Depth of Field and Focus Stacking in Landscape Photography: When to Use Each

One of the first things I look for when I arrive at a landscape location is a foreground that makes me want to step closer. It might be a pattern in the sand at Deadvlei, a rock with water moving around it, or a flower that gives the scene a sense of scale. The problem is that as soon as you get close to something, keeping both that foreground and the background sharp becomes more challenging.

This is where understanding depth of field makes a real difference. I see plenty of photographers automatically switching to f/16 or f/22 because they want everything sharp. Sometimes that works, but often there is a much better approach. I want to explain how I make that decision in the field, when a single frame is enough, and when I choose to focus stack instead.

What depth of field actually means

Depth of field is the range of distances that appear acceptably sharp around the point where you've focused. That word acceptably matters. Focus doesn't suddenly stop at a particular distance. Sharpness gradually falls away, and what looks sharp on the back of your camera might not look quite as good in a large print.

Three things have a particularly big effect:

• Aperture: A smaller aperture, such as f/11, generally gives more depth of field than f/2.8.
• Focus distance: The closer you focus, the shallower the depth of field becomes.
• Focal length and framing: Longer focal lengths and tighter framing often make it more difficult to keep subjects at different distances appearing sharp.

Sensor format, final image size and viewing distance also influence how much sharpness we perceive. For practical landscape photography, though, I find the first three are where the decisions happen.

Imagine you're using a 16mm lens, photographing a mountain with an interesting rock several metres away. At f/8 you might comfortably get the entire composition looking sharp. Now move the camera until the rock is only 30 centimetres from the lens. You haven't changed the mountain or the light, but you've changed the focus problem completely.

That's why I never use one aperture for every landscape.

Why I usually begin around f/8 to f/11

For a conventional landscape scene, f/8 or f/11 is a useful starting point on many lenses. You get a good amount of depth of field while keeping the lens reasonably close to its sharper apertures. It's not a universal sweet spot, and every lens behaves differently, but it's a sensible place to begin.

You can stop down further when you need to, but there's a trade-off. At very small apertures, diffraction can soften fine detail across the image. That doesn't mean f/16 or f/22 is forbidden. It means I want a reason to use it rather than automatically assuming the biggest f-number gives the sharpest photograph.

On my landscape workshops, I often ask a simple question before we touch the settings: What actually needs to be sharp?

If the foreground is soft water and the subject is a distant mountain, I may not need both to be critically sharp. If the foreground is a beautiful set of textured rocks and the detail is part of the image, that changes things.

Where should you focus?

You've probably heard the advice to focus one-third of the way into a scene. It's a convenient shortcut, but it isn't a reliable rule. The right focus point depends on your focal length, aperture, subject distances and how you're going to view the photograph.

Hyperfocal distance is another useful concept. In simple terms, it's a focusing distance that maximises the acceptable depth of field towards infinity at a chosen aperture. Apps such as PhotoPills can calculate it, but I wouldn't let a calculator replace checking your actual image. A high-resolution file viewed closely can reveal softness that seemed acceptable according to the calculation.

My approach is practical. I choose a reasonable aperture, focus on a foreground or middle-distance detail, take a test frame, and zoom right into the closest important element and the distant background. If both look good, I don't complicate things.

If the foreground is sharp but the background isn't, I first try moving the focus point slightly further back. If that makes the foreground too soft, I know I need a different solution.

The protea bush is very close to the lens, therefore the mountains and the protea bush won't both be sharp at the same time, regardless of aperture. (protea bush is sharp (left) vs. background mountains sharp (right)).

When I choose to focus stack

Focus stacking means taking two or more photographs of the same composition with the focus point moved between frames, then blending the sharp areas into one image. You're not changing the scene. You're capturing different parts of it in focus because one exposure cannot give you the detail you want.

I find it particularly useful with close foregrounds, intricate desert textures, flowers, and rock formations where the background is also an important part of the composition. It can be just as useful when shooting at a longer focal length, where depth of field is naturally more limited.

I don't stack everything. If a single exposure works, that's less time at the camera and less time editing. I use stacking when it solves a real photographic problem.

My field workflow for focus stacking

Here's how I work through a relatively static scene:

1. Build the composition first. Put the camera on a sturdy tripod and finalize your framing before changing focus.
2. Set a consistent exposure. I usually work in Manual exposure mode, with a fixed ISO, shutter speed, aperture and white balance for the sequence. This avoids brightness changes between frames.
3. Choose an aperture such as f/8. It gives each photograph useful depth of field, so you don't always need dozens of frames.
4. Focus on the closest important detail. Magnify live view or use a precise autofocus point, take the photograph, and check it.
5. Move focus further into the scene. Take overlapping frames through the middle distance and finally the background. Three to six frames can be enough for a simple landscape; more demanding close-ups may require more.
6. Don't move the tripod or alter the zoom. Even small shifts make blending more difficult. Some lenses change framing slightly as they focus, so leave room around the edges for a crop.
7. Review before leaving. Make sure there are no sharpness gaps between your frames. It's far easier to add another shot on location than to discover a missing zone at home.

If your camera has focus-bracketing automation, try it, but still check the start point, step size and final frame. I like understanding what the camera is doing rather than blindly trusting it.

The challenge: moving subjects

This is where focus stacking becomes more complicated. Think of water washing around a rock in a seascape. Between your near-focused and far-focused exposures, the water is changing continuously. The automatic blend might create strange seams, ghosting or repeated textures.

My solution is to decide which moving elements should come from a single frame. I might capture several focused frames for the static rocks and background, then use one chosen exposure for the water, masking it back in during editing. If plants are moving in wind, I try to work between gusts or accept that a single frame is better on that occasion.

It's important not to confuse focus stacking with exposure blending. Focus stacking combines different focus distances. Exposure blending combines different brightness levels. You might need both in a demanding scene, but they solve different problems.

How I blend a focus stack in Lightroom and Photoshop

I do my initial work in Lightroom Classic. I select the frames and apply the same basic white balance, lens corrections and tonal adjustments to the set. The important thing is consistency, not finishing the edit yet.

Then I select the images and choose Photo > Edit In > Open as Layers in Photoshop. In Photoshop, I select all the layers, choose Edit > Auto-Align Layers, then Edit > Auto-Blend Layers and select Stack Images. Photoshop creates masks to combine the sharper regions.

That automatic blend is a starting point, not the end. I zoom in to 100% and inspect rocks, branches, horizon lines and other boundaries. If Photoshop has blended the wrong detail or produced a halo, I refine the masks manually. Once everything looks natural, I save the layered file back to Lightroom and complete the edit there.

One detail worth remembering: don't use the Photoshop Smart Object Median Stack Mode for focus stacking. That's a different process, useful for things like averaging or removing transient detail. For extended depth of field, you want Auto-Blend Layers > Stack Images.

A simple exercise to try

Find a static scene with an object very close to your lens and something interesting in the distance. Set your camera on a tripod and photograph it three ways:

• One frame at f/8, focused towards the middle of the composition.
• One frame at f/16, focused at the same distance.
• A short focus stack at f/8, from foreground to background.

Compare them at 100%, especially the corners, closest detail and far background. Don't just ask which is technically sharpest. Ask which photograph looks best as a whole, and whether the extra work meaningfully improved it.

The most important lesson

Depth of field isn't simply about getting everything sharp. It's about making deliberate choices that support your photograph. Sometimes a single frame at f/8 is perfect. Sometimes f/16 is the most practical option. And sometimes focus stacking gives you the freedom to move closer and create a composition that simply wouldn't work any other way.

That's the part I enjoy teaching: not memorising settings, but understanding when and why to use them. Once you get comfortable making that decision, the camera stops limiting how you see the landscape.

Some of my favourite landscape photography experiences have been in Namibia. On my Namibia landscape photography tour, we explore everything from the dunes of Sossusvlei to the abandoned buildings of Kolmanskop.