# Hypofocal Distance Fallacy?



## Sabaki (Apr 26, 2016)

I've recently made the decision to change my process flow for my landscapes. I now rely on focus stacking instead of using hypofocal distance. 

So why? Well, I have traditionally followed the process of obtaining sharpness on something 1/3 of a way into the frame and expected my images to be super crisp all the way through. Except they weren't. 

This was especially obvious when my comp included something far away like a mountain, the foreground elements are sharp, whereas the mountain is soft. 

I now shoot each scene three times, adjusting sharpness each time for front, middle and back before focus stacking in PS. 

Does anybody else do focus stacking or perhaps another technique for super sharp landscapes?


----------



## rfdesigner (Apr 26, 2016)

There's an article on Northlight Images about this.

Off the top of my head I recall the conclusion was to focus on infinity and drop the aperture.

Focus stacking makes a lot of sense though.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 26, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> I've recently made the decision to change my process flow for my landscapes. I now rely on focus stacking instead of using hypofocal distance.
> 
> So why? Well, I have traditionally followed the process of obtaining sharpness on something 1/3 of a way into the frame and expected my images to be super crisp all the way through. Except they weren't.
> 
> ...



If you don't estimate (e.g. "about 1/3"), hyp*er*focal shooting works quite well. Note the hyperfocal distance is a function of both focal length and aperture. 

Naturally, not everything will ever be in absolute focus. If that's an issue, stacking can help provided you don't have moving subjects.


----------

