Photo Term Series #17: Hyperfocal Distance

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

One of the most essential pieces of knowledge to understand in order to attain sharp images, particularly for landscapes, is the principle of hyperfocal distance.

Phil Davis put it best in Photography, 1972

“When the lens is focused on the hyperfocal distance, the depth of field extends from half the hyperfocal distance to infinity.”

The general tip to burn into your memory is focus 1/3 of the way into your photo with a smaller aperture setting to maximize your depth of field.

Hyperfocal Distance
image courtesy of DOFMaster

A great online resources to reference when researching hyperfocal distance for your gear is DOFMaster’s Depth of Field Calculator. In addition Vividlight Photography also has a great article on this subject What is Hyperfocal Distance and Why Should I Care? were they provide an Excel or PDF Hyperfocal Distance Chart that can be put in your camera bag.

View more photos of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)

Technorati Tags: photo, term, terminology, Hyperfocal Distance, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Â Arctic Refuge, Â ANWR, Â landscape, Â photo, Â photography, Â Alaska, Â wildflower, stock photo

Stay Connected with Jim
	Join Me On Twitter	Become a Fan on Facebook
	Listen to EXIF & Beyond	My Latest on YouTube

Posted by Jim on 06.30.2008 at 12:01 am
Tagged: Alaska, Arctic Refuge, Landscape, Locations, Photography, Terminology , Stock Photo, Terminology

Related Posts

the_wolf_brigade

I thought as much. Definitely going to try this out as soon as I can to see if I can improve the sharpness in my shots.

Phil

Thanks for this simple reminder of an important fundamental!

Jim Goldstein

@the_wolf_brigade. Your logic is correct for smaller apertures, but to keep you on track this is particularly relevant to landscape photography. Thanks for the comment

the_wolf_brigade

I think I have been doing this subconsciously already, but up until now I've been working on the theory that the DoF equals to twice as much in the background as exists in the foreground - I guess this is more applicable in wider apertures and less critical for landscapes though.