Most people get this wrong in a small but significant way. When using zone or hyperfocal focusing objects at the extreme ends of the scales will be considered “acceptably sharp” and not necessarily “in focus”. Another consideration is that what is considered “acceptability sharp” was defined in the late 1800’s during the transition from view cameras to scale focusing cameras.
I've heard this term for MANY years but have ignored it (due to fear of actually learning something?). As a digital shooter, I just shot and chimped. But now that David has explained it in a way that even *I* can understand, I want to go out and see how I can apply it to some landscape shots. Thanks, David, for an explanation that even us slow-learners can understand.
The video leaves the impression that the rule is generally 1/2 the focal distance to infinity. And although you said it was dependent on aperture and lens, it might be worth emphasizing that that rule only applies when the aperture is at around f/11 or greater. Obviously at f/2 infinity will not be sharp if the lens is focused on any point near to the camera. Novices might be confused why their backgrounds are blurry despite using the rule... Otherwise nice video.
Firstly, thank you for a really helpful explanation - you are a star. Secondly - I love the coffee mug - if I used the hated 'cool' word I'd be tempted!
srinivasajagadish pulapalli Very tough if you can’t at least see the ground. Some electronic cameras can tell you the distance as you manual focus and some lenses still have focus guides on them.
hello, interesting tuto but not sure I understand. imagine a portrait in the street with 85mm F5.6 or F8 (instead of using usual F/1.4 for narrow depth of field) at 3meters. instead of focusing on the eye, if we focus approximately at 5-6meters behing the girl, the front of subject (2.5...3m) is sharp up to infinity (the whole street, buses, buildings,...) ?
Hi David,,, every time my photography friends ask me a question now,,, I say Ask David Bergmam,,, free advertising for you,,, great channel David I always look forward for your new content .QUESTION i know you do music groups now,,, but what other photography types have you done,,, ie landscape portrait product wedding, ect
Ray Dunn Haha thanks for spreading the love! As for me, I was a newspaper staff photographer at the Miami Herald in the 90s. I covered a little bit of everything, but specialized in sports. During the first decade of the 2000s, I did some music work (including a lot of band portraiture!), but sports illustrated was my biggest client. And then the last decade has mostly been on tour - starting with Bon Jovi, and now with Luke Combs. You can read more in the “about” page at davidbergman.net if you want to get more detail. www.davidbergman.net/about
Hi, godsolved. Pinhole photos have vast depth of field, but also vast blur because of diffraction. Experiment with a variety of pinhole sizes to find the best size for your purposes. Cheers.
in your example of shooting a group, you said that if you focus on the front row you might not get everyone in the back row in focus. But if the front row is 10 feet away and you focus there, doesn't hyperlocal focusing mean that everything from 5feet to infinity is in focus?
David, I've always been under the impression that hyperfocal distance is defined as the specific distance for a certain focal length at a certain aperture that gives you the largest depth of field. Toward the end of the video, you give us a demonstration showing us the rule of thumb about "half the distance to infinity", but this doesn't really have anything to do with the hyperfocal distance.
It is a shortcut that many people use to get the widest area of acceptable focus. Like I say in the video, if you really want to be exact, you can use the charts or apps and measure it out to the inch, but I think most photographers don't need that level of precision.
Love your vlogs, David. Here’s my question: I usually shoot in raw with my Nikon 7100, converting to black and white, if desired, by using the Photoshop “convert to black and white” function or zeroing out the color saturation. The recent release of the Leica monochrome camera made me wonder whether shooting black and white in one of the Nikon’s monochrome modes would yield better quality results. Thanks.
David, what is the convention for referring to aperture? In other words, if you say “small aperture”, does that mean a small number (F/1.4, for example) or a small opening (F/16)? I always get confused with the nomenclature, even though I perfectly understand how aperture works. Thank you for your great tutorials!
Think of a pie. If you slice the pie in half, you have 2 (f2) very LARGE slices . If you make 16 (f16) slices of pie, you have SMALL slices. f2 large aperture, f16 small aperture.
Jorge When I talk about a small aperture, I’m referring to the physical opening being small. I try to always say “you know, like f/11 or f/16” because I know it can be confusing.
Hi David, could you elaborate on how things are different for film? I'm naively thinking that the optics are the optics, regardless. Or are you talking about the way older lenses just weren't as precisely made as lenses are now for digital cameras?
Ron Hoffmann Yea higher resolution digital sensors show more detail. So the “perceived” area that’s in focus on film, might actually look out of focus on digital because you can see more detail.
Look at an old Hasselblad Zeiss lens. It has two features that should be on any camera, but have been lost in digital transformation. 1) Constant EV exposure setting (see ruclips.net/video/tkhWKVzm5zU/видео.html at around 3min 10sec) and 2) Clear Depth of Field user interface. (see ruclips.net/video/WUMmdnJiUms/видео.html at around 9min 15sec). The DoF way of working was visual in large format. In a reflex camera, the matte glass (focusing screen) may be too small and in 135 cameras the indications on the lenses are tiny. The way we handled Dof was simple. Focus twice: once on the front edge of what needs to be sharp, second on the rear that needs to be sharp. In both cases read the distance setting on the lens. Now rotate the focus ring to the point where front and back are sharp for a given aperture. Here we are not interested in the distance in the middle of the focus ring. We may find that the aperture we thought would be OK, turns out to be too small or big and adapt accordingly. The beauty of the old Hasselblad Zeiss lenses is that the two red indicator point to front and rear of DoF and changing the aperture to make DoF deeper or shallower is indicated plus the exposure value stays the same because each stop smaller aperture (larger value) doubles the exposure time. as the two exposure rings are coupled for an EV (exposure value). We now see the old DoF user interface returning on top end glass as a miraculous innovation. Wow.
Ok, did I miss something??? I don't think you took into account how that hyperfocal distance will increase as you stop down the lens. Your near focus point cant possibly be the same at every F Stop.
All you digital nerds don't remember the good old days of film when we had the hyperfocal distance on our lenses. I disagree with David and advocate the return of the hyperfocal on lenses!
Most people get this wrong in a small but significant way. When using zone or hyperfocal focusing objects at the extreme ends of the scales will be considered “acceptably sharp” and not necessarily “in focus”.
Another consideration is that what is considered “acceptability sharp” was defined in the late 1800’s during the transition from view cameras to scale focusing cameras.
I've heard this term for MANY years but have ignored it (due to fear of actually learning something?). As a digital shooter, I just shot and chimped. But now that David has explained it in a way that even *I* can understand, I want to go out and see how I can apply it to some landscape shots.
Thanks, David, for an explanation that even us slow-learners can understand.
Randy Fox Happy to help!
I love a swift, clear explanation. I’m inspired!
Finally someone explained to me Hyperfocal in a funny, practical yet professional way. Thank You!
Every video done by David Bergman is the best there is And thanks to Adorama for the great stream of such super videos !
Wide-Open Films Thank you!
Thanks for the info. It can be a very confusing subject, but once you get a grip on it its not that hard. 👍👍📸 to infinity and beyond 👌
Learning from a positive laughing face is way better experience.
Thanks David, I really enjoy your videos.
I really like your coffee mug and thanks for sharing this video!
David, thanks for clearing this up for me!!
Congrats, got 1Dx Mark lll.
The video leaves the impression that the rule is generally 1/2 the focal distance to infinity. And although you said it was dependent on aperture and lens, it might be worth emphasizing that that rule only applies when the aperture is at around f/11 or greater. Obviously at f/2 infinity will not be sharp if the lens is focused on any point near to the camera. Novices might be confused why their backgrounds are blurry despite using the rule... Otherwise nice video.
Firstly, thank you for a really helpful explanation - you are a star. Secondly - I love the coffee mug - if I used the hated 'cool' word I'd be tempted!
Can you please explain how to focus in case there are no tangible objects ...like in case of sunrises etc???
srinivasajagadish pulapalli Very tough if you can’t at least see the ground. Some electronic cameras can tell you the distance as you manual focus and some lenses still have focus guides on them.
Great video!
Thank you, David!
hello, interesting tuto but not sure I understand.
imagine a portrait in the street with 85mm F5.6 or F8 (instead of using usual F/1.4 for narrow depth of field) at 3meters. instead of focusing on the eye, if we focus approximately at 5-6meters behing the girl, the front of subject (2.5...3m) is sharp up to infinity (the whole street, buses, buildings,...) ?
Marc Labro Not with an 85. But with a 24, yes, her eyes will be “acceptably sharp.”
Great, informative vid David.
Hi David,,, every time my photography friends ask me a question now,,, I say Ask David Bergmam,,, free advertising for you,,, great channel David I always look forward for your new content .QUESTION i know you do music groups now,,, but what other photography types have you done,,, ie landscape portrait product wedding, ect
Ray Dunn Haha thanks for spreading the love!
As for me, I was a newspaper staff photographer at the Miami Herald in the 90s. I covered a little bit of everything, but specialized in sports. During the first decade of the 2000s, I did some music work (including a lot of band portraiture!), but sports illustrated was my biggest client. And then the last decade has mostly been on tour - starting with Bon Jovi, and now with Luke Combs. You can read more in the “about” page at davidbergman.net if you want to get more detail. www.davidbergman.net/about
I wish there was a way to get a pinhole lens that made photos a little more sharp than utterly blurred.
godsoloved The pinhole just doesn’t have refined optics like a modern lens does.
Hi, godsolved. Pinhole photos have vast depth of field, but also vast blur because of diffraction. Experiment with a variety of pinhole sizes to find the best size for your purposes. Cheers.
in your example of shooting a group, you said that if you focus on the front row you might not get everyone in the back row in focus. But if the front row is 10 feet away and you focus there, doesn't hyperlocal focusing mean that everything from 5feet to infinity is in focus?
David, I've always been under the impression that hyperfocal distance is defined as the specific distance for a certain focal length at a certain aperture that gives you the largest depth of field. Toward the end of the video, you give us a demonstration showing us the rule of thumb about "half the distance to infinity", but this doesn't really have anything to do with the hyperfocal distance.
It is a shortcut that many people use to get the widest area of acceptable focus. Like I say in the video, if you really want to be exact, you can use the charts or apps and measure it out to the inch, but I think most photographers don't need that level of precision.
Love your vlogs, David. Here’s my question: I usually shoot in raw with my Nikon 7100, converting to black and white, if desired, by using the Photoshop “convert to black and white” function or zeroing out the color saturation. The recent release of the Leica monochrome camera made me wonder whether shooting black and white in one of the Nikon’s monochrome modes would yield better quality results. Thanks.
Thank you for the great explanation!
Nice video 👍👍🙏
David, what is the convention for referring to aperture? In other words, if you say “small aperture”, does that mean a small number (F/1.4, for example) or a small opening (F/16)? I always get confused with the nomenclature, even though I perfectly understand how aperture works. Thank you for your great tutorials!
Small aperture are big numbers.
It can help to remember that the smaller the "hole" where light passes the smaller the aperture is.
Think of a pie. If you slice the pie in half, you have 2 (f2) very LARGE slices . If you make 16 (f16) slices of pie, you have SMALL slices. f2 large aperture, f16 small aperture.
Jorge When I talk about a small aperture, I’m referring to the physical opening being small. I try to always say “you know, like f/11 or f/16” because I know it can be confusing.
does it matter what lens you have on? what lens was on your camera when you took the photo.
Hi David, could you elaborate on how things are different for film? I'm naively thinking that the optics are the optics, regardless. Or are you talking about the way older lenses just weren't as precisely made as lenses are now for digital cameras?
Ron Hoffmann Yea higher resolution digital sensors show more detail. So the “perceived” area that’s in focus on film, might actually look out of focus on digital because you can see more detail.
I want a Canon Coffee Cup!
Jim Powell Link is in the description! shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-lens-mug
You never mentioned the app you were using. Can you share the name please?
Paul Miller There are so many, but I was using Photo Pills.
learnsome always!! :-) can i see the coffee mug again pls? :-)
Love the mug ! 😄😄
So the aperture is not in the picture if you use HD?
Look at an old Hasselblad Zeiss lens. It has two features that should be on any camera, but have been lost in digital transformation. 1) Constant EV exposure setting (see ruclips.net/video/tkhWKVzm5zU/видео.html at around 3min 10sec) and 2) Clear Depth of Field user interface. (see ruclips.net/video/WUMmdnJiUms/видео.html at around 9min 15sec). The DoF way of working was visual in large format. In a reflex camera, the matte glass (focusing screen) may be too small and in 135 cameras the indications on the lenses are tiny. The way we handled Dof was simple. Focus twice: once on the front edge of what needs to be sharp, second on the rear that needs to be sharp. In both cases read the distance setting on the lens. Now rotate the focus ring to the point where front and back are sharp for a given aperture. Here we are not interested in the distance in the middle of the focus ring. We may find that the aperture we thought would be OK, turns out to be too small or big and adapt accordingly. The beauty of the old Hasselblad Zeiss lenses is that the two red indicator point to front and rear of DoF and changing the aperture to make DoF deeper or shallower is indicated plus the exposure value stays the same because each stop smaller aperture (larger value) doubles the exposure time. as the two exposure rings are coupled for an EV (exposure value). We now see the old DoF user interface returning on top end glass as a miraculous innovation. Wow.
Ok, did I miss something??? I don't think you took into account how that hyperfocal distance will increase as you stop down the lens. Your near focus point cant possibly be the same at every F Stop.
You are right - he didn't explain that - and it is one of the most important aspect
All you digital nerds don't remember the good old days of film when we had the hyperfocal distance on our lenses. I disagree with David and advocate the return of the hyperfocal on lenses!
Oh give it a rest please. So you had the distances on your old lenses blah blah blah. If this tutorial isn't for you move on.
U r grt sir
Coffee Mug
was looking forward to the corny slow-mo
I need that bug
too much talking less showing
Toooooooo much talk for a 2,5 minute video