters College Dictionary and it ain't there, whats a ******? Thanks for your suggestion. I got the shot with a 5D but question why I couldn't get it with a 20D using the same calculations. It is clear now, no one else knows the precise answer either. A ****** is someone who masturbates - wanking is the pastime of ******s. In Australia a person is said to be a ****** when they post the type of remarks Tony Polson, Bret Douglas and Al Denelsberk have posted in response to a perfectly proper question. They are ******s in true meaning of the word. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
What next when the hyperfocal is wrong?
Scott W wrote:
Dmac wrote: FYI I didn't "blow the Hyperfocal distance completely". I calculated it correctly and obtained the picture I needed using my 5D. My question is all about hyperfocal and a crop factor camera, not my ability or lack of it. Well no there is also the fact that after calculating the hyperfocal distance you then focused on the near point, 25ft, and not at 50ft as you should have. If you had focused at 50 ft then the people and church would have been blurred equally. But what you said you got was the people in focus and the church out so it sounds like you simple focused on the people. At f/11 on a 20D this blurring would be more then what most people would find acceptable for anything larger then a 4 x 6 print. There are a large number of web sites where you can read up on this stuff, might be worth you time to do so. It might also be a good idea to practice sometime when you are not doing a paying job and get a feeling for what works and what does not. As others have pointed out there is not hard limits on what CoC to use and so some experimentation is called for. Scott There you go again Scott. Reading words which are simple not there. If you can point out where I said I focused at the close point of the HF, you are reading the wrong post! My calculation was correct for a full frame sensor. It wasn't for a crop factor sensor and if you think I had time to run to a PC hooked up to the Internet with about 3 minutes of sunset left, just to see if my 20 year old calculation which has never let me down in the past, is also compatible with a crop factor camera, you really do need to get a grip on reality. The 20D is the backup camera. Only an idiot would shoot a set of formal portraits at a socialite's wedding of the year and not take backup shots or have someone with a second camera covering their arse. Your problem Scott, is a social one. You make presumptions of what you "want" someone to have said so you can get your rocks off lambasting them for what you perceive as their problem. Stop it mate. Some of your posts make sense - they don't offer answers but your comments are sometimes useful... Right up to where you start attacking someone. It's a very bad habit you would do well to get out of. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
What next when the hyperfocal is wrong?
JimKramer wrote:
http://www.dofmaster.com/digital_coc.html The moderately entertaining program - http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html Thank you for the link Jim. Out of all this crap Usenet is famous for, comes a twinkling of knowledge. Douglas |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
What next when the hyperfocal is wrong?
Dmac wrote in
: Al Denelsbeck wrote: Dmac wrote in news:hDnhg.4545$ap3.3028@news- server.bigpond.net.au: Annika1980 wrote: Like I told ya the other day, D-Mac. The problem with being self-taught is the teacher! Douglas J MacDonald, BE. BA, Hon. Indentured Tradesman Photographer, 1964. Melbourne, Victoria Australia Mentored by Malcolm Campbell at his St Kilda Studio, Melbourne, 1962 - 1974, R.I.P. Sorry I don't have any Photoshop qualifications to crop my pics so they can only be used for postcards the way yours are ...and unlike you, don't have any experience using freeze spray to stop the action. I am (for what it's worth - which is basically nothing) a member of WIPM. For a backwoods boy that's; World Institute of Photographic Masters. A shonky effort to provide wannabe Photographers with a $30 membership certificate I could have made for the cost of the paper. So much for modern day "qualifications". I am however far more qualified than you and probably the only working photographer in Australia who qualified under the Apprenticeship Commission and has indentures to prove I can legally claim to be a qualified tradesman Photographer. Sometimes Bret, you are a total ******... Read that as most time. Douglas And yet, you blew hyperfocal distance completely, don't understand that acceptable CoC is subjective and will depend on *how much of an enlargement you aim for*, and didn't realize that different sensor sizes would produce different results. So, what exactly DO you get from your various titles? - Al. Considering no one (you included) here has actually come up with any definitive information which can be verified as correct - like in having text book reference or at least a publication to refer to, or provide information that can be demonstrated to be accurate, your repeated attempt to belittle me is far from a refreshing divergence. All it does is show how shallow you really are and how little you actually know. And yet, I know the meaning of the word "subjective", which it might do you a world of good to look into. But since it will simply mean another seventy posts from a total nitwit who can't see the forest for the trees, it means, and pay attention now: THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE ANSWER. Circle of Confusion is measured on the film plane, Brainiac. What you obtain there is displayed in a million different ways depending on how large you actually make the image afterwards. Therefore, any indication of what is an acceptable CoC is dependent on how big it ends up in the final product. Any decent guide to CoC, hyperfocal distance, depth of field, and so on, will contain the caveat that the figures are based on a certain print size from a certain negative size (usually the size of a 35mm frame, though some guides may include the more common digital sensors now). On top of that, what *you* consider acceptable sharpness may not be what *I* consider acceptable sharpness, and this is something that you have to decide for yourself. No one's going to help you out of this one by telling you what you think. Got that down, too? Excellent. It highlights your willingness to sink the boots in when someone asks a question, rather than have the knowledge or ability to answer it. Your's is just another post from yet another group idiot who flounders when faced with a technical issue but decides to behave like an immature fool with a childish retort for some quaint form of keyboard sport. Since you received several proper answers to your question, which you then went into a tirade about, you would definitely appear to be the final arbiter on childish behavior. I bow to your judgment. FYI I didn't "blow the Hyperfocal distance completely". I calculated it correctly and obtained the picture I needed using my 5D. My question is all about hyperfocal and a crop factor camera, not my ability or lack of it. Why don't you crawl back under your rock until you hear another person you can attack? And I quote: "the hyperfocal distance of my 50mm lens is 25 feet at F/11. Supposedly everything from 25 feet to infinity will be in focus." Now go look up "hyperfocal distance". See that part about it meaning "the point at which everything from *half that distance* to infinity is in focus"? Great. Where did you focus? Because if you didn't focus at 50 feet, *past* the couple, you weren't utilizing hyperfocal distance. And if the background was out of focus, you blew it. Now, go re-read the part above about size of enlargement. The 20D has a smaller sensor, so has to be enlarged more to match a print from the larger sensor of the 5D. That means the CoC has been enlarged too. Larger CoC means less sharpness, so yes, hyperfocal distance should be calculated differently for a smaller sensor. So, why are you being attacked? Because when it is pointed out to you what you're actually working with, you go on the defensive and begin insulting people because they're not telling you what you want to hear, but instead, they're revealing cold hard facts. These are all basic factors in photography. You're in a snit because someone won't tell you what "sharp" is? Dude, try this definitive experiment: Look at the goddamn print. Is it sharp to you? Does the client want it? Then there's your freaking answer. Want to know how to calculate this? Shoot it, blow it up, and look at it. Happy with it? Then you have your formula for acceptable depth-of- field. Want it sharper? Then try again. Not happy with that? Want someone to tell you the magic formula? Hey, they DID. You used it. It fits the definition of sharp. You have your answer. Don't be fooled by the belief that it doesn't LOOK sharp, Douglas. Take it from the experts: it's sharp. So be happy. Abra cadabra. - Al. -- To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
What next when the hyperfocal is wrong?
"Dmac" wrote in message ... POTD.com.au wrote: Different CoC (circles of confusion) must be considered for these cams, due to their different sensor sizes and their need to be enlarged by different amounts to get to the same size print. A 20D has a CoC of 0.019, while the 5D is 0.030. At least 3 web sites offering to explain how to obtain the CoC ...all differ in what they say it is for a 20D and 50mm lens. All of them, differ from you Russell. As mentioned before in this thread, acceptable sharpness is a subjective thing and what is acceptable in a 6x4 inch print may not be so in a 14x11. So for the purposes of "general" calculation most people use a 10x8 inch print as the target to determine acceptable sharpness. (prob only because this is the size chosen when it was first done way back when??) If you desire a final result bigger than the this, then the increase must be allowed for and a greater DOF range obtained over the calculators "guide" and if you are printing smaller then you will get away with less. From my experience I have found that the .016 of Dukak's calculator and the ..019 of Dofmaster's to be a very good guide for the 20D. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
What next when the hyperfocal is wrong?
Dmac wrote:
There you go again Scott. Reading words which are simple not there. If you can point out where I said I focused at the close point of the HF, you are reading the wrong post! But you said the people where in focus and the church was not. If the people were at 25ft and you focused at 50ft then the people and the church would have been blurred by the same amount. Scott |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hyperfocal Distances | Alan McGrath | Digital Photography | 5 | June 5th 06 11:22 PM |
Hyperfocal distance | Don | Digital Photography | 27 | December 12th 05 02:57 AM |
How to use knowledge of hyperfocal distance...? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 11 | October 28th 05 03:36 PM |
Looks like I was TOTALLY wrong about the new DREBEL -so far | Larry | Digital SLR Cameras | 10 | February 19th 05 12:25 PM |
God! DOF Scale in my Lens DOES NOT Agreen with the Hyperfocal Formula! | narke | 35mm Photo Equipment | 10 | January 16th 05 06:46 PM |