Shooting on the edge of all limits. Who knows the formula?

[Runmonty]

Thanks for sharing your experimentation Alex, it is valuable for all of us to see this.

I was about to make a light-hearted comment about the answer being to cut and paste in Photoshop. Then I thought about it some more and maybe it inst a stupid idea to take 2 exposures at differing focus points and mask the blurred person? I guess this is like focus stacking.

[Runmonty]

Just had a (very) quick google search and found this

Focus Stacking: Learn this technique to get an extreme depth of field ideal for landscape photography | ISO 1200 Magazine | Photography Video blog for photographers

I am sure there will be more resources if you have a hunt. May be worth playing with??

[Alex Davydov]

Wow, cool technique! I will certainly try on landscapes. Thank you for the advice!

I can't think of how I could use it on live photo shoots on location. Usually things are happening too fast, so no time to take such consistent shots. Plus people are moving. May be one day I will figure it out.

Thanks agan!

[Ron Cardinale]

Camera is set to F2.8 and 24mm focal length, which sets hyperfocal length at 4.8m / 14.4ft. Focus range starts at 2.4m / 7.2ft from the camera.Attachment 16367

Hi, Alex,

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what you have done but there are a couple of things that don’t seem right.

In the third picture, I believe that you are standing where the lens is focused but you are not clear. How can this be? If the subject is where the lens is focused, the subject should be clear.

You have indicated focus distance numbers that seem to be for using approximately f/4 but you state that your setting is f/2.8. At f/2.8, the hyperfocal distance is 24.2ft/7.4m and the near focus is 12.1ft/3.7m with a 24mm lens on that camera.

[Alex Davydov]

Hi, Alex,

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what you have done but there are a couple of things that don’t seem right.

In the third picture, I believe that you are standing where the lens is focused but you are not clear. How can this be? If the subject is where the lens is focused, the subject should be clear.

You have indicated focus distance numbers that seem to be for using approximately f/4 but you state that your setting is f/2.8. At f/2.8, the hyperfocal distance is 24.2ft/7.4m and the near focus is 12.1ft/3.7m with a 24mm lens on that camera.

Ron, this is what Marko was saying in a first place - it is not going to work because Hyperfocal focusing is only good for objects on the background. Yes indeed I am standing approximately on the focusing point, yet it is not very exact.

Basically the hope was that if lense is focused on hyperfocal distance, then all objects (far and close) should be sharp as long as you put close objects within focusing range. Apparently not - you gotta focus on a close object precisely. Even if I was able to stand exactly on the focusing point, this is not a satisfactory solution for a portrait shot - too far.

As for numbers that you are showing I suspect you mixed it up a bit. Look at my post again. F2.8 gives you 2.4 meters focus range and 4.8 meters hyperfocal distance. For F4 these distances are 3.4 and 7.2 meters approximately. I did not use F4 in the experiment.