Selecting the focus point when photographing a cityscape over water.

[BarryRic]

To achieve in focus/sharp images in landscape photography, I normally focus on a point about 1/3 into the composition. However when photographing a cityscape over a fairly wide expanse of water, the focus point will be onto the water. I select an object, say a building, which is the closest to my position. Is there another/better method or is my approach the one that will give good results?

 

[bleirer]

There is only one plane of sharp focus. The rest is just compromise. So there is that.

You could take 3 shots with different focus points and blend them. You could just focus on the area of emphasis. You could calculate the hyperfocal. You could use the double the distance method, focusing around twice the nearest important thing. It's all compromise anyway. I guess I'd go For focus stacking if it were feasable.

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

The rule of thumb I am using is focusing to half the distance of an object that I want to be reasonably sharp. The background may/not be in focus depending on the distance and F number used. Optimal is OFC if the distance is hyperfocal.

 

[ajrmd]

You raise some interesting questions and I am afraid there are no easy answers. If you have strong foreground elements, I suggest focus stacking and if not, consider what is most important in your image. In the case of an expanse of water focusing 1/2 way into the frame or on the buildings with a smaller aperture is a good approach. Grab a DOF app and estimate based on you distance what aperture is sufficient, shoot a few images and see what's best. I don't recommend using super small apertures as diffraction will likely cause softening of your image.

 

[StefanSC]

Is there another/better method or is my approach the one that will give good results?

There's always hyperfocal distance... though I always found it a bit of a PITA to use in practice and not always leading to best results.

 

[joe43]

If your camera has Focus Peaking capability, try using it. On my Nikon D850 and Z9 I use it for situations just like the one you described, and others too. I find it a lot faster than moving the focus point. Or once it is moved, I tweak the focus a bit with focus peaking. This article might help you:

Introduction to Manual Focus on a Camera Lens

Manually focusing your camera lens can seem tricky. Compared to the ease of autofocus, you may wonder why you even still have manual focus as an option. It still has a number of important uses, however, and it’s a great skill to learn. In this introduction to manual focusing a lens, I’ll explain...

photographylife.com

 

[John Woodworth]

If the water is flat (mirror-like) then the camera may focus at the distance of the reflections. Small objects floating nearby on the water might therefore be out-of-focus.

Just sayin'.

 

[DRwyoming]

To achieve in focus/sharp images in landscape photography, I normally focus on a point about 1/3 into the composition. However when photographing a cityscape over a fairly wide expanse of water, the focus point will be onto the water. I select an object, say a building, which is the closest to my position. Is there another/better method or is my approach the one that will give good results?

I'd stick with your hyperfocal approach, perhaps stop down a bit more for some DoF insurance and manually focus the lens rather than rely on auto focus in a situation like that.

Auto Focus is great for fast action and quick focusing on discrete targets but situations like what you describe and astrophotography are times when I don't use the AF system and prefer to just manually focus the lens.

 

[BarryRic]

Thank you all for the advice. Just to clarify.
In situations like this I shoot in manual, focus included, f8 (min), using a tripod and at Blue Hour and in RAW. The situation is that the stretch of water is about 2km (1.2mi) towards the city skyline from my position. There are no objects in the water.
Think this calls for an experiment:
I'll shoot images on the same day and time (using the same camera settings) first using a building/structure (2km) away across the water and then focusing at about 1/3 (600m or 0.4mi) into the scene. Compare the two sets of images to try and see if there are any significant differences. I may give it a try this weekend.

 

[dabhand16]

@BarryRic

It has not been mentioned that once you exceed the infinity point of the lens everything will be in focus from the infinity point to infinity.

The rule of thumb is that the infinity point is the focal length of the lens in yards, so in your example of around 2200 yards any lens you have will be in focus from the focal length of the lens in yards to infinity, so the deciding factor is the lens that is suitable for composition.

 

[gmart7717]

Mark Galer has a video that explains a very quick and easy technique to find the hyperfocal distance with mirrorless cameras.

 

[Len Shepherd]

To achieve in focus/sharp images in landscape photography, I normally focus on a point about 1/3 into the composition.

This may not be the best way to photograph an image

The one third guide is only reasonably accurate when focussing at one third of hyperfocal distance.
At other distance it can be inappropriate relative to the depth of field you get.

Hyperfocal distance is closer with wide angle lenses than telephotos with the same focus distance and aperture - primarily due to the different angle of view.

Depth of field is generally photographically equal either side of point of focus in close up photography.
Close up photography is normally done at a much closer focus distance than hyperlocal distance.

Depth of field changes to dramatically more behind the point of focus than in front by hyperlocal distance.

Hyperfocal distance may be appropriate shooting a cityscape across a river if you want much of the river as well as the buildings sharp, and less appropriate if you want the river moderately unsharp to emphasise the buildings in the image.

 

[BarryRic]

My question is that once you have determined the hyperfocal distance, by any method and this focus point is on a portion of clear water 600m away from me (no objects except the city skyline). Should I then focus on that point on the water or rather on a building 2km away.

 

[dabhand16]

My question is that once you have determined the hyperfocal distance, by any method and this focus point is on a portion of clear water 600m away from me (no objects except the city skyline). Should I then focus on that point on the water or rather on a building 2km away.

Read my post #10.

 

[BarryRic]

This may not be the best way to photograph an image

The one third guide is only reasonably accurate when focussing at one third of hyperfocal distance.
At other distance it can be inappropriate relative to the depth of field you get.

Hyperfocal distance is closer with wide angle lenses than telephotos with the same focus distance and aperture - primarily due to the different angle of view.

Depth of field is generally photographically equal either side of point of focus in close up photography.
Close up photography is normally done at a much closer focus distance than hyperlocal distance.

Depth of field changes to dramatically more behind the point of focus than in front by hyperlocal distance.

Hyperfocal distance may be appropriate shooting a cityscape across a river if you want much of the river as well as the buildings sharp, and less appropriate if you want the river moderately unsharp to emphasise the buildings in the image.

Thank you Len. Your last comment makes sense and has confirmed what I have been suspecting (subconsciously ?).

 

[Len Shepherd]

Read my post #10.

I was responding to the part of your post that asked "Is there another/better method".

If as I suggested was a possibility, you want critical focus to be on the distant building then focus on them - and forget about needing to use hyperlocal distance.

Resolution is always sharpest at the point of focus.

Resolution gradually goes down moving away from the point of focus until it appears unsharp to the resolution level of the human eye.

 

[dabhand16]

I was responding to the part of your post that asked "Is there another/better method".

If as I suggested was a possibility, you want critical focus to be on the distant building then focus on them - and forget about needing to use hyperlocal distance.

Resolution is always sharpest at the point of focus.

Resolution gradually goes down moving away from the point of focus until it appears unsharp to the resolution level of the human eye.

I think you are replying to the wrong person Len.

 

[Len Shepherd]

Thank you Len. Your last comment makes sense and has confirmed what I have been suspecting (subconsciously ?).

Getting perhaps up-to-date if you shoot Nikon ML - you see what is sharp within the zone of sharpness at the shooting aperture (see below), through the viewfinder, enlarged somewhat on the rear monitor and enlarged much more zooming in on the rear monitor.

With eyeglasses if needed to view the rear monitor with clarity, a much better impression of how sharp objects at different distances in the image actually are is usually much easier to perceive than with the darkening viewfinder of DSLR's when stopping down.

The viewfinder/rear monitor with Nikon ML shows what is sharp with the aperture chosen for the exposures between wide open and f5.6 or f6.3 if using an f6.3 lens.

To see the zone of sharpness at apertures smaller than f5.6 a function button can be set to operate as a dof preview - resulting in an image much brighter than a DSLR using a DSLR dof preview button.

When I want to control the zone of acceptable sharpness I prefer to work from a tripod, though this is not essential.
For my type of photography I am probably unusual programming a Z lens fn1 button to depth of field preview. The main point is it works well for me for macro and landscape.

 

[Anjin San]

Mark Galer has a video that explains a very quick and easy technique to find the hyperfocal distance with mirrorless cameras.

Photopills…then either focus manually or AF single point or whatever at the appropriate distance or guess if the lens or EVF has a distance scale. Most cityscapes aren’t going to be wide open anyway so that’s good enough…unless you only want the BG and not the FG in focus.