Depth of Field is the total distance, on either side of the point of focus, which , when viewed from an appropriate distance, APPEARS sharp in the final print.
|
|
BUT! A lens
focuses at precisely ONE distance. Everything on either side of that
distance is out of focus, PERIOD!
These fuzzy circles are called CIRCLES OF CONFUSION. Unless various degrees of sharpness are used intentionally as part of the image, it is the task of the photographer to make the print appear as if the lens is focused over a wide range from near to far, to make the circles of confusion as small as possible. This "depth of field" can to some degree be controlled.
If the size
of the opening is reduced, narrowing the light passage, the size of
the CIRCLES OF CONFUSION are reduced on the
negative. Thus, "stopping down" or making the aperture smaller
gives smaller circles of confusion and extends the range of apparent
sharpness. Enlarging the negative enlarges the circles of confusion,
hence even smaller apertures are required as the enlargement factor
increases. Remember we are striving for 1/100th inch on the print!
BUT - reducing the aperture makes things worse because light has a nasty habit of "bending" around sharp edges at different rates depending on color, and the iris is a circular sharp edge (see Diffraction Limit of Sharpness below).
Factors affecting the depth of field are -
REMEMBER - ALL calculations shown below MUST be made using the same units, either millimeters OR inches, not both. AND the result will be in the units chosen.
|
|

|
|

Note that doubling the linear dimensions of the print also doubles the hyperfocal distance and the point of nearest sharpness. If the camera is focused at infinity, the depth of field would extend only from the hyperfocal distance to infinity - only half as far! To achieve the maximum depth of field, you should, whenever possible, focus on the hyperfocal distance.
Using the camera formats described in the chart above, each set at f/3.5 -
|
For a 4 inch by 5 inch (4x5) print, the hyperfocal distance with a 35mm camera, and 43mm "normal" lens, is just short of 30 feet, making the near point of the depth of field just short of 15 feet. The depth of field is therefore from 15 feet to infinity - IF the camera is focused on the hyperfocal distance. |
|
|
For an 8 inch by 10 inch (8x10) print, the hyperfocal distance for the same 35mm camera and lens, is just short of 60 feet, making the near point of the depth of field just short of 30 feet. Doubling the linear print size, therefore doubles the hyperfocal distance! To regain the same hyperfocal distance and depth of field achieved with a 4x5 print, you must close down the aperture TWO stops. |
![]() |
The following tables can be used to assess the depth of field for critical work in which the potential print size is to be greater than the nominal 4 x 5 range for which the depth of field scale on the Minox is calibrated. They are also theoretical in that they ignore the effects of diffraction.

The Minox EC shares the 15mm lens with its siblings. The lens is stopped down to f/5.6 to increase the depth of field. Focus adjustment is not available. With these design characteristics, the hyperfocal distance, for a 4" x 5" print, is 1.989 meters (6.53 feet). If the lens is permanently focused at 2 meters, the EC table shows the depth of field (range of acceptable sharpness) for the various print sizes.
|
|
Max. x = 22 |
Max. x = 36 |
|
|
Print 8.8" x 12.6" |
|
|
The EC and LX complement each other almost precisely for prints in the 9 x 12 range. The depth of field figures indicate that with one of each, no focusing would be necessary from 4.6 feet. |
|
Print 6.6" x 9.4" |
|
|
My favorite print size provides a 4 to 16 foot range for the EC and 9 feet to infinity for the LX |
A conflicting optical phenomenon is the tendency of light to diffract. (change in direction and intensity of a group of waves after passing by an obstacle or through an aperture) . This phenomenon can be witnessed in a stream where ripples deform as they bend around a protruding rock.
The amount of
diffraction is dependent on the wavelength, thus varies over the
visible spectrum from blue (400 nanometers) to red (700 nanometers).
Smaller apertures, and higher frequencies (toward red) increase
diffraction and actually decrease resolution and limit the
degree of enlargement.
A point of light, composed of various wave-lengths, and greatly magnified, will appear as a circle (Airy disc). Discussions of sharpness or definition generally accept that a circle of 1/200 inch is perceived as "sharp' when viewed from "reading distance".
|
Leica Manual gives the resolution of a lens as: "...the spacing between two points just resolved is equal to the wavelength of the light used for the measurement, multiplied by the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter." Since the "focal length divided by the diameter" is equal to the f-stop (f-number) tested, the equation is reduced to wavelength * f-number.
The table at the right shows the resolving power of a lens and the largest enlargement possible at specified f/stops, for both BLUE (400 nanometers) and RED light (700 nanometers), while retaining 100 lines/inch on the print. It is clear that diffraction is NOT the limiting factor to the enlargement of negatives from either the traditional Minox (f/3.5) or the EC (f/5.6). |
|
Note: The table is based on a theoretical calculation of the resolving power of a lens at a specified aperture AND wave length. This is similar to evaluating resolution at maximum contrast, which rarely, if ever, occurs. The values in the table should be at least halved for practical work, and indeed I have seen data to that effect.
Lesson:
Use apertures small enough for the required depth of field, but no
smaller!