Does MF landscape photography require 'focus stacking' to achieve focus?

[Jim2]

I read that MF photography has an inherent characteristic of shallower DoF compared to 35mm. For the purpose of landscape photography where deepest DoF is desired, i.e. from the rock 5-10 feet away to the mountains in the background to be in focus, will focus stacking be required or do people not normally have to do this (even when not using tilting)?

Especially since from my understanding, F/11 seems to be the 'sharpest' aperture and images will become softer when the aperture is any smaller which doesn't give much for DoF.

Hopefully someone with an MF gear who normally shoot landscape can share their experience here. Thank you!

Ideally of course I don't want to have to resort to focus stacking!

[Schewe]

For the purpose of landscape photography where deepest DoF is desired, i.e. from the rock 5-10 feet away to the mountains in the background to be in focus, will focus stacking be required or do people not normally have to do this (even when not using tilting)?

You might be able to pull focus using a tilt but the odds are if you want critical focus you may need to resort to stacking...

[oolic]

Not only MF but 35mm equivalent too..Especially with longer FL lenses
Richard

[fredjeang]

You know, now with digital technology where burning frame costs nothing and pp tools are amazing, not doing stacking is maybe loosing a capacity of digital imagery.

 

[Jim2]

Doing focus stacking i.e. requiring multiple shots, would negate the benefit of high MP medium format vs stitched multiple shot 35mm because I was hoping to be able to just do one shot with MF

What do you, landscape shooters, normally do? a) one shot and accept that the background would be slightly blurred, or b) do focus stacking - which requires multiple shots - and for some scenes cause weird artefacts when clouds, or the sun/moon move or sunset colours change? or c) use tilt?

[Schewe]

What do you, landscape shooters, normally do? a) one shot and accept that the background would be slightly blurred, or b) do focus stacking - which requires multiple shots - and for some scenes cause weird artefacts when clouds, or the sun/moon move or sunset colours change? or c) use tilt?

All of the above (depending on the image and camera of course).

[Clyde RF]

Jim 2 You can't get the degree of depth of field you refer to in your example without using either tilt or focus stacking unless possibly while  using a very wide angle lens stopped way down . This is true regardless of format , even though smaller  format does predispose toward increased depth of field (everything else being equal) . If your kit can provide tilt , it is the best option if a particular composition is one that tilt can be effectively used on . If you are not sure about the ins and outs of tilt usage , consult a good book on large format photography . With images which don't allow for any benefit from tilt , focus stacking is the only option I know of that will give you full DOF in the situation being discussed .   

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Stopping down is not to bad. Some of the sharpness can be regained with advanced sharpening.

You may check a few tests I have made:

This article compares stopping down, Scheimpflug and Helicon Focus:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/29-handling-the-dof-trap


This discusses the effect of defocus and diffraction with real world sample images. Last part discusses sharpening.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures

The articles contain 1:1 images but it may take a few clicks to see them full scale.

The images are from APS-C and fullframe 135 DSLRs but the same laws of physics apply to any cameras regardless of formats.

Best regards
Erik

I read that MF photography has an inherent characteristic of shallower DoF compared to 35mm. For the purpose of landscape photography where deepest DoF is desired, i.e. from the rock 5-10 feet away to the mountains in the background to be in focus, will focus stacking be required or do people not normally have to do this (even when not using tilting)?

Especially since from my understanding, F/11 seems to be the 'sharpest' aperture and images will become softer when the aperture is any smaller which doesn't give much for DoF.

Hopefully someone with an MF gear who normally shoot landscape can share their experience here. Thank you!

Ideally of course I don't want to have to resort to focus stacking!

[buckshot]

For absolutely optimal front-to-back focus in the digital age...there's only one game in town...focus stacking. Some might not like it, feeling that it 'isn't photography' - which I understand - but then from a technical perspective, photography now isn't what it was even just a few years ago. The technology requires new or modified working techniques to exploit it to its fullest, and focus stacking is one of these.

[Anders_HK]

For the purpose of landscape photography where deepest DoF is desired

Why??? Think aesthetic qualities where what is prime interest is in focus and remaining is not... if you are not willing to accept that choice, then need tilts for MFDB or likewise for FF DSLR...

On film some shot landscapes with 4x5 which required tilts for largest DOF, because 4x5 DOF is very SHALLOW, however with digital MFDB it is with smaller sensors... where is larger DOF.

I see your point that 35mm based cameras give greater DOF, but... how many landscape photographers succeeded at that small format?

With todays MFDB sized sensors I do not see much point myself for tilts apart for very special applications.

I hope above helps.

Regards
Anders

[Clyde RF]

For me a partial DOF landscape composition sometimes works well but usually does not . If I need to seek full DOF I frame the image I most want to capture and try for it using the most simple methodology I can come up with . If more adjustment is needed to nail it , I check out the possibility for using tilt . This is quick and easy to do with an appropriate image , but all to often won't work because of the presence of full length verticals at different distances (trees in forest etc) . Then comes the possibility of using focus stacking . This technology is often not applicable for me either , because I find myself using ambient light to highlight certain parts of the frame and it all has to happen within one or two seconds . So it's back to the drawing board for a more cooperative composition . So much for high productivity .

[yaya]

For absolutely optimal front-to-back focus in the digital age...there's only one game in town...focus stacking. Some might not like it, feeling that it 'isn't photography' - which I understand - but then from a technical perspective, photography now isn't what it was even just a few years ago. The technology requires new or modified working techniques to exploit it to its fullest, and focus stacking is one of these.

At the risk of opening a can of worms....Digital is no different to film...f64 on 5X4 was soft as putty but we never looked at it at 100%, 300dpi on a 30" monitor...

[BernardLanguillier]

Unfortunately, there is no free lunch. Trying to achieve infinite DoF is a valid artistic option among others, and it is clear that even FF sensors cannot achieve this well without either of the 2 techniques mentioned (T/S lenses of DoF stacking).

It wouldn't take much for DoF stacking to become super easy with AF cameras for those subjects lending themselves to the technique.

Although we are not totally there yet, even today it is already possible to do pretty slick automation with panoramic robotic heads.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Graham Welland]

Helicon Remote can automatically drive the AF to achieve focus stack sets already if you don't mind tethering your Canon or Nikon to a laptop.

[Dick Roadnight]

Helicon Remote can automatically drive the AF to achieve focus stack sets already if you don't mind tethering your Canon or Nikon to a laptop.

I f you use a tech camera, tilt would normally be the best option, but, for when the subject cannot be fitted into a wedge, I intend to use a stackshot or Velmex on the rear standard of a Sinar... it would be nice to control it with something like Helicon.