Question for the DMF landscape masters

[richieboone]

Are most using stacked focus shots?
I have seen a lot of great landscape shots that appear to be sharp across the entire plane. I am primarily a portrait shooter and I am just starting to get into landscapes. Currently shooting with HD4-40. I know some of the Hasselblad guys are using the tilt shift adapter, but what about everyone else?
So far I can get decent dof, with the focus 1/3 of the way technique but nothing like what I have seen on here.

 

[Shashin]

I am just stopping down, mostly f/16 and sometimes f/22.

 

[richieboone]

I am just stopping down, mostly f/16 and sometimes f/22.

any troubles with diffraction?

 

[rga]

Alpa, primarily tilt.

 

[Jae_Moon]

Are most using stacked focus shots?
I have seen a lot of great landscape shots that appear to be sharp across the entire plane. I am primarily a portrait shooter and I am just starting to get into landscapes. Currently shooting with HD4-40. I know some of the Hasselblad guys are using the tilt shift adapter, but what about everyone else?
So far I can get decent dof, with the focus 1/3 of the way technique but nothing like what I have seen on here.

In case you haven't done yet, check out the thread 'Talking on Tech Camera.' I posted my experiences of using 'Tilt' on tech camera. I know you use HD4 but it may help.

Jae M

 

[Shashin]

any troubles with diffraction?

No.

 

[goesbang]

No stacking for me with Landscapes. I am a wide-angle fiend though, shooting mostly with a 23 Alpagon and a 40 Alpagon occasionally. I have a tilt-adapter with the 40, but haven't needed it yet with any of the landscapes I've shot with it. The only time I've used stacking is with macro work. My wides have enough DOF for most of the subjects I have used them on so far. This is not to say I will never need to stack.

 

[Bildifokus]

I'm using Hasselblad H4D-50 and for the HCD 4/28 and HC 3,5/35 I'm mostly just stoppning down and I do not feel there is a problem with diffraction. But when I'm using the HC 2,2/100 I sometimes use focus stacking.

 

[Jack]

I rarely use focus stacking. I use tilt if needed, but mostly use selective focus and an appropriate aperture for the look I want. With an IQ180, you will see diffraction at f16 so I tend to avoid it unless the image demands it.

 

[Zerimar]

I think focus stacking only would be useful on a longer lens, on the 50 end of my 50-110 I usually use F11-f16 and it's fine and diffraction is not an issue.

 

[jlm]

i use it from time to time and find it quite useful if the subject is motionless
example of three frames, stacked with helicon, with the blad CV16

another where you can see the foliage was moving a bit

another, worked great in this one:

 

[richieboone]

Thanks for all the tips! I think I was just pixel peeping too much on shots that were shot @ f/16+.

 

[Shashin]

Richie, pixel peeping is a curse. When I look at my 645D images at 100% on my 24" monitor, I am effectively using a 7" section of a 44" x 33" print. Then when you think that diffraction is usually judged by a comparison to another image using a slightly wider f-number because it is hard to see without the comparison, you start to get the idea that diffraction is a little bit overstressed. And you can always get a little bit back with an unsharp mask.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I use focus stacking occasionally but you have to remember as well its not very natural to our eyes either as we don't see everything tack sharp in a frame either. I have used it with wides and telephoto lenses and at times focus stacking works pretty well and I use helicon focus to do it. If I have a tech cam than I will use tilt instead. Now it can be interesting as you can see here this is 5 shots with a 14mm on a D800e and it does give a nice effect but its really not normal to our eyes. We just don't see that darn good anyway. Lol

 

[studio347]

It's a very good point. A photograph doesn't need to be all sharp. At the same time, if we need and want it, there is nothing wrong with all sharp image. An image can be a compression of time.. which can be a compression-combination of a few human-eye watching.. I think all sharp image is a kind of style where the desire to look at the seemingly ambiguous world as clear as possible, can be expressed in a way of sharpness... So, it depends on us, photographers.

 

[Robblakers]

If you want to achieve sharpness throughout then focus stacking is an amazing tool. I use it all the time with both wide and short tele lenses on a tech camera with IQ180. For a big landscape with detail in the foreground the effect is extraordinary. You wouldn't bother for a small print or illustration but for anything large you can end up with both details and a large landscape shot in the same image!

Doesn't work with moving subject matter though, if there is wind in foliage, or moving ocean or flowing water, unless those elements are a minor and distant part of the overall scene.

 

[Jeffg53]

No.

+1, I use f/16 mainly with no issues. Stacking is OK and I use Helicon Focus when I do, but it is the exception. The trouble with focus stacking is movement, of course. Not an issue when working in a lava field but a PITA with grasses etc. You can end up with a lot of work to get a good result.

 

[richieboone]

Thank you for all the feed back. Much appreciated.

 

[torger]

"Everything sharp" is the typical style strived for in landscape, it can however be interpreted in different ways. With oldschool viewing distance models stuff can be quite far out of focus and still be considered "acceptable sharp".

With 8x10" film stopping down to make all rendered equally sharp means so small apertures that the lens may not support it, or shutter speeds would be unreasonably long. Instead one puts the plane of focus where resolution will be appreciated the most (possibly using tilt) stop down a reasonable amount and let the rest be slightly less sharp, but usually within the traditional Depth of Field model limits.

With 4x5" it's more reasonable to stop down to make all equally sharp, thanks to smaller format and lower peak resolution.

In the digital world format is so small that we can stop down if we want to, but we still have diffraction to deal with of course. If you stop down to f/22 on there will not be much of a difference between a p45+ and a iq180 in a print in terms of resolution, up to you if you want to waste the peak resolution in order to get a more equally sharp rendering or if you prefer a style more similar to the 8x10" way to shoot. When you've paid for all the pixels it can be nice to actually get to use them .

Focus stacking is a new powerful tool. You can use it to shoot at a larger aperture and get all rendered equally sharp with little diffraction, however I personally think that is overkill and takes away some of the joy of shooting, I also find an artistic value in capturing scenes in only one exposure. You can however use it to make new composition possible which was previously impossible, for example a tree up very close, and at the same time sharp focus in the background at infinity.

Personally I like to have "all pixels equally sharp", within reason. I shoot f/11 - f/16 for normal scenes (quite often using tilt), f/22 and occassionally f/32 if extra DoF is needed. I think 80 megapixels for this use is a bit overkill, at least at the current cost of things. The worst disadvantage of diffraction may not be the loss in sharpness on the pixel level, but the low frequency components that can cause a bleed of light areas into dark ones, which is hard to fix in post-processing.

 

[Geoff]

Is it fair to say there are two "plateaus" for MFDB - one is the top level of 80 mp backs, which gives the highest quality, but is less forgiving of defraction and color cast, requiring the newer lenses for shifting. The other one, around 35-40 mp, allows for f16 and f22 without defraction loss, and also use of the next tier of lenses? For the more relaxed (?) shooter of LF or MF digital, the smaller back and larger pixels has its advantages, if one can avoid the siren's call for more resolution!

Here's a quick shot at f16, Apo-Sironar 55 mm, iso 50 all natural light, with good DOF in the crops: