Digital BW, The Print

Clayton -- 
  The original question that Mark asked was somewhat different than how does one obtain sharp focus in the foreground and background of an image?  And from there, how does one change what is emphasized in the image? His question has to do with what is acceptable practice in landscape photography.
  This to me is a question of aesthetics.  He asked the question: "Is this ever done in landscapes?"  Which implies that there is some sort of list or set of rules for shooting landscapes. 
   
  >Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a background 
>of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left and 
>sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize your main 
>subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using DOF on, 
>say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?
   
  Even his clarification is just an amplification of this question.  So, while instructive, it seems to me that your reply on how to calculate the hyperfocal distance is off the mark.  But most importantly, the wavelengths of light in the IR portion of the spectrum are longer and therefore do not conform so neatly to formulas that are used to calculate hyperfocal distance.  Add to that the fact that hyperfocal distance calculations don't account for diffraction (which is a significant issue in IR photography because it is (IR photography) is done when the sun is brightest) and I think mere technical calculations of hyperfocal distance don't supply the answer to Marks question.  As I'm sure you recall, older film cameras' had a separate mark on the lens that marked IR infinity that was different than visible spectrum infinity. 
   
  So, I think that my answer earlier about artistic judgment was closer to the point in responding to his question. I say this not to point out that what you're (Clayton) saying is incorrect but that what he wants to know can't be answered with technical calculations.  These opinions are just my own and, of course, others may think otherwise.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]