What has gone wrong?

[Nguss]

I wondered if anyone can suggest or perhaps explain what has gone wrong with the photo below? I know it is a focus / depth of field issue, but I am new to Large Format and am trying to understand why the depth of field is so shallow or how to correct it.

The photo was taken at f22 and the primary point of focus was on the plant at the bottom right. I did not use tilt (the camera I am using, a mark 7 MPP, only has back tilt unless it is rotated onto it's side). I had wnated everything, or as much as possible, to be in focus.

On the large version that I have scanned the bush / plant at the bottom right is in focus, but towards the middle it is slightly out of focus and well out of focus towards the back. The distance from the bottom to the middle is only, say, 6 - 12 feet.

Is it due to the appeture used, the failure to use tilt, or focussing at the incorrect point of focus (should I have focussed past the plant and more at the hyperfocal point)? Or is it all of the above?

It is probably a daft question, but I am trying to understand what I did wrong to avoid repeating it again.

Thanks for any help or suggestions anyone can provide.

[Gem Singer]

All of the above.

[Richard Wasserman]

Read this, it should be helpful—

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...-to-focus.html

[Roger Cole]

Why didn't you want to use the rear tilt? I generally prefer rear tilt to front for landscapes. It causes some distortion of shapes but this shows in closer objects appearing slightly larger, which is usually a beneficial effect in landscapes.

[Greg Blank]

I am with Gem, but to be precise, you could easily do the shot at f32.5 and use front tilt and no back tilt....at least I could. But you would not be placing focus right on the Bush. George or otherwise, they don't like being the center of attention

[Lachlan 717]

I'd suggest having a search for hyperfocus explanations. Specifically, look at the focus characteristics behind AND in front of the focal point.

You've wasted a lot of rear DOF by focusing on the closest point. If you'd focused somewhere behind the bush, the forward DOF would have done the bush for you...

[Brian Ellis]

Read these two articles under "Taking The Picture" on the home page of this forum. They'll tell you everything you need to know.

How to focus the view camera 7/2000
How to select the f-stop: for maximum sharpness against defocus and diffraction 3/2001 (rev)

As for your particular photograph, it looks like a situation where tilt would have helped. And a smaller aperture would have helped. And focusing a little farther into the scene would have helped.

[Nguss]

Great, thanks for the help. As to not using tilt, I have only used camera with no movements before. If I can get away with using rear tilt as opposed to forward tilt all the better as it is more difficult to get forward tilt with the camera I am using. I will give it another go.

[Gem Singer]

Nguss,

With a camera that has no front tilt capability, try aiming the camera down and focusing on the near.

Then tilt the back upright toward vertical until the far comes into sharp focus.

Play with the focusing knob until both the near and far are as sharp as you can get them, then stop down for the final exposure.

[Ken Lee]

Unless I missed it, you didn't mention the length of the lens. On 4x5 a 150mm lens at f/22 doesn't have huge depth of field. A 75mm lens does.



The "classic" large format landscape photos we often see - pronounced "near-far" compositions with infinite depth of field - are usually made with shorter lenses stopped down to f/32 or smaller, and plenty of tilt.