Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Aperture
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 627646" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>Diffraction does become more of a negative factor (affecting sharpness) as we stop down, and when we can, staying around f/5.6 to f/11 does have advantages in regular situations. But sometimes more depth of field is required. Stopping down more greatly increases depth of field. Regular picture scenes don't require extremes, but in special situations, it is very common when <strong>depth of field helps more than diffraction hurts</strong> (often a LOT more), and then we'd be stupid not not to use stopping down, when it helps (that's what it's for). </p><p></p><p>Learning to Never stop down more than f/11 is too simplistic, counter productive, misses the big picture. We should also learn about when it helps (when needed, not implying for every situation).</p><p>There's a page about diffraction at <a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html" target="_blank">Diffraction limited pixels? Really? In Support of Depth of Field</a> </p><p></p><p>Macro work (near 1:1) has nearly zero depth of field, and should always be stopped down to at least f/16, and even more can help greatly (macro).</p><p></p><p>Depth of field in longer lenses (telephoto) can regularly be helped by using f/32, which is why f/32 is provided (however, of course it reduces exposure, requiring ISO or shutter speed).</p><p></p><p>Ansel Adams founded his f/64 Group in the 1930s, promoting sharp reproduction of detail (his view camera lenses were longer lenses).</p><p></p><p>Landscapes normally involve some of the scene at infinity distance.. Which is not especially a problem, but sometimes for pleasing effect, it is very desirable to also show some object at very close distance too, like maybe four feet, to emphasize great depth, but which becomes a depth of field problem. The posted f/9 picture here did not do that (no old tree stump in very close foreground), and f/9 worked fine. But it is a strong landscape technique, which then needs extreme depth of field, which isn't easy. Stopping down is the starting point for that.</p><p></p><p>But one more thing we need to know is about hyperfocal distance (in reference to controlling depth of field).</p><p>See <a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/dof.html#hyper" target="_blank">Depth of Field Calculator. Want to blur the background? Comparing Depth of Field of Two Lenses</a></p><p><a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/dof.html#hyper" target="_blank"></a></p><p><a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/dof.html#hyper" target="_blank"></a></p><p><a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/dof.html#hyper" target="_blank"></a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 627646, member: 12496"] Diffraction does become more of a negative factor (affecting sharpness) as we stop down, and when we can, staying around f/5.6 to f/11 does have advantages in regular situations. But sometimes more depth of field is required. Stopping down more greatly increases depth of field. Regular picture scenes don't require extremes, but in special situations, it is very common when [B]depth of field helps more than diffraction hurts[/B] (often a LOT more), and then we'd be stupid not not to use stopping down, when it helps (that's what it's for). Learning to Never stop down more than f/11 is too simplistic, counter productive, misses the big picture. We should also learn about when it helps (when needed, not implying for every situation). There's a page about diffraction at [URL="http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html"]Diffraction limited pixels? Really? In Support of Depth of Field[/URL] Macro work (near 1:1) has nearly zero depth of field, and should always be stopped down to at least f/16, and even more can help greatly (macro). Depth of field in longer lenses (telephoto) can regularly be helped by using f/32, which is why f/32 is provided (however, of course it reduces exposure, requiring ISO or shutter speed). Ansel Adams founded his f/64 Group in the 1930s, promoting sharp reproduction of detail (his view camera lenses were longer lenses). Landscapes normally involve some of the scene at infinity distance.. Which is not especially a problem, but sometimes for pleasing effect, it is very desirable to also show some object at very close distance too, like maybe four feet, to emphasize great depth, but which becomes a depth of field problem. The posted f/9 picture here did not do that (no old tree stump in very close foreground), and f/9 worked fine. But it is a strong landscape technique, which then needs extreme depth of field, which isn't easy. Stopping down is the starting point for that. But one more thing we need to know is about hyperfocal distance (in reference to controlling depth of field). See [URL="http://www.scantips.com/lights/dof.html#hyper"]Depth of Field Calculator. Want to blur the background? Comparing Depth of Field of Two Lenses [/URL] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Aperture
Top
