In article
>I tried taking a few pictures using the hyperfocal length,
>as far as I understand it from this thread (and a book or
>two). I don't think I'm getting it because I found them
>to be quite out of focus.
>This was on my manual 35mm. The subject was far away,
>basically at infinity. After getting correct exposure, say
>f16 and 1/125s, I moved the focussing ring on my lens so
>that infinity was at the far 16. That is, everything
>from about 2m to infinity should've been in focus. I don't
>have DOF preview, so what I saw in the screen was obviously
>out of focus. The print that came back didn't seem so great.
>My (50mm) lens looks like the following: (...)
>At f16 and with a faraway object, I set the infinity at 16
>on the left side so that everything from 2m on would be in
>focus (^^^^^^^):
>
> infinity...10m....3m....2m....1.5m............0.45m
> 22..16...8..4..|..4..8...16..22
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Am I understanding this correctly?
Yes, technically this is how it is done, but there are limitations,
as you have found out (read Bob Atkin's post that preceeds this one).
In addition to discounting a stop, as B. A. suggests, I would also
fudge the focus a bit toward infinity since subject material near infinity is mostly fine-scale detail, and subject material in the
foreground of the picture is often larger in scale and can usually
stand somewhat less sharp rendering without looking bad.
Hope This Helps