A great number of words have been written about the skills and techniques associated with achieving the maximum depth of focus in a landscape scene. Small apertures, hyperfocal distance and increasingly focus stacking are increasingly used to ensure that every tiny detail from the blade of grass touching the front element to the distant mountains is in pin sharp focus.

There is even a perspectivein some quarters that 'this is how it is supposed to be' and anything that does not conform is in some way inferior. We all have and are entitled to have our own opinions on such things. It's right that they guide our own work but inappropriate of course that we should seek to enforce them as rules to be followed by others. The depth and placement of the plane of focus is in my view a creative decision and the key is that we make a considered view about where we place it. Essentially we have two choices:

To attempt to present the majority / all the image as ‘effectively sharp’
To use selective focus so that one plane of focus highlights one element or one group of elements effectively separating them out from the rest of the composition.

As an aside we may consider what we mean by sharp and in doing so head off down the path of circles of confusion, edge acuity etc. I'd use a simpler definition. Sharp as might appear to have sharply defined edges to the viewer by naked eye at a normal viewing distance.

While not suggesting that using lenses wide open is unique, I think it’s fair to say that the majority (by no means all - just more than half) of landscape photographers seek to create the maximum depth of field in their images and predominantly use their lenses at smaller apertures. When we consider woodland photographers the apertures tend to open up a little but still the vast majority are at f2.8 or smaller. I find a deep satisfaction in using apertures of f2 and wider when in the woods. Very little is in focus under these conditions and while the effect is not to everyone’s taste but it pleases me enormously.

Sharpness or contrast is one of the triggers that we can use to guide the human eye and brain around an image. With everything in focus we lose that tool. However at f1.4 on an 85mm lens very little is in focus and so whatever is sharp, takes centre stage. This of course presents substantial compositional challenges. Any elements that need to be sharp need to lie in the same plane or the camera has to move to create that position. We also have to ensure that nothing too distracting lies just outside that plane. A small group of highly illuminated leaves just out of focus may make or ruin the final image. I don’t think there are too many rules here, the eye of the photographer is critical.

When making these images, I tend to head out with a single lens and with the express intention of using it wide open. ( In truth, I’ll often carry another lens in case of unforeseen circumstances but am very disciplined about not using it) The decision is made based on conditions, location and ultimately how I feel that morning. Once the commitment is made, it becomes easier to see the opportunities.

Using fast lenses wide open was always a percentage process for me with SLR and DSLR cameras. I’d get a % failure rate on precise focus. The advent of Mirrorless however was a game changer for me and since using a Fuji alongside my Nikon D810 then moving completely to a Nikon Z7. The ability to zoom to 100% in the viewfinder combined with manual focus has changed the percentage success rate to virtually 100%. The secondary ability to then check that frame in the viewfinder also at 100% has picked up any lingering errors.

My preferred lens is my old Zeiss 100mm f2 ZF.2 Makro Planar. Beautifully made, sharp wide open and it renders so beautifully. There’s a tad more CA than the newest Z lenses but otherwise it holds its own with anything. Whether I have a lucky sample or not, mine is better than the current version. It is a weighty beast however and requires the FTZ. I often take the Z 85mm f1.8S as an alternative. Vintage manual lenses work well and 50mm f1.8’s are usually relatively inexpensive. I’d love to try a Nikkor 105/1.4 in the woods but they continue to hold their value exceptionally well. There’s also a new Nikon Z 85mm f1.2 S on the way but again I suspect it will be beyond my available budget and heavier than I wish to carry.

Where do the benefits lie? At it's most basic, I like the look of a minimal depth of field image. I think it instantly creates a sense of depth by virtue of the layers of focused and unfocused elements. This will give at least two layers and if there is some foreground then three distinct layers resolve giving yet more depth. In woodland, we are often faced with scenes that at first sense present themsleves as chaotic. We may distil these scenes by the carful placement of the elements in a composition or the use of light and shadow to help simplify. However the use of minimal depth of field can offer another tool in our kit to help simplify the scene by effective reducing the number of critically sharp elements. Even where the less sharp elements are still prominent, the greater sharpness and contrast of those in focus serve to guide the eye towards the trunk, branch or leaves that we wish to be most dominant in the scene.

UPDATE: If you’ve enjoyed this and would like to know when the next post is published, there is a ‘Subscribe’ button at the top right of the page. This button has been problematic over the past year but the issues have now been fully resolved so if you’d like to read the next post, just enter your email address. I won’t spam you and won’t pass on your address to anyone else. You can unsubscribe at any time.