May Need Help

[bob carnie]

Ok here are the images
Both show the same problem as I see it , which is unacceptable loss of sharpness beyond 4.

1- indicates closest tree*where I focused right down to 4 - furthest away.
150mmlens , at f32.5 3 three bannana exposure.

[Brian Ellis]

There isn't much camera movements could have done for you in that situation. You might have focused a little ways into the scene (not a third of the way since that "rule" varies with focal length of the lens and also because it isn't that easy in a landscape to know just where 1/3 is) instead of on the closest tree and then stopped down stopped down farther.

IMHO the best way to make sure everything that you want to appear sharp in the print actually appears sharp is to focus on the nearest object you want to appear sharp (tree #1 in your situation), note the position of the front or back standard (whichever you're using to focus), then focus on the farthest object you want to appear sharp (whichever tree beyond #4 you wanted to appear sharp), note the position of the focusing standard, then set the relevant standard half way between the two points and consult a depth of field table to determine the optimum aperture to use in order to obtain the depth of field you need. This is all explained better and in more detail in Tuan's article in this forum on focusing the view camera.

[Monty McCutchen]

Bob,

I have rulers on all my camera's beds (thin ones can be bought at fabric stores and taped, glued, whatever onto the bed railing of your camera) that allow me to note closest and farthest objects as Brian mentioned and then easily determined middle point with simple math off the ruler readings. I realize this method due to the simple math may be beyond you but you could bring an assistant, maybe Dinesh, with you for that purpose. But the most important thing to remember is to wear your helmet when you are out in public.

Monty

[Vaughn]

Hey, Bob, there is a thing called a ground glass on the back of the camera -- that will tell you (if you listen close enough) how much depth of field you have at any f/stop. Well, at least until f22 or so (then it gets a bit dark).

Focus, for example, on tree #3 of the second image. Then close the lens down as you keep an eye on the closest tree (#1). When it gets in sharp focus, note the f-stop. Open up the aperature again and repeat, looking at what f-stop the furthest point you want in focus becomes sharp. Both the near point and the far point should come into focus at about the same time. You then move your focus point until they do. That should be the best place to focus at and then close the lens down another stop (to compensate for our aging eyes) and you have a relatively sharp scene from front to back.

Just one way to do it. I am very near-sighted, so without my glasses I can focus my eyes 4" from the GG -- you might need a loupe.

Vaughn

[bob carnie]

Thanks for the replies so far, I now seem to recall the method Brian mentions.
It was a pretty dull day so I would need a brighter screen or better loop, it was raining and the loop kept steaming up.

Re Mr McCutchens response, I think I need to go to the thesauras so that I can ellucidate exactly my thoughts to him.

How about a wider lens , would this give me possibility of greater depth of field?

[Vaughn]

How about a wider lens , would this give me possibility of greater depth of field?

Yes and no. Depth of field will be affected by three things -- Focal length (longer lens, less DoF), aperature and distance focused (closer the focus, the less DoF). This all assumes same size enlargement from the same format size.

So with all things being equal, a 120mm lens will have a slightly greater DoF than a 150mm. But to get about same image as the 150mm, you will have to move the camera a little closer to the subject, reducing the DoF.

[bigdog]

How about a wider lens , would this give me possibility of greater depth of field?

Yes. I suggest a 50mm, mounted on a 35mm body. Stop down to f16 and it will all be in focus and sharp ...

[Frank Petronio]

There was a reason they called it the f/64 Group.

[Patrick Dixon]

There was a reason they called it the f/64 Group.

What was that then?

[Vaughn]

The f64 Group was organized in 1932 by Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Willard Van Dyke, Imogen Cunningham, and others, to promote "straight" photography. The group was in response to the "artistic," soft-focus, pictorial type of photography which was popular at the time. Emphasis was placed on "pure" photography, sharp images, maximum depth-of-field, smooth glossy printing paper, emphasizing the unique qualities of the photographic process. The significance of the name lies in the fact that f/64 is the smallest aperture on the lens of a large-format camera and therefore provides the greatest depth-of-field.

Copied from: http://kcbx.net/~mhd/1intro/f64.htm

I think that was what you were asking...

Vaughn