Isn't it always the way.
I finally get my MF gear together again after a long absence since I had to sell off my Arca and IQ180 at the start of the year, and the wet season has hit in force. I've had nothing but pouring rain and strong winds for the last week. Now there is a couple of cyclones brewing as well. Life is great in FNQ.
Anyway I have been doing some reading about hyper focal focusing since this used to be my favourite way to do things. I had all the calculators and tried so many different settings but always felt a bit let down. I could never seem to really nail the right settings.
A very helpful post by Wayne Fox in another thread (sorry no idea how to link to it at the moment) had me wanting to try another way. Basically just ditch the calculators and take many test shots at different apertures and note the setting where acceptable sharpness is lost. That then becomes your hyper focal distance.
Brilliant. But then while trawling the Internet I came across this article. http://http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html This hypothesis is that at infinity it is easy to calculate what should and should not be resolved in your photo.
This article makes a lot of sense to me and I am just wondering what others think of it. I understand it was written in the days of film but it should surely translate to digital.
Now I just need the rain to stop so I can try it out.
March is looking good