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
Education
Diffraction limited pixels... Really?
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: 361922" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>We hear way too much about NOT using f/16 or f/22 because of diffraction limits due to our sensors pixel size. </p><p></p><p>Sure, f/8 is a great general plan, do it when you can. Nevertheless, there are obviously many times when f/16 or f/22, and maybe f/32, can heroically and drastically help our depth of field issues. Especially macro work, but any time greater depth of field is needed.</p><p></p><p>It is a compromise, but this is true any time that greater depth of field<strong> helps more</strong> than the greater diffraction <strong>hurts</strong>.</p><p></p><p>If your notions have been formed to simply always avoid f/16, you're probably missing out on a very good thing. </p><p></p><p>So maybe read here: <a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html" target="_blank">Diffraction limited images?</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 361922, member: 12496"] We hear way too much about NOT using f/16 or f/22 because of diffraction limits due to our sensors pixel size. Sure, f/8 is a great general plan, do it when you can. Nevertheless, there are obviously many times when f/16 or f/22, and maybe f/32, can heroically and drastically help our depth of field issues. Especially macro work, but any time greater depth of field is needed. It is a compromise, but this is true any time that greater depth of field[B] helps more[/B] than the greater diffraction [B]hurts[/B]. If your notions have been formed to simply always avoid f/16, you're probably missing out on a very good thing. So maybe read here: [url=http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html]Diffraction limited images?[/url] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Education
Diffraction limited pixels... Really?
Top
