An Easy Way to Work With Hyperfocal Distance

Hyperfocal distance is one of the most convenient techniques in landscape photography, as it allows you to maximize the amount of your image that is in focus without resorting to more involved techniques such as focus stacking. If you do not want to deal with mental math or looking up values in a table, this great video will give you a quick and easy method for employing hyperfocal distance in your own work.

Coming to you from David Bergman with Adorama TV, this excellent video will show you a shortcut for approximating hyperfocal distance. Put simply: the hyperfocal distance is the focal distance at which depth of field is maximized. It is particularly useful for landscape photography, where you often want to have the majority of a scene in focus, but do not want to resort to something like focus stacking, which is both more time and resource intensive. It also helps you avoid stopping down to the point that you start losing sharpness due to diffraction, helping to ensure the best possible image quality. Check out the video above for the full rundown. 

And if you want to continue your education in landscape photography, check out "Photographing The World 1: Landscape Photography and Post-Processing with Elia Locardi." 

Log in or register to post comments


Brook Brown's picture

He didn’t explain that very well.

Raymond Bohn's picture

A few diagrams would have helped.
I would like to know more as to why HF markings on new lenses wouldn't work.

Mohamed Saeed's picture

I couldn't understand anything. Hope he explains it better.

Larry Biancolin's picture

Ah, wrong. You can’t arbitrarily pick a distance and assume that everything from half that distance to infinity will be in focus. That’s only true at the Hyperfocal distance. Your example doesn’t make that clear

Simon Patterson's picture

I wouldn't recommend this video to someone who wanted to know how to use hyperfocal distance. It left too many questions unanswered.

Scott Hussey's picture

That was painfully inept.

Ignace Maenhaut van Lemberge's picture

Painfull and awfully wrong. Shameless and unprofessional Canon add.

jim hughes's picture

He should reshoot this and correct it a bit. It's not necessarily true that anything from the focused distance "to infinity" is acceptably sharp. I'm sure he understands this and just didn't explain it the way he really wanted to.

Edison Wrzosek's picture

Wow, he talks a lot, and says practically nothing...

And what he did actually say, was mostly inaccurate...