Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 472193" data-attributes="member: 12496">Aw come on J-see, I doubt you really are that obtuse.&nbsp; The issue is about conditions for creating a better image, and diffraction generally detracts (true of the step from f/8 to f/11 too).&nbsp; However DOF (also created by the same aperture as creates diffraction) is certainly an overwhelming part of thatI double dare you, do actually look at the f/40 images I pointed you at.&nbsp;&nbsp; Neither is much of an image, but try to overtly tell me that the f/11 image is specifically better than the f/40 image.Sure, it is a special case, and sure, f/40 would be a terrible choice for most routine images of the kids, but there are times it is extremely useful and helpful. There are even more times for f/22 and f/32.&nbsp; And sometimes we may choose f/1.8 (frankly, I rarely do).&nbsp; It all depends.But to advise anyone that they should never venture past f/11 or f/16 because of diffraction is really terrible advice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 472193, member: 12496"] Aw come on J-see, I doubt you really are that obtuse. The issue is about conditions for creating a better image, and diffraction generally detracts (true of the step from f/8 to f/11 too). However DOF (also created by the same aperture as creates diffraction) is certainly an overwhelming part of that I double dare you, do actually look at the f/40 images I pointed you at. Neither is much of an image, but try to overtly tell me that the f/11 image is specifically better than the f/40 image. Sure, it is a special case, and sure, f/40 would be a terrible choice for most routine images of the kids, but there are times it is extremely useful and helpful. There are even more times for f/22 and f/32. And sometimes we may choose f/1.8 (frankly, I rarely do). It all depends. But to advise anyone that they should never venture past f/11 or f/16 because of diffraction is really terrible advice. [/QUOTE]

Verification