Photography Life

PL provides various digital photography news, reviews, articles, tips, tutorials and guides to photographers of all levels

  • Lens Reviews
  • Camera Reviews
  • Tutorials
  • Compare Cameras
  • Forum
    • Sign Up
    • Login
  • About
  • Search
Home → Photography Techniques

Double the Distance Method Explained

By Spencer Cox 42 Comments
Last Updated On August 2, 2023

One tricky part of landscape photography, along with other genres such as architecture, is making sure that your nearest and farthest subjects are both as sharp as possible. We’ve written before about a few techniques to maximize front-to-back sharpness, and I thought it would be worth emphasizing one of the most important ones again: the “double the distance” method. Here’s how it works.

Table of Contents

  • What Is the Double the Distance Method?
  • Putting It Into Practice
  • Which Aperture Should You Use?
  • Exceptions
  • Conclusion

What Is the Double the Distance Method?

The double the distance method is a way to maximize a photo’s depth of field by focusing at the proper distance in a scene. Your goal is to equalize the photo’s foreground and background sharpness.

It is a relatively easy technique to apply in the field. To start, look at the closest object in your photo and ask yourself how far away it is (specifically from the plane of your camera sensor, which I’ll cover more in a moment). Then, focus at twice that distance.

So, if the nearest object in your photo is a patch of grass at the bottom of your frame, ask yourself how far away it is. If the grass is one meter away, all you need to do is focus on an object that is two meters away. 

You can estimate these distances; they don’t have to be perfect. And you don’t need to use meters, or feet, or any other standard of measurement. If it’s easier, just visually double the distance. You can even walk into the scene and count paces for the same result.

Double the Distance Method

When done right, you’ll capture a photo with equal sharpness between the foreground grass and the most distant horizon. 

I’ll emphasize again that equal sharpness should be your goal when you use this technique. You won’t get perfect, maximum sharpness on the grass itself, because you’re not focusing on it. For the same reason, you also won’t get perfect sharpness on the horizon. But the horizon (infinity) sharpness and the rock (foreground) sharpness will be equal, neither sharper than the other, which maximizes the total front-to-back sharpness of your photo.

Of course, that’s not always what you’ll want. If there is one main subject in your photo, such as a person standing in the landscape, just focus on the person. The same is true if you’re photographing stars at night, in which case you probably want the sharpest possible stars even at the expense of the landscape. Sometimes, maximum subject detail outweighs maximum front-to-back detail. 

But if you don’t want to prioritize sharpness anywhere in your scene, and instead want maximum definition throughout the image, focus at double the distance.

Take a look at the following photo. Here, I focused at the end of the foreground ice, since it was double the distance to the nearest object in my photo:

Landscape Photo Focused at Double the Distance
NIKON D800E + TAMRON SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD A012N @ 30mm, ISO 100, 1/80, f/11.0

And then consider the following crops from the foreground and background of this image (click too see full size). Note that these are extreme 100% crops, and I didn’t focus on these exact regions, so sharpness isn’t perfect. But the important part is that sharpness is equal in both the foreground and background:

Foreground Sharpness
Foreground sharpness (brightened to make it easier to see). Note the level of sharpness on the bubbles in particular – not perfect, but very usable.
Background Sharpness
And as you can see, the background sharpness here is equal to the foreground sharpness. You can’t get both tack-sharp at the same time in a single photo, but you can get them equal to one another for maximum front-to-back detail.

Putting It Into Practice

It is relatively easy to use the double the distance method. You certainly don’t need to bring a tape measure into the field and do all of this with perfect precision; even simple estimates are likely to give the results you want. However, there still are a few considerations you need to take into account.

To start, the first distance that you double is measured from the plane of your camera sensor to your subject. You can simplify this definition in many cases by just talking about the horizontal distance between your camera and your subject. And again, some imprecision here isn’t a big deal. If you’re off by a bit, you probably won’t notice in your photos.

However, keep in mind that the plane of your camera sensor tilts as you angle your camera. So, sharply angling your camera will affect which distance you double. Normally, this effect is minimal enough so as to be unimportant, but tilting at steep angles can make a difference. 

Tilting the Camera

If you don’t tilt the camera at an extreme angle, the easiest way to put this method into practice is just to ask yourself how far away the subject is, horizontally, from your camera. You can even draw an imaginary line from your camera to the ground, and then measure from there to your nearest subject (that’s what I do a lot). You only need to worry about more complicated visualization when you tilt your camera significantly.

Which Aperture Should You Use?

By now, your nearest object and infinity are equally sharp. Excellent – but that’s just the first step. After all, you can have a very blurry foreground and very blurry background that are still technically “equal” in their sharpness. Your photo still won’t be sharp overall.

After you’ve made the foreground and background equally sharp, it is a bit trickier to make sure they are optimally sharp. To get there, you need to use the perfect aperture, balancing out aberrations (i.e. a blurry lens), depth of field, and diffraction. That’s not an easy process, although we’ve covered mathematically how to do it in the past if you want a detailed look.

However, if you don’t want to figure this out with depth of field charts (most photographers don’t), here’s a good rule of thumb:

  • For distant landscapes at infinity, use f/8 or your lens’s sharpest measured aperture
  • For landscapes with a wide lens and more of a foreground, use f/11
  • For landscapes with a very nearby foreground, or when you’re using a telephoto lens, use f/16
  • For landscapes where even f/16 isn’t enough, focus stack multiple photos instead

That guideline isn’t mathematically precise, but it will get your photos sharp enough overall for most any use.

In fact, even if you’re a full f-stop below optimal, you’ll only lose about 10% of the theoretical resolution in your nearest and farthest objects (according to calculations by George Duovos). That’s not ideal, of course, but it won’t ruin a photo. If it bothers you, just go through the more complex mathematically accurate technique we’ve covered before.

Combined with the double the distance method, choosing the optimal aperture is what maximizes your front-to-back sharpness, so it’s worth putting in the time to learn this technique – even the simplified version above. Memorize it if you have to; you’ll be glad you did!

Hyperfocal Distance Landscape Photo
Focused on a flower twice as far as the nearest one
NIKON D800E + 14-24mm f/2.8 @ 14mm, ISO 200, 1/50, f/16.0

Exceptions

So far, I have assumed that the farthest object in your photo is at infinity. That’s a fair assumption in many landscapes, but it doesn’t always apply. For example, on a very foggy day, the most distant object visible in a photo may not be very far away at all. Especially with a telephoto lens, the difference may be enough that the “infinity assumption” can get in the way of achieving maximum sharpness.

That’s also true for some architectural scenes, which may have a nearby foreground, but the farthest object is a wall 5-10 meters away. In that case, again, you’ll miss out on some foreground definition by still keeping infinity sharpness as one of your considerations.

What’s the solution? Although it is still possible to calculate the mathematically sharpest focusing distance – you barely need to change around the underlying equations at all – it’s rarely practical to do so in the field. Instead, I recommend simply focusing “a bit” closer than double the distance. No, this is not an objective way to describe it; there’s some trial and error, plus experience, involved in knowing how much closer to focus. But we’re already talking about “last 1%” gains; a bit of inaccuracy here won’t hurt you.

Another exception is if your lens has high levels of field curvature. In that case, your plane of sharpest focus could be more like a sombrero of sharpest focus, or a hemisphere. Most people don’t know whether their lens has very high field curvature. If that includes you, just don’t worry about it, since the results will not be vastly worse in most cases; chances are that you’ll just get a bit more foreground sharpness at the expense of background sharpness, but rarely enough to notice, all else equal.

However, if you are certain that your lens has a lot of field curvature, and you have a decent mental picture of the appearance of your lens’s field curvature, you can take it into account as well. Just visualize your sensor’s plane of focus as a hemisphere of focus instead, and double the distance from that instead. This requires pretty good visualization skills, though. The simpler method is just to focus a bit farther into the landscape than you otherwise would.

Double the Distance Example Photo
Focused at double the distance from the dust in the foreground
NIKON Z 7 + 20mm f/1.8 @ 20mm, ISO 400, 30/1, f/5.6

Conclusion

When I first started using the double the distance method, I realized that I had been focusing too far away in most of my landscape photos beforehand. This technique made me more aware of tiny details creeping into the corners of a photo – quite close to my lens – that I would have overlooked in the past. 

The result? My photos became sharper overall. I also gained a more accurate understanding of my equipment’s capabilities. Some lenses that I thought were mediocre in the corners turned out to be quite good; the corners were just strongly out of focus more often than I thought. Perhaps you will find the same, and you’ll end up with photos with more detail from front to back. 

Although sharpness is far from the most important part of landscape photography, a tack-sharp image can make a big difference for some photos and large prints. The double the distance method is just one part of that puzzle, but it’s an important one, particularly when you are dealing with extremes (landscapes with very near objects, or telephoto lenses with inherently lower depth of field). Hopefully, this article gave you a good idea of when and how to use it properly.

Looking for even more exclusive content?

On Photography Life, you already get world-class articles with no advertising every day for free. As a Member, you'll get even more:

Silver ($5/mo)
  • Exclusive articles
  • Monthly Q&A chat
  • Early lens test results
  • "Creative Landscape Photography" eBook
Gold ($12/mo)
  • All that, PLUS:
  • Online workshops
  • Monthly photo critiques
  • Vote on our next lens reviews
 
Click Here to Join Today
 

Related Articles

  • What is landscape photography
    What is Landscape Photography?
  • Sunrise landscape in Ireland
    Five Advanced Landscape Photography Tips
  • Nikon NEF Bit Depth Menu
    Recommended Camera Menu Settings for Landscape Photography
  • Focusing at night
    How to Focus in Landscape Photography
  • Teton Sunset
    Landscape Photography Case Study
  • Tabletop Landscape Challenge Thumbnail
    Attempting Realistic Tabletop Landscape Photography
Disclosures, Terms and Conditions and Support Options
Filed Under: Photography Techniques Tagged With: Depth of Field, Double the Distance, Focus, Image Sharpness, Landscape Photography

About Spencer Cox

I'm Spencer Cox, a landscape photographer based in Colorado. I started writing for Photography Life a decade ago, and now I run the website in collaboration with Nasim. I've used nearly every digital camera system under the sun, but for my personal work, I love the slow-paced nature of large format film. You can see more at my personal website and my not-exactly-active Instagram page.

guest

guest

42 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Ellery
David Ellery
March 31, 2025 5:21 am

Interesting. I have a Canon EOS50 with a Dep function that allows you to set the focus on two different points some distance apart and which then optimises the depth of field for clarity between them. Is this the same principle? The shutter speeds it selects can be quite glacial so a tripod or (my preference for bushwalking) a monopod is essential. I’m in Australia.

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  David Ellery
March 31, 2025 2:04 pm

I can’t find enough documentation about the A-DEP mode to tell you exactly where it focuses, but my reading of Canon’s literature suggests that it would be a good start. I can’t tell exactly what formula it uses to select the aperture, but if it leads to glacial shutter speeds, that’s a good sign! The optimal aperture in many cases as a landscape photographer will be f/8, f/11, or even f/16.

0
Reply
Terry
Terry
March 20, 2024 10:41 am

I so enjoyed your rational and thoughtful take on 4×5. It really is a joy to use. Though I’ve not had mine out in a few years your article might just encourage me to do so. There is nothing—I really do mean nothing—like getting under the cloth behind a 4×5 and becoming absorbed in the view in front of you, backwards and upside down, of course, but so engaging! It’s the antithesis of my current shooting with an OM-1, so satisfying but in a completely different way.

0
Reply
Phill
Phill
September 1, 2022 4:04 am

Wow! It’s nice and easy!!
But… With standard CoC 0.03mm and 35mm lens focused to 2m you need f/32 (or higher) to get sharp everything from 1m to infinity. :-(
Oh, I miss my old manual focus lenses with much more details in depth of filed scale!!!

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Phill
September 1, 2022 8:34 am

As you use longer lenses with such close foregrounds, your only option to maximize sharpness is focus stacking. I don’t like focus stacking, but it’s better than shooting at f/32 and getting lots of diffraction, or more normal apertures and not getting nearly enough depth of field in those situations.

0
Reply
Amir
Amir
January 30, 2021 7:47 pm

Thx Spencer. I am wondering how I focus on something using live view or viewfinder? for example should I tilt my camera head down to focus on an object 1.5 meter away using the central point of focus I might lost my original composition and the horizon changes. How should I focus using live view or by viewfinder? could you please show it graphically or explain it. Thx

0
Reply
simeon macdonald
simeon macdonald
April 8, 2020 4:32 pm

I looked foward to trying out the double the distance method.
While it seemed to work with wider lens, 17-40mm Canon, i was unable to achieve
this with my 50 mm 1.4 lens.
Distant objects are so tiny on a wide eye,…can this be done with 50mm ?

Thank you for this very useful method… if i can manage to get it right.

Arawakky.

0
Reply
Juul
Juul
November 19, 2019 2:52 am

This article is amazing! Does double the distance also work if your foreground is lower than you? For example if you’re standing on an edge or a slope? If so, what distance do you use from your sensor?

0
Reply
JohnTheKeenAmateur
JohnTheKeenAmateur
March 21, 2019 3:24 am

Hi Spenser,

For owners of mirrorless cameras, there’s a great tip explained in this link (by Sony ambassador, Mark Galer) for visual attainment of hyperfocal distance.
www.youtube.com/watch…Y1bLdeBN_U

Regards, J-TKA

0
Reply
Alistair
Alistair
November 20, 2018 3:28 pm

The key is TO THINK about every photograph you take.

0
Reply
Pritam Singh
Pritam Singh
November 20, 2018 9:13 am

Thanks for this piece; it’s well written, clear and easy to understand. I don’t use auto-focus cameras, so point of focus is a very deliberate choice… I pretty much use the technique advocated here and it works all the time. (I speak for myself.) I have read all about those charts and hyperfocal distance and all that – believe me, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea to be able to get their heads around. This method here is the essence of all the maths, the microns, circles of confusion, one-third distance and what-not. Just give it a try.
I read with amusement how some readers get hot under the collar. There is really no need to rubbish this method. It just works.
Thanks again, Spencer, for taking the trouble to write it all down. Much appreciated.

0
Reply
Jan L Mundorff
Jan L Mundorff
November 20, 2018 7:04 am

Spencer,

Thank you for sharing, I am looking forward to trying this out, it is certainly simpler that dealing with hyper focal tables and is more specific that the 1/3 focus rule.

Please keep up the good work.

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Jan L Mundorff
November 20, 2018 11:13 pm

Glad you enjoyed the article, Jan! I definitely do find it easier to implement than any other method of focusing in a landscape, aside from focusing on the subject itself when it deserves maximum influence.

0
Reply

Learn

  • Beginner Photography
  • Landscape Photography
  • Wildlife Photography
  • Portraiture
  • Post-Processing
  • Advanced Tutorials
Photography Life on Patreon

Reviews

  • Camera Reviews
  • Lens Reviews
  • Other Gear Reviews
  • Best Cameras and Lenses

Photography Tutorials

Photography Basics
Landscape Photography
Wildlife Photography
Macro Photography
Composition & Creativity
Black & White Photography
Night Sky Photography
Portrait Photography
Street Photography
Photography Videos

Unique Gift Ideas

Best Gifts for Photographers

Subscribe via Email

If you like our content, you can subscribe to our newsletter to receive weekly email updates using the link below:

Subscribe to our newsletter

Site Menu

  • About Us
  • Beginner Photography
  • Lens Database
  • Lens Index
  • Photo Spots
  • Search
  • Forum

Reviews

  • Reviews Archive
  • Camera Reviews
  • Lens Reviews
  • Other Gear Reviews

More

  • Contact Us
  • Subscribe
  • Workshops
  • Support Us
  • Submit Content

Copyright © 2025 · Photography Life

You are going to send email to

Move Comment